William Lane Craig vs Andrew Pyle: "Does the Christian God Exist?" Bristol, UK; 2007
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 เม.ย. 2012
- A treat for you from the 2007 UK Tour, while we edit and produce the remaining videos from 2011!
Andrew Pyle is Reader in Early Modern Philosophy at Bristol University. His research interests include the History and Philosophy of Science and the Metaphysics and Epistemology of the 17th & 18th centuries. He is the author of "Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: A Reader's Guide" and is on the editorial board of the British Journal for the History of Philosophy.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in California. He has doctorates in philosophy (Birmingham UK) and theology (Munich). A popular international lecturer on university campuses, Dr Craig has authored or edited over thirty books, including his signature work "Reasonable Faith". Website: www.reasonablefaith.org
Gregor Mclennan holds the Established Chair of Sociology, University of Bristol. His research interests lie in the areas of social theory and philosophy of social sciences. His current work includes evaluating "post-secular" currents in social thought and the role of intellectuals in contemporary public debate.
Pyle's always drinking water and shuffling around makes him look nervous and unsure of what he is doing. Craig once again does a fantastic job at communicating his reasoning, while also being so respectful
Pyles, WAY over his head here.
Drinking water means that you are thirsty in the real world. Don't confuse with why dragons drink water in your world of fairies, that is because they spit fire.
@@ciprianpopa1503 you should use your brain more
@ciprianpopa1503 coping after two years. Dude, Pyle lost the debate with his first sentence. To preface, debate topics shouldn't be presented as questions, because it introduce ambiguity into the burden of proof. You can't defend or rebut a question, you can just answer it or refuse to.
Pyles first sentence was a refusal to answer the question. He can critique the evidence provided as much as he wants, but it doesn't matter if he's the only one not answering the question and backing up that answer. He even conceded that he's an agnostic more than an athiest. So he even admits that he CANT answer the question in any certain sense. He gave up the debate during his introduction.
I'll never understand why people think "he uses the same arguments all the time" is somehow equivalent to "his arguments are not sound". Indeed, if they'd been refuted, he wouldn't still be using them. His presentation of them is usually similar (not always, mind you), because his audience is different. This is common for speakers who have to present before various audiences (so they don't have to work up brand new ways of saying it to a new audience that hasn't heard the old way yet).
Please underline a thing or too that shows that his arguments are sound.
@@ciprianpopa1503
I'm not sure I understand the question. In each of Craig's arguments here, the conclusions follow from their premises, and the premises are true (with the notable exception of the "personal experience" stuff that he sometimes mentions, which he acknowledges is not an argument for God's existence, but just for the rationality of his own personal belief).
@@Mentat1231 the question is very simple. What I am asking is to provide the definitive proof of god. This is what your idol is claiming. If any of his statements would be good we wouldn't be here discussing the topic.
And of course, you cannot conclude from a premise. He states a premise as truth and then he continues without proving his premise. And therefore, all he says in relation with his premises is flawed and, therefore, your attempt to advocate his speeches as sound is flawed too.
@@Mentat1231 To make it more clear, what are you missing here is that any statement should be structured as premise - demonstration - conclusion. It is the demonstration part that is always missing from your idol flowchart.
@@ciprianpopa1503
So, first, I’m not sure why you’re calling Dr. Craig my “idol”. I don’t worship him, and I don’t even agree with everything he thinks (for example, I think he’s wrong about Molinism, and his argument from the applicability of mathematics is no good).
But, the 4 arguments he gives in debates like this one are sound, and Craig does give reasons for each premise (as you can see in this video, for example). He doesn't just state them and then conclude.
Always like listening to WLC. He is awesome
All these atheists attacking WLC on attributes and characteristics that he doesn’t have lmao that even plenty of their fellow atheists admit that WLC is respectable and gracious as a person
Apparently if you can’t refute WLC then attack his character is the answer smh 🤦♂️
amoeba
In my experience, nothing has helped me more than my faith in God and my relationship with Him. I trust Jesus.
Which isn't evidence.
@USA TAMONDOMUNI I don't know what you're asking, there's 2 things that could mean...
1. Define evidence
2. State what the evidence is for god
@USA TAMONDOMUNI
"Where is your “Which isn't evidence"?"
- you need to get on the same page, that was a response to a comment stating the utility of 'faith'
- I merely pointed out that isn't evidence for god
@USA TAMONDOMUNI
- That was a pile of rambling bullshit
- your sequence of etymologies and definitions are superfluous and irrelevant
- one point that I will correct; you *CAN* see viruses, you ignoramus
@@michaelanderson7715 That guy is way off base.
When WLC starts talking and laughing at the same time ... HERE WE GO 😂
Indeed, the fallacious bs that follows deserves laughter.
A typical comment from those who have no ability to engage philosophical arguments with any intelligence.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 "A typical comment from those who have no ability to engage philosophical arguments with any intelligence."
- a typical comment casting baseless blanket assertions
@@michaelanderson7715 Not really... If someone looks at a series of philosophical arguments and all they can do is call them BS that deserves laughter it's reasonable to assume that person has precious little to say of any substance.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 bs, muted
The mistake that Dr Pyle makes in not presenting an argument is that it leaves Craig to defend every area in which he is an expert. Craig won this debate, hands down.
Craig is an expert in the field. 👍
William Lane Craig also means Winning Like Crazy! 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾😇😇😇
My gut reaction when watching Professor Pyle is, if you can't present a single argument against the existence of God, you probably shouldn't be in a debate about the existence of God. 🤷
Yes though to be fair to him at least he had the guts to debate unlike fakers like Dawkins
@@stephenglasse9756 Dawkins has no business debating anything related to God but for maybe evolutionary science. I think he realized that after being destroyed in debate years ago. He seemed to have put his focus on strengthening the disbelief of God into students and laymen, like myself. I remember years back watching him humiliate a person that was more than half his age and less educated in front of others and realizing that he was a bitter, selfish arrogant man. Now I know he desperately needs God but back then I didn't believe either.
His tone and facial expressions are saddening yet disgusting. As for his arguments; I'm a layman and even I was instantly picking up on his weak argumentation. I don't think he or anyone needs to disprove God or else believe but in debate it's a tired and old posture. It's not an organic conversation on the street between laymen. The main purpose for live debate is to persuade the audience but you should bring solid arguments for and against the positions of your opponent.
No way I would debate this Professor though. I don't have the skills or education for it.
Dr Craig was awesome!
I agree, Darell, Jason's message length proves that you are right in all things.
When I heard Andrew Pyle said he was not here to provide arguments against God's existence, but just rebut what Craig has said, I knew I would be wasting my time to watch this debate.
thats literally what I said............. how does WLC keep going to these debates where the atheist admits they dont have an argument
@@aero6833because you can’t prove something invisible and immeasurable doesn’t exist.
If I told you I have an invisible goblin that is undetectable and can speak to me through telekinesis that lives in my backyard. How would you prove it doesn’t exist? It’s my job to show you that it does.
Andrew Pyle joins the long line of Britatheists who can't make arguments to back up their contentions so they resort to derision and mockery in an obvious appeal to the basest elements of the audience. He should have lost on that, alone.
Good points.
Where is the rest of the debate?
I love Dr Craig.
You could propose him.
Dr craig was on fire as usual..
"In the technical sense, facts can answer certain ‘why’ questions, like ‘where’ or ‘when’, and even ‘how’, while truth answers the question ‘why’."
Well said, and you have zeroed in on the key. When one know the "why" the rest of the questions can follow more easily in regards to minds.
wow, thank goodness someone has a good meta ethical understanding, thank you sir!!!!!!!
Mr. Mclennan you are a fantastic moderator.
wondering the same thing myself
Dr. Craig wins.
by virtue of solid, coherent
arguments...
are you talking about space-time, i.e. our current physical realm, or are you talking about time-space, or the "astral plane," or spiritual realm (similar to dreaming where you can go forward/backward in time)?
Wow what a great debate..
Here here! It's absolutely amazing, the number of appeals to mystery, appeals to authority (usually "ad verecundiam", since they're not even the authorities in the right field), and appeals to emotion and incredulity that I read from the typical TH-cam atheist. And the published "new atheists" are no better (Richard Dawkins' arguments in his best-seller are a bad joke). It's just astounding....
There are additional fields that could contribute here, as Pyle´s Ganesh ploy suggests. However, Craig´s standard is more than adequate to address Pyle´s reliance on fallacy. He´s clearly articulate in the science, and scientists are usually unable to grasp that this argument is not scientific. "Science" is a term that misrepresents the field, which was natural philosophy, and might be called scientific philosophy. The very origins of modern scientific philosophy are sociohistorically Christian, and for specific psychosocial and cultural reasons. Those reasons, the dynamic interaction amongst monasteries, churches, and political and economic authorities, involve special ingredients in Christian culture that make Western Civilization a leading influence in globalization and having established the UN community of human rights, and now sustainability. The monk Thomas of Aquinas, in fact, was taught by Albert Magnus as part of the founding shift of monastic schools to Universities. You couldn´t have had the scientist Galileo without Christian monastic schools and Universities with Thomas of Aquinas, and they all demonstrated the West´s exceptional capacity for social cooperating that led to the Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment sequence and legacy.
The issue of emergentism would help contextualize the transcendental cause that the First Cause/Kalam Cosmological addresses, but Pyle shows little inkling that science itself is not reality, that absolute truth is philosophical, the actual nature of scientific philosophy. That involves logical coherence and correspondence with reality, with logical coherence involving conceptual analysis, not scientific experimentation. Social Studies actually involves empirical evidence for the additional signficance of Jesus´ legacy, and shamanic practices, no less, for additional indications like a Historical Sociological argument.
I agree with u. Ya know, they already know what he's gonna say. So if he's soooo refutable, why is it they never refute him in the debates with him?. I know he gives a lot of arguments & that takes a lot of time, but they could at least spend time refuting 1 or 2 of his arguments...yet they don't. I find it unbelievable that most of them have the nerve to even call themselves atheists. But then, they seem to just make up different definitions for even what that word means vs using the standard.
Quite liked what Pyle had to say and the way he said it. Enjoyed his portion of the debate.
Well said.
pyles laughings after an statement shows how silly he really is.
Pyle's laughing concerns his trying to withhold his mirth at the idiocy of the arguments Craig presents. Pyle is a philosopher and even if you don't know that Craig makes baseless assertions that have no substantive basis, Pyle and countless other philosophers do. Pyle decimated Craig's arguments by showing them to be deeply flawed. That's all he needed to do.
not relevant if Craig is right or not, Pyle is obviosly a jerk. Thats to point.
Uba Uba Wrong. The issues are the questions in hand. Whether you think Pyle is a jerk or not is irrelevant. Actually, Craig would be the jerk here in asserting arguments he cannot substantiate. Trying to tie up cutting edge cosmology with the god of the bible? The man is the epitome of an idiot.
@Dd S Mdr, tu a ta lu un livre sur la philosophie et tu veux te comparer ou parler de WLC? Déja, essaye de réfuter ses arguments après tu parle petit con
He didn't proof anything, he just said non senses. Craig used logic. If someone is in disagreement, please tell me, how does the universe tuned itself in such a complicated way? Do objective things exist or not? Is there an absolute truth?
This debate made me stronger in my christian belief.
another point is that the premise of causality is inductive reasoning and dependent on experience and that causal relations are not true a priori
and of course the identy-problem of a first cause. even if one accepts the premise it does not necessarily identify the first cause with a personal deity
I meant the chapter on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, obviously (seeing how that's the only one Sinclair was involved with). That being said, the Leibnizean Argument is even more compelling, in my view, and the Ontological Arguments are absolutely ironclad. You might also enjoy the Teleological chapter, and the Argument from Reason.
Anyway, you don't need to read it if you don't want to. Let's pick an argument, and I'll gladly defend it.
The biblical universe is far different from the universe known today. Consider the solar system. I wonder if Dr. Craig has viewed the picture of the ancient Hebrew firmament? When the bible was written, they thought the earth was flat. Since the bible is divinely inspired, shouldn't God have stepped in and let them know the earth was round. The solar system we know today is far different than the firmament.
That's what I think too, but most Christians would argue with you that the bible was inspired by God, so that's my point.
You're not a typical Christian. Are you Christian at all?
Most Christians are very attached to the bible they rarely read and you're not.
I like your view Lelouch Di Britana, but most Christians,at least in the midwest(bible belt), think it is.
It's all myth.Would that be between the earth and the moon? It just sounds ridiculous.
1b. who's sinclair? and which of the many cyclic models? there's someone called james sinclair with whom craig according to his website is prepering something, but its hard to find an wiki-article about him. hopefully he is not a philosopher or theologian or mathematician or whatever. it helps if one is actually a renowned expert in that field..
And what exactly is Dr. Craig's net worth? Please, do tell and cite your sources. Also make sure to list his charitable contributions while you are at it.
ah yes, we already agreed to that if you read above. I explicitly agreed to this. The term CAN be used to argue the negative but not necessarily. What I was saying was in response to your INITIAL post that the tile of the debate was "framed badly" that there is nothing bad about it BECAUSE a debate consists of someone arguing the affirmative and someone arguing the negative. But be careful because arguing the negative just means at least that they find reason to disagree with the affirmative.
So... we're discussing the cosmological argument, and the finitude of the past... you mentioned Kant, who only discussed this matter in his First Antinomy... so I showed what was wrong with that, and then YOU jumped to the ontological argument! Now, which of these would you like to discuss?
i've checked the online stansford encyclopedia of philosophy on the subject of atheism. the closest i get was an entry from j.j.c.smart entitelt "atheism and agnosticism" and it was rather in form of an esseay and not so much of an common ecyclopedic entry. i think SEoP works more like a library of that sort. quite interesting, if one has the time to go through all those essays.. maybe i'll read the next one there from paul russel: "hume on religion".
Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't think it matters if they are or are not, but it is an important distinction to note.
alright, i wanted to start with the "ironclad" ontological but i remember we did that already. lets see..
1. i'm not sure if being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent altogether is possible.
and..
2. i'm not sure if something that is possible is true.
1:42:20 "a human being dies when the soul is separated from the body"? WHAT?
1b. James Sinclair is a senior warfare analyst, actually, but he also specializes in these cosmological matters. You should read his chapter in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you have an open mind, that is.
1) You not being sure is, frankly, a personal matter. It's possible until some impossibility is demonstrated.
2) Well, you mentioned three properties of the MGB ("maximally-great being"), but it has another: necessary existence. So, if it is even possible that the MGB exists, it follows that the MGB really does exist.
The impossibility of an actually infinite number of things applies to the physical world only, not to the "world" of the metaphysical or supernatural. For example, theoretically there are an infinite number of numbers, which are abstract entities; however, it's impossible to have an infinite number of apples, which are physical objects.
20:07 Lawrence Krauss said 2+2 equals 5
1a. maybe craig forgot to mention it?
philosophically speaking the question of a beginning is not solved at all. it leads to paradoxa in both cases and it is hard to escape infinite regress when dealing with a first cause.
for instance one can ask: "what caused the first cause?" the problem with arguing for it's exemption is that it raises the question of why it is indeed exempt and it seems to lead to some sort of special pleading.
Craig just described infinity (the kind he says can't exist) as a collection of definite and discrete parts. He used this type of infinity before as rebuttal against the universe extending infinitely back in time. But, time isn't definite and discrete, it is continuous, there are no definite parts, at least none that we know of for certain. Did Craig ever take a stats class?
Craig says the number of events can not be infinite, so anything can be an event, as me writing this sentence, so the number of past events can not be infinite, but you could still use seconds or days and that wouldnt make sense either. So yes he knows what he is talking about
Why is it that every time I hear WLC say Gerd Ludemann's name, I start giggling? :)
With the Ganesha elephant god milk "miracles", it seems that people actually saw the statues taking the milk but it was subsequently put down to capillary action. Further support for this was that not all statues took the milk and those that did stopped doing so. So it appears to have been statues that were sufficiently dry and porous.
1) As I've said more than once, Craig primarily uses the philosophical arguments against an infinite past, and these do indeed show the Universe is finite. Also, the cyclic model has serious problems.
2) Teapots are not the kinds of things that can do that.
Bill " the most feared apologist" craig
Hm... WLC isn't a full professor, as far as I understand it.
1:56:05 "alright, take it or leave it.." LOL!
In my view he did so very clearly.
"2+2=4" is just "opinion"
- it depends on your definition of 2 and 4.
Waiting...
1a. there are philosophical arguments in favor of an infinite past as well. i think that i've also said that before..
1b. i suggest you fight it out with its proponents. tell them craig doesn't approve..
2. like what, orbiting?
i haven't had access to F&W coz. its pw-protected. so i guess i stick with oxford, wiki and co. for a more compendious definition..
Truth can be described as the true state of a certain matter, may it be a person, a place, a thing or an event. It is what a person has come to believe. If he believes that something is true, then it is true. It also answers the questions of what’s really happening. In the technical sense, facts can answer certain ‘why’ questions, like ‘where’ or ‘when’, and even ‘how’, while truth answers the question ‘why’.
No, not really. The thing is that quantum mechanics can do stuff without requiring time (yeah that's pretty weird). You should watch some of the videos of Lawrence Krauss, he gives an explanation for the Layman.
Wikipedia and Wiktionary both agreed with me on the etymology. They just also provide the other common usages of the term. But, for the 10th time, you need to actually address my arguments about the distinction of labels and the proper etymology (with which even your sources agree!).
(continued) In fact, Andrew Pyle agrees with me in this video. Check it out: 25:37.
I'm watching this debate by first time and when I saw WLC's opponent, all I could think is "WLC going to lunch him only with two chips" jajajaja
Love the way William Lane Craig told the Audience for those of you who might not of understood Pyles reply let me help you. Pyle had to resort to Sarcasm to make a point
That's not what I'm saying and don't jump to conclusions.
1/3 represents Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
You get one because the three agree as one.
WLC illustrates this well with an analogy to Cerberus.
Who's Richard Hitchens?
Christopher Dawkins' step brother.
One point on the so-called "a priori" nature of some of Craig's premises: It is a precondition of truth that the string of words in question actually make sense. So, if a logical, conceptual, and/or philosophical argument can be given to show that the string of words makes no sense, then that is a very strong premise indeed. (e.g. "an actually infinite (which means "never elapsing") series of events has elapsed prior to now). Call it "a priori" reasoning if you like, but I'd be very surprised if you want to come out and say that a string of words that is meaningless is nevertheless true and should be taken seriously.
33:45 ok, that is actually a really good point
It actually is not. Because good does not come from a command. It stems from God's character Himself.
@@mmorphy4258 interesting.
yes, take care..
I was an undergrad watching this debate all those years ago. At the time an evangelical and now an athiest.
A few things pyle said really stuck with me -
1) Craig's cosmological argument is an attempt to do physics apriori, an approach with an awful track record. Particularly his answer to the question at 1hr 43.
2) the comparison of the evidence for the ganesh milk miracles and the resurrection.
At the time I had no idea what Pyle was going on about with the 20 dimensional hyperspace etc in refuting the design argument. But now knowing my linear algebra and non-linear dynamics I find it pretty compelling!
are you gay ?
@@pankaja7974 irrelevant
1:39:07 "breaking the audience's glass jaw by using words like 'rape' ..."
This student questions the moral argument is an example of what I posted above. It's a good question, but Craig's answer is sufficient.
Good point. The subtlety involves the fact that Jesus actually taught 2 key loving Commandments that also refer back to Moses. It is the definition of loving morality that serves as the foundation stone for any victim of violations, and perpetrator of violations. None of us wants to be violated, but amongst humanity it has become common, and has existed since the evolution of human symbolic culture. It has appeared in important ways elsewhere, with Buddha and perhaps Confucius as examples. And they are important for Christians "seeking the Kingdom of Heaven" to "go and learn..." Jesus´ legacy has had unprecedented achievements, and requires further clarity around the basis of ethics and morality. It requires a shift from church doctrine to the perception of Jesus´ legacy in UN human rights and sustainability for spiritual practice. Jesus´ role is specific and secure in its empirical place. In University-based society, it can achieve the integrity that can then feedback to churches, with synergies like Gandhi demonstrated. He read the Gita and the Bible, and more, as he demonstrated significantly the power of Jesus´ love.
The later question about salvation without knowing Jesus relates to this. Shamans were achieving greater consciousness of God, and had opportunities to appreciate the power of the dynamics of Jesus´ loving Commandments, as the holy Buddha did in his culture. Scientific philosophy gives us the knowledge that things have to be done in cause and effect processes ultimately, with spiritual practice one key to sustaining our conscious contact with God and the salvation of integrity. The tragedy of infanticide amongst the Greeks and Romans, and deaths like Archimedes´ involve the burden of natural existence and efforts to improve it or just have dominators. Jesus´ special role is not without its limitations and needs for its own development. FDR´s and Eleanor´s vision of the UN and human rights have followed University-based society´s legacy to create amazing new levels of opportunities to accomplish Jesus´ teaching "go and learn...", not least of all.
actually that is not just semantics, infinite does not equal eternal. Eternal has no beginning or end, infinity has a starting point
"God" is a very general term. It basically means, the universe has some explanation for its origin. We have no idea what the explanation is. Craig is arguing for the existence of Yahweh, not for the general term "God".
depends on the argument, he does both
The position I hold, which I tried to make clear, is that God is timeless ("atemporal", as you put it quite well) prior to the Universe, BUT He enters time at the instant of creation, and temporal becoming is as real for Him as anything after that point. He is within time, since time began. So the A-theory holds, for as long as their is any "becoming" occuring. Make sense?
51:00 - you cannot use probability when talking about the universe as probability is a relational mathematical paradigm and the universe does not fit into this paradigm as there is nothing to compare it to.
Here's a simple question..:
Is the Father a "1/3-God"???..
You suggested more than that; but we can leave it there if you like. What's astonishing is that this kind of "debate" is being had. Why don't we have a debate between an atheist and somebody that swears Zeus is the true diety? Or Odin? Or a big tree on some mountain?
Btw, you could also say "1 x 1 x 1 = 1 >>> logical"
You multiply because it's only 1 God we are speaking about. If there were three completely different gods then it would be 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 or 1 (god) x 3 (number of different gods).
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 (1 = Trinity) So if you felt compelled to add the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together you wouldn't get 3 different gods, you would get one trinity.
i remember telling you that your problem is not with me but with wiki, oxford and co..
Repeatedly, Pyle's argument is, "I can't explain all these things from history, but I am sure it's not God".
But he doesn't really offer any actual explanation. If people argue that "onus of proof is on the Christians", I'd argue that that is still useless. In science, when we look for an explanation, tearing down bad explanations is important, yes, but you wouldn't be much of a scientist if you don't offer any of your own theories..
Another wonderful showcase of the christian faith
It's not an emotional argument, he's arguing that it seems to be intuitive that torturing is universally wrong (and thus objective) with or without God's existence
"It's not an emotional argument, he's arguing that it seems to be intuitive that torturing is universally wrong"
It's sad really when we ponder this b/c mostly the reason people would "intuitively" act would be based on societal pressures. Things that would lend us advantage or some "not striking out from the set path" that society has set forth. Unfortunately we are then left with "intution" could be true...but it "might" vary from country to country or even town to town.
Intuition exists outside of intelligence levels or culture.
We can find this innate ability to discern right from wrong within us and like I said, it transcends biology and society.
This, it seems, is a conscience.
A God given conscience to know truth of the factual nature, that is, objective morality.
Andrew Pyle has a crazy beard!
The right stance is to see what distinctions are made by the use of labels. If there is no distinction, then a label is superfluous. So, for example, if someone claims to be an atheist, but is NOT claiming "there is no God", and is claiming instead "I just don't know", then their claim is covered by "agnostic", and they should call themselves agnostics. Also, if all they claim is "there is no evidence for God", their claim is compatible with theism OR agnosticism, so it doesn't distinguish them
The question asked of William Craig at 1:54:25 of "How do you account for the people who never had the benefit of hearing Jesus Christ teachings?" Craig's answer - "God judges people on the basis and the response to the information they have. So those who never heard Christ will not be judged on the basis of how they respond to Christ. That would be unfair. But judged on the information that they do have." Wow...
Firstly, God being ALL KNOWING would know who would hear Christ teachings and who would not. Example: God, who according to the Christian bible "knew you before he formed you in the womb." Therefore God who creates life in the womb of a Muslim woman, fully knowing the child born would be raised in a Muslim culture, faith and belief. Never coming to Christianity. Why then would God JUDGE said person? After all, God is The Creator, All knowing, who created that life in the womb. Yes, Mr. Craig that would be an unfair God to "judge" anyone. Craig failed on this answer and several others in my opinion.
It was a bit disappointing at times.
Dr. Craig is a seasoned professional at this and it shows. His command of the available time and the clarity of his arguments was flawless.
Prof. Pyle on the other hand was clearly out if his depth at times and on several occasions resorted to smug dismissals and scoffing at Craig's arguments.
if there is one thing we know its that life adapts.. so there are not one but 5 non sequiturs in the first 15 minutes of his argument. and i didnt even go on to mention how even if jesus did rise it still doesnt mean he has anythign to do with the creator of the universe.
No the comparison is made for you to understand how three can be one. And you don't take all aspects of an analogy literal.
He is like a rock.
That means he is strong. That doesn't mean he is lifeless as well.
You have to know what the analogy is trying to demonstrate.
Dude WLC is undefeated in his debates, and he uses many of the same arguments, depending on the subject of the debate, over and over and no one can beat him.
Besides being a brilliant & clear Philosopher & Theologian, in his graciousness & kindness, William Lane Craig is kind of like a Christian Mr. Rogers. Both WL Craig & Mr. Rogers might be seen as weak &/ or vulnerable by virtue of their gentleness but both are strong & masculine men in the truest sense of the word. ❤
Richard Hitchens?? Did you mean Christopher Hitchens? Richard is his brother and a theist.
I'd say he's argument were refuted very nicely by Arif Ahmed and about the morality subject, by Shelly Kagan and Louise Antony.
Craig did a very good job, as usual. I do wish he wouldn't use the Argument from Experience, which he admits is not an argument. Even if his opponent embraced everything Craig says about his own experience, it would only follow that William Craig in particular is rationally justified in his belief in God. No one in the audience came to find that out, and it doesn't hurt atheism at all to think that people are rationally justified to believe in their religious experiences.
But the other arguments are great, and while Pyle was much better than many others (especially at understanding that atheism is a negative claim, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but he was no match.
I know this is an old comment of yours but I think Christians have a duty to some degree to mention the personal evidence from experience. In debate you're not just trying to win, you are persuading the audience. As a Christian you want people to understand that personal experience is important for belief and faith. It's required in some way actually. Logic isn't required but it is a stumbling block for some and that is the reason for a Christian to debate.
"Dubious and devious," eh? If there is no veracity to his philosophical points, there should be no challenging in defeating his logic. Please, pick a point and attack.
I did not state that Dr. Craig had never made a weak argument. I simply have not seen any debate (I have watched several - many of them more than once) where his points have been refuted by those whom he was challenging. Would you care to point one out? I would love to watch it.
William Lane Craig vs Gomer Pyle
"Well Golly"
1a. Kant's thesis is almost universally rejected; Craig doesn't need to bother with it (though he actually does briefly mention it in this video, asking Pyle if he really wants to endorse it, and Pyle quickly says "no!").
There is only a paradox in the case of an infinite past; not in the case of a first cause. By the nature of a "FIRST cause", it doesn't have any cause, and exists necessarily. There is no special pleading in the distinction between "necessary" and "contingent" beings.
wikipedia gives also room for a broader and narrower sense and an inclusive meaning. it also goes into further classifications, like positive and negative or implicit or explicit.
so maybe the right stance is to ask an atheist to define his position rather to define it for him.
Oh ghost are real... i already saw a few. in fact, one of the souls i saw is my grandfathers soul. It's wonderful^_^
The question is.. why were they killed???
they are arguments, there is absolutely no doubt. so just say why you think they are circular