Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Debate Highlights - "Does God Exist?" William Lane Craig vs Stephen Law
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2012
- Extracts from the full presentation, which can be viewed at: • "Does God Exist?" Will...
"Does God Exist?" William Lane Craig vs Stephen Law. This debate, followed by audience Q&A, was held at Westminster Central Hall, London during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour.
More videos from the tour can be viewed at: / reasonablefaithtour
More videos of Dr Craig's work can be viewed at:
/ drcraigvideos
Production of this presentation is sponsored by The Christian Evidence Society: www.christianev...
WLC won.
Yep I love this dude. I admire W. Craigs wisdom.
This was an embarrassing performance by Law.
Law's performance in this debate was truly abysmal. All he could do was to say that, given an amoral argument such as the cosmological argument, one can't prove that God is good, all the while ignoring Bills arguments and refusing to engage at all with any one of them. His whole strategy of "not being steered into an argument" was really just a cop out of actually fulfilling his duty as the opponent.
2:49 that simple answer was quite moving!!
Yea...he won...lol. What a great debate philosophy...show up and refuse to engage the arguments.
Good question. Part of the conclusion of the Cosmological argument is that the one who caused the universe to exist is Himself uncaused. In other words, God is eternal, meaning that not only does He have no end, but also no beginning. Hope this helps :)
Yep... as expected...
no argument from you at all.
Congratulations.
Not really. I appluad Law's honesty in this respect. The cosmological argument and teleological argument (fine tuning) is something that requires a scientific mind as is best answered by physicists e.g. Krauss, Stenger, Carroll, Weinberg, Mlidnow, Cox, Susskind, Kaku, Mlidnow and others.
Of course, there are certain pjilosophers who specialise in this area who could have answered those questions e.g. Baginni.
I think Law was ill prepared to answer those questions.
"bring it on..." That was Law's job.
Amen my dear brother in Christ.
In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth.
Beautiful.
Jesus is Lord.
I am glad someone realizes that Law didn't have to engage with the Kalam to win the debate. Most people seem confused about the topic that was being discussed.
Maybe I'm not seeing something, I don't see a logical reason for one to go from God not having a first cause to nothing at all having a first cause, since God would be the first cause of the universe. As far as the idea of the universe being eternal, I'm not sure if Dr. Craig mentioned this in this video or in another one, but modern cosmology and astrophysics both support that the universe had a finite beginning (in addition to fine-tuning), and therefore can not be eternal.
I was just saying that if everything has to have a first cause then surely someone would have had to cause God? (Otherwise everything having a first cause would defeat the point at the start) Also if God is an exception to not having a first cause then surely could it not have been the universe itself that did not have a first cause and just came into existence by chance. If you have all the components of a watch and drop them there is a small chance they will fall into place no designer needed
I know.. weird isn't it?
It's like people don't even listen to the debate
Shortly summarize how it's so depressing and I want to point ou that views on those existential questions. Which concepts one want to put together, even if it's pessimistic isn't the only thing that matters when i comes to joy in life. There are people who get joy from relationships with other people. Food, entertainment, exciting activeties, like parlour games. I can g on and on. Whether one spends ones life brooding about the bad stuff or not is the question. Deal with it or live with it.
Ah but in the case of the creator not having a first cause then everything does not have a first cause, therefore the universe could exist in the same way God does and be eternal with no beginning as well :)
I worry about the credibilty of people who need three names
If everything has a first cause then what's Gods first cause...
Everything that exist has an explanation of it’s existence either in the necessity of it’s own nature or in an external cause is what the premise is
I ask everybody on RUclips to answer this question, "Does GOD have a NEED to create human?" YES or NO. Why he does and why he doesn't.
Once Law answers the KCA presented by Craig. Imagine showing up for a big event like this and refusing to engage one of your opponents primary arguments. This is why he lost the debate.
Please.. bring it on...
I can't find anyone who'll engage.
As soon as I challenge someone to explain what was wrong with Law's argument, they clam up and run away.
Care to join that list?
Imagine not understanding that the KCA was irrelevant to the outcome of the debate.
If I said you were wrong about the debate because I didn't like your avatar...
You don't need to respond to that to prove that you're right.
Why?
Because it's irrelevant.
Now Craig admits this in the debate, so you're actually disagreeing with Craig as well.
Law won.
Anything else?
unreal that an otherwise intelligent man could argue that animals don't truly suffer b/c of a finding regarding the pre frontal cortex. almost as bad as his saying it was OK for the children of the amalekites to be slaughtered b/c it was 'better for them' to die than to live in sin.
Why was winning the debate embarrassing?
Law won the debate, and you clearly don't understand why.
"Does GOD have a NEED to create human?"
No, but humans have a need to create gods.
Wow.. you really missed the entire point didn't you?
Not them... although they do have more credibility.
Go Stephen Law!
No.. he really didn't.
Law won the debate...Craig couldn't demonstrate the moral nature of the creator. Well Done LAW!!!