William Lane Craig vs Andrew Pyle: "Does the Christian God Exist?" Bristol, UK; 2007
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- 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.reasonablef...
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.
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).
@@HainishMentat 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.
@@HainishMentat 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.
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.
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
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. ❤
Always like listening to WLC. He is awesome
Pyle was severely outgunned in this debate. His entire presentation was:
"I have no reasons why, but you're wrong." He seems to have no understanding of elementary argumentation. He comes off huffy, arrogant, insulting and convoluted. Indeed he typifies the 'new atheists' so prevalent these days. Classical Logic and Philosophy have suffered greatly in our modern educational institutions.
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.
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.
This debate is between dismissive and arrogant cynicism vs. Reasoned, systemic arguments. I thank God that he kept me from the trap of atheism, it is the worst game of cosmic Russian roulette in existence.
You are thanking god for making you look stupid on the internet? Why? :-)
Amen
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..
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. 👍
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
Dr Craig was awesome!
We know that there are minerals, plants, and animals.
Plants need minerals and energy to survive. Animals need plants and/or other animals to survive.
God, on the other hand, doesn't need anything and lives for ever and ever on nothing. Magic !
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.
"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.
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.
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.
William Lane Craig vs Gomer Pyle
"Well Golly"
Dr. Craig wins.
by virtue of solid, coherent
arguments...
No matter who's in front of Craig he recites his old poem, regardless of the calls for proof from the other side. What a waist of time, see him once and know his entire life snake oil trade.
I love Dr Craig.
You could propose him.
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.
wow, thank goodness someone has a good meta ethical understanding, thank you sir!!!!!!!
He looks smart. He talks smart. There really is a God !
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.
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.
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.
Atheists want me to define God down and out as they do so I too can prove eternal life with God does not exist for me.
Bill " the most feared apologist" craig
Colors are actually a perfect example of objective vs subjective. Scary that Dr. Pyle thinks otherwise.
Dr craig was on fire as usual..
The Q&A was very interesting
Good points.
Quite liked what Pyle had to say and the way he said it. Enjoyed his portion of the debate.
wondering the same thing myself
All Andrew Pyle does is personally attack, and he is so aggressive
Atheist debaters always come across as the most miserable people. It's sad.
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?
A woman's soul trapped inside William Lane Craig or a pure gay.
This debate made me stronger in my christian belief.
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
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.
I agree, Darell, Jason's message length proves that you are right in all things.
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.
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
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)?
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
Mr. Mclennan you are a fantastic moderator.
Jesus Christ is indeed Lord and Saviour of our souls !!!
Oh but my repairman lives. He died for you too.
His resurrection is well established. Both you and I must meet Him one day.
Craig is a very wise man. You could learn a great deal.
You need to look into Dr. Craig’s credentials.
Time will tell.
God's existence isn't a philosophical question. Pointless. You can't philosophise something supernatural into existence. It either exists and shows up with a good excuse for where it has been, or it doesn't. So far, it hasn't.
You aren’t making it exist by the argument, you are showing it to exist by the argument.
@@grosty2353 They're not though are they, because the arguments are so woefully inadequate. Pointless
@@houmm08 way to assert your position without evidence!
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.
Can't people from other religions/faiths claim the same thing? They think you're mistaken just like you think they're mistaken.
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.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't think it matters if they are or are not, but it is an important distinction to note.
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.
"2+2=4" is just "opinion"
- it depends on your definition of 2 and 4.
Andrew Pyle says we should ditch the terms objective and subjective. And then at 1:01:21 he says he has "a very high subjective probability". So apparently he has not abandoned all usage of the term himself.
He is using the terms in very different contexts. When he says "very high subjective probability" he is referring to Bayesian statistics. The empty tomb is a singular event, and therefore to think of this in terms of frequentism is meaningless.
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
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.
being on and a half hours into it, so far Andrew Pyle somehow manages to sound good, but he really doesn't provide really much substance.
(continued) In fact, Andrew Pyle agrees with me in this video. Check it out: 25:37.
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?
Where is the rest of the debate?
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
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.
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.
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..
Watching out of curiosity because Dr. Craig lists this as one of his worst experiences debating.
He's lost on morality against Keagan, on the NT text against Ehrman and on Christianity in general against Parsons. If you do not concede ANY as losses, you are a fanboy, like someone saying Hitchens "hitchslapped" everyone he's ever debated.
Why don't you name me a few things Craig has said that is wrong, hm? Or is he irrefutably right about everything?
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.
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
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
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.
actually that is not just semantics, infinite does not equal eternal. Eternal has no beginning or end, infinity has a starting point
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.
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?
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.
In the limited context of the WLC/Atkins debate, you're right. But in the larger Christian context faith is absolutely fundamental. Read Hebrews ch. 11. Whatever WLC might say in a debate, Christian doctrine contains massive appeals to, and commendations of, faith.
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.
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’.
Missing my point, I meant that if scientists must be 100% objective you cant use arguments involving terms like "childish" because they are subjective. You have an emotional response that makes things seem absurd and silly. That is not objectivity. That's being a slave to you're emotions and thus EXTREMELY subjective.
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?
Let me clarify "Three, distinct, portions of water."
Three portions of water (Each portion has one molecule of H2O) = 3 persons that are God. Not 3 distinct Gods. (If you have 3 seperate molecules of H2O all you have are three molecules that are God.)
Distinct, I added because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but only 1 God. I used a gem as an example that would set one portion of H2O distinct from another portion. You can use any example of 1 distinct object in each portion.
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!).
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.
I’m so much happier and my life is much more meaningful since leaving religion, particularly Christianity. No yoke is lighter than one removed.
Here's a simple question..:
Is the Father a "1/3-God"???..
I’ve watched many debates with WLC and I’m amazed at how often he’ll start his segments with, “We still haven’t heard any good reasons to believe that God does not exist.” This exact statement, after he’s just heard countless good reasons from a host of debaters arguing the opposite viewpoint. Some reasons presented are not so good and some are amazing, but in every instance, his flat beginning is that we haven’t heard any good reasons when in fact we have. The reason he does this is to pander to his audience- to maintain the aura of control in the conversation- to dismiss any good points that may or may not have been made. The other reason for this- and this is the main reason- is that the God hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Meaning- there’s nothing anyone can say to contradict God, the miracle, or any of the scriptures or stories. It’s all made up- so how can you oppose it. Imagine WLC advocating for the existence of unicorns. How can you falsify that claim? YOU CAN’T!!! This is the beauty of religion. It’s a claim that you cannot falsify so going into a debate with WLC (or anyone) to argue the existence of God is a fruitless exercise. This appears to give WLC the upper hand in these debates because he’s so articulate and well versed in his ideology that he comes across as convincing. The true skeptic can see through the smoke and mirrors however, that’s all religion is; a method of control to keep the masses in line and in time, it will be obsolete. More and more people are using their common sense and are choosing atheism over Christianity.
blah blah blah
Nah
@@UniteAgainstEvil good rebuttal
@@_Kroaken_ uhhh yea
No one said science must be 100% objective. Science is as objective as physically possible. For instance, we know objectively that gravity does exist. But no scientist could ever claim 100% absolute knowledge on gravity.
But the main point (and probably the point which you will ignore) is that saying "childish" is an attack on how you are acting. It bears no effect on any other scientific arguments which may be presented. You cant use a single world to discredit all the other arguments.
Andrew Pyle has a crazy beard!
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.
20:07 Lawrence Krauss said 2+2 equals 5
Dr Craig wins by ending up with the biggest bank balance….
I guess because he writes good smart books that people like to buy. I would bet Dawkins, Harris and Krausse have made some good bank selling books, but I doubt you have a problem with that.
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.
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.
"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.
"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
@ 53:03 Craig says "Do elephants objectively exist ? Yes they do. If there no human being to to think about them, there would still be elephants.They have objective mind independent existence.
- So, Craig is saying that morals are the same kinds of things as elephants. And he doesn't think that objective and subjective muddies the discussion. I think Craig is a moron.
I don't think Craig should use the argument (which he admits isn't really an argument) from experience. It's a distraction and a non-sequitur in the context of this sort of debate. But his other arguments are quite good and Pyle was no match for him.