10 Really Bad Atheist Arguments W/ Dr. William Lane Craig (Pt 1)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2020
- In this clip I ask Dr. Craig to respond to common arguments against the existence of God given in rapid-fire, hand selected by you guys. Dr. Craig gracefully and concisely tears them down one by one.
Part 2: • 10 Really Bad Atheist ...
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodworker.com/pages/... (use discount code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #19...
Hemant Mehta's Video: • 20 SHORT Arguments Aga... (For Reference. Please be Courteous to Others on the Platform)
⭐ The Reasonable Faith TH-cam: / reasonablefaithorg
Reasonable Faith's Website: www.reasonablefaith.org/
Dr. Craig's Books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/William-Lane-C...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
To those claiming that no real atheist would make such weak arguments; we took them from here --> th-cam.com/video/_V5ee1M4Slg/w-d-xo.html
@Qwerty They really don't know what they believe. All they're interested in is arguing, ad infinitum, about what they don't believe.
I've just now gotten around to viewing your link. 20 seconds of that was enough to bring about corrosion upon my mind and soul. I don't how you managed to watch the whole thing, but kudos are in order.
@Jim Merrilees *tips fedora*
@Jim Merrilees The weak arguments are explicitly from an Atheist. They even tell you which one at the beginning of the video. I've watched the video they are from, and much of his other content, myself.
What dishonesty could you possibly be referring to?
Other than that, is has been demonstrated that the New Testament is extremely accurate, from a historical perspective.
In addition, these philosophical arguments are per definition evidence that God either exists, or probably exists.
P.S. How is debunking bad arguments an attack? It's just proper philosophical and scientific rigour.
@Jim Merrilees troll confirmed
“Atheism turns out to be too simple, if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning”-- C.S. Lewis.
I don’t believe it is of any interest, if the universe has a meaning, but perhaps the universe is meaningful to you?!
@@fnjfrancis Of course it have mening, the Sun alone is a life giver and life is meaningful.
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”
--Sir Isaac Newton.
Her, lidt musik der passer: th-cam.com/video/PF56D9mrlck/w-d-xo.html
.
@@Uriel-Septim. I don’t believe, that the universe has any meaning in itself, like a mountain has no meaning...it’s just there. Claiming, that because we don’t know how the universe came into existence, it must be god (any god?!) is “god of the gaps” fallacy.
Francis Nørgaard Jensen Of course “because we don’t know how the universe came into existence it must be God” is not said or implied in any of WLC’s arguments. That’s just a straw doll.
@@fnjfrancis Ignorance is not a defense
There actually was a Santa Clause. He was a Christian from a wealthy family who paid for two people to be married by leaving an anonymous gift for them. They couldn't afford the marriage dowry for the girl to be married and her father couldn't afford for her not to be married. It made him so happy that he kept giving people in need anonymous gifts for the rest of his life. He made giving and helping others his life's purpose.
Saint Nicholas of Bari
@@antoniomoyalInwas alway's thaught of Myra
@@mauricematla8379 yes, it os tge same one but the body was taken out upon the turkish conquest of Anatolia, and taken to Bari, Italy
I'm a practising catholic and William Lane Craig is such a source of inspiration. It is not only what he argues; It is how calmly he does it. He disarms atheist bullies.
I can follow the logic of Craig's arguments, I just can't make the leap of faith to say that the natural world has a supernatural creator. Why do you make that leap of faith? If for example, you were born into a Hindu family and had been raised as a Hindu, do you think that you'd be a Catholic today?
@@davidkeenan5642 saying that the natural world has a supernatural origin is not a leap of faith, on the contrary, it is a logical necessity. The universe didn't create itself, it is not a self-regulating system, ergo God created and sustains it.
@@JustinHerchel
Science doesn't have a theory for how this universe came into existence, only a hypothesis. This is a gap in scientific knowledge. Your 'logical necessity' is nothing more than a God of the gaps filler.
@@davidkeenan5642 wrong. The argument is not based on science, because the question itself is beyond the scope of science. Being a logical necessity follows swiftly after establishing the truth of the premises, all of which are philosophical in nature. No God of the gaps, for a question that by definition is not accessible by the scientific method.
@Frances Snowflake
Why are you addressing me? I didn't use the term 'logical necessity' to argue my stance. Justin Herchel did.
Are you going to continue suggesting that I'm a pre-teen? Even when I was, and that was over 50 years ago, I didn't buy such non-rational arguments to believe that God existed. Before everything I'm a skeptic, and have always striven to understand things. By 17 I was an agnostic deist . I took a further 10 years to totally free my mind from the religious indoctrination of my youth. But for the last 35 years I've been a hard agnostic.
Today, I had a discussion with an ardent, angry atheist. He made it clear to me that there was "no proof" of God. He listed many of his religious grievances but would not allow any response. He denounced the different versions of the Bible and all its corruptions. When I asked if he had studied textual criticism, he exploded.He was not open to any discussion or reasoning. But he certainly won the shouting argument.
I agree. I'm actually agnostic but the guy would not even listen. My point was that he was ignorant.
@@mickqQ Hello, before I start I assume that if I gave you good evidence that God exists you would then believe in Him, right?
@@mickqQ The evidence I am going to present is evidence for a general God. What I mean is that this evidence doesn't prove which religion has it right but it just shows that a God exists.
You are probably aware what Infinite Regression of cause and effect is. You may also know that it is impossible. I can give evidence for that claim if you need.
And before I continue, what is your belief about the Universe: is it eternal or it had a beginning?
@@mickqQ Yes, this God has charachteristics, but I can show which after I give evidence for His existence.
The Universe is not eternal because it Will die, end. Now, did the Universe exist for infinity in the past? That is a no because if it did it would already be dead( as the Universe dying process takes a lot of time and infinity of time is enough for the process to take place). Are you aware that Infinite Regression of cause and effect is impossible?
@@mickqQ I explained why the Universe did not exist for infinity in the past. Time exists within the Universe and ultimately then affects it, limits it. If the Universe existed infinite ammount of time in the past it would already die because it would have enough time for the process of dying to finish. So it is a fact that the Universe had a beginning. So , what do you believe about the Universe, it had a cause for its existence or it simply came out of nothing? Or you believe there is a third option?
The astounding fact that William Lane Craig has for decades so often rebutted, with such extraordinary patience, the same poorly reasoned atheistic objections might just be adequate proof for the existence of miracles. You know, just saying. :-)
Using common usages of atheism, atheism has no beliefs. So saying atheist arguments is nonsensical, and dishonest. And I am still waiting for an example of Craig rebutting an atheist objection.
@@jasonroelle5261 So your saying that atheists have no objections to God?
@@malvokaquila6768
I have no idea what you mean when you say, "So your saying that atheists have no objections to God?". atheist don't believe a God exist, which makes that statement nonsensical. Atheist can have objections to theist arguments for the existence of a God(s). You are giving the impression you are trying to get me to agree with a nonsensical statement so you can dishonestly claim I am taking a position that I don't have. If this is not the case, then you should re-word the question so it make sense. I want to make it clear, that at this time, I am not accusing you of being dishonest. I am just saying you are giving the impression that you might be being dishonest. If you are not being dishonest, then just re-word the question so it make sense, and not strawman the atheist postion, and we can have a conversation.
There is no proof for the existence of miracles as there have never been any miracles.
@@malvokaquila6768
So you have not re-worded the question so it makes sense, so now I believe that you were, or are being dishonest, or don't care if what you say is nonsensical.
Actually Saint Nick did exist -- he punched out the heretic
well said
... and he was thoroughly contrite and repentant about the incident, iirc making a statement about it - something to the effect that such behavior was most unbecoming of anyone who might aspire to follow Jesus...
.... no matter how much the heathen likely deserved it.
(my words, not his)
@@ironymatt Indeed unbecoming of one who professes to follow Christ. We must not make excuses for sin but seek always its extinction.
@@ironymatt Well Christ beat the money lenders in the Temple, soooooo......
@@Si_Mondo ...... thus laying the groundwork for the just war theory
Thanks for putting this together!
There is no argument ‘for’ atheism beyond “I am not convinced by your evidence for God.”
There is no argument 'for' theism beyond "I am not convinced by science."
Rob Hosner why would someone not be convinced by the science?
Yes , because atheism is the lack of a belief in god , you can't prove in any matter that isn't disproving theology
there is no argument for theism, then, other than "i just believe x god exists"
Glasstable2011 There is no evidence for me not believing in unicorns other than “I’m not convinced unicorns exist.”
See how dumb that is? Quit shifting the burden of proof.
Always switches the word “evidence” to “arguments” when he’s talking about god because he knows there’s no evidence. I could make arguments that the Earth is flat, doesn’t mean that we have any evidence that the earth is flat.
Exactly. sighh
Definition of evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Of course logically valid & sound arguments are the ONLY kind of evidence that can possibly exist for ANY philosophical position. Philosophy deals with topics beyond the limitations of the scientific method by default.
You're thinking of scientific evidence when you say evidence, which is a fallacy of scientism.
Expecting scientific verification for an immaterial God is just nonsensical and a fallacy of scientism.
@@lightbeforethetunnel so you agree that there is no scientific evidence for any gods, only arguments. And when WLC listed a load of scientific evidence against the existence of Santa, he was committing a fallacy of scientism.
@@lightbeforethetunnel If your god is immaterial, then he can't interact with the material universe.
I have so much respect for Dr Craig answering them in a calm, thoughtful manner. These are not even arguments, at best they are soundbites.
We live in an age of soundbites. People form their entire worldviews based on Twitter posts.
Well i think some of his answers were wrong. Maybe wrong is not the correct word but he makes some assumtions and takes it as a fact. For example his agrument for god existed since ever but the universe does not is wrong also not everything is created for a reason an island created by a volcano erupting has no reason at all but is created. I think he can answer this but he didnt have the time too but still is missleading and i am sure people who agree with him wont quention it further
Edit:Some grammar mistakes
@@vasilisioannou5794 Regarding what you cited. The argument of the unmoved mover isn't wrong. The totality of evidence we have says the universe is past finite and that physical objects that begin to exist have causes.
A reason is not necessarily a purpose, it can also mean cause. If an island is created by a volcano then the volcano is the reason (ie cause) the island exists.
@@Ap31920 yea i agree there is a cause you are right but in the case of the universe how do we know that the cause is god? Is there any connection other than it fits the holes of science which in the video he said that thats not a good way to "use" the idea of god.
@@vasilisioannou5794 The argument stops at existence. It states that the cause exists, that's it. In order to conclude that the cause in question is God you need to now study the identity of said cause.
From the properties of the universe we can conclude a few things:
- immaterial and atemporal, otherwise it would be part of the universe
- immensely powerful if not omnipotent, at least powerful enough to create our universe
- most likely capable of thought, it created a finely tuned universe and decided to create at some point (otherwise it was compelled to do so by something and got lucky)
If you want a more extensive treatment I suggest J Warner Wallace's "Cold Case Christianity" it's an introductory text. That's the one I recommend to anyone with questions regarding God's existence and identity as the Christian God.
Craig needs to debate Matt Dilahunty
Kenneth MacLeod - Dilahunty is a joke. He’s not worth Dr. Craig’s time. Dilahunty has no reasonable arguments. He is a good talker granted, but adds little to the discussion. I’m getting a little tired of seeing people try and “convince” him. Dilahunty is not the arbitrator of truth that he thinks he is.
@@mickqQ He isn't worth WLC's time as WLC typically engages in debates with atheists in which he commits to a Christian perspective, the atheist commits to an overtly atheistic perspective and the topic of the debate is then discussed along these lines. What Matt has been doing in recent years is set his debates up to where he *NEVER* takes an affirmative position, sets *HIMSELF* up as the arbiter of evidence and then has the theist play into his game of attempting to convince him of their views which we all know for a fact that he'll *NEVER* be convinced of, even if the Christian could point to examples of the supernatural which even when presented with hypothetical examples such as someone's head detaching then reattaching only to converse with him aren't enough to convince him otherwise
@@mickqQ If you don't believe my claim that he shies away from taking an affirmative position to instead poke holes in the Christian worldview to tactically always remain on the offensive and never be on the defensive side of things, look up an Inspiring Philosophy community post announcing Dillahunty's debate with Michael Jones in late January who runs the channel. Jones says in the comments of the community post that he insisted on having the topic of this debate be "Does God Exist?". Dillahunty then insisted that this be changed to "Are there Good Reasons to Believe in God?", primarily because arguing against the notion "Does God Exist" forces you to take an affirmative position that saddles you with the obligation to justify your views beyond stating "I don't know", which Dillahunty regularly avoids as though the burden of proof is a virus to him.
@@mickqQ The topic gets passed by each debater with their seal of approval typically, particularly online where I see Dillahunty pull this tactic most often.
It's often like watching a boxing match in which a boxer has gone out of his way to try and tie his opponents hands behind his back whilst continually breaking him down with body shots etc..
Like I said before, all he's interested in is constantly going on the offensive whilst never having to defend his views.
You see this when he goes into condescending fits of rage whenever a theist calling into the Atheist Experience either tries to pin him down on a stance or seek clarification when he gives an answer that's as slippery as possible.
@@mickqQ The attitude behind saying you're unconvinced there are good reasons doesn't make for a productive conversation as it often speaks more to one's narrow minded/self satisfied perspective than it does to the evidence in question. Anyone can deny any facet of reality by increasing their skepticism to where nothing could convince you otherwise. See the issue of Holocaust denial as a perfect example of this. Matt is firmly convinced of an atheistic viewpoint and no amount of evidence could ever be deemed good enough due to his epistemology which just so happens to conveniently play into a fanatically anti theistic outlook that detests the very idea of the God hypothesis, which i am fairly convinced Dillahunty has at this point
William Lane Craig does not “debate” anyone. He has a prepared lecture and recites from it.
You're just saying that because you don't like what he says
Pathetic
The children’s version of Santa Claus is modelled on God. He can hear everyone’s thoughts, he can traverse the globe and attend to all children needs in one night, he knows if you’ve been good or bad, etc. Santa is not the model for God, God is the model for Santa.
WLC as usually misinterpreted analogy. You can easily convince kids (rather than explaining an overly complicated god story) that there's a god like concept around 24/7, tho we all know he's just a fantasy, because he's ridiculous. What do you do to convince adults? You need something more serious, vague, with better promises and punishments, greater magic powers.. And god comes into play.
SmashEX Entertainment the statement of god as being vague and completely out of reach because he lives outside space, time and matter. These are bullshit claims that make no sense and that’s how they like it. I completely agree with you.
@@smashexentertainment676 "You need something more serious, vague, with better promises and punishments, greater magic powers.. And god comes into play" Can you please demonstrate this argument within Christian theology?
@@smashexentertainment676 Its very easy to convince adults to not believe in god, just tell them to give in to sin, that everyone does it, that its ok, Tell them that god is nonsense because he exists outside space and time (so do many things, have you heard of abstract objects). People will easily reject god and think themselves to be the god of their own life, sinning and being bad while convincing themselves they are being good and that their reasonable.
Terry 1200 but people won’t do that. That’s like saying to a child “Santa only
Comes to those children who believe in him” I remember pretending to believe in Santa for years after I found out he wasn’t real because I’m some way I had the fear that I wouldn’t get the presents. This analogy compared to God is to say that people fear to leave their religion because their religion says they will be punished if they leave. You don’t need religion to be good, and I don’t think you really understand morality if you are religious. You can be a better person without God.
Apologists never start their argument from the nul hypothesis and then find evidence to prove God. They start from the overall assumption that one God exists and then conjure up ideas that support it and back it up by popular and personal feelings that all can be explained in other ways without God.
As I scrolled further in the comments, I realized most of the comments from atheists were the same overused questions/statements that have been answered by amateur philosophers for years now. The only reason I say “most” is because I stopped after I realized everything I was reading was stuff I found solid rebuttals to years ago when I first began pursuing the existence of God and where I fell on the issue. There might have been something better further down, but it’s tiring wading through the same pseudo-intellectual arguments from both sides, but especially the atheistic side.
And when are You religious comming up With anything New? The same stupis claims the last 2000 years... Atheists have the facts and religious have only the faith in the fairytale :-D
BBQNor I never claimed the religious are coming up with anything new. There’s really nothing new to be added outside of scientific discovery. I claimed that atheists vehemently argue the same points that have sufficient rebuttals to them while not engaging the rebuttals honestly. The religious do this as well, but as you exemplified, a large degree of online atheists have no interest in serious dialogue; only in having a shouting match to prove how certain they are of their own beliefs (or lack of belief). As for the facts vs faith claim, that’s another example of something that is relatively easy to engage with if one is interested in coming to a conclusion by honest means and not just set on proving their prior beliefs through a series of special pleading arguments doused in confirmation bias. The God “debate” goes back much further than 2,000 years, so that you only go back 2,000 years tells me your disbelief is in Christianity, not necessarily God. You just toss God out by default in your rejection of Christianity. My engagement with the topic has little to do with the viability of Christianity, so we don’t have to discuss that any further. I probably won’t go into much detail to anymore of your replies, but I’d be interested in hearing any reasons you have for your disbelief, if you don’t mind sharing.
Is it really possible to have a serious debate about the existence of God? Those who, in their human weakness, cling to their God will surely claim this, but we know that, for example, the God of the Bible does not exist. With only our own intelligence, we can easily conclude that God does not exists. Regardless of which God you choose, you are left with unintelligent and primitive creator.
BBQNor that’s a decent answer to the extent that you seem to be sincere and decisive in your own position, but it does little to actually address the existence of God. You say “we know the God of the Bible doesn’t exist” and again, you’re addressing Christianity, not God. I’d be interested in hearing you unpack your final two claims; that we can conclude God doesn’t exist with our own intelligence and that no matter which God it is we believe in, we’re left with a primitive creator. Perhaps you are using your own encounters with religious folk to describe away some sort of god on a thrown in the sky, but I’m not sure how one can so boldly claim that any form of God is a primitive creator. I’d need to hear the reasoning behind that to consider that beyond surface level. It’s an interesting claim and one I’m happy to wrestle with if you don’t mind.
@@mabybee For Christ's sake if you ask people to discuss God give them a definition of God!
Haha love this 😂
the guy thinks santa doesnt exist cus it's physically impossible for him fly around in a sledge… but he thinks God exists and resurrected Jesus… oh the irony
That is because God is not a physical being, by definition he is metaphisical.
@@thedarkknight9021 so... magic??
Since when is Santa said to have that kind of ability? I don't remember hearing that in any stories about Santa Claus I've ever heard.
@@thedarkknight9021 And God is a magical being who uses the supernatural to do his work.
What's the difference?
Thumbnail is hilarious
Could only be improved if it said "Imma..."
If you have a weak atheist then you get a weak argument. Theism will always have major problems.
The analogy to Santa Claus isn't whether god or Santa exists, it's the idea that someone knows what you do at all times, says you better be good or you won't get gifts.
God is Santa Claus for adults
People who reject God will get exactly what they want when they die, eternal separation from God. It doesn't have to be that way, though. We are saved by Grace alone, not through works. Jesus died for our sins, to pay the penalty that we owe for our sins. Do you think God is less just than our own judicial system? When we repent of our sins, and believe that Jesus died and rose again for us, we are saved. We will wear Jesus' righteousness on judgment day instead of our own. All fall short of the Glory of God. If you truly understand sin and repent (apologize and turn from sin) you will want to change how you act in the world. No one will have to make you. You still won't be perfect... no one is. That's why God offered us a way to salvation that would be both Just and Merciful.
I pray that you come to understand the horror of sin, which is why we need Grace, and why God is Merciful for sending His Son Jesus to provide it for us. Amen.
@@eternalvigilance4064 it's not rejecting a god, it's a lack of belief because there isn't a god that is evident. I have witnessed no god in my 62 years...and if there is one then it is playing the longest game of hide and go seek in history.
If no one is perfect then it is because your god made us imperfect right? And if we are imperfect, to demand perfect obedience is immoral and nonsensical.
If this is all gods design then he is responsible for it. It's about time this god took on some responsibility for its design and stop condemning everyone for his plan which they had nothing to do with.
Lawrence Eason you seem to not truly understand the nature of sin, or you do know and are just flat out ignoring what the Bible told us to fit your narrative, either way if you are going to to argue that God is immoral for making us “imperfect” and expecting us to be perfect you’re incorrect and I would suggest that you actually read the Bible and try to get a better understanding of what it teaches us before arguing something that you didn’t truly understand to begin with
@@zeebo2353 no I don't believe in sin. Sin is an offense to god. No god, no sin.
Did your god require perfect obedience (zero sin)? The answer is yes.
Did your god design us where perfect obedience was impossible (free will)? Yes
I understand the bible quite well having read it cover to cover. Which is a big reason why, after 50 years, I'm an atheist
@RetroMan inaccurate, evasive and a non answer. Can you focus on one piece of evidence for your god. I am an atheist because I live by the wise words of David Hume:
The wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence
So I continue to wait, for many years, on evidence. Faith is not a reliable path to truth
On # 2: God is outside of space time and matter, therefore timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Therefore the "who created God" question is making the false assumption that God is limited by time.
nick duggan so your god as you say is outside of space time and matter and you know this how?
@@rodneysettle8106 He created time and space therefor he can't ve created. It then contradict everytging a god would be
Also time has a beginning and space something created and so something must be outside space and time to have created it. If you come to the realisation that it is a god then you enter philosophy and theism then you have to decide between what religion is the One who created it and that would be God
God exists outside of time? How is this possible? If something 'exists' for zero time, it never fucking existed. Existence is necessarily temporal.
At first, I thought it was David Lee Roth in the thumbnail...
Once People believe in a Higher Being or a Creator, then that means that People are Accountable for Wrongdoings. It's easier to blame a being that does or doesn't exist, because blaming a being that doesn't exist takes away human responsibility.
What are you talking about? Not believing in a higher being would have rational people have just as much sense to take responsibility for mistakes and wrongdoings
@@eliasjakemoran6434 not really in soviet union they were against religions and killed alot of people for the "Greater Good" (In the gulags). Sure they can hold themselves accountable but its quite easy when you can make your own standards.
@@gamma3563 That's why we have ground rules and established morals and rules that we can agree on, and if not, we have to follow. Everything else is a grey area
Saint Nick was actually a real guy who would sneak into poor people's houses and leave them food, toys or money on Christmas eve
No atheist can answer this: why do atheistic civilizations break down in short time in comparison to theistic civilizations?
Do they?
I am a Christian, but wowsers, that is a bad argument. Has Japan collapsed? Have Buddhist societies collapsed?
As an Athiest I also hate these silly arguments. They do not represent me. There are terrible arguments on both sides. If there is in fact a God I really and sincerely want to know. I honestly listen to both sides of the debate and am continuously searching for the truth. I have not chosen my beliefs. I am simply not convinced. I'm embarrassed by some of the Athiest arguments I hear as I'm sure Believers are when they hear poor or fallacious arguments for Theism. Please try not to tar all Athiests with the same brush. Listen to both sides honestly. We all have different intellectual abilities. I always try to listen with an honest open mind and genuinely ly am searching for truth.
I agree with you. I've told people we all have the same stripes.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, the vast majority of Atheists are commiting a linguistic fallacy of equivocation when they define atheism as "just a lack of belief in God or gods" when they're debating Theists. This is interesting, so I'll explain why in great detail below.
As you'll see in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy quote I provide below, atheism only means a lack of belief in God or Gods in a psychological context. However, in philosophy, atheism is the proposition that God does not exist. This is essential to understand because when Atheists engage in debate with Theists, they are specifically engaging in a philosophical debate categorically (not a psychological debate). It is a debate between two opposing philosophical positions, which is clearly not a psychological debate.
Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy quote (keep in mind, they are the top source / the standard):
"The word “atheism” is polysemous-it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well. For example, Robin Le Poidevin writes, “An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without reference to such a being” (1996: xvii). J. L. Schellenberg says that “in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” In other words, it is “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God” (2019: 5).”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in a fallacious manner to give oneself an advantage within a debate.
It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a word/phrase having two or more distinct meanings, then using the incorrect meaning for the context. (And Atheists definitely are giving themselves an advantage with burden of proof by equivocating the terms, which I'll explain in more detail further down).
As a side note, I know several Atheists who experienced cognitive dissonance at this fact that Atheism means the proposition God does not exist in a philosophical context, not wanting to accept it & consequently contacted Stanford to ask them “why they're conflating definitions” and making several arguments against the definition.
In every case, they received a response back from Stanford explaining why the atheist is just factually wrong in great detail. In philosophy, atheism means a proposition God does not exist (or that there are no gods). Stanford reiterates that this is correct: Atheism is NOT just a lack of belief in gods in a philosophical context: it must be the positive assertion God does not exist.
So, this is not an example of sloppy or confusing language. The vast majority of Atheists are just factually wrong when they claim Atheism is just a lack of belief during their debates with Theists to avoid any burden of proof.
Many Atheists will, unfortunately, become confused further at what I just said, so I'll clarify why this equivocation fallacy is giving atheists an unwarranted advantage with burden of proof.
In philosophical debates, both sides lack the ability to scientifically verify their position is true so the burden of proof is not determined by positive claims (like it is in scientific debates). So, when Atheists claim only the Theist must provide evidence/reasoning & the Atheist has no responsibility to do so… this is a fallacy of scientism on the Atheist's end (as they're approaching a philosophical debate in a purely scientific mindset, when philosophical debates are specifically between two positions beyond the limitations of the scientific method).
In philosophical debates, both sides have an equal burden to provide rational argumentation for why their position is true over the opposition.
The Theist must provide rational argumentation for the claim: God exists
The Atheist must provide rational argumentation for the claim: God does not exist.
All existing scientific evidence could be interpreted to work for either side in any philosophical debate, so logically valid & sound argumentation is the only form of evidence that can exist for either side.
There are 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God's existence recognized by mainstream academia (type *100 arguments for God* to see them all), with zero for the claim God does not exist (other than a few fallacious attempts. For example, the argument from evil/suffering is just an appeal to incredulity fallacy based on a lack of knowledge about evil/suffering).
So, in terms of evidence it's: 100+ to 0.
Beyond that, the claim “God does not exist” is a universal negative fallacy itself. One would need to be all-knowing to know God does not exist.
So, this is why there will actually never be any coherent arguments supporting Atheism. The position itself is fallacious.
Same with Naturalism: It's a universal negative fallacy as it claims to know the supernatural doesn't exist. One would need to be all-knowing to know that too (which, ironically, is a supernatural trait).
For those who do not believe in God & value being logical / rational too, Agnosticism is the position to take... not Atheism.
Awesome
"There's no evidence" really means "There's no evidence that I accept."
@@mickqQ When you say "that I find compelling" you shift from an objective analysis of facts to a subjective analysis of the feelings resulting from those facts. Thus the goal changes from presenting an objective evidential demonstration of Jesus to convincing a man who does not wish to be convinced.
@G Will Exactly. The atheist -- or more properly, the anti-theist -- will continue to shift the goal. First, "there is no evidence" then "There is no reliable evidence" Then "There is no evidence sufficient for me" then "I can't hear you! NANANANANANANANANANA!"
@@mickqQ If Jesus truly worked miracles, then it is trivial that he walked on water. One would not logically say, "Sure, he raised the dead, but walking on water? No way!" So the larger question then is whether truly worked miracles at all.
Now, I could make the case that hostile sources such as Celsus claimed that he did miracles through witchcraft and parlor tricks, and that even His resurrection (per Celsus) was through witchcraft; By implication we note that Celsus (and others) did not deny the miracles, but merely ascribed them to parlor tricks and Egyptian witchcraft.
Of course, if you are predisposed to dismiss Celsus (and Origen through whose Contra Celsum we know of Celsus' "On The True Doctrine...") then it's pointless for me to even raise the subject of hostile witnesses. Instead, allow me to ask this: Why do you specifically reject the miracles ascribed to Jesus in the gospels?
Also, you say that Judas likely told the Romans that Jesus was claiming to be the messiah -- why do you think that such a claim by itself would bother them?
@@mickqQ So, as I said before, we have extra-biblical sources which state that Jesus did miracles, and which simply seem to argue that he did them by some means other than being God incarnate. That is strong evidence that people in the first and second century believed that Jesus did miracles. Other extrabiblical sources, also hostile to Jesus, do likewise. Teledot Yeshu, the Babylonian Talmud, etc. -- And if we accept the received version of Antiquities of the Jews, we have Flavius Josephus saying so in so many words. Of course that passage is contested; nonetheless, it exists.
Direct evidence that Jesus (and Peter) walked on water comes from the gospel of Mark, primarily: 6:47-51. This account is recorded by John Mark, a disciple of Peter, and curiously leaves out the portion of the incident which is not complimentary to Peter. Matthew, an eyewitness to the event, does not hold back. In 14:24-33, he corroborates what Mark recorded, including that Peter stepped out of the boat as well, and walked until he took his eyes off of Jesus, and then sank. As a side note, we find a curious theme with Peter that he was often jumping out of boats. John 6:18-21, about 40 years after the other accounts, corroborates it as well, but also leaves out the incident uncomplimentary to Peter, possibly because Peter and John were close friends and one-time business partners (as fishermen, before meeting Jesus).
So we have testimony from two eyewitnesses and the disciple of an eyewitness. They agree on the essential points (that Jesus walked on the water). That is stronger evidence than we have for many other events of the same time -- for example, the suicides at Masada come from one source (not three) and the writer of that source (Flavius Josephus) was the sole survivor, and thus could not be contradicted. That is stronger than the evidence that Julius Caesar subjugated Gaul. For all we know, he might have spent the summer in the Tyrolean Alps, on a fishing expedition, and then come home to claim great glory -- the only source for his exploits is his own Gallic Wars.
So the question of whether or not to believe that Jesus walked on water becomes this: If you judge history in a consistent and systematic way, looking at the number of sources and the reliability of the sources, then Jesus absolutely walked on water. And if you judge history based on whether it fits your own template (i.e. nothing miraculous can be true) then it did not, because miracles don't happen, therefore this is not a miracle, therefore miracles don't happen. So you see, "that I find compelling" is not a good gauge, because of its subjective nature. QED.
@@mickqQ WRT the deity of the messiah ... and this is a change of subject from our prior subject, walking on water, which is why I wrote the other post first... there are two themes throughout the messianic prophecies: First, that the messiah would rule, and second, that he would suffer. Thus Isaiah 40, 41, and 53 (ca. 500 BC) are referred to as the Songs of the Suffering Servant. In psalm 2:7, God tells the messiah, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee" (cf. remainder of Psalm 2, especially 2:12). In Psalms 110:1, David says of the Messiah, "The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I have made thine enemies a footstool beneath thy feet..." ... LORD in all CAPS means The Unspeakable Name, YHWH (God the Father), and Lord (Adonai) means master or ruler... So as Jesus asked the Pharisees, (Matt. 22:42-44), if the Messiah is to be David's son (descendant) how is he also David's Lord? The answer is, of course, that the Messiah is David's God (see the context of Matthew 22). So Jesus is the expected King and Messiah, but also the Suffering Servant, as the prophecies foretold.
How do I distinguish the real God from something that has only convinced me it's God?
Starve The Monster reading the Bible more cuz God communicates with us through the Bible
Also studying the Bible more, so you can learn to recognize his voice when you hear it
@@bagel3929 The bible seems to indicate that you recognize God's voice because it comes from fire. (Exodus 19:19, Deuteronomy 4:11-13, Deuteronomy 4:32-34) So by what criteria do I distinguish between talking fire that's God, and an entity that can simply manifest itself as talking fire?
@@starvethemonster7732 You should pray to God, and actively seek him. While God did show himself as talking through fire in the time of Moses, it still something unordinary. If you're searching God's voice you should search in the bible, as it is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
As a newcomer to the christian faith it is easy to think of something that is not God as God, and the greatest defence against something like that happening is reading and studying Gods Word. Read 1 John for guidance to discern false teachings from true. God bless!
@@starvethemonster7732 if you already believe in such entity's , believing in God is just a small step. :-)
I like asking atheists, if explosions are a reaction to an action.
Then the Big Bang is scientifically a reaction, but to which action?
They dodge that by claiming it wasn't an explosion, but rather a 'rapid expansion'...
That’s because it wasn’t an explosion. You’re just setting up a straw man to tear down whatever the response is.
@@jaysonbrady6831 Exactly. Plus, the Big Bang theory never once mentions anything regarding when or how the universe came to be, the theory "takes place" one planck time before the supposed begining of the universe, because we can only backtrack cosmic background radiation and other factors to that point. His whole "gotcha" question is a mess.
You are utterly confused
@@oscarrivera3929 The atheist may be tempted to reply with a phrase that believers rarely use: "I don't know". Because the atheist is humble and honest.
WLC Craig states 'It's physically impossible for Santa Claus to do what he's supposed to do on Christmas eve'...well only if Santa doesn't have supernatural powers!
Nah its just that the parents buy the presents...
... otherwise. Crying kiddies
Theist will say a God can always exist, and, matter, and/or energy could not always exist. That is special pleading.
@Phillip Hickman
I never said it did. We still have no evidence a God exist.
@Phillip Hickman
You have not provided that any universe, including this one, or life is a creation
@Phillip Hickman
It is the case. You have not provided, and we have no evidence that any universe, including this universe, or any life, including life in this universe is a creation. We have evidence the earth is a oblique sphere, and not a flat disc. So no, what you said is false.
@Phillip Hickman
You have not provided evidence a place you are referring to hell exist, for me to go. And if a hell exist, maybe you will go there. Maybe people like who who believe that a God exist when we have no evidence a God exist will go Hell, if Hell exist. So I guess if someone should be worried about Hell, if Hell exist, that would be you.
Craig is wonderful. He is wrong about Aquinas however. Feser is right about Aquinas.
W Lame Craig is wrong about everything. He never really answers just bluffs.
@@paulmelville2126 Asserting without evidence is a bluff. That's what you just did.
His Santa logic was laughable
he is wrong about pretty much everything he says ......dudes a grifter or really dumb and i dont think he is dumb (he fooled you after all )
@@26OP011
Would you like to demonstrate how he:
1. Is a gifter
OR
2. Is really dumb
??
Otherwise, I think you are projecting.
If you are being honest the kalam cosmological argument would say if this universe begun to exist as we understand it. And and even if you actually said that, and this universe begun to exist as we understand it, and there was a cause, that is not telling you anything about the cause. The cause could be another universe, matter, and/or energy that always existed. So the argument even if true does not get you even close to a Gid exist
@Frances Snowflake
If someone is confusesd, that would be you. We don't have evidence that the cosmos had a beginning, or begin to exist. So if your version of the kalam cosmological argument includes the cosmos begun to exist, then that might not be true. But the most common version is talking about this local universe, that might be part of many, and not the cosmos. So the most common version only rationally gets you to, to this local universe has a cause.
@@jasonroelle5261 if the universe never began to exist, it wouldn't exist now.
If the universe is eons of eons old, it would have already died ages ago of heat death.
Stars burn out. Blue stars are supposed to last a mere 200,000 years before running out of fuel, others last a while longer, but still burn out.
@@raygiordano1045
Well for one you are conflating the universe/cosmos, and this universe. Second thos universe might have been gone through cycles of expansion and contraction. And if Energy and/or Energy can not be created or destroyed, the Energy, and or Matter always existed. So if you are saying that matter, and or Energy begun to exist, then you are saying the first law of thermodynamics is false.
@@jasonroelle5261 the latest conclusion from scientists is the universe is not only expanding, it will continue to expand until it fades away like smoke.
The idea the universe bangs and bangs over and over was already considered and rejected. It sounds kind of like Hinduism to me.
@@raygiordano1045
So we don't, or currently do not have evidence that this universe, does, or does not go through expansions, and contraction. A person not accepting a statement is true is not the same as a person rejecting the statement is true
It’s not about doubting how the universe , it’s about the creator of the universe being a loving father giving his only son to save the world
If we can agree that there is a singular creator of the universe and existence then we turn from Thesistic apologetics to Christian apologetics. We would move from the realm of philosophy to examining the reliability of the New Teastement writings and the historical evidence for the ressurection of Jesus. If Jesus rose from the dead that should be sufficient reason to believe his claim to God hood and his teachings. I would recommend Matt's recent discussion with Trent Horn for a brief introduction on the subject.
Have you ever personally witnessed any phenomenon (object, event, substance, entity, process, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is to have instantaneously popped into existence by the sole volition of a deity?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Yes, this creation.
@@AveChristusRex Can you please be more vague than 'this ceation'?
@@theoskeptomai2535 The reality in which we find ourselves, including all which is contained in it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neight able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus
WLC is a beast.
like the one from revelations?)
SmashEX Entertainment
Niiice!
Here's to hoping that Matt Fradd becomes the next William Lane Craig. (BTW just to clarify, St Augustine was Catholic.)
And Aquinas, and....
@@antoniomoyal Peter. Lol
Augustine was catholic of course, but not Roman Catholic. All 3 branches of Christianity are catholic (Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants).
@@Solideogloria00 The Catholic Church is made up of more than 20 particular Churches, including the "Roman Catholic Church," the "Maronite Catholic Church," the "Ukrainian Catholic Church," the "Armenian Catholic Church," the "Coptic Catholic Church," and so on. They are all in union with the Bishop of Rome; the pope is the pope of all of them. I'm sick and tired of people not knowing that. The three main branches of Christianity are Catholic (not "Roman Catholic"), Orthodox, and Protestant. Let's get that straight. Anyway, to say that everyone is Catholic as you do is to say that the word is pretty much meaningless. I can understand why Protestants would want to say they are Catholic. Christians have been calling their Church "Catholic" since the first century. But wanting something doesn't make it so. If you choose to belong to a break away church, then you must settle with calling yourself Protestant, not Catholic. I'm sorry about that. Don't play games with words. There cannot be multiple Churches that are all catholic (that is, universal) but in competition with one another; the very idea of a "Universal Church" implies that it is one.
@@Solideogloria00 No. Catholics are those who are in accordance with the bishops, and their hierarchy, including their orienting bishop of Rome. That includes those of every rite. Eastern or western. Being outside of the sacraments, and removing gods sacrifice from mass, to instead worship the interpretation of scripture by some minister each week, is not Catholic. I mean, think about it. The Protestants worship some guys consideration of scripture rather than Gods actual sacrafice. God of course is with all Christians, but the idea that these hyper individual Protestant churches are in anyway universal is impossible.
Or course, honoring God, and reading scripture is Gods will. But without the sacraments the mass cannot be universal.
Why do you need headphones on?
Believers always miss the main point of the question “who created God?” The point is not that something cannot exist without a cause, because as Craig pointed out, most atheists believe that the universe probably exists without a cause. But, the main point of the question is that if God just happens to exist by chance with no cause to his existence, then there’s no reason why we should expect for him to be a genius being far smarter than any human, and capable of keeping track of what all 8 billion people are doing at all times no matter where they go without ever mixing two people up so as to judge us all consistently. If he happens to exist by chance with no cause, then we should logically expect for him to just be some totally random unimpressive thing. Another reason why atheists ask who created God is because believers will often argue that it is preposterous for a universe to exist without a cause, but it makes no more sense for a god to exist without a cause, so assuming the existence of a god does not solve this issue. Also, Craig says he finds it unlikely that the universe would exist without a cause, “in light of modern cosmology,” yet he is not a cosmologist and many, if not most, cosmologists believe the universe exists without a cause, so I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about and I think he should leave science to the scientists.
#2 WLC misuses the special pleading fallacy. Fallacies are fallacies witin an argument not between arguments. Just because another argument also uses a fallacy, does not excuse your own arguments' fallacy. Really expected more from WLC.
@Frances Snowflake Are 'you' defining God or describing God? Because if you use 'defining' to get you started and then later switch to 'describing'(i.e. The God described in the bible) then is that not a bit dishonest? Is it not just wordplay?
@Qwerty I am not sure if you referring to my original post or my reply to Frances. My original post(and complaint), has more to do with how WLC defends (@ 1:50) his use of "special pleading", by saying the oppositions' alternate argument also does "special pleading", therefore his argument is not "special pleading" because both use special pleading. Each argument stands on its own, someone else making a mistake does not give you the excuse to make the same mistake.
@Qwerty So, are you saying because atheists have never argued in good faith that is ok for theists to not argue in good faith? Or are you just attempting to poison the well?
Agreed. Just because others use a fallacy that doesn’t mean you don’t use it yourself.
“The universe is far too complex to have not been designed, so my answer to that is that an infinitely more complex being created the universe, but he doesn’t need a designer.”
Unreal that fully capable adults can latch onto this incredibly fallacious belief system.
USCmusic10 Indeed. And in ancient times, I could understand it. But in the 21st century, with all the information available to anyone, it is incredibly lazy, dishonest, and delusional.
@@jadenhalstead7290 That is a terrible argument. But that isn't the nature of a Cosmological argument. Everybody, including atheists, acknowledge that something has to exist uncaused by something else. The traditional atheistic stance has merely been that the universe is that thing. A Cosmological argument attempts to examine the idea of an uncaused thing and what qualities it would have to have or not have, and then apply that reasoning to the observable, empirically testable universe, to see whether the atheistic view of he universe is consistent with facts.
@USCmusic10 Saying that something is more plausibly true than false based on available evidence is not an argument from incredulity. If that were the case, we would have to treat flat-earthers like they weren't totally bonkers.
I suppose you think archeology is one big hoax too?
Gotta say, I miss these kinds of dialogues between Catholics and Protestants before Cameron converted and turned the whole Church to infighting.
Kinda wish Matt didn't let WLC get away with the cheeky Augustine remark.
Id still say its still special pleading tbh since Craig can't prove his god but those studying the universe can prove the universe at the very least even if the way they explain its origin might be wrong or not
Amazes me that people still use the Kalam argument. Im getting so tired of an argument that doesn't lead anywhere nor is useful for discussions
Kindly explain how it is not useful and why it doesn't lead anywhere?
@@Ex-Atheist_Sonya I feel its not useful since we basically all agree based off the evidence that the current observable universe has a beginning which can be traced back finite into the past and at a certain point we can't tell what the universe was like before time
There is no point in discussing the Kalam since it just leads theists to then jump to their special pleading of the god they believe in since thats where the god of the gaps territory currently is at for us
Whats before time is currently a dark spot in our knowledge so we can't point to any proofs of anything for our opinions of the universe's beginning of what caused anything and the properties of that thing which caused what we currently observe for the universe
Its just guesses and Id rather not make knowledge claims based off guesses on a subject we can't observe or test correctly
Thats why I feel the Kalam is useless and doesnt really lead anywhere in the discussion
@@robindeknijff5769 Yet you are prepared to make knowledge based claims that matter is past eternal and basically "special plead" to matter existing forever? Yes our knowledge about the universe is far from complete, especially about the material cause of the universe, but ultimately it still does boil down to two options, either matter is past eternal or a metaphysical intelligent being is past eternal. This makes the kalam argument still very much relevant and useful, not the only argument that should be used but still a relevant and strong argument.
@@dot11826 I havent said matter is past eternal nor do I have any clue what proceeds the big bang because as I said in my earlier post, Id rather not make guess work with no evidence so the topic is pointless to me until someone can prove to me matter is past eternal
Well Greig has not provided evidence that this, or any universe is fine tuned. He also has not provided evidence that this universe did not come about by what ever he is calling chance, or what ever he is calling, physical necessity. Graig also has not provided evidence that the only ways this universe might have come about is whatvhe mentioned. He did not mention this universe just comong about naturally, and not by chance, and not by phyiscal necessity.
He wasn't making an extensive case for fine-tuning here, which is why he brought up Richard Dawkins and Roger Penrose, an Atheist and Agnostic, to argue against the two positions he mentioned. Considering the fact that you haven't mentioned any other options (He has argued against the Multiverse elsewhere), and the fact that fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner in basically all other situations, inference to designer is reasonable, unless you want to call Naturalism-of-the-Gaps and say something like "I don't know, but Science can learn eventually" despite the fact that we have grounds for a reasonable inference to a designer.
@@petery6432
No, we don't have any grounds for inference of a designer. You can not believe this universe was designed, and not believe the universe was designed. Not believing the universe was designed does not mean you believe the universe was not designed. And no one is saying the universe came about naturally because we don't know. And we have evidence natural talent by things exist, and natural events occur. We have no evidence supernatural things exist, or supernatural events occur. And because of that, if I to bet, which I don't, I would bet this universe came about naturally.
@@jasonroelle5261 Not believing the universe was designed and believing the Universe was not designed are the same thing, except statement has the gall to commit to a claim rather than dodging the burden of proof. And yes, we do have grounds for inferring a designer/fine-tuner. If something appears designed, and you don't have any reason to thing that it could come about without design, what's wrong with following the intuitive explaination (namely, that the appearance of design is real and not an illusion)?
@@petery6432
No. Not believing "x" is true, is not the seme as, and does not mean You believe "x' is false. You can not believe 'x" is true, and not believe "x' is false at the same time.
The rational position is to not believe "x" is true until there is evidence "x" is true. It is not believe "x" is true, until there is evidence "x" is false.
By far the most common and fallacious argument from atheists is "Bad stuff happens therefore God doesn't exist" Lol.
Well, it's the Problem of Evil. Yall claim your god is all powerful, all knowing, and omnibenevolent. If that were the case, bad things wouldn't happen at all.
Why do all the talks happen in such pretty backrooms?
OK here goes:
FACT NO 1:
When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…
“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
FACT NO 2
Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…
“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…
“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Fact 1. Atheists make no claims about Charles Darwin.
That is science.
Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, due to a total lack of evidence.
That's it.
There are no evolutionists.
That is simply a term made up by theists.
It has no meaning in the real world.
Evolution is part of science.
It's not a belief and does not require faith or belief.
As with all science, it is correct, whether you believe in it or not.
We can show that there was no world wide flood, that there is absolutely no evidence for a mass exodus, that the world and the cosmos are billions of years old not thousands, etc.. So even if we were to take your "facts" at face value, how does that in any way, shape or form, prove the claim that your god does exist? If you have solid, demonstrable, verifiable evidence then show it and put an end to this question. Then book your ticket to Stockholm Sweden to collect your Noble Prize. I'll even kick in a few bucks to help pay for it.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil...you don't understand the theory of evolution
William craig is such a good liar and persuader for believers. Of course he has to follow the religious agenda and therefor desperately tries to put god somewhere into our natural evolution. But his lack of intelligent conclusions won’t ever do the trick.
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.
I don't know what evolution has to do with anything, but I don't think WLC is committed to any particular position on the relationship between evolution and the Biblical record. I do know that doesn't believe evolution and theism are incompatible as propositions about the world.
St. Thomas Aquinas also looked back to St. Augustine. I myself prefer St. Augustine.
5:50 because they are close-minded? sorry if it offends u
WLC playing word games again ......lying for jesus
I became an atheist by reading the Bible, and finding many passages immoral.
I stayed an atheist because the only religion that's any better is Buddhism...and that one doesn't require me to become a theist.
We do not need a God to explain the universe.
At 2:07 we have tu quoque. Maybe I'll make a fallacy drinking game but if it's a double fallacy like a red herring as well I have to take a double shot... if while making the red herring and tu quoque he makes an ad hominem we will be drunk off the first triple shot :)
A drinking game sounds great in theory but you'd have alcohol poisoning by the end...
Wrong on Aquinas... keep it up guys!
backwards much? Instead of the straw man argument that atheists argue against the existence of a god, let's see an honest answer to support the theist position that there is a god.
What verifiable evidence do you have for the existence of a god?
There is no "verifiable" evidence. Their only debate tactics are to attempt to disprove, or poke holes, in scientific theories and then fill those holes with "it must be God".
@@robhosner5784 You may be right, That's what I see too many times. But I think there are some who actually have never thought about the question until asked or until they see the ignorance and confusion and aggressive fear of those shocked by the question. I am quite accustomed to encountering people who do not even understand the question.
It is very common that believers think I am asking for their favorite argument. I hear all versions of cosmological and ontological arguments that they think are evidence. Others think I am asking to be saved and think it their sacred duty to pray for me.
I grew up at a time when it was unthinkable to admit being an atheist. Now that I can, I am making the most of that freedom. I have no expectation of changing the minds of the "true believers." But I think taking an open, fearless stance might be an example for those who are still honestly searching, especially the young who are not yet threatened by the thug god with eternal fire for just asking.
Joe Harkins So many people throughout the history of mankind find it so hard and disheartening to not know EXACTLY how the universe began or what happens when we die. So they created multiple religions and it blows my mind that most people still follow religion and the Bible which was written 2000 years ago.
@@JakeMcConville I had thought that Christianity had a wild, crazy "origin myth" and then I learned about Scientology.
@@JoeHarkinsHimself hey, which god promises eternal fire?
Everyone knows the North Pole is invisible, and Santa can do everything he does on Christmas Eve because he is magic.
He's magic like god.
@@eig1979 he’s as real as God
Is that why parents Credit cards are maxed out during Christmas? Santa charges his toy deliveries to the parents Credit cards right? Funny, the parents also have to go and actually purchase Santa's toys for their children. And if you wait up on Christmas night long enough, you'll see Mum or Dad eating any cookies and drinking any drinks that may have been left for Santa to snack on. Also in many cases, Christmas presents are left wrapped beneath the Xmas tree for days or weeks prior to Christmas evening. What is there remaining for Santa to do? No magic involved anywhere that I can perceive.
@@GazGuitarz congratulations, you've just falsified the Santa Claus hypothesis. Can we do the same with the god hypothesis?
@@GazGuitarz Santa only comes to true believes and only gives presents to good little girls and boys. The children of those parents who pretend to be Santa obviously don’t have enough faith.
Santa is real, you just don’t want to believe because you want to be on the naughty list.
to say that God is Santa clause for adults, is so offensive because it waters down religion to merely the level of the child ( a method used to make children understand religion) anyway atheists should read the religion of cs Lewis and G.k Chesterton. just notice the complexity of their writing.
I would answer that question, not that I agree because I’m not Protestant, but Cornelius Van Til is probably the tallest “adult in the room” over at the Protestant camp
Rebuttals to Dr. Craig's rebuttals:
1. Santa is magical. Why wouldn't he be able to hide his place from our mortal eyes in the North Pole? And since he's magical, we cannot limit his Xmas eve travels to what we believe is physically possible. That's the same excuses we use for God, yes?
2. Atheists, at least honest atheists, do not claim that the universe is uncaused and eternal. They simply say it's a possibility, but admit that we do not know if that's the case, and that currently there is no way for us to know what happened before the Big Bang event.
3. The universe as we know it "began" at the Big Bang event, but we do not know if that was the absolute beginning, and we cannot say that the universe before the Big Bang had a beginning. So the Kalam Cosmological argument does not have solid premises. And, IF the universe did "begin" at some point, that does not prove God, or at the very least does not prove the Christian God. But, until someone can prove that the universe has a beginning, there's no reason to believe it does or does not, therefore we cannot accept this argument as being valid.
4. The universe is not fine-tuned for us. We are fine-tuned to fit in the universe, and not even in the universe...we are "fine-tuned" to live on this single planet. And this planet tries to kill us in many, many ways. We are not fit to live outside this planet, as space will kill us in a matter of seconds. There are many places on Earth that are not fit for humans to live. The puddle argument fits here. Even is we decide to go down the route of your argument for a designer, that does not prove the Christian God...simply a designer of some sort.
5. Why do you refuse to follow the evidence? We are all following the evidence, you just don't like where we follow it.
Well said... Wlc is just an apologetic moron.
He's Scientifically illiterate and never supports his position, just attacks others
You are assuming that there are logical reasonable christians who can comprehend your post.
FYI- there are reasonable christians. I've met a few. They wouldn't be caught dead on this joke of a channel or be a member of the craig cult.
@@logicalatheist1065 and so starts the name calling of the argument loser.
@@forINRI what?
@@notjafo777 apologetic whiners get no where as they fail how to debate.
Many Christian are smart, just not the ones who call themselves Creationists
"Wellll I think we have good arguments to show that God exists"
If you are looking for very good evidence....
You aren't alone.... Good luck 😂
232,000 people still remain ignorant that the arguments they think are so good that it makes there beliefs in atheism so full proof.
Really good argument is all we have as evidence for the existence of a god?
I thought i was going to learn something new maybe even change my mind (i am an atheist) but only thing i found was nonsense
You should look for Francis Collins
@@inakivillagomez9273 what about him? He's an evolutionary biologist
@@logicalatheist1065 he is a christian, he might learn from him
@@inakivillagomez9273 yeah he's a Christian, so what?
Evolution is a fact, at least he's honest... He just believes in theistic evolution, but evolution none the less
@@logicalatheist1065 I already knew it, when did I say that I was against evolution
It's amazing to see that no matter how really bad the atheist arguments are, Billy L. Crack consistently manages to out-terrible every single one without even breaking a sweat. This man is a treasure, and a clown-shaped one to boot.
His gibberish is like old Swiss cheese, it doesn't require much time or effort to marvel at its lovely holes and kinda stinks if you examine it closely... th-cam.com/video/I2JvaexmLF0/w-d-xo.html
People are compelled by that Santa Clause argument because they never bothered to try and understand religion or the existence of God beyond the level that a small child understands God. So for them it's like believing in Santa Claus.
The key to the fine tuning argument is that the range that is life permitting is extremely narrow Therefore an intelligence/God had to create a universe within that range?
However, if the FTA is correct, then it just identified a limitation of this intelligence/God ( the universe needing to be within a specific range to create life). which means we can eliminate any God/s claiming to have unlimited power such as the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God.
I think the fine tuning means he picked the.kind of universe he wanted instead of simply randon I guess
@@thedragon5413 that's not the fine tuning argument.
I would have way more respect for Craig if he just admitted that he simply has faith in God. Instead he uses fallacious arguments to present concrete evidence that there’s a god. So he’s actually more militant than some atheists. A lot of atheists admit that it’s impossible to disprove God. It would be like trying to disprove that ghosts exist.
The Santa logic bit was hilarious. Didn't think that one through, did he?
he doesnt like the arguments because he doesnt like being proven wrong XD
If the universe wasn't designed for the benefit of black holes, then bacteria are the most successful species in the universe. Intelligent design is nonsense. It's sheer anthropomorphism on our part. If we are made in god's image: humans have 46 chromosomes. butterflies and moths have between 450 and 480 chromosomes. The potato and tobacco plants have 48 chromosomes, 2 more than us.
happily eggs What do you mean by “successful?”
Strawmanning atheists, how clever. This guy doesn’t have atheists on his show. How disingenuous.
Read his pinned comment, this isn’t straw-manning.
@@grosty2353 “debunking” 20 short arguments against gods existence from one atheist.
@@FindleyOcean so you have gone from calling it strawmanning to complaining that’s it’s just from one person. Interesting.
@@grosty2353 “short” arguments. It’s the readers digest version of atheistic arguments. Straw man.
@@FindleyOcean not a straw man, just a simplified argument lmao
So Craig refers to Richard Dawkins and then Penrose, an even smarter person, to refute claims of physical necessity and chance to explain nature, respectively. So he rather believe guys who lived thousands of years ago with a very narrow view of the world and ancient moral values on women, slaves, etc. as knowing more than people like Dawkins and Penrose. What lunacy is this? This guy makes no sense at all. He seems to like to ignore all the ridiculousness and malice and ignorance shown in the bible.
Eric Lind Dude these 2 people are honestly so ignorant and yet they probably believe there some type of geniuses. Unreal. Richard Dawkins and Hitchens would destroy these people in a debate. I still can’t believe adults believe in a fucking god and follow a book that was written 2000 years ago.
SportsReel HD bro, Craig destroyed Hitchens in real life already.
@@JakeMcConville Get informed. Craig won against Hitchens, Dawkins too afraid.
Man, this is a ridiculous statement. Maybe hear what Jordan Peterson has to say about the Bible. Then try to take it apart. As for what people do in the name of God, has nothing to do whether God exists or not. God is still the best(and frankly the only) explanation for the universe, as proven by Craig.
Tobie Stockhoff It is a theory just as I can make up a theory too. Again no evidence from Craig. He hasn’t proven anything cause he uses circular reasoning. What’s ridiculous is that he brings up two modern scientists and tried to refute them by the words of ancient ignorant villagers. That’s ridiculous.
If God requires a cause, He ain't much of a god. If the Natural world came into existence, Its cause must be outside of nature. Nothing makes nothing. But to the unbeliever, nothing made everything.
Cause and effect are temporal. Cause> moment of time> effect. Time is apart of nature. Cause and effect exist within nature. Cause and effect and time exist within the universe not outside it. What every that is even supposed to me. What could exist outside of space? That concept doesn't make any sense.
Theist claim there was nothing. Can you provided evidence that there was nothing?
@@eig1979 So you think the universe always existed? We already know that is wrong. So your argument is wrong.
@@hellavadeal First, I don't believe any such thing. The honest answer is I don't know.
And we do not know if it did, or didn't always exist. We have no idea if this is the only universe, or if it is one of many in a infinite sea of universes.
And even if our universe began to exist, this does not mean there was nothing before it.
There being nothing before our universe has not been demonstrated. So at this point, this is a theistic assertion. That you have the burden of proven.
Try not to avoid your burden.
Again, Can you provided evidence that there was nothing?
@@eig1979 Not much of a scientist are you? Your belief is based on nothing but speculations. Funny how that works. Prove to me first that materialism is the correct belief.
@@hellavadeal That is called shifting the burden of proof. I never stated anything I "believed". Not believing, or not being convinced of your claims, doesn't mean I therefore believe the opposite of what you believe. If someone believed there was only the material universe, I would ask them to provide evidence for that as well. I myself simply don't know. I am agnostic. I am holding my belief, until there is sufficient evidence, to warrant belief, one way, or the other. If someone says there is a god, they need to prove that to me, in order for me to believe it. If someone said there is no god, they also need to prove that to me. Until then, I simply do not "believe" either.
Now you on the other hand "believe" there is something more than the material universe. It is your burden to prove that.
You are starting to stack up claims, that you need to provide evidence for. Provide evidence that there was nothing before the universe, and provide evidence that there is more than just the material universe.
Also, I'm sure I know a hell of a lot more about science then you do. I'm sure you don't even understand the terminology used in science. What theories, and laws are in a scientific context.
If you keep on avoid your burden of proof, I'm just going to end the conversation. I don't have time, to run around in circles with you.
1:37
God exists! Now prove your kind loving god that heals amputees when you pray. (Not one!)
Your soul which is eternal required more healing than your amputated limb.
@@balateiskhem30 that is the old dishonest trick called "begging the question." OK, you did that. You been caught trying to do it. Now please anser the question you were asked, not the one you tried to substitute.
That man-centered god does not exist. Now, talking about the God portrayed in the Bible, the shining of whose glory and praises lighting us all gives us all [his people] pleasures beyond comparison... He does. I hope you and everyone can approach Him as it's fitting, humbly and diligently through the Way he provided, historical proofs of which we have available, this Way is no other than Jesus.
Your god doesn't help me 1 iota on this earth. Why should I believe he exists, let alone worship him? Does the threat of hell scare you?
Wow, did he really say that it's physically impossible for Santa to do what he's supposed to do while arguing for a supernatural god at the same time? And then he created a special rule for his god and said that's not special pleading? Sorry, but Craig is just a clown.
All arguments for God's existence are god-of-the-gaps argument, which is why they don't work. Challenge - give me an argument that isn't a god-of-the-gaps. You will not be able to do it.
Did you even listen to the video? 😂
@@accordiontv1 Craig tried to argue that a god-of-the-gaps argument was not a god-of-the-gaps argument.
Gravity is a gaps based arguments. Physicists are just trying plug in the holes in our knowledge, like everything we would qualify as learning does. Nerds.
That where the questions of atheists last 4000 years
doslovno... i kad im odgovoris na sva pitanja ne prihvacaju odgovori to jest ne shvacaju ih
@@whiteshark3003Pozdrav, barem neko i od nas ovdje :).
If God does not exist, then why my mind is looking for him?... that is biologicaly impossible
or why would even someone think of Him if evolution is true?
@@MrBilioner right.. nature ways are a mysterious..
@@digimikeh and I always wondered why would we use Gods name in vain,most of use while we curse,if there is no God? Why not "oh my evolution"?
What exactly is it that you are saying is biologically impossible? The ability to conceive of something that doesn't have a real world referent?
Elves, fairies, werewolves, vampires, ghosts, goblins and gods all exists because they can't not exist if they can be conceived, does that sum up your thinking on the subject?
@@miff2011 the fact that brain can create non existing things is not biologically possible, brain does no need it to work
- Eh, in what way is the claim "the universe began to exist" proven? This instance of this universe seems to have a starting point.
- Unless Dr Craig knows something about the fundamental nature that the rest of us don't know, the fine tuning argument is begging the question. We don't know if the fundamental forces are related or not, we don't know if they're fixed or not, and there is no way to rule out chance without another universe to compare ours to.
- Most atheists don't reject the possibility of a creator being, I give it about a 1/3 chance, most atheists just reject the evidence for any specific theistic deity.
Do you reject all known theistic deities? Why do you reject the God of Abraham?
@@caiqueportolira I reject the evidence I've been given for theistic deities because it's been too badly founded.
@@iljuro I'd appreciate you being more specific on the justifications you encountered and their flaws.
@Qwerty I don't reject the big bang theory as a probable explanation for an event in the beginning of this universe that we still se the effect of. Why would you even claim such a thing.
@@caiqueportolira All evidence I've ever heard for any specific theistic deity are, when you boil them down and remove fallacies like false analogies or circular reasoning, anecdotal evidence, ambiguous evidence, and/or just abductive arguments founded on anecdotal or ambiguous evidence.
To the second question;
It is special pleading.
Even if we were to grant all your arguments true - at the final conclusion you are evaluating an existent capability for creation and a mechanism to enact the capability.
It seems illogical that this eternal mechanism would be an ordered sentience.
That is the special pleading.
You claim order must have cause - but yet you don’t acknowledge the infinite increase in likelihood if it were to be a chaotic mechanism.
You ask how the vehicle is made - you don’t ask how a bunch of metal is laying around.
The only difference between a chaotic mechanism and an ordered mechanism is efficiency within an eternity.
The same tasks capable will be completed in an eternity of chaos.
So too would a monkey with a typewriter write the works of Shakespeare within an eternity.
Qwerty You wish to discuss semantics or concepts?
Special pleading:
Sentience creates order -
Yet an ordered sentience is the first institution?
Order requires predication - Nearly verbatim the foundation all of these theistic arguments stand on - but the first cause is necessarily ordered.
No mention of any chaotic mechanism - randomly utilizing the capabilities you believe the first cause to posses.
Within your own model - this concept beats out god in probability.
Tell me what else I should learn - seems like that’s all you can say.
Qwerty
What does it matter if god is separate from creation?
The whole argument involves a uniformitarianism right up until you hit this ordered first institution.
You evaluate this being to exist given an absence of our properties; spaceless timeless and immaterial -
You even say a first cause must exist based on causality from our reality -
But then you reach god and it doesn’t matter because he’s not part of creation??
Well if that’s the case - then let’s just say there’s no first cause?
All you’ve just done is further the solidified the special pleading.
So there’s no question -
It’s an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
:)
Qwerty lol
Cool bud. :)
Qwerty
Acknowledging that he’s not part of creation - so he’s allowed to possess anything.
Might as well just say origin can be anything - not a god.
You’re just stating your bias and making a stronger case for special pleading.
Unless you’d like to tell me where I’m wrong - it’s pretty obvious who can’t think.
Qwerty
Oh I get it; you’re stupid lol!!!
I didn’t deny anything; I also didn’t accept anything.
I just said if you’re going to special plead that a god exists ordered as a first institution without a creator - I.e. deny what we witness in reality; just because he is outside our reality - then we may as well say anything is possible outside of our reality.
Why limit what is outside our reality to be an ordered god; if we’re dealing with the logically absurd - we may as well be honest and say that any logically absurd option is possible.
You’re probably too stupid to get it - go one continue with your insults in Lou of conversation.
Good grief.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@Qwerty I'm not getting your point. Can you please rephrase or elaborate?
Theo Skeptomai thanks for sharing this. I have a question regarding a few of your points - is it possible that we as limited beings can be ignorant of the works of God or angles in our lives - therefore not observe God consciously?
@@JV-fm2yf Of course it is possible. But I will ask you, what other "reality" can you claim is not observable?
Theo Skeptomai there are obviously many, but most of which can be approved or disproved. But I just wanted to point out that not coming across or observing a work of God cant be used as a solid reason to disprove Gods existence knowing that we can be ignorant to them or even choose to not see them.
Just out of curiosity, if you’re open to believing in God with some evidence of work or miracle that He performs, what miracle or work would that be to convince you of His existence of any?
@Qwerty numbers are abstract constructs, and therefore, not real.
WLC, the great sophist.
Just look at a richard carrier debate, gives totals facts and WLC dances around him quite skilfully and avoids the main points that get brought up. He seems like a nice guy, albeit slightly obnoxious
Jennifer Carrier paid several hundred thousand dollars for her husband Richard's education and he turned her into the world's most prolific cuckquean. "Morality is subjective," no, what Dick Carrier did to his wife Jennifer after taking her for several hundred thousand dollars is objectively evil. She could have had sex with several really attractive men for the rest of her life rather than being cheated by a pasty faced bushy haired clown. It's an objective fact Carrier only uses his claim of "atheism" to get with loose stupid women who attend his meetings just to get sexed by him. "Stone age times." Based on the level of arguments he makes, he and his godless floozies _must be getting stoned_ *all the time!* He looks like he's always tweeking on meth too.
AlyssaMichelleSoap that has nothing to do with this video or the debates haha or then we’d have to mention all the churches dirty child molesting skeletons in their HUGE closet!
St. Thomas est le MAAAAN
I think this starts with a false premise that there are arguments against a god. This is fundamentally contrary. It is not a argument against god. It is the lack of belief that you have a argument for a god. See what I did there? I switched the burden of proof back to the one making the claim. As it should be.
For you to argue that there are not arguments means you
a. Were not listening to the show
b. refuse to acknowledge the plethora of arguments out there and either deny their existence or refuse to accept them and instead wish to remain purposefully ignorant.
Hmmm I see a trend.
@@halleylujah247 No! What it means is actually what I said. Atheism isn't a counter claim. It is a lack of belief in a claim.
@Qwerty OH! but it does tackle the issue. See you think that there is an argument that either god exist, or god doesn't exist. That couldn't be farther from the issue. And by default the argument is Unfalsifiability. (also known as: untestability) Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons. So in conclusion god is not a defensible position.
Come as you Are “It is the lack of belief that you have a argument for a God.”
But who cares about your lack of belief. I _do_ have an argument for God - lots of them, in fact. That some atheist _believes_ I don’t just demonstrates his ignorance in believing something that is demonstrably untrue.
@@comeasyouare4545 That is your claim... That you do not believe my claim, is a claim. It is impossible to not claim that you don't believe unless you are claiming that, which in turn means you believe. Great how verbs work right.? Otherwise stop claiming (stating) anything.( I think you get my drift there...)
This is honestly embarrasing to watch... "Philosopher" So much flawed logic.
4. I think the point about science explaining more now than religion can, is not to do with the Kalam argument. The bible has a mystical explanation for why we have rainbows (to remind god not to do another global flood) and why we have different languages (to confuse people so they don’t build a big tower in Babel to get to heaven). We understand these things now, plus viruses and natural disasters and other things that are badly explained in the bible. Craig has deflected this by talking about the kalam. He’s talking about the kalam because he thinks it’s scientific... but it isn’t.
One of the arguments I find troubling is the ontological argument against the Christian God.
God is the greatest being that can be conceived.
God is epitome of moral values.
If it is possible, it is always moral to arrest someone from raping a child.
The Christian God has the has the ability to arrest a person from raping a child.
The Christian God does not arrest everyone from raping children.
The Christian God is not the greatest conceivable being.
I thought the freewill defence argument would work but the atheist bought up freewill in heaven and also gods freewill, is my God potentially evil.
How can I respond?
We'll be united with our Lord in heaven thus there'll be no sin. I'd say that you should read revelations, especially chapter 21. It's a complicated topic but that's the best part to go to I'd say. God's free will is a nonsensical thing to bring up though. It was God's free will to create us with a free will, that's it, what else do you need?
You can always say that God has a free will but he will not interfere with humans free will.
You talk about free will in heaven, do you mean that if you were to go to heaven would you still be able to change your mind and go to hell? Hell yeah that is the story of satan rebelling against God.
God is not epitome of moral values, he is epitome of everything, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.
The premise of wich the argument was laid out is false, then the question is flawed.
You can respond by accepting that the argument is sound and strong. God creates child molesters while having the foreknowledge they will rape kids, then watches quietly in the corner while a child suffers and says "I'll just punish him later". If there is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god, then he is truly evil.
We have free will with respect to our nature ,due to original sin ,we have the propensity to do evil things .similarly our nature of sin will be erased in heaven hence it’ll be logically impossible to commit a sin there as god sin cannot exist in the presence of god .the bible clearly and explicitly mentions there will be no suffering in heaven .
Debate Siri
The least bad argument is the fine tuning of the Universe and it's REALLY bad. But it is probably the LEAST bad. The evidence actually points to a natural process with no need for a transcendent creator. The Universe may or may not have a moment when it began, no one knows--NO ONE. We may never know. But you can't just plug in God, and certainly not a particular God.
I am Muslim but I love Dr Craig
Have you watched David Wood? I would highly recommend him, if you're looking for truth.
Whoa .. Why does William Lane Craig sound like a speak'n spell?????? I'm onto you Christian's NOW! 🤖
Well then, who created nothingness?? For nothingness can't create nothingness
What kind of question is that? nothing is nothing.
@@caos1925 really? When you say, there is "nothing", you have to know/see there is "something" first.
@@mickqQ maybe, but nothing needs be to be nothing
@@mickqQ we might agree to disagree, that's why I said maybe.
But, the fact that nothing can only be recognized by "be" is undeniable.
@@mickqQ by recognizing something
They can't explain the creation of the universe without using the word theory and the word theory meaning educate guess.
I wouldn't say "it was spoken into existence" counts as an explanation.
@@wmwestbroek as in God's command yes!
You don't understand language
How about 10 rally good arguments for god not existence.
Fighter For Christ There is at least one, such as the argument from poor design. Why do humans have these wisdom teeth which do practically nothing and need to be removed half the time? Why do our finger nails have this ability to grow to some ridiculous length if you don’t cut them? It would make much more sense if your finger nails didn’t extend a certain length. Humans are very dependent on water for survival, yet there are entire oceans full of undrinkable water.
People will always be in opposition for the sake of opposition. It's all about the origin of people, the afterlife, and what happens during that afterlife.
It still shocks me people think those who follow jesus are brainwashed and slaves lol
If not brainwashed, how would you describe it? Most believers are raised to believe in whatever god their parent or society worships