Видео

Those who claimed to see Elvis after he died were scattered, few, and not sincere. Those who claimed to see Jesus Christ were many, including all the apostles, lived in the Holy Land, and were sincere. The idea our fine tuned, functional, productive, and awe inspiring universe could be created out of nothing, by nothing, is laughable. Human beings have an innate knowledge of God, who only hides from the arrogant, narcissistic, manipulative, selfish, spiteful, and deceitful.

How does peter say "we don't jump to conclusions in science"...when we all know they ALWAYS DO when their atheistic or faith-based speculation has repeatedly caused one false claim assumption after another throughout the history of science. Peter, do you have selective AMNESIA? Flat earth much? Geocentrism Much? Covid-19 "evolved" Much? Science is a history of MAKING FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and jumping to conclusions! Did you not see all the information now debunking DARWINISM that you Hilariously still ascribe to? Lol! The hypocrisy of his false bravado, and delicious irony of the UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE disproving his faithful belief in Darwinism is PRICELESS! 😉🤣🤣🤣

Did anyone notice that Peter at the 1:01: mark is discussing how we know the amount of energy in the universe that he calls COLLOSSAL...and then suddenly starts SUBTRACTING for gravity...as if gravity is not a FORCE and source of enormous energy!😂😂😂 Hilarious! His assumptions are comical. Peter, are you trying to say gravity is not a source of energy? Or is it that that you simply don't believe in the SCIENCE which plainly shows us GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY? Do you think the energy contained in atomic particles is not the energy described in e=mc²? Peter, would you like to explain why then we must subtract a DIFFERENT form of energy from the values of matter itself??? It is either one or the other that gravity comes feom, the cumulative body, or the individual particles. Both display different energy. Which are you accounting for.peter...SHOW ME THE MATH you merely FEEL is there "supporting" a false statement that you know that philosopher WLC will not attempt to debunk! An atomic bomb is a good example of the energy holding matter together. Bodies held together via GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY is not the same energy as the atomic energy holding the quantum particles together. We subtract GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY when it's potential is decreased. Unfortunately, for you Peter, the potential is UNCHANGED and unrelated to the energy held within particles! Just because there are confused scientists who struggle mathematically and cant understand the difference, doesn't mean you have to play along. All energy is POTENTIAL until spent. Making gravity a "negative" is a cop-out. Blowing apart atoms or blowing apart a planetary mass are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT energy problems Peter! And yet... you didn’t understand that fact! You merely combined on the mass of the bodies. The panetary bodies' particles themselves ALSO have their own energy. It makes zero sense to subtract out what SOME OUTSIDE FORCE obviously put into place at the start. That is CHEATING. The inflaton field is mythology people! There is ZERO scientific evidence via any scientific methodology that proves that another source of energy wasn't necessary! The inflaton fieldnproves there WAS! Its only a "trust me bro" moment with the physicists who forget their own dirty laundry also stinks. The reason they cannot resolve Einstein's theory with the inflaton field nonsense is because they ASSUME FAITHFULLY that no other force from without was used within! A creator can account for what we OBSERVE...but silky atheist scientists only look at creators as entirely of human origin which they BELIEVE BY FAITH are a product of accidental, undirected, "fortunate" events... all in a closed system that doesn’t even allow for any of their "good fortune" to be inserted. But they do so anyways because they feel you people are too stupid to notice their cheats. No one can account for the WHY of gravity. No one can claim that inserting GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY into a void doesn't add energy! It certainly doesn't SUBTRACT energy. Just because mathematicians like to balance out the physicists FLAWED big bang model by subtracting for gravitational energy doesn’t make it correct! THINK!

Theists in the comments coping hard. None of the world religions is or has ever been true guys. Time to pack it in, magic's not real

I dont know if Atkins or Dawkins is the more annoying one. Even if you are an atheist, they just suck..

And yes there is a world where knowledge of god brings the maximum number of believers to him despite knowing he exists. It’s called heaven and the dissenter is the angel Satan!

Craig is an outright liar! The philosophical literature on morality and objective morals is dominated by atheist / secular groundings! Indeed they dominate to such an extent that theistic explanations and contributors are regarded as a fringe activity. He has everything backwards and he relies on believers not to fact check his lies!!!

WLC is has an obnoxiously inflated ego. That’s why he manipulates meaning with a shovel and not precise tweezers.

For christ's resurrection ,Atkins is right... we've no sold evidences... anecdotes aren't evidence 'cause they're often driven by personal prejudice and may be a bit exaggeration

Every word of Dr.Atkins worths claps 👏🏻

Dr. William Lane Craig is excellent and a true authority in the remarkable story and sources in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ God Himself. Thank you Dr. Craig for your insight and excellent mind and spirit with God.

Just because you say something is undisputeable, doesn't mean it is in fact undisputeable😂

The Q&A was very interesting

Why you're all giving credence to God haters I don't know Neither Dawkins nor deceased Hitchens has more than a school boys cursory understanding of the Bible and Ancient and archeological history of the regions murderous rampaging canaanite culture. And little of anything else. The best they can do is list invectives. Only because they occupy public consciousness are they given attention . The comparison in logic, but only shows more their objections objections are rhetorical at best. .

The bus in the intro says "there's probably no Dawkins " 😂😂😂

It is too sad how the anglican church has fallen in London. Allowing lgbtq community to enter on the church

William Lane Craig is much more style than substance. He is an experienced debater, makes good use of his time, has good organization and so forth. However, I ultimately think that Millican has better arguments. His main shortcoming is that he is inexperienced as a public debater. But to say that he lost here is not right IMO. I really like Peter Millican and thought he did great here.

Because God is fair God not unfair God ... there none Evil there only Good but Evil always around Good cause they can't exist without Good on earth Evil is the opportunity demons with in who choose good or Evil /God was both good and evil Satan was Just born all pure evil that the difference between God power and Satan power God can be alive in both world Satan can't be in both world he can only be in one world underworld underneath The red sea where the fallen angel frozen deep down in the ocean / Satan was alien fallen angel , God was human Angel superhuman he had human Angel made from we are people in this world we are all human Angel from God Satan don't have a body he has exchanged into demons Satan can be no human he can only be a Spirt, God can be alive and Spirt same time he can show him self defense and offensive God always been alive he can't not die cause he not spirt he something deeper then spirt /I saw God in human form before he call me on The phone from heaven once I seen his face and heart and body /satan he can't show his face cause he demon see in the beginning of time there was none Evil /God call me on Zoom from Heaven God is higher then Heavens there none Evil God There only Good God /God is Everywhere see if You take out fish from sea it dies if you take tree from soil the tree dies if you take human from God human dies /

Pyle looked like he wished he was any where but their.

Multiple universes is an extraordinary claim. And you know what they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I pasted Craig’s argument below. It is not convincing to me. if you decide that Jesus had post-mortem appearances then You have already decided that he was a god. Does any verifiable evidence even exist for I, ii or iii? If you take that away, Craig has no argument. Craig tries to illuminate by saying something along the lines that even deniers(think doubting Thomas) Eventually conceded Jesus had risen. But, isn’t that exactly the kind of embellishment one might add to sell the narrative? There are simpler explanations to I, ii, iii. These are mine not Atkins’, but Atkins presented good reasons why we should not accept Craig’s argument. Jesus was not the first or last historical figure who appeared resurrected from the dead. There’s not much evidence that Jesus was even buried in a tomb or that any of these things even happened. The witnesses were superstitious and ignorant people already part of the Jesus cult. Regarding Craig's thesis here: A. There are good reasons to assume theism is True. B. There are no good reasons to assume atheism is True. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result, then theism is pretty insane. So yes, there's literally thousands of years of human failure in theism The Resurrection of Jesus(Craig’s argument below) 1. There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: i. The discovery of his empty tomb ii. His post-mortem appearances iii. The origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection. 2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts. 3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists. 4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

Peter Atkins is blunt, does not mince his words and is the epitome of plain commence sense over religious nonsense.

Sadly Dr Atkins never presented a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe just avoided Dr Craig's challenge.

I love how Dr Craig destroyed atheist Peter Atkins on the Existence of God.

Atkins entire arguement reduces down to "Religious people are dumb."

William Craig sounds very much like and talks at the same rate as Bill Maher..

@den8863 Craig is taking a practical real limited situation and fusing it with infinity, creating a distant opaque cloud which he operates on reality within the obscure cloud, with processes that blind his audience. He is equalising the outcome of two different processes by taking them both to infinity, which is absolutely ridiculous and the result of a mad intellect. He is a fool, and trying to create an illusion that at infinity everything is equal, and practical analyses become insignificant. Then when he accepts the processes of infinity, he introduces God ! It is a play with words and language drugs. He keeps talking and talking, taking people into an opaque cloud which blankets all logical vision, and it is his vocabulary which people admire and not the substance of what he describes. Craig is an expert in language symbols , but no language symbols can ever describe reality. Craig has a habit of trying to describe the colour "red" to a blind man through using vociferous language symbols, but no blind man can ever see the red colour through applying language symbols. In silence, the colour red will still exists, as it is a particular frequency in the Electromagnetic field spectrum. hence part of the Energy God, of which we are all made in its image, in either Energy or Mass form.

@William Lane Craig. As for morality, it is possible for an "unguided process" of evolution to result in a person having more sensitive and selective sensors to pain/suffering and pleasure, so he could weigh up the fact that it would be better not to cause pain to others. The brain cells , hence the mind of a tiger is not sensitive to the pain of a prey. The basis of morality is whether one has sensitive enough pain sensors . The rest is processing how to use pain and pleasure to on self and other people around him.

Craig is confused, lies, and misrepresents the evidence against. He's entirely unserious.

See my rebuttal of Dr. Atkins' premise by searching: article, "The scientific Impossibility of Our Universe Creating Itself."

Has there ever been a more ignorant and closed-minded man than Peter Atkins? Richard Dawkins excluded.

I am 86. I consider God as the most evident Entity in the universe. Personally I consider God as a good, silent, mysterious friend that has, sometimes, helped me when asked or not . I have composed a little poem, some 50 years ago, that I like you to read. I see in this little poem, reality, mine, yours and of everything. The title is Eternity. I have been the sky and I have been the sea. I have been the wind and I have been the tree. This is why I know that I was, that I am and that when I die, my quantic atoms that contain God, will become part of billions of bodies, like the stars, the mountains, even, occasionally, a human body, for billions of years. This is the reality of existence, ours and of everything in the universe. Some people like, and need, transcendental realities.

William Lane Craig is another liar for money... but he DOES accept the fact of ape to man evolution.

I disagree with Dr. Craig’s views beginning at 13:03. The NT writers in particular indicate not only that Christ’s saving events are reliably-true, but that we are to be comforted by that very reality. The Holy Spirit’s work is not to create a confidence that is independent of the facticity of Christ’s death followed by His resurrection, but instead to mysteriously break through our sinfully-hard hearts in order to become receptive of the facts. Am I missing something?

The scientifically-substantiated fact of the Big Bang singlehandedly demolishes Peter Atkins' claim of a universe coming into existence by naturalistic causes. Absolute physical nothingness prior to the "zero-volume" cosmic beginning lacks any possible means to produce anything.

Great debate.

Without watching a second of this video, I predict that Craig says that Hawking did NOT eliminate God.

Who actually likes peter?😂😂😂

Peter...the consummate jerk.

anybody who says that the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances of Jesus are as probable as the death of Augustus is lying. its as simple as that.

Great Debate between to experts in their profession

So... Morality is socio-cultirally relative because of evolution--except in the case of Hitler. That's where we draw the line...that was really wrong. Please, Dr. Atkins, the only thing fortunate about the special pleading was that it happened right at the end of the event's clock time.

Alan Guth said in an interview in Scientific American that he believes that the universe does not have a beginning: "What was there before inflation started? That is something I have been thinking about in the context of a paper that I’m writing with Sean Carroll [at Caltech]. *The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain.*"

There are atheists in science and Christians. Very simple answer.

WLC argument for the existence of god always use the anonymously written gospels based on unknown sources and the much-debunked Kalam argument...So boring...

As a Christian believe in God and Jesus. But I also respect anybody who is a Atheist and their views, but sadly Law with his good God Evil God was just pure waffle and Nonsense. To blame God for all the evils of the world over million of years was utter tripe. Atheists like Dennet,Millican,Kitchens and others speak sense all though I don't agree with them

Law like Carrier are mad as hatters.

This wasn't a debate. Craig wiped the floor with Law.

Again WLC asserts there is objective evil in the world but does not provide example.

WLC asserts objective morality but has never given an example. Can anyone give an example of an objective moral law? Much less one given to us by an objective moral law giver?