The best way to “argue” with anyone is to: 1. Have a civil dialogue 2. Don’t assume ill intentions 3. Don’t assume their beliefs 4. Don’t assume their history 5. Be opened minded enough to assume YOU could be wrong. 6. Be clear on definitions. 7. Lastly, no one is above or below a discussion. It isn’t necessary to have a doctorate or degree of any variant to have a productive conversation. Everyone is worth discussion
All valid points. I think on the last point, Dr. Craig was more or less saying he wants to have serious debates and conversations with those who are the very best on the opposing side.
Andy S I understand he wants quality conversations but a degree won’t guarantee that. I’d be curious to know if Mr. Craig would deny a conversation to Sacrates because he didn’t have a degree? There’s a ton of intelligent thinkers that don’t have degrees
@@flyguy2617 I actually agree. I think he debated Hitchens who was a journalist, so to Dr. Craig's point, it more about quality opponents. He wants to debate the best
Andy S Hitchens was a journalist but Hitchens was educated at Leys School in Cambridge and Balliol College in Oxford. At Oxford he did his major in philosophy, politics and economics. I know Matt Dillahunty has been trying to debate him for years but WLC refuses due to lack of a degree...I’d love to see the conversation
Remember the goal of a Christian debate with non-believers is not to win the debate but rather to win souls. If you keep this in mind you will not loose your composure and you will utimately plants seeds of Truth and gain a victories for God. Amen!
@Blue Skeptic While I don't share your very own devoutly faithful religious (e.g atheistic) beliefs, I'm sure you're a sincere believer. May the eternal Truth Himself bless you and keep your immortal soul safe from damnation.
@Ben Love I don't know. Craig sort of comes off pretty snooty here and honestly like he's not even after people's hearts, but just after an intellectual challenge.
@Vincent Kinney I understand that part, however I am of the opinion that many people could also use the more basic knowledge of the faith. Jesus taught to the Sadducees and Pharisees, but he also did not neglect to teach the lowliest of questioner. He cared about them all equally. I don't remember one time he scoffed at people, not even the woman who referred herself to a dog under the table.
Brando William lane Craig has a website, and I have seen were people have asked him questions and he written lengthy responses in order to help them understand. I don’t think he would turn down anyone with questions. the website is called reasonablefaith
Unfortunately both are actually not very good at debates. Dawkins is a teacher, and just doesn't have a very effective way of debating. Hitch8, while witty and hilarious, had his one liners and talking points but unfortunately rarely addressed what his opponents said in a meaningful way, preferring jokes and emotional peals. It really hurt him in a debate with Turek, if I recall correctly. He didn't shoot down assertions that Turek made regarding biology, so they went unanswered and incorrect. Here, he mentioned them for their prior celebrity. That seems a strange talking point as it deals with the meta of a debate. In a clip supposedly for giving tips for actually debating atheists, he should have addressed arguments. All of the clear and well established criticism of his and other apologist arguments. As he mentioned reading his opponents' work, he would encounter some people who have specifically refuted his arguments. One fair tip would be to not debate physicists on cosmology. Philosophy doesn't touch that anymore beyond logic. His debates with physicists highlight this.
@@noahm44 you mean their arguments? I'm having trouble following you as you might be talking about the men, things they said, things I said, etc. Can you be a little more specific/contextual?
"For anyone who wants to have this kind of ministry, preparation is going to be critical, and then what they need to do as well is they need to get some experience; they need to take a course on debating techniques, and then they need to do mock debates before they ever go into a public debate. Otherwise they risk losing and dishonoring the Gospel." Very illuminating that this is how Craig sees debates.
He is all style over substance. He floods the zones with convoluted assertions, knowing that with limited time, no skilled debated prepared for the topic will have the tone to address them all and also make and pursue his own assertions. It is an intellectually dishonest gimmick. Dillahunty would be the one to go at this first and defang Craig, then make assertions putting the onus of proof on Craig for evidence for all of Craig’s claims. That is the real reason Craig dodges dillahunty, as he sees the executioner…
@@MrMCN1963 bro shut up lol why do you go starting debates??? This guy is talking about how Craig views debates and you start saying a bunch of rude stuff.
William lain Craig is a pretty bad debater he is so dishonest and commits the strawman fallacy constantly and I love how the other guy says that many people believe he won the debate lol. Christians think he won an non Christians think he lost. But also, the confidence that most Christians have that their God exists is comparable to the fact that if you go out into the rain you get wet. And a debate like that would last 5 minutes. Define what it means to be wet in this case and then bring up certain cases where going out in the rain doesn't make you wet in the accepted definition. But you can't do this for God even with a loose definition of God. I mean these guys Litterally go to school to learn how to make a case for their God. And still can't do it in a way that doesn't commit multiple fallacious arguments that's why one of the newer points are "you can't prove your not just a brain in a vat" so basically saying "my God has the answers to everything and since I can claim acces to ultimate knowledge and you can't that means I win" which is just so wrong. If God was real then we aren't just a brain in a vat and are still not convinced of a God because there is no evidence for a God. So that means God really doesn't want us to know him or else he would show himself or.kill a Bunch of ppl like in the Bible. And if God doesn't exist then it really doesn't matter if we are just a brain in a vat because our experiences in life affect us. We feel pain and that's not a good feeling so we avoid it and we feel pleasure and go towards it but we also have to presuppose that other people are having this same experience so we try to avoid things that cause them pain and if you are actually the only one who experiences these things it still matters cause you could find yourself locked away in jail or in a mental hospital. It should be pretty easy to prove the God of the Bible just pray for something specific under the certain specifications in the Bible that guarantees that your prayers will be answered and if they aren't then no biblical God, and no saying that God is just testing you or it must not be in God's plan. Okay so why tf are you praying in the first place. What power does it actually have. Ppl are praying for their sick child to get better then they die because "God needed another angel in heaven" or some bs like that but if that sick child lives after being treated by a team of doctors "God is so great he saved my child he must have big plans for him/her" I grew up with a kid. Very religious and he got cancer it Got so bad that he even got to do the make a wish thing. And got a pretty sweet outdoor basketball court out of the deal. But when he went into remission him and his parents praised God all up and down like he was truly responsible for saving their child. But guess what years later her became a drug dealer and addict and sold drugs to people that resulted in multiple deaths. It's been about 20 years since he went into remission and 10 since he became an addict. There's no greater plan and even if there was what would it be for? To have as much people love him as possible but we aren't even aloud to see him? I think it's time to call catfish and see if this God is really who he says he is.
This is so sad why do they have to “train” for debates or learn “techniques” it’s like they don’t even care about what’s true or not it’s just about winning I thought debates were meant to gain new insight and even possibly change one’s own mind not for deploying strategies and remembering tricks to “win”
The problem is that, although WLC doesn't consider these guys to be worth pushing back against, they have great influence and legions of obnoxious fans stroking their egos.
@@therealhardrock True. I think this is the case of "treat not the fool according to his folly". These people don't listen and don't want to listen. Talking with them will only increase their support. Or hopefully not. There are many honest ones out there, but as we all know, a quick look at the RUclips comments shows you what type of people you're dealing with.
@@bentonvillefamily of what specifically? Condescending attitude? The insistence of going first in the debate? Use of the Gish Gallop technique? Avoiding direct responses to direct questions (that might fall outside the narrow subject of the debate)? Make no mistake, WLC is a skilled debater and apologist, - I give him that. One should fully expect to witness a, 'rigidly controlled' contest taking place on stage, again, with WLC insisting on being given opening comments to 'set the table' and lay out his arguments so his opponent will feel compelled to respond specifically. However, for many truth seekers, I think the highly circumscribed, adversarial format is getting stale and many folks welcome a more relaxed, open and honest, 'free form' conversation that goes wherever it may. I've listened to dozens of full length WLC debates and it didn't take long to pick up on his style and pattern but again, the format often deprives the listener from honest conversations that would be far more valuable and illuminating IMHO.
Is William Lane Craig dishonest? TL;DR: No. Internet atheists may have a low opinion of him in terms of honesty or intelligence, but thankfully, this opinion is largely NOT shared by his atheist peers in philosophy and other academic atheists. Academics respect Craig as a serious philosopher and credit his work. Is he intelligent? He's a respected philosopher, yes. Quentin Smith writes, "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence." In atheist philosopher Graham Oppy's "Arguing About Gods", Craig is cited 23 times in the references; more times than anyone save Oppy himself. He has a huge section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy dedicated to his KCA (about a 4th of the article on the cosmological argument). Dishonest? (Atheists academics who say Dr. Craig is NOT dishonest) - Lawrence Krauss (Atheist Physicist) - At first we can notice the very reason that Krauss went to Australia and had the “discussions” was to expose William Lane Craig as dishonest. In an interview before the event, he is asked the question, “What’s the point of debates like this?” Here is part of his reply: “In this particular case, I also do it because I happen to think William Lane Craig abuses science and says many, many, many things that are not only disingenuous but untruthful, but recognizes that his audience won’t know that. So one of the reasons I like to do these, and certainly why I agreed to allow the first one to be videotaped, is to demonstrate explicitly examples of where he says things that he knows to be manifestly wrong, but also knows that the audience won’t have access to the information.” But after more discussion with Craig, surprisingly Krauss changes his mind. He says, “I’ve listened to Dr. Craig over the days, and I’ve changed my opinion. I’m much more charitable. I came here convinced, based on my past interactions and his writings, that Dr. Craig is a dishonest charlatan. But I don’t believe that. I think Dr. Craig earnestly believes deeply, in the issues he is talking about -- so deeply, and as a man of great intelligence, he is convinced that there must be a reason" - Christopher Hitchens (Atheist Journalist) - “But I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Dr. Craig] very seriously. He’s thought of as a very tough guy -- very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I say that without reserve; I don’t say that because I’m here.” - Daniel Dennett, (Atheist Philosopher) - After he heard Craig speak, said "That was a virtuoso job! A stunning amount of careful articulation and structure of some dauntingly difficult issues." - Quentin Smith (Atheist Philosopher) - On Time and Eternity, “William Lane Craig is one the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time…It is a rewarding experience to read through this brilliant and well-researched book by one of the most learned and creative thinkers of our era.”to believe that way…” - Michael Ruse, (Agnostic Philosopher) - On his book debate with Walter Sinott Armstrong "This is a wonderful exchange about the existence of God--fast, fair, informative, intelligent, sincere, and above all terrific fun." - Jeff Jay Lowder (Well known, Atheist Blogger) - “As a freethinker, I think it’s important to follow the evidence wherever it leads and avoid sloppy thinking….I take the charge of dishonesty extremely seriously. Anyone who levels the accusation of dishonesty has the burden of proof, and they had better make sure they attempt to get the other person’s side of the story before publicly concluding that dishonesty is the best explanation. If Craig has been dishonest, I have yet to see any evidence of that.” “A second allegation is that Craig is dishonest in his public debates because he uses arguments which he “knows” are false. Really? I do wonder how these people “know” what Craig thinks.” - John W. Loftus (Atheist Blogger with a Master’s in Theology, plus some PhD level study) - “From personal knowledge my testimony is that Bill sincerely believes and is not being dishonest with himself. Unless someone knows him better than I do then my testimony should be taken seriously. He does not think he is wrong even though he is.” This is emphatically not the case as much as some atheists would like to think. He is delusionally dead wrong. But he sincerely believes. I know him personally and have talked with him on several occasions even after deconverting.” - Keith Parsons (Atheist Philosopher) - “Having debated Craig twice face to face and once in print (in the Dallas Morning News,of all places, June 13, 1998) let me weigh in on Jeff [Jay Lowder]'s side. In these debates only once did I feel that Craig said anything that even sounded like a cheap shot. This was at the debate at Prestonwood Baptist Church near Dallas with 4500 people in attendance, about 4450 of whom were on Craig's side. Craig asked whether anything would convince me that he was right. I responded, as Norwood Russell Hanson did in "What I do not Believe" that some huge display that everyone would see would convince me. Earlier, I had rejected Craig's appeal to the "500" witnesses mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians XV and noted that mass hallucinations do sometimes occur. Craig then asked whether I would not also dismiss ANY display as a hallucination, prompting much braying laughter from the highly partisan audience. Now whether Craig was intentionally playing to the audience or not, I don't know, but this was a legitimate question and I obviously had left myself open to the rejoinder. When the laughter died I explained...Craig had no response, so I think I took the point.” “Now if you are looking for nasty, there are people like Steve Hays, Holding/Turkel, and Ed Feser. Ad hominem, character assassination, straw man, and vituperation are their stock-in-trade. I would not at all put Craig in their sleazy category.” - Kevin Scharp (Atheist Philosopher) - "In assessing his arguments, I will talk as I would to any other professional philosopher whose system I’ve managed to work my way into. That is, I don’t pull punches, but I also never attack character, so it isn’t personal. Professor Craig knows this; I know this; I’m saying it for the benefit of the audience. In part, because I respect the guy. He’s got some great philosophical skills, he’s a talented system builder, which I admire, and he’s done a tremendous service to the atheist movement by trouncing most of our heroes and raising the bar on both sides. [Audience laughter] I’m serious! That’s a major benefit, a major thing that we can say thank you for." - Peter Milican (Atheist Philosopher) -"'The Cosmological Argument for Plato to Leibniz' - that's actually my own copy, dated 1980. I got it when I when studying the B Phil here [Oxford], studying philosophy of religion under Bazil Mitchell. And it was clear, even then, that Bill's book was a new landmark in the discussion of the cosmological argument."
I always enjoy when you enter a conversation lol. I imagine you busting into a conversation with the sound of an 18 wheeler goimg down a mountain using the *"jake break"* 😂😂😂
@@electricspark5271 Haha. Yeah, wisdom says know when to throttle up and when to pump the brakes. Truck driving and sharing the gospel can be similar that way. 👍🏻
@@electricspark5271 Funny enough, I just had one of those moments right now. Im talking to a guy on today's Cross Examined video and he just told me that the Bible leaves room to believe that Jesus wasn't crucified. That got me to slam those brakes real fast. 😆
I consider Dawkins a mental midget personally. There's a reason he won't debate publicly anymore. His books are very intellectually dishonest. He's a scientist pretending to know philosophy.
@@jeffreyyoungblood7438 I don't think he is a mental midget, I think you hit it on the head, he is totally dishonest, as are many informed/educated atheists (and lefties). And they have succeeded in totally brainwashing the uneducated masses.
@@mickqQ 1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. 2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand,[a] who seek after God. 3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. 4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord? 5 There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. 6 You would shame the plans of the poor, but the Lord is his refuge. --- Psalm 14
@@ApeLikeCreature have u ever compared the number of churches in poor areas compared to rich areas? Lots more in poor areas. Why? Poor people are desperate for anything and charlatans know it. You theists feed of people's ignorance and fear by injecting your religious dogma. Even when YOU hear about rapes of little boys by priests, what do u do? Nothing. Priests continue their rapes. Theists say their prayers and keep it moving. You people are disgusting and without empathy.
@@Giraf1964 that is a hard accusation to accept. What I know of Dr. Craig he definitely affirms God's word. You'd have to provide significant evidence to support your position before I believe it.
@@rickintexas1584 Dr. Craig believes in theistic evolution, so he "denies" a literal interpretation of the earliest chapters of Genesis. Maybe that's what the other commenter objects to in Dr. Craig's theology.
Debates are not to illuminate the presenters, but to inform the viewers. It’s about letting viewers make up the decision in their own mind, after hearing arguement from both sides.
WLC doesn't have a "terminal" degree in biology (just philosophy) so is disqualified from debating Dawkins. This was the reason WLC gave for not wanting to debate Matt Dillahunty.
HOST: Majority of people agree you have won these debates." .....you mean other Christians think he won? Same way other Atheists think he lost. How is it determined that he won any of these debates? Did he convert more Atheists to Christianity? Or did the Atheists do more of the converting? Again, how do you know?
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Actually, I have nothing but repsect and admiration for WLC. He seems kind and passionate about what he believes. It's the internet trolls-atheists and Christians alike- that drive me crazy saying "Boom! He destroyed em!!" Or "He got destroyed!"
Romans 11:8 KJV Bible (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
@@mystery6411 I think it's more that he presents arguments that sound plausible to people who have already decided they agree with his conclusions and either can't or won't see that his arguments don't demonstrate the existence of a god, even though he says they do.
Craig would have no problem debating Dilihunty.While Matt is a very smart guy.And very good debater.If you listen long enough,he will inevitably make a cop out statement that’s like a shield that he can hide behind so he can continue his stance.Like when he said at the end of a debate i watched with him that we couldn’t even be sure or put our belief in the validity of reason.What a cop out statement.So our universal fundamental tool of taking information in.Processing it,coming to a rational,logical conclusion,cannot be trusted as valid??? I would ask Matt,what other way do we have to figure things out? That’s only one statement.But it’s a huge one.Craig would have no problem with Matt.And i doubt Dilihunty is even on par with Craig.
@@dylanacious To add to the "shield" I've noticed the same thing about his objection with the definition of God. Its his standard response to the Kalam (saying a necessary foundation isn't the same as god), and he used it in his debate with Michael Jones: he pretty much ran out of objections to Michaels hypothesis of a cosmic consciousness (on the basis of quantum physics) and just ended up saying that he simply didn't liked that Michael called the cosmic consciousness "God". Standard last resort, and clear giveaway of a loss.
Sounds like wisdom to me. I’ve seen David Wood’s debate with Matt and it was just terrible. Matt constantly dodges the issues. He says one thing one minute and then the next he changes it when it is more convenient and then denies he ever said it. While anyone can just rewind back and realise he was lying. You don’t want to get into a silly game like that.
@@Miatpi I think it’s fair to say he didn’t like the definition of God as a “cosmic consciousness”. To agree that such a thing exists and one could call it God if they wanted is indeed a loss, but it’s not a very meaningful one. That particular definition of God is incredibly vague, on the level of saying “God is order” or “God is energy”. So while you can certainly define anything as God, demonstrate that it exists, and therefore prove God exists, that doesn’t necessarily tell you anything new about the universe, or anything new or useful about God’s nature. That being said, Matt is absolutely not without flaw, especially as he can let emotion overcome his otherwise mostly sound arguments.
Why should he be trying to avoid Dillahunty? Is Dillahunty more formidable than Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris?. What Credentials does Dillahunty have? He's a RUclips atheist.
Somewhere along the way we forgot what the nature of having discussions and debates was and replaced it with crass discussions that go for shock value and winning internet points.
You know, that's merely in this circle. I can point you to multiple secular discord servers, YT channels and FB groups where open discussion is encouraged and very active. Christians seem to have this distopic view of us atheist, that we go around looking for trouble with religion, and only bring up religion when its being mocked or taunted. That's literally what WLC does. NOT US. We debate/discuss multiple religions, yet christians seem to think we only care about them. Heck, WLC even just mentioned this in the video "we try to be Richard Dawkins" to win internet points as you say. Yeah, you're referring to the minority of militant atheist we choose not to associate with. As someone who came from fundamental christianity to atheism, I can happily say that the atheist side promotes free discussion, while the former actively discourages it. I can't even begin to count the number religious discord servers I'm banned from simply for not agreeing with a point. "think like us and you will have a wonderful time, or we will make you leave" That's the impression I got. There's absolutely nothing comforting about having to conform yourself in order to be accepted. Or to pretend you are something you're not just in order to open a discussion. I can't freely go to my local church and declare myself gay and have an honest discussion with my preacher, that admission instantly denies me. Now, I'm not saying all christians are like that, but doesn't that specific worldview find it's source in doctrine? Therefor I have to reject the doctrine before assessing the individual I'm in discussion with.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Well what if it is? Also, how would we know if it's real? Craig is clearly very sharp on these matters; he's even responded to objections made against the Kalam.
@@theoskeptomai2535 But in your worldview God doesn't exist, so everything is ultimately absurd, so why does it matter what anyone achieves? Good, bad, rape, murder, discovering of medicine? Who cares if it's ultimately absurd and the universe will expand into an ever ending darkness? Science points out that at the end of the universe's life, the last black holes will have evaporated and humans will be long gone extinct by then, so who cares and why do you care about what you achieve or anyone else for that matter?
That would probably be a nice conversation. With all my antipathy to WLC for his lack of rigor and intellectual dishonesty he's a decent in talking to people (even though with his usual smugness like he's explaining something super complicated to a three-year-old).
Well, one way to excuse one's unwillingness to debate is to blame the person; assume they don't understand, assume they aren't serious, assume not having a degree makes them unable to debate professionally. And what if they have a public record that attests to their seriousness and their abilities? Apparently that won't make any difference. But then again, I find the format of most formal debates to be somewhat boring and less than informative, the exceptions being when debaters get to question each other directly and answer questions from the audience.
I don't think Craig is saying here that he would only debate academics or PhDs. He has debated Christopher Hitchens, for eg, who isn't an academic, doubtlessly because Hitchens is a tremendously influential figure. "Becoming an extremely influential intellectual figure" apparently counts as "earning it" for Craig, and well when you think about it, that does make perfect sense.
@@Jasonmoofang I don't mind that he's discerning about who he debates, but I'm not buying all of his criteria. It seems a little too convenient to me but having listened to many of his debates, he pretty much makes the same points all the time. I find his method and the format kind of boring to tell the truth. I would advise any potential opponent to change it up, 5 minute presentations with a long Q & A to follow - which he probably would reject.
@@madmax2976 I feel like he can't exactly be blamed for preferring to stick to a format that he excels at, but I do agree and think that it would be cool to see him in more diverse - probably more laid back - settings. Something more like a civil conversation than a back and forth debate, say.
@@KenMasters. that's your personal opinion. I would say that you're wrong because wisdom indeed is something atheists have, I know I have it. sorry we don't agree that your God exists....doesn't them equal we don't have wisdom.
@@therick363 That's an oxymoron, because wisdom restricts free-though, just like how absolute morality is the opposite of subjuctive morality. Also: *The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."*
@@KenMasters. so then the question is what you said a fact or an opinion about atheists and wisdom? Absolute morality hasn’t been shown to exist. Also “the fool”….so you take it that if someone says Atheist….they are all the same?
What I see Craig do in every debate is as follow: 1: Set what the atheist have to do in order to score debate points. That is to give "proper" responses to every argument you present. 2: Present Craig's 5 favorites arguments for the existence of God. 3: Listen to the responses the atheist give to these 5 arguments and dismiss as quickly as possible any of the atheist's claims. 4: If the atheis fails to give a "proper" response to at least one the 5 arguments, and they will fail because of time constraints, you bring attention to that. 5: Given the atheist's failure you claim victory. Works almost every time. Craig is a genius :)
That's exactly what he does! He makes a great big deal when his opponent forgets to handle one of his many ridiculous claims, and preens like he's won the debate. All style, no substance.
@@justoch I listened to his debates with Hitchens, Carrol and Rebecca Goldstein. Point 1 that you mention, seems in tune with his debate strategy. Not sure on the rest of the points that you make.
@@bkhan19 Well, I could be wrong about the other points, but after whatching many of his debates that's the pattern I see. And it is a good debate strategy in my opinion, if you consider that debates are for winning over your opponent and not for finding out the best arguments.
Chris McCord he’s a “boss” in the sense that he deflects questions, shifts the burden of proof and uses flawed logic in his answers. I could debate this guy because religion has no legs to stand on. Why? Because you need evidence of the claims you make when there is none. WLC could make as many points as he wants and all I would have to say is “prove it” and I guarantee he would be unable to. There is nothing to back up any assertion other then an ancient book that’s been retranslated countless times, written by a collection of around 20 authors most of which are unknown and highly edited by the Christian clergy over the centuries. A superman comic has more truth in it then the bible.
David Cleaver You’re parroting popular atheistic claims. Where’s the proof? Where’s the proof? Here’s a question? Given the definition of God, how can you expect such proof to be on equal footing as with proving the existence of a tree or the boiling point of water? ‘And we have gathered all the data...oh, there’s God.’ Your statement makes it clear how much of a ass of yourself you would make debating WLC.
@@davidcleaver4442 Who decides logic is flawed? You? I think it's very sound, and stands on generations of sound, logical theology. I wouldn't expect that from a militant atheist POV.
Even if God manifested his existence in the most profound way possible many so-called atheists would still deny Him citing a global Hallucinogenic phenomenon or advance governmental or extraterrestrial technology. It’s all about free will...not convincing evidence
@@coreyking5619 i think youre right partially. Some people thirst for any reason to believe. Belief is not a choice though. You need a cause. Not everyone hears the voice of God. People that do think everyone does and ignores him. People that don't think people that do are deluded
No, I have been to one of his debates. He answered all questions from the audience. He stayed for hours so that everyone had a chance to ask him his/her question. He is just against giving “noisy atheists” a platform in a debate who have not prepared or have any serious accreditations.
@@MrMCN1963 First, having the best educations of their day, Socrates and Aristotle would certainly be qualified, but would likely have agreed with him. Secondly, you refer to WLC as a charlatan: What do you mean by that, and how did you come to that conclusion?
@@WhereWhatHuh WTF? Do you even have an understanding of Socrates and Aristotle? Speaking of divinity does not necessarily require a believe in a deity.
@@MadersPie FTW? Yes, I have an understanding; what's more, I read. I did not say that Socrates and Aristotle believed in a god or gods, though Socrates, in his _Apologia,_ denied the charge of Atheism by stating that one may not believe in horsemanship without believing in horses (you did read that part, right?). Which means, by implication, that he believed ... Hello? Later in the dialog, as he is preparing to drink the hemlock, he describes his vision of the afterlife in great detail. It's okay; I understand how you got to your conclusion, and I'm neither shocked nor insulted. You started with the premise (an unstated assumption, in this case, and wholly without foundation) that belief in any god is contrary to logic. That's your weak spot, btw. You then assumed (based not on reading their works, but probably on an article, possibly on wikipedia) that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were the epitome of logic. With those two premises, of course you would reach the conclusion that you reached, namely, that Socrates and Aristotle would be violently opposed to such an idea. Why, something supernatural? Metaphysical? Pshaw!! Socrates would never have talked about that myth of the cave idea, with it's implications of a metaphysical world beyond this one -- except that he did. It's also in Apologia, in the opening arguments. Sorry Friend. Didn't mean to burst your bubble, but, well, facts are facts.
Since WLC does not win debates, how can he reveal the best ways to win them? His tactics regarding debating atheists: Lie about atheism, misrepresent what the atheists are saying, lie about science, commit every logical fallacy in the book, and assume that God exists and the Bible is true.
For me He is the greatest apologist of all time. The real 🐏 such an inspiration. I will cherish his work forever and one day hopefully follow in his footsteps. Nothing than respect and love for Mr. Craig.
If you think philosophising 'evidence' for a God, where none exists, then he is good I guess, though he has been debunked many times by people who know what they are talking about!
@@bakerbanking What? It most certainly is true! You think that Craig's arguments stand up to scrutiny from those that do not start with a God presupposition? The deluded believer does not necessarily agree with those debunks, but then one cannot prove a negative. If no Gods exists it is impossible to show that no Gods exist to those that have been indoctrinated. Just watch a handful of testimonies from ex believers and hear what they say about the conviction they had in their rational thinking process and their 'oneness' with their 'Lord' and how they realised afterwards what bull they themselves used to think. Have you heard some of Low Bar Bill's statements regarding evidence required for belief and that there would be NO evidence that would convince him that he was wrong? A believer is convinced they are right - whatever their religion. A non believer is not convinced they are right because they have no bias toward any particular faith. I would love for there to be an everlasting afterlife when I die, I just don't see any reason to believe that to be true.
@@bakerbanking First sentence: Nonsense! State them! Second sentence: All those that already presuppose a God, and moreover, they are 'supported' for DIFFERENT Gods by those that already support such Gods. Did I say no bias? I did not! I said no bias towards a particular religion! A bias toward something you have been indoctrinated into believing, or you are surrounded by, or you have an emotional attachment to, is obviously far greater than any other bias! For example, I would love for there to be a God and an eternal afterlife. I just do not see the minutest scrap of evidence that any of that is even remotely likely. Now why would I have a bias for that viewpoint? Give me you best evidence that does not assume a God at the outset. I am happy to grant a Creator of the universe that is not around now. Show a soul is likely, show an afterlife is likely, show that how we live our lives will be rewarded after we die in some way.
every Christian debate with and atheist has been lost before it got started. You cant win a debate with a fictional book with a 6300 year old universe, an impossible timeline, and stories that is proven not to have happened. Then you make a claim that the book is 100% true and should be believed on faith.
Summary of video: research opponents work, make up brief responses from your opponents work and then pull them out while in a debate. Not sure if this is supposed to help anybody learn in depth structures of arguments or not but ok boomer.
Brendan Keane This video didn’t teach anyone how to structure arguments. It just stated how this individual structures his own arguments without going in depth on how to structure a proper argument.
Haven't heard Craig mention the word "truth" even once. All I heard was "winning" and "profit". In other words, for Craig, winning and profit is more important than truth.
In my experience, most apologists, street preachers and religion enthusiasts in general are arrogant wanks who basically do what they do for sport. If they think that arguing with people is going to convert them to their religion, they are very sadly mistaken.
@@thebelievertheone1625 Nah ... not convinced to talking to imaginary friends is an efficient way of achieving anything. Ditto with reading astoundingly boring, inaccurate and internally contradictory bronze age mythology. The soul is an absurd concept with zero supporting evidence and a considerable amount of conflicting evidence ... so no. Also, I sold mine for $5.
@Carlos Rodriguez Are you speaking for yourself? Have you ever tried calling the show to debate Matt? Can I invite you to try it? I would be surprised if you stumped him but I'm open-minded :)
@Carlos Rodriguez Matt Dillahunty has lots of filmed, formal debates on RUclips, just like the one with JP. You seem to not understand that there are lots of differences between a call-in show and a formal debate. Craig's argument that he doesn't want to give him platform is moot, since anyone who knows about Craig knows about Matt Dillahunty, lol. It's just silliness. And, as Matt often says, arguments stand or fall on their own, regardless of who says them. I can't attribute motive to Craig, because I can't read his mind. But his stated reason for not debating Matt Dillahunty is hollow.
Carlos Rodriguez i have two questions, if i may? you write, "atheists assume things that have not been proven" since that's completely false, i am curious 1. what assumptions do you think are being made? 2. do you not recognize your hypocrisy clearly being demonstrated by that statement?
Remember the goal of a Christian debate with non-believers is not to win the debate, but to drag the debate from a rational discussion about objectively verifiable facts into the realm of imagination and make believe. They want to subvert reason by convincing you that faith is a valid way of understanding reality; which is harmful to those being manipulated but very useful and PROFITABLE for those who do the manipulating.
sorry but after watching a debate with Richard Dawkins and how he suggested that humans and life on Earth is nothing else but a seed of genetic experiment done by intelligent aliens and in return these intelligent aliens are the product of other even more advanced aliens, Dawkins completely lost the plot. how much of a stubborn stuck-up you have to be in order to make your own cult ideology to explain the universe and life on earth, just to reject the existence of a God. sure, religions can be a problem but the existence of a Deist God for example is not something that can be rejected. the idea that something came from nothing is absurd. even in mathematics, the term infinite is actually made up and just a concept with no basis on reality. there is no such thing as infinite. and there is no such thing as nothing. and nothing can't be done into something. unless of course there is a powerful entity or a "God" that can make it happen.
@@LevisH21 So Richard Dawkins suggested humans and life on Earth is nothing . .. . So Richard Dawkins suggested, Richard Dawkins is just having fun WITH the audience, Dawkins probably does not think that is the most probable.
Matt doesn't have a degree. This guy needs a degree in philosophy to debate atheists. But this guy has no problem using the cosmological argument without having a degree in physics.
@@abhishekbsheks Exactly. And he continues to use the Kalam and fine tuning, even after the spanking Sean Carroll gave him on it. Continuing to use arguments after they've been shown to be fallacious means that WLC isn't after truth, he's after converts...which he all but says near the end of this video. That he is the great champion of modern apologetics is sad.
The Santa clause sky fairy thing is getting real old bro you guys sound like children saying that someone who believes in a higher power is equal to believing in Santa clause or the Easter Bunny ect grow up
@@chadrasmussen6127 believing in religious fairy tales is getting old. Religious beliefs are mankind's attempts to conceptualize things that are beyond human understanding. People used to believe in the god of thunder... who, as it turns out, was just as real as Santa Claus.
He got crushed by an actual physicist. Proved Craig 100% wrong on his infinite regress claim. Yet Craig still makes that claim. Craig lying for Jesus is not cool, but considering his employment depends on it, I guess it's understandable.
Faith is the next level of ignorance. It’s ignorance squared. It’s not knowing but convincing yourself you do know what you can’t know and what no one knows. Faith is not a virtue.
Most atheist try to hard to deny the existence of God, you can bring up the evidence of the universe having a beginning and the evidence of intelligent design and they'll jump straight to saying "We don't know that the universe had a beginning" despite the evidence pointing to that and "You say the universe needs an intelligent designer so who created God" Just the same old arguments but not logical.
Lucid Vision it doesn’t take much work to not be convinced that someone’s invisible god thingo done it. I like being intellectually honest and saying that not only do I not know....you don’t either
How to convince atheists that an invisible, unknowable god lives in the clouds and wants to have a relationship. Answer: Ask god to appear. Further: If the Hebrew god is the all powerful creator of all things as Bill likes to claim then god debates would be pointless.
@@markmooroolbark252 The writers of the bible seemd to think God lived in the "sky". E.g They were trying to build a tower of Babel to reach God who didn't want that and scattered their language; Jesus's ascencion into the clouds as if heaven was physically just beyond that. Due to modern astronomy this now sounds childish to you.
I'm a little put off by this clip. I know many apologetics guys debate atheists, but to what end? To "win?" What do you consider winning? That most of the people listening to the debate think you won because they think your argumentation is the best? Well, if you get a hundred people in the room and half are atheists/skeptics and half are Christians, nine times out of ten the Christians are going to think the Christian has won and the atheist will think the atheist won. You may get some honest give on both sides every now and then, but more than likely the person believing their worldview will side with the person that agrees with their worldview. And not giving up and coming atheist a platform because they haven't "earned" the stature of a Dawkins shows the heart of debating here is actually "winning." No, as Christians, we want to lead people to the gospel because we're not ashamed of it (Romans 1:16). It is the power of God unto salvation, not our clever, philosophical arguments. And when you argue from more of a philosophical viewpoint than a Biblical one, you violate Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8. Dr. Craig does this way too much, to the point that he has no problem confessing that he doesn't mind if the Bible has errors. The Bible is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but most apologetics has more to do with "proving" this than proclaiming it. So as Christians we believe God's Word is God's Word in church, but when we talk to an unsaved person we get philosophical to "prove" the Bible is the Word of God before we proclaim the truth of it (then we even give in to the criticism that it might have errors). It's a sign of double-mindedness, which James 1:8 seriously warns against.
Couldn't agree more. What is the point of arguing the Bible with someone who doesn't believe it? We don't read the Bible as if it's a technical manual so why argue over it as if it is one? If they can't see God in the spider's web, the eggshell, the butterfly, or the hummingbird they're never gonna see God in the Bible. If I'm going to argue with a non-believer, I'm going to argue over his perspective on reality and life. Where does he get it and how does he know it is true?
I've always said that when it comes to those kind of debates, the atheist usually has the advantage because most atheists debate from a position of agnosticism. That puts the burden of proof on the theist and unless the theist has actual evidence for what he says, the debate is over. That doesn't mean that the atheist cannot utter some rather meaningless technical and/or scientific language that gets approval from atheists, nor the theist make some irrelevant religious proclamation that receives applause from the theists in the audience. One of Craig's debates that sticks out in my mind was a few years ago with astrophysicist Sean Carroll. It kind of presented the problem for scientifically-minded theists as to where their allegiance should fall, to scientifically accepted knowledge, or their faith.
Atheist: "I lack belief in God." This is merely cognitively descriptive and tells us nothing about the world other than one's mental state. Imagine for a moment that Jesus has returned to the earth and is ruling from Jerusalem. God is literally on the earth. The atheist could still say "I lack belief in God." This thought experiment shows how vacuous the atheist claim is. The atheist needs to step up to the plate and give some evidence for God not existing and not just give us a cognitive descriptor.
@TheCosmicWarrior Generally, if one person makes a definitive claim, that person has the burden of proof. If I say that I do not believe that water is wet, the claim being made concerns what I _believe_ . If I make the difinitve claim that water is not wet, that claim takes on the burden of proof if challenged.
@TheCosmicWarrior If you say that God exists and I say I don't believe that, then you have the burden of proof since you made the claim in question. I do not have a burden of proof for a disbelief in someone's claim.
I think the debate WLC had with Sean Carrol and the debates he has where he tries to defend the Christian morality view of Devine command theory ended my need to take WLC seriously any more.
Elisha simple, I take into account what I call, “The Three Cons”; Consequence, Context and Consideration. I think of the consequences of my choices and actions. The legalities are an example. I also might ask myself the Context. The classic hypothetical of a woman stealing diapers for her baby is an example. Why might someone have come to the conclusion that they did? I then take into Consideration any other people who might be involved (or animal for that matter). How would I feel if what I’m about to do was done to me? That is my moral compass and the method by which I try to make the best decisions and act accordingly. What’s yours? “Cause God said so”?
@@Tennethums1 Hi man what you are saying doesn't make sense . I have a 2 yrs not even close to know how to talk . One day she stole butter from the fridge and right way she went to hide me . My question to you is that how can a 2yrs old has the knowledge of right and wrong if they have not designed to be like that ? By God or a hire being , where does human conscious comes from if it has never been designed by anything. ? Have a great day God bless you all
stellio stevenson Germain not sure I understand your question fully but I’ll give it a try! You’re saying your two year old who can’t even talk, stole some butter from the fridge and then...gave it back to you because she felt guilty? First, if she can’t talk I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion she had any sense of wrong, much less guilt. At that age she probably wasn’t “stealing”. More likely, she thought she wanted it and just took it BECAUSE she had no sense of right or wrong. That’s something you’ll have to teach her. In fact, you could tell her there is nothing wrong with just taking things and she’ll grow up thinking THAT’S right. People do it all the time. If God had instilled in us a sense of right and wrong then we’d probably not need teaching. However, parents teach their kids these things. The other problem with your argument is even if we were to say her actions were not “natural”, we’d be hard pressed to jump to “supernatural” or (even more of a jump) “divinely inspired”. And it doesn’t even stop there! Not only would you be arguing that her actions are divinely inspired, but that they are YOUR God and THAT God is this and that. That’s reaching to say the least. The best we could say is she seems to have some unborn sense of right and wrong but that we have no evidence that points to what that might be. You can’t just insert God. To be honest with yourself you’d have to follow a trail that LEADS to your God. But, I don’t think any of that’s even necessary. We see kids take things all the time and much of the time they DO give the items back but it’s neither stealing or a sense of guilt and shame. They do it to PLEASE YOU. Not themselves. Sorry the gift was only butter 😇
Elisha our thoughts are fully determined by our brain chemistry. Amnesia, schizophrenia, bipolar, Alzheimer’s, head trauma...all cause changes in brain function. If our “mind” was separate from our brain then brain ailments/head trauma would not affect change. But they do. Now, does these leave us mindless automatons? No, but you’re incorrect in thinking our “mind” is separate from our physical brain. You can lose your mind quite easily and there is nothing you can do about it.
You have to 1. Show how your arguments are scientific 2. Show how there arguments aren’t scientific 3. Show why your arguments are rational & logical 4. Show why their arguments are irrational & illogical 5. Finnish off by stating- what matters is the truth, regardless of the personal opinions of mankind.
demigodzilla Without rationality and logic science is a pointless task Rational and logic comes before any testing. We use rational and logic in regards to every aspect of life especially in science because we need it to know what to test, based upon what we have already tested. And to use it to come up with different methods of testing.
@@amhenotepakkardius5504 What? You don't base evidence on belief.😂 Belief is what you rely on when you have a lack of evidence, and it gets you no closer to the truth. Are you saying that a hundred different people believing in a hundred different things provides evidence for what they individually believe to be true, even if those things might be contradictory?
It is beyond me why people in the comment section spam crying laughing emojis. That aside, I don’t agree with belief being evidence but a lot of atheist do treat atheism as a belief system. Specifically atheist who view atheism as “the belief that there is no God” as opposed to just not believing in God. Before you think that’s dumb, let me explain. The reason why this small difference is important is because the the atheist that says conclusively that there is no God is making an objective claim that should be able to be proven, right? This is when I’d use your original comment as a copypasta (but I’m to lazy). Personally, I don’t think you have to have 100% proof for everything you believe in (at least something like scientific evidence) but I’m pretty sure that applies to atheist too and not just Christians.
If you want to fire back with the correct definition of atheism, that’s fine but my point is that the definition that asserts there’s no God is almost like a self defeater blah blah blah hopefully you get my point
I'm a Christian. Before any discussion of "does God exist" or "from nothing came something" we must realize that the atheist only sees the natural scientific universe. We see the same universe but we also know of a supernatural world called the kingdom of heaven. The atheist laughs at that notion. Don't debate the atheist. It's a waste of time. Just offer kindness and friendship if accepted. If not, wish them well and move on.
Masters Larry:How would you go about trying to convince an atheist of the existence of the kingdom of heaven? Personally, I am unsure of it’s existence. Is it possible you are wrong and, if so, how would this change the way you look at the world?
Let's us know when that fraud is done running and willing to put his Scientism to the test. Or can you just admit he is a charlatan that is more interested in selling books than seeking truth?
Dawkins attributes all of creation, which *literally* has to be either the result of design or chaos (and nothing else), to chaos, despite 1/10000000000000000 odds. I wouldn't champion his work too much.
As someone who grew up in the speaking forensics world, I can say everything he describes is just as we would do it. I was in Lincoln-Douglas style debate in High School, Extemporaneous Speaking, and later, I was a judge for all types of events. I judged state debate tournaments on a panel of 3, to smaller town one day events. I can tell you there is a difference between those who spent time preparing at their home practice setting, from those who did less. We would also call them "briefs". The idea is to try to be more steps ahead of your opponent, than he is of you. Think of what they'd say before they say it. Prepare responses so much that you're just waiting for them to say it. It was fun and I hope to get into it again. Dr Craig is a wonderful speaker and skilled in debate.
Craig is a complete moron, i am not aware of a single valid point he has ever made. the best he can do is the good old "nobody knows how the universe came into existence therefore my god" and try to force atheists to prove the nonexistence of his imaginary friend, as if that would make any sense.
@@hitman5782 William Lane Craig is good with people who already have that Christian nonsense in their head. Sure Craig wants to debate Atheists. Craig wants to show the problems with Atheism. What Craig wants to stay away from is why the stories of Christianity are not true. Much better debates against Christianity being true are debaters from the Age of Enlightenment Philosophers. Modern day Atheists are to much into proving Science and whether there is a Nature's God or there is not a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is never a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero, not a Nature's God.
@@ronaldlindeman6136 You do realize Craig has on numerous occasions debated the resurrection. That is the central most part of Christianity so how can you say this-"What Craig wants to stay away from is why the stories of Christianity are not true"
@@kristheobserver Because debating the story of the resurrection is not debating why Christianity is not true. That is only debating the story. How would you debate that the story of Santa Clause is not true? Would you take the text of the story of Santa Claus and if there are any mistakes in the text of the story, then we can decide that the stories of Santa Claus are not true about someone who got Reindeer to fly and pull his sleigh and get elves to build toys. The reason we don't think the stories of Santa Claus are not true is all the Supernatural stuff is not believable. That is my argument on why Christianity is not true. The way I think about the debates, we should not debate the text, but debate just how stupid and ignorant Jesus of Christianity is about knowledge of Nature. Look up where Jesus and Disciples did not have to wash hands before meals. Would a real God of the Universe know about microbiology? If Jesus is claimed to be a God of the Universe, where is the knowledge of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biology, etc..
@@kristheobserver How do we figure out what stories are true and what stories are not true? It has to do with making an analogy with stories that we can believe happened, and an analogy with stories that we believe did not happen. And use the thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of stories that humans have created, both true and not true.
Do we think the stories of the moon landings are true? Do we think the stories of Star Trek are true?
Why do we think the moon landings and coming back to the Earth actually happened? Because Neil Armstrong was a great pilot of jets, Buzz Aldrin had a PhD from MIT in orbital mechanics. The Scientists and Engineers knew how to build rocket ships.
Why might we think that the stories of Star Trek are not true? Aside from the timeline problems. Because the stories don't contain knowledge on how to make Warp Drive Star Ships, Photon Torpedoes, Transporters. In order for us to think the stories of Star Trek are true, we would have to be able to build a Warp Drive Star Ship and fly to Vulcan and look and see if there is anybody there that looks like Spock. Then we might think that Star Trek is true.
It is all about knowledge vs story claims. In order for someone to turn a 3 day old stinky body to new again, that being would have to know a lot about the human body, about blood, skin, bones, eye balls, liver, heart, etc.. Did Jesus tell us anything about the human body? Anything about first aid that we humans can use? Anything about CPR? Anything that would start Science to research into starting Medical Science so humans can build hospitals, medical research facilities and ways to prevent diseases naturally?
All Jesus of Christianity gives us is Story Magic. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero. Jesus of Christianity is not a Nature's God.
Did Jesus tell us about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Geography, etc.. If Jesus was a God, Jesus should have been able to fill entire books on economics, much more than Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, 1776. Instead of just telling people to give to the poor. If Jesus cared about humans, Jesus would have talked about how to build more wealth with good economic practices to build businesses and on how to make things.
Then lets understand Thomas Jefferson and his phrase in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Thomas Jefferson did not think that Christianity is true. Jefferson knew that the stories of Christianity only gets to a human created story God, stories created by humans. Jesus is a Supernatural Superhero, who only knows Story Magic. Jefferson thought that a Nature's God would have knowledge of Nature. That is what the Philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment gave us, is to not believe in Supernatural Superhero Story Magic, but to build on knowledge of Nature and Reason. A phrase used to describe the Age of Enlightenment was 'Dare to Know.'
It is the Age of Enlightenment Philosophies that gave us the advances of Nature, like electricity, electronics and machine created power, medical care and medical hospitals. Not the Story Magic thinking from the ancient world.
@@parkjammer i would love to hear how force and momentum, speed of sound, refraction of light and particle physics all are mutually exclusive with simply believing in a god
@@Alex-hv8rj Let's take two cases. Case #1: simple Deism ================================================== - somehow pushed the first quanta of energy that started the Big Bang or otherwise initiated the existence of the universe - otherwise remains a non-interfering observer of what was created - does not intercede when hominids on one pale blue dot in a universe of trillions of planets whines into the great expanse about something desired (prayer) In this case there is no interaction between the proposed deity and the reality we all experience. Therefore there is no test possible to confirm the existence of the deity and no impact from the deity on our reality (for if there was, it would cease to be "supernatural" and become "part of the natural" and could thus be measured). So here you could argue that the proposed deistic deity is not exclusive of science... but it might as well be a "null set" since it does not interact in any way. A non-interacting and non-detectible deity is functionally equivalent to a non-existent deity. Case #2: specific monotheistic god (e.g. one of the three Abrahamic flavors) ================================================== - singular deity - typically defined as all-everything (all-knowing, omniscient, omnipresent, beyond space or time, omni-benevolent, omni-just, etc). - intercedes on behalf of hominid whiners (prayer) on our pale blue dot among trillions in the visible universe Not only is there no evidence for this type of deity (Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah) or for any other supernatural proposition, there are hundreds of points that exclude this deity from existing through factual incongruity with observed reality along with internal and external contradiction in the myth-texts (e.g. Torah, Talmud, Bible, Quran) that attempt to describe the deity and/or its supposed communication with humanity. Let's start with the accurate description of the Biblical deity as noted by Richard Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” There are literal examples of EACH of those adjectives. A deity who creates something, apparently can see the future, but still manages to be "disappointed", who at times mass-murders nearly all of humanity, entire civilizations, entire cities, or individuals (about 250,000 in the bibble) while claiming to be moral. A deity who creates a supposed problem (eating a fruit) by people who did not (per myth) have the ability to discern good from evil and thus weren't responsible for their actions, who wouldn't have done it if the deity itself didn't "harden the heart of Adam" so as to make it happen... then condemns all generations for the situation it (the deity) created, to be forgiven only by a blood sacrifice of himself, to himself, for the problem he himself created... when all that was necessary was to say "I forgive you for my dickishness as a deity". The earth happens before there is light... direct conflict with how we understand the universe and our solar system to be created and as supported by fact, evidence, and various demonstrated and peer-reviewed scientific theories. Then there is a lack of instruction on how to minimize disease (e.g., instructions for antibacterial soap and instructions to wash hands several times per day). Fairly stupid deity. Or the means to treat leprosy (e.g. blood of a couple of birds... summarizing). Or how to breed particular colors of sheep/goats (e.g. have them mate while pointing at a particular tree). I could go on for days. The fact is any of these particular proposed gods are actively excluded from accepting science as fact-based, predictive, and useful to society. Such religious beliefs are directly antithetical to the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of true knowledge (that is, verifiable facts). Accept science, work to correct it where it is off track, work to add to it, and work to use it to "add value and avoid harm". Avoid adult-Santa (religion and/or theism) at every turn.
"I don't debate atheists who don't have a degree. I don't platform them" - Craig "Now, is the reason you don't talk to.... to non degreed atheists, is it because you don't want to platform them" - Person clearly not listening Also, I'm suspicious platforming has nothing to do with it, and Craig only debates degreed atheists so Craig can seem more relevant. After all, Craig is the one with a degree in what's effectively a fairy tale. Not very impressive when you call it what it is.
Only one with a degree? Look up Tim Mackie, Carmen Joy Imes, Richard Baukham, Gary Habermas, or Frank Turek. All 5 of these people have multiple masters degrees and/or a PhD. This is not a fairy tale. It takes way more faith to be an atheist.
Summation: 1. Don't give atheists time to explain. 2. God requires people to have specific modern day degrees in order to discuss the bible meaningfully. 3. If people want to be successful off debating (like he is) then their opinion is invalid. 4. Make personal attacks of character towards the atheist instead of arguing for your subject point. 5. Organize with portfolios.
@Vincent Kinney Did we learn a new word today? A strawman is a fabricated argument that is attacked instead of the argument presented. That means it cannot be a strawman if what he says actually means what I am saying it means, which it does. Here are some time marks for when he advocates these ideas: 0:38 - 0:48 "In fact I routinely turn down debates with atheists who are popularizers, who want to have the spotlight and acheive a reputation for their opposition to Christianity." (My 3rd and 1st point is supported by this. By the way what difference does it make towards the truth of their claims?) 0:48- 1:00 ..."But frankly, who haven't done the hard work of getting a degree and uh, doing serious scholarship (My 2nd Point) uhm, I don't give these people a platform (My 1st point)." (Why not? Are there souls not in danger too? Or poor people can burn in hell?) That's why you love this guy so much, he sounds like you got a sophisticated professional on your side. Doesn't matter what he's actually saying right? People like that because suddenly their ideas don't sound so silly. Just like you claim atheists are guilty of. (This part is my personal opinion and not part of the video). 1:32 - 1:58 " That's part of it, some of these people are very eager to have the spotlight and be the big man the big anti-christian... and I say you got to earn that stature." (My 4th point, and this is nothing more than a personal attack with no significance to truth of what atheists say. It discourages atheist conversation as anyone can be interpreted that way). 2:10- 2:34 "I usually regretted it because the level of conversation is so... low its debating people who don't understand the issues, much less are capable of giving good arguments in favor of their view... so they have generally been very unprofitable." (My 4th point again). 4:00 - 4:30 (My 5th point). Using portfolios also known as "briefs." He's kind of a snide prick hypocrite if you ask me but i see the appeal of his fancy accent, though it advocates garbage. Isn't it a responsibility to save everybody? He has a biblical scripture citable responsibilty to use his apparent genius on the matter so people dont burn in hell. So how was anything I said a strawman?
@Vinsplosion " Summation of your summation: 1: Strawman 2: More people made of straw 3: Hey guys do we need any more straw men? I have a lot... 4: I don't appear to be running out 5: Welp I'll just throw this out there " That's such a content-free comment
For years he lost all the debates with atheist scientists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, ...) he should debate some without title - some day he might win eventually
@@inaudiblearia8047 Craig's days of debates are in the finish line, indeed. As a theist, your opinion would be the same as mine when it comes to Kent Hovind LOL
Lol what was the takeaway here? An opportunity for WLC to brag about how important atheists need to be to debate him? Taking notes and researching your opponent seems like... common sense
No that's the bare minimum. And even this he slips on. Prepare he says? Well, this is my favorite WLC quote: ""there are no good reasons to believe atheism is true" WLC in debate with C Hitchens. He didn't even take the time to procure his logic before writing that debate. Or he intentionally wrote it like this in order to bring his own crowd closer.....Which is funny, cuz debates are won by notions passes, not the total amount of votes. If you start a debate with 60% of the notions on your side, and at the end it remains 60%, then you failed at having ANY impact in that debate. And that quote can't possibly convince any skeptic.
@@MommyMilkersGoBrrr Along those lines .... Science speaks of facts without having absolute certainty: religion speaks of absolute certainty without having facts.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Right. They have philosophical arguments but that's a very medieval way of thinking. It's funny how people trust a book with talking donkeys vs. science.
It's called "faith" because it's not fact. That's why atheism in winning. You don't need to have debates and arguments. If god really exists why would he need apologists and atheists to debate for or against him? He'd just turn up and show himself.
He has shown himself. The evidence is literally undeniable. You need more faith to reject Christianity then to accept it. Please look at the evidence man. There is so much evidence it is incredible. There is archaeological, historical, prophecy, logical and scientific evidence (to name a few) that proves that the Bible is true, that Jesus really did die and rise from the dead and that the Bible is the word of God. But please don’t just try and refute my comment and leave, look at the evidence for yourself, look for God and you will find him
@@CaptainFantastic222 hmm good question, maybe the historical evidence (archaeological probably falls under this category as well if im going to be honest) or the prophecies
@@zacy-t2771 The historical accuracy of the bible has *ZERO* relevance to its authenticity. Even if the bible were written by mere ordinary superstitious primative tribesmen. They would still know about towns , places, people , leaders kings ect . That's the very LEAST we would expect. Herodotus wrote about life in 500bc he spoke of real people and places does that mean his works are inspired of god ??? Of course not . If some future archeological dig discovered the ruins of New York and the empire state building would they be justified in thinking *KING KONG* was therfore real ???? Nonsense. There is no archeological evidence for anything supernatural only the normal mundane stuff we find with everything else. Almost every fictional book ever written will contain references to real places and people even Harry Potter it means nothing. However if there were historical INACCURACIES (and there are lots ) that's a different story. When was jesus born for example ? Because the historical evidence disagrees alarmingly with the bible on that for starters . Quirinius's census for example we know conclusively did not occur until 6 ad not 3 years before the death of herod but several years after. And yes I know there was more than one herod, I can go into detail if you like about how we know exactly which one it was and can cross reference with Mathew ect.
@@zacy-t2771 I’m sorry but saying “the evidence is literally undeniable” gets tossed around way too much and isn’t accurate because I do not believe any gods exist. What scientific evidence supports a god?
So you all really believe this? That you know the truth and 5 other billion people on Earth are wrong? That because you say certain words in a certain order, you know the truth about the universe??? Think about what you are saying...
@@martingirard1949 Hi Martin (salut Martin ?). Let's put it differently : how many causes has the universe? just one, OK? so there is only one truth about this point. Same for life : how did it appear on earth (how did it appear at all)? Just one reason, just one cause. From there on, you may discuss which is the correct answer, but not critic those who search for the truth. All discoveries in science where made by people who searched "the" right answer to a specific problem. How do you feel about things presented that way?
@@martingirard1949 Yes, I believe this. Yes, I have thought about what I am saying (a lot). Over 5 billion people on earth don't know advanced calculus, but I do. Just because so many don't know it doesn't mean that I am wrong. Dr. Craig's arguments are very well laid out and explained. The fact that 5 billion people have never heard these arguments is irrelevant to whether they are truthful or not. My original statement still stands: I have watched Dr. Craig debate atheists. The debates that I have watched were embarrassing for the atheists because they had no sound arguments, they only threw stones and hurled insults.
@@ThefrenchFranz religious people don't search for the truth. They already "know " it and they try to read it into thing... It's dogmatism... The contrary of free inquiry. Salut à toi.
Religious people try so desperately to convince people science is another religion but it’s not. Religious people make claims that cannot be verified and therefore requires faith to suspend that view. Complete opposite to science
The incredibly, almost indescribably, complex nature of the universe merely being a result of chance and the hilarious notion that someone need convince you that that is *NOT* the case is what I'd call BS.
*Gives evidence* Atheist: I’m not convinced, muh LACK BELIEF. (Hey guys atheist here, today I’m going to approach a metaphysical question with my personality psychological state, and set the bar for success to be my own idiosyncratic psychological incredulity!!!! Category errors and beyond.)
1:17 None of Craig's opening statement is true. What he is actually known for is giving the same Kalam Cosmological argument at every debate since 1979. What he fails to understand in spite of his claim of great knowledge and wisdom concerning philosophy is that Kalam is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. Secondly, Craig has debated people who don't have a PhD. In other words, Craig claims he won't debate someone without a PhD to avoid debating Dillahunty who would be happy to debate him, but then tosses that rule out the window when he so chooses. 2:00 Craig is vastly overstating his importance. No one would be seen as Dawkins or Hitchens after debating Craig. Further, Hitchens did not attend graduate school and certainly did not have a PhD. Finally, Richard Dawkins has stated that he will never debate Craig. Grayling has made the same statement. I did read an article in the Guardian where someone suggested that Dawkins was afraid to debate Craig because Craig is so much smarter. No. Dawkins is a biologist which is an area that Craig knows almost nothing about. If Craig only wants to talk about Kalam, he needs to debate an astrophysicist. Finally, we can see that what Craig really means is that he only wants to debate someone well known enough to give him some validation. 2:30 Not exactly. In a purely abstract debate (like with Hitchens) where arguments are based solely on logic and intuition, Craig does quite well. However, in any debate where science is involved he quickly shows his vast, scientific ignorance. I recall one such debate where Craig claimed that he had knock down arguments meaning that his opponent was not able to make any defense. In reality, Craig never got up to a college Freshman level of discussion. He didn't understand how ridiculous his arguments were. Kent Hovind does the same thing. 4:18 What Craig is failing to understand is that he can only give a response with which he is familiar which is limited to medium level philosophy and apologetics. This doesn't work with a discussion about science.
This guy loses debates and then in his closing statement says my oppinent hasn't raised any good reasons for his arguments and I have raised only good reasons for mine. He is so indoctrinated that he can't even consider another view point and see he is wrong. Man I wish Hitchens was still alive to kick his ass publicly once more
@@First1it1Giveth Hitchens argues facts, Craig argues conjecture and belief. I can't be biased because you can't be biased if you have factual evidence to backup your point. It's like saying you're biased towards the colour orange because the sun is orange even if other people believe it's purple. It doesn't make sense. And Craig does pull that stunt at the end every single time.
@@MrDav020 Maybe you can resurrect Hitchens as an undead zombie and kick Craig's ass on PPV, though its tantamount to the big bad wolf huffing and puffing trying to blow the house down. The idea that you are asserting how absolutely right you are about anti religious sentiment will be as good as dead as you will be in the grave. Follow that fact all the way to its core and you should easily see how contradictory it is, if not morbidly futile. Think about it, you being "right" about your position will mean that, in finality, it meets utter annihilation and therefore, ultimately nothing. It's why Sarte said that life is absurd.
Truly if we’re talking about science, we’re talking about God. Atheistic science is not science at all because science is repeatable, testable, and observable. Yet Darwinian evolution is none of those things. The big bang is “scientific” yet it contradicts science, The Bible is actually scientific being that it speaks of scientific things like photosynthesis in Genesis, when photosynthesis wasn’t discovered until the 1600s and genesis was written around 1400 to 1450 BC. If you want proof for God, just look around you it’s obvious the world is a creation and that God is Real. What I don’t advise you to do is look for answers in man because man will fail you God won’t. Repent and Believe Christ.
@@jesusistheway682 Questions of your post If your talking about science you may feel your talking about god, but that doesn't go for everyone who talks or studies science right? When you say Darwinian evolution what are you talking about specifically? Why use Darwinian when most scientist say the theory of evolution? Please explain how the big bang contradicts science? Just because scientists weren't using the term photosynthesis and didn't fully understand it it seems a pretty big jump to assume that people didn't grasp that plants need sunlight. *you* may feel that don't look for answers in man but that doesn't work for everything in the world or life. Are you saying to not learn from any man in any situation or specific ones?
@TREX LEX oh and to answer what does that prove easy try to fit evolution into that, explain to me if evolution is FACTS like many idiots say explain the paranormal happening around the world and how does that connect to evolution.
I find it very challenging to debate people who dont believe in Harry Potter. So kudos to this man that has the ability to do something similar with apparently great success!
Humans naturally seek order and meaning in an inherently meaningless world....the idea that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is watching over us gives comfort to many
The precise opposite is just as true. Humans, being aware of their many shortcomings, pray they'll never be judged for them and pine for a world where they can live as selfishly as they please, despite all available evidence pointing to an intelligent creator.
@@ramigilneas9274 if He is the one who created it - then all has a cause, and therefore that cause is what we call God. Besides, creating from nohing is different than nothing creating everything, if there is something that exists, in this scenario, God, then there is something that existed forever, and "everything came from nothing" can't apply here, since God is not nothing, in this case
@@ionutdinchitila1663 the origin of the universe is irrelevant to the god debate. Stop that "something from nothing" strawman. It's the weakest, dead horse "gotchya" Christians have.
Yeah it is pretty funny. Just remember, there are many “intellectual” theists who have very elaborate arguments about the nature of god, yet many such theists hold mutually contradictory views. This shows that having elaborate arguments and using fancy jargon doesn’t mean they are talking sense.
@@somesoccerguy4817Im sure the Dalai Lama can come up with explanations for evil and suffering which are just as elaborate (maybe even more) than those of WLC. Both can't be right, so either one or both are deluded
When I became convinced that the Universe is natural - that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world -- not even in infinite space. I was free -- free to think, to express my thoughts -- free to live to my own ideal -- free to live for myself and those I loved -- free to use all my faculties, all my senses -- free to spread imagination's wings -- free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope -- free to judge and determine for myself -- free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past -- free from popes and priests -- free from all the "called" and "set apart" -- free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies -- free from the fear of eternal pain -- free from the winged monsters of the night -- free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought -- no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings -- no chains for my limbs -- no lashes for my back -- no fires for my flesh -- no master's frown or threat - no following another's steps -- no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain -- for the freedom of labor and thought -- to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains -- to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs -- to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn -- to those by fire consumed -- to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still. STAND FOR TRUTH OR LIE WITH FABLES SET YOUR MIND FREE IF YOU ARE ABLE
Hi brother I like what you said , but by saying yes to one thing you are saying no to something else , my question to you do you believe in the scientific impossibility of nothing created everything ? Or something else created everything ? Thanks brother enjoy God bless you
@@stpick7 ZERO KELVIN is but a concept. When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed; but look only and surely at what are the facts.
@@stpick7 for CERTAIN the JUDEO/HEBREW Eden fables are the foundation of ignorance, superstition and FEAR. There was Never an EDEN and Never will be.. BTW Peter Pan and NEVERLAND aren't real either no matter if one BELIEVES in TINKERBELL or NOT.. To understand the actual world as it is, not as we should wish it to be, is the beginning of wisdom. NOT FEAR... STAND FOR TRUTH OR LIE WITH FABLES
@@aldenzane9118 Hey brother what you are saying doesn't make sense . How do you explain the triangle of Bermute , ships , air plane disappeared just by passing by this area ? You with your small brain you think you know everything . How do you explain for someone who has aids got completely heeled just by prayer I witnessed this , how do you explain someone who has been blind from birth just by prayer both eyes open ? Please if you have never witness any miracles it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist , Please find the answer for the Triangle of Bermute and the mistry behind it Have a great time God bless you all
@@aldenzane9118 My friend is here is something to deal with if man knows everything . Then why the word Miracle exist in your dictionary One of the greatest philosopher said this one day " none sense remain none sense even if it is said by the greatest philosopher have a great time God bless you "
What do atheists need to prepare for exactly? It's the apologist who has to prepare evidence and if he gives it than the atheist rejects it. Either give evidence of god and win the Nobel prize (which is pretty much impossible) or don't. He has nothing - nothing in the bible - nothing in reality points to god existing. He seems to think he knows more because he "read the literature" on philosophy. But humans know nothing about God or if he exists so that doesn't help at all.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
Does being married for two decades count for debate training? Asking for a friend
Lol so funny!
Definitely
Lol
So you have lost debates for 20 yrs to a woman. Sounds normal
😂😂😂😂
The best way to “argue” with anyone is to:
1. Have a civil dialogue
2. Don’t assume ill intentions
3. Don’t assume their beliefs
4. Don’t assume their history
5. Be opened minded enough to assume YOU could be wrong.
6. Be clear on definitions.
7. Lastly, no one is above or below a discussion. It isn’t necessary to have a doctorate or degree of any variant to have a productive conversation. Everyone is worth discussion
All valid points. I think on the last point, Dr. Craig was more or less saying he wants to have serious debates and conversations with those who are the very best on the opposing side.
Andy S I understand he wants quality conversations but a degree won’t guarantee that. I’d be curious to know if Mr. Craig would deny a conversation to Sacrates because he didn’t have a degree? There’s a ton of intelligent thinkers that don’t have degrees
@@flyguy2617 I actually agree. I think he debated Hitchens who was a journalist, so to Dr. Craig's point, it more about quality opponents. He wants to debate the best
Andy S Hitchens was a journalist but Hitchens was educated at Leys School in Cambridge and Balliol College in Oxford. At Oxford he did his major in philosophy, politics and economics. I know Matt Dillahunty has been trying to debate him for years but WLC refuses due to lack of a degree...I’d love to see the conversation
TRIBAL BY NATURE what pedigree did Socrates have again? Nobody is above or below anyone else for a civil discussion.
Remember the goal of a Christian debate with non-believers is not to win the debate but rather to win souls. If you keep this in mind you will not loose your composure and you will utimately plants seeds of Truth and gain a victories for God. Amen!
Blue Skeptic nope
@Blue Skeptic exactly lol
That's the reason you loses every debates.
@Blue Skeptic While I don't share your very own devoutly faithful religious (e.g atheistic) beliefs, I'm sure you're a sincere believer. May the eternal Truth Himself bless you and keep your immortal soul safe from damnation.
How freaking sad that someone with a PHD believes in souls...
Big takeaway: don’t feed the trolls.
@Ben Love
I don't know. Craig sort of comes off pretty snooty here and honestly like he's not even after people's hearts, but just after an intellectual challenge.
@Vincent Kinney
I understand that part, however I am of the opinion that many people could also use the more basic knowledge of the faith. Jesus taught to the Sadducees and Pharisees, but he also did not neglect to teach the lowliest of questioner. He cared about them all equally. I don't remember one time he scoffed at people, not even the woman who referred herself to a dog under the table.
Brando William lane Craig has a website, and I have seen were people have asked him questions and he written lengthy responses in order to help them understand. I don’t think he would turn down anyone with questions. the website is called reasonablefaith
@Tristan Maxwell
Really? Well that's good to hear :)
@Tristan Maxwell
Are you sure it's him though?
“they wanna be Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens . You gotta earn that .” W. Lane Craig
Unfortunately both are actually not very good at debates. Dawkins is a teacher, and just doesn't have a very effective way of debating. Hitch8, while witty and hilarious, had his one liners and talking points but unfortunately rarely addressed what his opponents said in a meaningful way, preferring jokes and emotional peals. It really hurt him in a debate with Turek, if I recall correctly. He didn't shoot down assertions that Turek made regarding biology, so they went unanswered and incorrect.
Here, he mentioned them for their prior celebrity. That seems a strange talking point as it deals with the meta of a debate. In a clip supposedly for giving tips for actually debating atheists, he should have addressed arguments. All of the clear and well established criticism of his and other apologist arguments. As he mentioned reading his opponents' work, he would encounter some people who have specifically refuted his arguments.
One fair tip would be to not debate physicists on cosmology. Philosophy doesn't touch that anymore beyond logic. His debates with physicists highlight this.
@@IllustriousCrocoduck both useless when it comes to defending what they believe.
@@lesblase3667 both as in Dawkins and Hitchens?
@@IllustriousCrocoduck They just couldn't justify themselves.
@@noahm44 you mean their arguments? I'm having trouble following you as you might be talking about the men, things they said, things I said, etc. Can you be a little more specific/contextual?
"For anyone who wants to have this kind of ministry, preparation is going to be critical, and then what they need to do as well is they need to get some experience; they need to take a course on debating techniques, and then they need to do mock debates before they ever go into a public debate. Otherwise they risk losing and dishonoring the Gospel."
Very illuminating that this is how Craig sees debates.
He is all style over substance. He floods the zones with convoluted assertions, knowing that with limited time, no skilled debated prepared for the topic will have the tone to address them all and also make and pursue his own assertions. It is an intellectually dishonest gimmick. Dillahunty would be the one to go at this first and defang Craig, then make assertions putting the onus of proof on Craig for evidence for all of Craig’s claims. That is the real reason Craig dodges dillahunty, as he sees the executioner…
You also have to be ready to lie for Jeebus.
@@MrMCN1963 bro shut up lol why do you go starting debates??? This guy is talking about how Craig views debates and you start saying a bunch of rude stuff.
William lain Craig is a pretty bad debater he is so dishonest and commits the strawman fallacy constantly and I love how the other guy says that many people believe he won the debate lol. Christians think he won an non Christians think he lost. But also, the confidence that most Christians have that their God exists is comparable to the fact that if you go out into the rain you get wet. And a debate like that would last 5 minutes. Define what it means to be wet in this case and then bring up certain cases where going out in the rain doesn't make you wet in the accepted definition. But you can't do this for God even with a loose definition of God. I mean these guys Litterally go to school to learn how to make a case for their God. And still can't do it in a way that doesn't commit multiple fallacious arguments that's why one of the newer points are "you can't prove your not just a brain in a vat" so basically saying "my God has the answers to everything and since I can claim acces to ultimate knowledge and you can't that means I win" which is just so wrong. If God was real then we aren't just a brain in a vat and are still not convinced of a God because there is no evidence for a God. So that means God really doesn't want us to know him or else he would show himself or.kill a Bunch of ppl like in the Bible. And if God doesn't exist then it really doesn't matter if we are just a brain in a vat because our experiences in life affect us. We feel pain and that's not a good feeling so we avoid it and we feel pleasure and go towards it but we also have to presuppose that other people are having this same experience so we try to avoid things that cause them pain and if you are actually the only one who experiences these things it still matters cause you could find yourself locked away in jail or in a mental hospital. It should be pretty easy to prove the God of the Bible just pray for something specific under the certain specifications in the Bible that guarantees that your prayers will be answered and if they aren't then no biblical God, and no saying that God is just testing you or it must not be in God's plan. Okay so why tf are you praying in the first place. What power does it actually have. Ppl are praying for their sick child to get better then they die because "God needed another angel in heaven" or some bs like that but if that sick child lives after being treated by a team of doctors "God is so great he saved my child he must have big plans for him/her" I grew up with a kid. Very religious and he got cancer it Got so bad that he even got to do the make a wish thing. And got a pretty sweet outdoor basketball court out of the deal. But when he went into remission him and his parents praised God all up and down like he was truly responsible for saving their child. But guess what years later her became a drug dealer and addict and sold drugs to people that resulted in multiple deaths. It's been about 20 years since he went into remission and 10 since he became an addict. There's no greater plan and even if there was what would it be for? To have as much people love him as possible but we aren't even aloud to see him? I think it's time to call catfish and see if this God is really who he says he is.
This is so sad why do they have to “train” for debates or learn “techniques” it’s like they don’t even care about what’s true or not it’s just about winning
I thought debates were meant to gain new insight and even possibly change one’s own mind not for deploying strategies and remembering tricks to “win”
He probably had The Amazing Atheist in mind.
Thunderfoot, for me.
Matt Dillahunty as well.
The problem is that, although WLC doesn't consider these guys to be worth pushing back against, they have great influence and legions of obnoxious fans stroking their egos.
@@therealhardrock True. I think this is the case of "treat not the fool according to his folly". These people don't listen and don't want to listen. Talking with them will only increase their support.
Or hopefully not. There are many honest ones out there, but as we all know, a quick look at the RUclips comments shows you what type of people you're dealing with.
@TheCosmicWarrior many low grade athiest are products of RUclips preachers like cosmicskeptic😪
The title of this should have been “how to prepare for a debate” (in general)
Exactly, how is this anything even close to the title???
"Pretentious man acts pretentiously" would also be a great title.
@@TNK8 or, "How to obliterate the notion of Christian Humility in a Few Minutes".
David Lenett interesting, can you provide one example of this?
@@bentonvillefamily of what specifically? Condescending attitude? The insistence of going first in the debate? Use of the Gish Gallop technique? Avoiding direct responses to direct questions (that might fall outside the narrow subject of the debate)?
Make no mistake, WLC is a skilled debater and apologist, - I give him that. One should fully expect to witness a, 'rigidly controlled' contest taking place on stage, again, with WLC insisting on being given opening comments to 'set the table' and lay out his arguments so his opponent will feel compelled to respond specifically.
However, for many truth seekers, I think the highly circumscribed, adversarial format is getting stale and many folks welcome a more relaxed, open and honest, 'free form' conversation that goes wherever it may.
I've listened to dozens of full length WLC debates and it didn't take long to pick up on his style and pattern but again, the format often deprives the listener from honest conversations that would be far more valuable and illuminating IMHO.
Is William Lane Craig dishonest?
TL;DR: No.
Internet atheists may have a low opinion of him in terms of honesty or intelligence, but thankfully, this opinion is largely NOT shared by his atheist peers in philosophy and other academic atheists. Academics respect Craig as a serious philosopher and credit his work.
Is he intelligent?
He's a respected philosopher, yes. Quentin Smith writes, "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence."
In atheist philosopher Graham Oppy's "Arguing About Gods", Craig is cited 23 times in the references; more times than anyone save Oppy himself.
He has a huge section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy dedicated to his KCA (about a 4th of the article on the cosmological argument).
Dishonest?
(Atheists academics who say Dr. Craig is NOT dishonest)
- Lawrence Krauss (Atheist Physicist) -
At first we can notice the very reason that Krauss went to Australia and had the “discussions” was to expose William Lane Craig as dishonest. In an interview before the event, he is asked the question, “What’s the point of debates like this?” Here is part of his reply:
“In this particular case, I also do it because I happen to think William Lane Craig abuses science and says many, many, many things that are not only disingenuous but untruthful, but recognizes that his audience won’t know that. So one of the reasons I like to do these, and certainly why I agreed to allow the first one to be videotaped, is to demonstrate explicitly examples of where he says things that he knows to be manifestly wrong, but also knows that the audience won’t have access to the information.”
But after more discussion with Craig, surprisingly Krauss changes his mind. He says, “I’ve listened to Dr. Craig over the days, and I’ve changed my opinion. I’m much more charitable. I came here convinced, based on my past interactions and his writings, that Dr. Craig is a dishonest charlatan. But I don’t believe that. I think Dr. Craig earnestly believes deeply, in the issues he is talking about -- so deeply, and as a man of great intelligence, he is convinced that there must be a reason"
- Christopher Hitchens (Atheist Journalist) -
“But I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Dr. Craig] very seriously. He’s thought of as a very tough guy -- very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I say that without reserve; I don’t say that because I’m here.”
- Daniel Dennett, (Atheist Philosopher) -
After he heard Craig speak, said "That was a virtuoso job! A stunning amount of careful articulation and structure of some dauntingly difficult issues."
- Quentin Smith (Atheist Philosopher) -
On Time and Eternity, “William Lane Craig is one the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time…It is a rewarding experience to read through this brilliant and well-researched book by one of the most learned and creative thinkers of our era.”to believe that way…”
- Michael Ruse, (Agnostic Philosopher) -
On his book debate with Walter Sinott Armstrong "This is a wonderful exchange about the existence of God--fast, fair, informative, intelligent, sincere, and above all terrific fun."
- Jeff Jay Lowder (Well known, Atheist Blogger) -
“As a freethinker, I think it’s important to follow the evidence wherever it leads and avoid sloppy thinking….I take the charge of dishonesty extremely seriously. Anyone who levels the accusation of dishonesty has the burden of proof, and they had better make sure they attempt to get the other person’s side of the story before publicly concluding that dishonesty is the best explanation. If Craig has been dishonest, I have yet to see any evidence of that.”
“A second allegation is that Craig is dishonest in his public debates because he uses arguments which he “knows” are false. Really? I do wonder how these people “know” what Craig thinks.”
- John W. Loftus (Atheist Blogger with a Master’s in Theology, plus some PhD level study) -
“From personal knowledge my testimony is that Bill sincerely believes and is not being dishonest with himself. Unless someone knows him better than I do then my testimony should be taken seriously. He does not think he is wrong even though he is.”
This is emphatically not the case as much as some atheists would like to think. He is delusionally dead wrong. But he sincerely believes. I know him personally and have talked with him on several occasions even after deconverting.”
- Keith Parsons (Atheist Philosopher) -
“Having debated Craig twice face to face and once in print (in the Dallas Morning News,of all places, June 13, 1998) let me weigh in on Jeff [Jay Lowder]'s side. In these debates only once did I feel that Craig said anything that even sounded like a cheap shot. This was at the debate at Prestonwood Baptist Church near Dallas with 4500 people in attendance, about 4450 of whom were on Craig's side. Craig asked whether anything would convince me that he was right. I responded, as Norwood Russell Hanson did in "What I do not Believe" that some huge display that everyone would see would convince me. Earlier, I had rejected Craig's appeal to the "500" witnesses mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians XV and noted that mass hallucinations do sometimes occur. Craig then asked whether I would not also dismiss ANY display as a hallucination, prompting much braying laughter from the highly partisan audience.
Now whether Craig was intentionally playing to the audience or not, I don't know, but this was a legitimate question and I obviously had left myself open to the rejoinder. When the laughter died I explained...Craig had no response, so I think I took the point.”
“Now if you are looking for nasty, there are people like Steve Hays, Holding/Turkel, and Ed Feser. Ad hominem, character assassination, straw man, and vituperation are their stock-in-trade. I would not at all put Craig in their sleazy category.”
- Kevin Scharp (Atheist Philosopher) -
"In assessing his arguments, I will talk as I would to any other professional philosopher whose system I’ve managed to work my way into. That is, I don’t pull punches, but I also never attack character, so it isn’t personal. Professor Craig knows this; I know this; I’m saying it for the benefit of the audience. In part, because I respect the guy. He’s got some great philosophical skills, he’s a talented system builder, which I admire, and he’s done a tremendous service to the atheist movement by trouncing most of our heroes and raising the bar on both sides. [Audience laughter] I’m serious! That’s a major benefit, a major thing that we can say thank you for."
- Peter Milican (Atheist Philosopher) -"'The Cosmological Argument for Plato to Leibniz' - that's actually my own copy, dated 1980. I got it when I when studying the B Phil here [Oxford], studying philosophy of religion under Bazil Mitchell. And it was clear, even then, that Bill's book was a new landmark in the discussion of the cosmological argument."
Good
Thank You for Sharing this!
Subscribed to your Channel!💓💪👆
@@mickqQ yeah and still he can't debate that magic is real without magicians .
@@mickqQ you obviously have a big misconception about religion
@@mickqQ youre obviously trying to be funny, but you do have a misconception if you think you can just laugh religion off as "magic"
The most important rule is to know what you’re talking about first. It’s foolish to jump into deep water with the sharks before you know how to swim.
I always enjoy when you enter a conversation lol. I imagine you busting into a conversation with the sound of an 18 wheeler goimg down a mountain using the *"jake break"* 😂😂😂
@@electricspark5271 Haha. Yeah, wisdom says know when to throttle up and when to pump the brakes. Truck driving and sharing the gospel can be similar that way. 👍🏻
@@festushaggen2563 lol, yeah like screaming *"Hhhhoooolllldddd on their a minute"* 😂
@@electricspark5271 Funny enough, I just had one of those moments right now. Im talking to a guy on today's Cross Examined video and he just told me that the Bible leaves room to believe that Jesus wasn't crucified. That got me to slam those brakes real fast. 😆
@@festushaggen2563 lol, all I can day is wow...
I know how he feels I would rather debate a Dawkins than my family members who are so ignorant on very basic concepts.
I consider Dawkins a mental midget personally. There's a reason he won't debate publicly anymore.
His books are very intellectually dishonest. He's a scientist pretending to know philosophy.
@@jeffreyyoungblood7438 I don't think he is a mental midget, I think you hit it on the head, he is totally dishonest, as are many informed/educated atheists (and lefties). And they have succeeded in totally brainwashing the uneducated masses.
@@mickqQ 1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand,[a] who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?
5 There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.
6 You would shame the plans of the poor, but the Lord is his refuge.
--- Psalm 14
Jesus Saves he found Noah righteous apparently, so I guess that's contradiction number 1
@@ApeLikeCreature have u ever compared the number of churches in poor areas compared to rich areas?
Lots more in poor areas. Why? Poor people are desperate for anything and charlatans know it. You theists feed of people's ignorance and fear by injecting your religious dogma.
Even when YOU hear about rapes of little boys by priests, what do u do? Nothing. Priests continue their rapes.
Theists say their prayers and keep it moving. You people are disgusting and without empathy.
Dr. Craig is a brilliant scholar, brilliant debater, brilliant philosopher, and brilliant Christian. Thank God for William Lane Craig.
brilliant Christian? Christian?? A man that denies half of God's word is a brilliant "Christian"? An chrisitan are supposed to belive in God's word.
@@Giraf1964 that is a hard accusation to accept. What I know of Dr. Craig he definitely affirms God's word. You'd have to provide significant evidence to support your position before I believe it.
@@rickintexas1584
Dr. Craig believes in theistic evolution, so he "denies" a literal interpretation of the earliest chapters of Genesis. Maybe that's what the other commenter objects to in Dr. Craig's theology.
Let's thank Yahweh even harder for Bone Cancer, amirite?
@@coffeeandbytes9854you would have to thank Adam and Eve, silly guy
I'm sure Dr. Craig is most grateful to Kevin for allowing him to pass on these tips on this channel.
lol
Edit* people that agree with him think he won the debates..
Trying everything you can to win will leave you close minded, not actually listening to the opponent, just blindly rejecting their arguments.
Debates are not to illuminate the presenters, but to inform the viewers. It’s about letting viewers make up the decision in their own mind, after hearing arguement from both sides.
@@IeatBeef4ever I didn’t know that, thank you.
_Atheists:_ **want to be Richard Dawkins so they can debate Lane Craig*
_Richard Dawkins:_ **is Richard Dawkins and still didn't debate Lane Craig*
why would anyone want to debate WLC? Why don’t you stick to putting product in your hair, posting witty comments isn’t your strength
WLC doesn't have a "terminal" degree in biology (just philosophy) so is disqualified from debating Dawkins. This was the reason WLC gave for not wanting to debate Matt Dillahunty.
Because of Craigs age old tired non argument about something coming from nothing! Dawkins doesnt want to waste his time getting irritating!!!
Haha
Poor athiest
HOST: Majority of people agree you have won these debates."
.....you mean other Christians think he won? Same way other Atheists think he lost. How is it determined that he won any of these debates? Did he convert more Atheists to Christianity? Or did the Atheists do more of the converting? Again, how do you know?
Usually it's the person whose arguments go uncontested. That's been WLC mostly. You seem to be agitated with WLC, care to share why?
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Actually, I have nothing but repsect and admiration for WLC. He seems kind and passionate about what he believes. It's the internet trolls-atheists and Christians alike- that drive me crazy saying "Boom! He destroyed em!!" Or "He got destroyed!"
@@jrivera345 Oh. Well in that context, I pretty much agree with you. My opinion of who won or lost is rarely influenced by the comment section.
Thats true reminds me of a saying "there is no deafer of an ear than one that refuses to listen"
Atheists listen but have yet to hear a convincing arguement for a god. Your comment could apply just as easily to theists.
Wim Harleev yup, and no evidence for them either. :)
And that is the perfect description of WLC.
Romans 11:8
KJV Bible
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
No one can decide what convinces them. You're either convinced or you're not.
WHWWD And Philosophy I think many do not understand this
Well that's not very convincing...
@@chonn3 lol yes but its true although was i just convinced of it???? holy **** Illuminati confirmed
Bruh
Are you trying to define "imaginary entity"?
@@filipedias7284 I will define it... "God" 😂
I'd say this guy is a master debater!
I think he's a mass debater for sure.
@@mystery6411 I think it's more that he presents arguments that sound plausible to people who have already decided they agree with his conclusions and either can't or won't see that his arguments don't demonstrate the existence of a god, even though he says they do.
He is actually terrible. Most people agree with his bias so they like his arguments no matter how nonsensical they are
I've master debated to this video...... R.I.P Christopher Hitchens
@@jwake9196 😂🤣😂
The first half sounds like a rationalization on how to avoid debating Matt Dillahunty.
Craig would have no problem debating Dilihunty.While Matt is a very smart guy.And very good debater.If you listen long enough,he will inevitably make a cop out statement that’s like a shield that he can hide behind so he can continue his stance.Like when he said at the end of a debate i watched with him that we couldn’t even be sure or put our belief in the validity of reason.What a cop out statement.So our universal fundamental tool of taking information in.Processing it,coming to a rational,logical conclusion,cannot be trusted as valid??? I would ask Matt,what other way do we have to figure things out? That’s only one statement.But it’s a huge one.Craig would have no problem with Matt.And i doubt Dilihunty is even on par with Craig.
@@dylanacious
To add to the "shield" I've noticed the same thing about his objection with the definition of God. Its his standard response to the Kalam (saying a necessary foundation isn't the same as god), and he used it in his debate with Michael Jones: he pretty much ran out of objections to Michaels hypothesis of a cosmic consciousness (on the basis of quantum physics) and just ended up saying that he simply didn't liked that Michael called the cosmic consciousness "God". Standard last resort, and clear giveaway of a loss.
Sounds like wisdom to me. I’ve seen David Wood’s debate with Matt and it was just terrible. Matt constantly dodges the issues. He says one thing one minute and then the next he changes it when it is more convenient and then denies he ever said it. While anyone can just rewind back and realise he was lying. You don’t want to get into a silly game like that.
@@Miatpi I think it’s fair to say he didn’t like the definition of God as a “cosmic consciousness”. To agree that such a thing exists and one could call it God if they wanted is indeed a loss, but it’s not a very meaningful one. That particular definition of God is incredibly vague, on the level of saying “God is order” or “God is energy”. So while you can certainly define anything as God, demonstrate that it exists, and therefore prove God exists, that doesn’t necessarily tell you anything new about the universe, or anything new or useful about God’s nature.
That being said, Matt is absolutely not without flaw, especially as he can let emotion overcome his otherwise mostly sound arguments.
Why should he be trying to avoid Dillahunty? Is Dillahunty more formidable than Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris?. What Credentials does Dillahunty have? He's a RUclips atheist.
Somewhere along the way we forgot what the nature of having discussions and debates was and replaced it with crass discussions that go for shock value and winning internet points.
Haha. Yeah... Quite sad.
Do you think fables somehow have the same validity as science? Seriously, elevating a fable to that standing is just dishonest.
@@frosted1030 no, I do not. Perhaps you meant to respond to someone else?
You know, that's merely in this circle. I can point you to multiple secular discord servers, YT channels and FB groups where open discussion is encouraged and very active.
Christians seem to have this distopic view of us atheist, that we go around looking for trouble with religion, and only bring up religion when its being mocked or taunted. That's literally what WLC does. NOT US. We debate/discuss multiple religions, yet christians seem to think we only care about them. Heck, WLC even just mentioned this in the video "we try to be Richard Dawkins" to win internet points as you say. Yeah, you're referring to the minority of militant atheist we choose not to associate with.
As someone who came from fundamental christianity to atheism, I can happily say that the atheist side promotes free discussion, while the former actively discourages it. I can't even begin to count the number religious discord servers I'm banned from simply for not agreeing with a point. "think like us and you will have a wonderful time, or we will make you leave" That's the impression I got. There's absolutely nothing comforting about having to conform yourself in order to be accepted. Or to pretend you are something you're not just in order to open a discussion. I can't freely go to my local church and declare myself gay and have an honest discussion with my preacher, that admission instantly denies me. Now, I'm not saying all christians are like that, but doesn't that specific worldview find it's source in doctrine? Therefor I have to reject the doctrine before assessing the individual I'm in discussion with.
Its because they are indoctrinated and told not to debate with creationist. Richard dawkins said something similiar to this.
This man is the greatest Christian defender ever, God bless his soul and his family abundantly with grace 🙏🏽❤️
🙏👍👏👏👏
God bless you!
What good is defending a god that is not real? What does he achieve?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Well what if it is? Also, how would we know if it's real? Craig is clearly very sharp on these matters; he's even responded to objections made against the Kalam.
@@theoskeptomai2535 But in your worldview God doesn't exist, so everything is ultimately absurd, so why does it matter what anyone achieves? Good, bad, rape, murder, discovering of medicine? Who cares if it's ultimately absurd and the universe will expand into an ever ending darkness? Science points out that at the end of the universe's life, the last black holes will have evaporated and humans will be long gone extinct by then, so who cares and why do you care about what you achieve or anyone else for that matter?
Still waiting for Craig to debate Matt Dillahunty if he knows how to handle atheists
That would probably be a nice conversation. With all my antipathy to WLC for his lack of rigor and intellectual dishonesty he's a decent in talking to people (even though with his usual smugness like he's explaining something super complicated to a three-year-old).
Nah, Craig needs to debate with someone who isn't a Dilladodger.
Well, one way to excuse one's unwillingness to debate is to blame the person; assume they don't understand, assume they aren't serious, assume not having a degree makes them unable to debate professionally. And what if they have a public record that attests to their seriousness and their abilities? Apparently that won't make any difference. But then again, I find the format of most formal debates to be somewhat boring and less than informative, the exceptions being when debaters get to question each other directly and answer questions from the audience.
I don't think Craig is saying here that he would only debate academics or PhDs. He has debated Christopher Hitchens, for eg, who isn't an academic, doubtlessly because Hitchens is a tremendously influential figure. "Becoming an extremely influential intellectual figure" apparently counts as "earning it" for Craig, and well when you think about it, that does make perfect sense.
@@Jasonmoofang I don't mind that he's discerning about who he debates, but I'm not buying all of his criteria. It seems a little too convenient to me but having listened to many of his debates, he pretty much makes the same points all the time. I find his method and the format kind of boring to tell the truth. I would advise any potential opponent to change it up, 5 minute presentations with a long Q & A to follow - which he probably would reject.
@@madmax2976 I feel like he can't exactly be blamed for preferring to stick to a format that he excels at, but I do agree and think that it would be cool to see him in more diverse - probably more laid back - settings. Something more like a civil conversation than a back and forth debate, say.
He does provide for some of the best arguments in the game.
All it takes is Wisdom,
something that Atheists reject.
these arguments are?
@@KenMasters. that's your personal opinion. I would say that you're wrong because wisdom indeed is something atheists have, I know I have it. sorry we don't agree that your God exists....doesn't them equal we don't have wisdom.
@@therick363
That's an oxymoron,
because wisdom restricts free-though, just like how absolute morality is the opposite of subjuctive morality.
Also: *The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."*
@@KenMasters. so then the question is what you said a fact or an opinion about atheists and wisdom?
Absolute morality hasn’t been shown to exist.
Also “the fool”….so you take it that if someone says Atheist….they are all the same?
"Let the dead bury their own dead"
ABSOLUTE LEGEND! Yes I agree - in the clear MAJORITY of his debates, William Lane Craig turned out to be the WINNER!
When ever has god, jesus, or the "holy spirit" ever shown up and said "See everyone, WLC is correct".....? lol
MrScout0311 I have to agree with that absolutely.
Try to watch more than just video clips then.
MrScout0311
How about through our ancient historical documents inspired by the supernatural...
Jide Adigun
We get it you hate God
What I see Craig do in every debate is as follow:
1: Set what the atheist have to do in order to score debate points. That is to give "proper" responses to every argument you present.
2: Present Craig's 5 favorites arguments for the existence of God.
3: Listen to the responses the atheist give to these 5 arguments and dismiss as quickly as possible any of the atheist's claims.
4: If the atheis fails to give a "proper" response to at least one the 5 arguments, and they will fail because of time constraints, you bring attention to that.
5: Given the atheist's failure you claim victory.
Works almost every time. Craig is a genius :)
That's exactly what he does! He makes a great big deal when his opponent forgets to handle one of his many ridiculous claims, and preens like he's won the debate.
All style, no substance.
ruclips.net/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/видео.html He spoke to the Cosmicskpetic a while back. I do not find things similar to how you have described above.
@@bkhan19 That was not a debate. In conversations William has a different attitude. Check one of his debates with an atheist.
@@justoch I listened to his debates with Hitchens, Carrol and Rebecca Goldstein. Point 1 that you mention, seems in tune with his debate strategy. Not sure on the rest of the points that you make.
@@bkhan19 Well, I could be wrong about the other points, but after whatching many of his debates that's the pattern I see. And it is a good debate strategy in my opinion, if you consider that debates are for winning over your opponent and not for finding out the best arguments.
This man is a BOSS when he debates people.
Chris McCord he’s a “boss” in the sense that he deflects questions, shifts the burden of proof and uses flawed logic in his answers. I could debate this guy because religion has no legs to stand on. Why? Because you need evidence of the claims you make when there is none. WLC could make as many points as he wants and all I would have to say is “prove it” and I guarantee he would be unable to. There is nothing to back up any assertion other then an ancient book that’s been retranslated countless times, written by a collection of around 20 authors most of which are unknown and highly edited by the Christian clergy over the centuries. A superman comic has more truth in it then the bible.
David Cleaver You’re parroting popular atheistic claims. Where’s the proof? Where’s the proof? Here’s a question? Given the definition of God, how can you expect such proof to be on equal footing as with proving the existence of a tree or the boiling point of water? ‘And we have gathered all the data...oh, there’s God.’ Your statement makes it clear how much of a ass of yourself you would make debating WLC.
@@davidcleaver4442 Who decides logic is flawed? You?
I think it's very sound, and stands on generations of sound, logical theology.
I wouldn't expect that from a militant atheist POV.
Even if God manifested his existence in the most profound way possible many so-called atheists would still deny Him citing a global Hallucinogenic phenomenon or advance governmental or extraterrestrial technology. It’s all about free will...not convincing evidence
@@coreyking5619 i think youre right partially. Some people thirst for any reason to believe. Belief is not a choice though. You need a cause. Not everyone hears the voice of God. People that do think everyone does and ignores him. People that don't think people that do are deluded
If anyone is seeking knowledge, then you should focus on discussions rather than debates
No, I have been to one of his debates. He answered all questions from the audience. He stayed for hours so that everyone had a chance to ask him his/her question. He is just against giving “noisy atheists” a platform in a debate who have not prepared or have any serious accreditations.
heather parker wow, hours is a long time to debate. In all the time did he manage to produce any actual evidence to support his position?
So socrates and aristotle wouldn’t be qualified to debate this charlatan?
@@MrMCN1963 First, having the best educations of their day, Socrates and Aristotle would certainly be qualified, but would likely have agreed with him. Secondly, you refer to WLC as a charlatan: What do you mean by that, and how did you come to that conclusion?
@@WhereWhatHuh WTF? Do you even have an understanding of Socrates and Aristotle? Speaking of divinity does not necessarily require a believe in a deity.
@@MadersPie FTW? Yes, I have an understanding; what's more, I read.
I did not say that Socrates and Aristotle believed in a god or gods, though Socrates, in his _Apologia,_ denied the charge of Atheism by stating that one may not believe in horsemanship without believing in horses (you did read that part, right?). Which means, by implication, that he believed ... Hello?
Later in the dialog, as he is preparing to drink the hemlock, he describes his vision of the afterlife in great detail.
It's okay; I understand how you got to your conclusion, and I'm neither shocked nor insulted. You started with the premise (an unstated assumption, in this case, and wholly without foundation) that belief in any god is contrary to logic. That's your weak spot, btw.
You then assumed (based not on reading their works, but probably on an article, possibly on wikipedia) that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were the epitome of logic.
With those two premises, of course you would reach the conclusion that you reached, namely, that Socrates and Aristotle would be violently opposed to such an idea. Why, something supernatural? Metaphysical? Pshaw!!
Socrates would never have talked about that myth of the cave idea, with it's implications of a metaphysical world beyond this one -- except that he did. It's also in Apologia, in the opening arguments.
Sorry Friend. Didn't mean to burst your bubble, but, well, facts are facts.
Since WLC does not win debates, how can he reveal the best ways to win them?
His tactics regarding debating atheists: Lie about atheism, misrepresent what the atheists are saying, lie about science, commit every logical fallacy in the book, and assume that God exists and the Bible is true.
For me He is the greatest apologist of all time. The real 🐏 such an inspiration. I will cherish his work forever and one day hopefully follow in his footsteps. Nothing than respect and love for Mr. Craig.
If you think philosophising 'evidence' for a God, where none exists, then he is good I guess, though he has been debunked many times by people who know what they are talking about!
How is your apologist journey going so far?
@@bakerbanking What? It most certainly is true! You think that Craig's arguments stand up to scrutiny from those that do not start with a God presupposition? The deluded believer does not necessarily agree with those debunks, but then one cannot prove a negative. If no Gods exists it is impossible to show that no Gods exist to those that have been indoctrinated. Just watch a handful of testimonies from ex believers and hear what they say about the conviction they had in their rational thinking process and their 'oneness' with their 'Lord' and how they realised afterwards what bull they themselves used to think.
Have you heard some of Low Bar Bill's statements regarding evidence required for belief and that there would be NO evidence that would convince him that he was wrong?
A believer is convinced they are right - whatever their religion. A non believer is not convinced they are right because they have no bias toward any particular faith. I would love for there to be an everlasting afterlife when I die, I just don't see any reason to believe that to be true.
@@bakerbanking First sentence: Nonsense! State them!
Second sentence: All those that already presuppose a God, and moreover, they are 'supported' for DIFFERENT Gods by those that already support such Gods.
Did I say no bias? I did not! I said no bias towards a particular religion!
A bias toward something you have been indoctrinated into believing, or you are surrounded by, or you have an emotional attachment to, is obviously far greater than any other bias! For example, I would love for there to be a God and an eternal afterlife. I just do not see the minutest scrap of evidence that any of that is even remotely likely. Now why would I have a bias for that viewpoint? Give me you best evidence that does not assume a God at the outset. I am happy to grant a Creator of the universe that is not around now. Show a soul is likely, show an afterlife is likely, show that how we live our lives will be rewarded after we die in some way.
@@El_Bruno7510 Bro made "God doesn't exist" as a premise and expected a different conclusion XD
every Christian debate with and atheist has been lost before it got started.
You cant win a debate with a fictional book with a 6300 year old universe, an impossible timeline, and stories that is proven not to have happened. Then you make a claim that the book is 100% true and should be believed on faith.
Summary of video: research opponents work, make up brief responses from your opponents work and then pull them out while in a debate.
Not sure if this is supposed to help anybody learn in depth structures of arguments or not but ok boomer.
Good chirp kiddo.
Well before you have objections you have to give an opening statement, so responding isn't the only part.
Brendan Keane Your conclusion is already a better understanding to structure arguments than this entire video
@@TheManofLawlessness what exactly do you mean by that
Brendan Keane This video didn’t teach anyone how to structure arguments. It just stated how this individual structures his own arguments without going in depth on how to structure a proper argument.
Haven't heard Craig mention the word "truth" even once. All I heard was "winning" and "profit". In other words, for Craig, winning and profit is more important than truth.
In my experience, most apologists, street preachers and religion enthusiasts in general are arrogant wanks who basically do what they do for sport. If they think that arguing with people is going to convert them to their religion, they are very sadly mistaken.
@@1970Phoenix Just Pray and read the bible. Do u believe u have a soul
@@thebelievertheone1625 Nah ... not convinced to talking to imaginary friends is an efficient way of achieving anything. Ditto with reading astoundingly boring, inaccurate and internally contradictory bronze age mythology. The soul is an absurd concept with zero supporting evidence and a considerable amount of conflicting evidence ... so no. Also, I sold mine for $5.
Profits is pretty much what religion and churches are about. Lol
@@1970Phoenix I would sell my soul for some chicken nuggets. Lol
And he won’t debate Dillahunty.
@Carlos Rodriguez Are you speaking for yourself? Have you ever tried calling the show to debate Matt? Can I invite you to try it? I would be surprised if you stumped him but I'm open-minded :)
@Carlos Rodriguez Matt Dillahunty has lots of filmed, formal debates on RUclips, just like the one with JP. You seem to not understand that there are lots of differences between a call-in show and a formal debate. Craig's argument that he doesn't want to give him platform is moot, since anyone who knows about Craig knows about Matt Dillahunty, lol. It's just silliness. And, as Matt often says, arguments stand or fall on their own, regardless of who says them. I can't attribute motive to Craig, because I can't read his mind. But his stated reason for not debating Matt Dillahunty is hollow.
@Carlos Rodriguez What better way to reveal the holes in Dillahunty's thinking than on the debate stage? ;-)
Dillahunty has paid his dues and he needs no platform.
Craig is full of sh*t and knows he is outclassed.
Carlos Rodriguez
i have two questions, if i may?
you write, "atheists assume things that have not been proven"
since that's completely false, i am curious
1. what assumptions do you think are being made?
2. do you not recognize your hypocrisy clearly being demonstrated by that statement?
if a Christian could actually win a debate,
there wouldn't _be_ a debate...
nor would there ever have been one.
Christians win debates all the time.
Justin Souza
LOL
@@souzajustin19d only if the audience is also majority Christian.
How to debate Atheists. Step 1) Count speculations and opinions as real facts. Step 2) Tell yourself you're winning! Easy win.
Aren't you just as guilty friend?
Or you could prove it wrong but you can’t 😂
Hello from Armenia🇦🇲†
Craig is cool🔥
Hello from the rest of the world.
No he's not.
He is absolutely freakin..from India
I would love to see him debate Matt Dillahunty.
Ryan Provost Matt Will destroy him!
@@kyaxara7321
Indeed he would which is why I would like to see it. :)
Ryan Provost 😂🤣
@@kyaxara7321
Lol
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:22 KJV
Pray and read the bible. God bless you all
Remember the goal of a Christian debate with non-believers is not to win the debate, but to drag the debate from a rational discussion about objectively verifiable facts into the realm of imagination and make believe. They want to subvert reason by convincing you that faith is a valid way of understanding reality; which is harmful to those being manipulated but very useful and PROFITABLE for those who do the manipulating.
sorry but after watching a debate with Richard Dawkins and how he suggested that humans and life on Earth is nothing else but a seed of genetic experiment done by intelligent aliens and in return these intelligent aliens are the product of other even more advanced aliens, Dawkins completely lost the plot.
how much of a stubborn stuck-up you have to be in order to make your own cult ideology to explain the universe and life on earth, just to reject the existence of a God.
sure, religions can be a problem but the existence of a Deist God for example is not something that can be rejected.
the idea that something came from nothing is absurd.
even in mathematics, the term infinite is actually made up and just a concept with no basis on reality.
there is no such thing as infinite.
and there is no such thing as nothing. and nothing can't be done into something. unless of course there is a powerful entity or a "God" that can make it happen.
@@LevisH21 So Richard Dawkins suggested humans and life on Earth is nothing . .. . So Richard Dawkins suggested, Richard Dawkins is just having fun WITH the audience, Dawkins probably does not think that is the most probable.
Big talk from someone who refuses to debate Matt Dillahunty
Matt Dillahunty is on parr with Jerry Springer
Most people think he’s won most of his debates? Man. I haven’t seen a SINGLE debate Craig has won against any prominent atheist.
Matt doesn't have a degree. This guy needs a degree in philosophy to debate atheists.
But this guy has no problem using the cosmological argument without having a degree in physics.
@@abhishekbsheks Exactly. And he continues to use the Kalam and fine tuning, even after the spanking Sean Carroll gave him on it. Continuing to use arguments after they've been shown to be fallacious means that WLC isn't after truth, he's after converts...which he all but says near the end of this video. That he is the great champion of modern apologetics is sad.
Next up: "How to debate someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus".
The Santa clause sky fairy thing is getting real old bro you guys sound like children saying that someone who believes in a higher power is equal to believing in Santa clause or the Easter Bunny ect grow up
Ok whatever you want to say doesn't bother me
@@chadrasmussen6127 believing in religious fairy tales is getting old. Religious beliefs are mankind's attempts to conceptualize things that are beyond human understanding. People used to believe in the god of thunder... who, as it turns out, was just as real as Santa Claus.
Dr. Craig is really a very knowledgeable and well-prepared apologist!
He got crushed by an actual physicist. Proved Craig 100% wrong on his infinite regress claim. Yet Craig still makes that claim. Craig lying for Jesus is not cool, but considering his employment depends on it, I guess it's understandable.
Faith is the next level of ignorance.
It’s ignorance squared. It’s not knowing but convincing yourself you do know what you can’t know and what no one knows.
Faith is not a virtue.
Another Atheist Robot with his classic low IQ line
He is just a debater..........the atheists that have debated him are seeking truth and actually having a conversation. Craig is just well.....blind as
Most atheist try to hard to deny the existence of God, you can bring up the evidence of the universe having a beginning and the evidence of intelligent design and they'll jump straight to saying "We don't know that the universe had a beginning" despite the evidence pointing to that and "You say the universe needs an intelligent designer so who created God"
Just the same old arguments but not logical.
Lucid Vision it doesn’t take much work to not be convinced that someone’s invisible god thingo done it.
I like being intellectually honest and saying that not only do I not know....you don’t either
How to convince atheists that an invisible, unknowable god lives in the clouds and wants to have a relationship.
Answer: Ask god to appear.
Further: If the Hebrew god is the all powerful creator of all things as Bill likes to claim then god debates would be pointless.
Who said god lives in the clouds? Such a childish comment.
mark mooroolbark I’m sure he was illustrating a much bigger syllogism. Don’t get caught up in semantics you fool 😂
@@markmooroolbark252 Mark they think that comment is funny or clever and it makes the person saying it look well childish like you said. foolish.
@@markmooroolbark252 The writers of the bible seemd to think God lived in the "sky". E.g They were trying to build a tower of Babel to reach God who didn't want that and scattered their language; Jesus's ascencion into the clouds as if heaven was physically just beyond that. Due to modern astronomy this now sounds childish to you.
@@elawchess It is the suggestion that Christians today still adhere to this understanding of God that I found to be a strawman.
Can you ask Dr. Craig why he always turns off comments on his video. Why would someone with god on their side do that? Seems pretty weak to me..
He doesn't on one of his channels.
@@josephsack4918 which one? I only know of his main 2: drcaigvideos and reasonablefaithorg- both of which comments are always disabled...
@@amandamcgovern5744 one of those sometimes has them open. I know on his animated shorts they're open.
I'm a little put off by this clip. I know many apologetics guys debate atheists, but to what end? To "win?" What do you consider winning? That most of the people listening to the debate think you won because they think your argumentation is the best? Well, if you get a hundred people in the room and half are atheists/skeptics and half are Christians, nine times out of ten the Christians are going to think the Christian has won and the atheist will think the atheist won. You may get some honest give on both sides every now and then, but more than likely the person believing their worldview will side with the person that agrees with their worldview.
And not giving up and coming atheist a platform because they haven't "earned" the stature of a Dawkins shows the heart of debating here is actually "winning." No, as Christians, we want to lead people to the gospel because we're not ashamed of it (Romans 1:16). It is the power of God unto salvation, not our clever, philosophical arguments. And when you argue from more of a philosophical viewpoint than a Biblical one, you violate Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8. Dr. Craig does this way too much, to the point that he has no problem confessing that he doesn't mind if the Bible has errors. The Bible is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but most apologetics has more to do with "proving" this than proclaiming it. So as Christians we believe God's Word is God's Word in church, but when we talk to an unsaved person we get philosophical to "prove" the Bible is the Word of God before we proclaim the truth of it (then we even give in to the criticism that it might have errors). It's a sign of double-mindedness, which James 1:8 seriously warns against.
Couldn't agree more. What is the point of arguing the Bible with someone who doesn't believe it? We don't read the Bible as if it's a technical manual so why argue over it as if it is one? If they can't see God in the spider's web, the eggshell, the butterfly, or the hummingbird they're never gonna see God in the Bible. If I'm going to argue with a non-believer, I'm going to argue over his perspective on reality and life. Where does he get it and how does he know it is true?
2:36 in and haven't discussed a single way to debate athiests
I've always said that when it comes to those kind of debates, the atheist usually has the advantage because most atheists debate from a position of agnosticism. That puts the burden of proof on the theist and unless the theist has actual evidence for what he says, the debate is over. That doesn't mean that the atheist cannot utter some rather meaningless technical and/or scientific language that gets approval from atheists, nor the theist make some irrelevant religious proclamation that receives applause from the theists in the audience. One of Craig's debates that sticks out in my mind was a few years ago with astrophysicist Sean Carroll. It kind of presented the problem for scientifically-minded theists as to where their allegiance should fall, to scientifically accepted knowledge, or their faith.
Heather Watson, Yeah the atheist is in the driver's seat in any debate just so long as they don't proclaim that there is not god.
Atheist: "I lack belief in God." This is merely cognitively descriptive and tells us nothing about the world other than one's mental state. Imagine for a moment that Jesus has returned to the earth and is ruling from Jerusalem. God is literally on the earth. The atheist could still say "I lack belief in God." This thought experiment shows how vacuous the atheist claim is. The atheist needs to step up to the plate and give some evidence for God not existing and not just give us a cognitive descriptor.
@@chonn3 Are you being serious? Please tell me you are joking.
@TheCosmicWarrior Generally, if one person makes a definitive claim, that person has the burden of proof. If I say that I do not believe that water is wet, the claim being made concerns what I _believe_ . If I make the difinitve claim that water is not wet, that claim takes on the burden of proof if challenged.
@TheCosmicWarrior If you say that God exists and I say I don't believe that, then you have the burden of proof since you made the claim in question. I do not have a burden of proof for a disbelief in someone's claim.
With all due respect, is it possible that David Lee Roth be Mr Craig's "Evil Twin"?
Yes...
Get your eyes checked.
Why should I believe in Christianity, but not other religions?
I think the debate WLC had with Sean Carrol and the debates he has where he tries to defend the Christian morality view of Devine command theory ended my need to take WLC seriously any more.
Elisha simple, I take into account what I call, “The Three Cons”; Consequence, Context and Consideration.
I think of the consequences of my choices and actions. The legalities are an example.
I also might ask myself the Context. The classic hypothetical of a woman stealing diapers for her baby is an example. Why might someone have come to the conclusion that they did?
I then take into Consideration any other people who might be involved (or animal for that matter). How would I feel if what I’m about to do was done to me?
That is my moral compass and the method by which I try to make the best decisions and act accordingly.
What’s yours? “Cause God said so”?
@@Tennethums1
Hi man what you are saying doesn't make sense . I have a 2 yrs not even close to know how to talk . One day she stole butter from the fridge and right way she went to hide me . My question to you is that how can a 2yrs old has the knowledge of right and wrong if they have not designed to be like that ? By God or a hire being , where does human conscious comes from if it has never been designed by anything. ? Have a great day God bless you all
stellio stevenson Germain not sure I understand your question fully but I’ll give it a try!
You’re saying your two year old who can’t even talk, stole some butter from the fridge and then...gave it back to you because she felt guilty?
First, if she can’t talk I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion she had any sense of wrong, much less guilt. At that age she probably wasn’t “stealing”. More likely, she thought she wanted it and just took it BECAUSE she had no sense of right or wrong. That’s something you’ll have to teach her. In fact, you could tell her there is nothing wrong with just taking things and she’ll grow up thinking THAT’S right. People do it all the time.
If God had instilled in us a sense of right and wrong then we’d probably not need teaching. However, parents teach their kids these things.
The other problem with your argument is even if we were to say her actions were not “natural”, we’d be hard pressed to jump to “supernatural” or (even more of a jump) “divinely inspired”. And it doesn’t even stop there! Not only would you be arguing that her actions are divinely inspired, but that they are YOUR God and THAT God is this and that.
That’s reaching to say the least. The best we could say is she seems to have some unborn sense of right and wrong but that we have no evidence that points to what that might be. You can’t just insert God. To be honest with yourself you’d have to follow a trail that LEADS to your God.
But, I don’t think any of that’s even necessary. We see kids take things all the time and much of the time they DO give the items back but it’s neither stealing or a sense of guilt and shame. They do it to PLEASE YOU. Not themselves.
Sorry the gift was only butter 😇
Mick Q thanks. Little long winded though, sorry 😜
Elisha our thoughts are fully determined by our brain chemistry. Amnesia, schizophrenia, bipolar, Alzheimer’s, head trauma...all cause changes in brain function. If our “mind” was separate from our brain then brain ailments/head trauma would not affect change. But they do.
Now, does these leave us mindless automatons? No, but you’re incorrect in thinking our “mind” is separate from our physical brain. You can lose your mind quite easily and there is nothing you can do about it.
You have to
1. Show how your arguments are scientific
2. Show how there arguments aren’t scientific
3. Show why your arguments are rational & logical
4. Show why their arguments are irrational & illogical
5. Finnish off by stating-
what matters is the truth,
regardless of the personal opinions of mankind.
Lolol #1 ... Zzzz
@@TitanUranusOfficial wow I didn't know you believed in magic
Leo Savage
The argument should be rational and logical only the truth is rational & logical so one falls apart based on the lack of rational & logic
demigodzilla
Without rationality and logic science is a pointless task
Rational and logic comes before any testing.
We use rational and logic in regards to every aspect of life especially in science because we need it to know what to test, based upon what we have already tested. And to use it to come up with different methods of testing.
demigodzilla
No but atheists hold science as their basis for truth & science is baseless without rational & logic.
Why is this even a debate in 2020 if there is so much 'evidence'? Can someone just present it already?
Evidence is usually premised on actual beliefs or entrenched prejudices. Not the other way. Atheism is also a belief system.
@@amhenotepakkardius5504 What? You don't base evidence on belief.😂 Belief is what you rely on when you have a lack of evidence, and it gets you no closer to the truth. Are you saying that a hundred different people believing in a hundred different things provides evidence for what they individually believe to be true, even if those things might be contradictory?
It is beyond me why people in the comment section spam crying laughing emojis. That aside, I don’t agree with belief being evidence but a lot of atheist do treat atheism as a belief system. Specifically atheist who view atheism as “the belief that there is no God” as opposed to just not believing in God.
Before you think that’s dumb, let me explain.
The reason why this small difference is important is because the the atheist that says conclusively that there is no God is making an objective claim that should be able to be proven, right? This is when I’d use your original comment as a copypasta (but I’m to lazy). Personally, I don’t think you have to have 100% proof for everything you believe in (at least something like scientific evidence) but I’m pretty sure that applies to atheist too and not just Christians.
If you want to fire back with the correct definition of atheism, that’s fine but my point is that the definition that asserts there’s no God is almost like a self defeater blah blah blah hopefully you get my point
@@TheNewHumanity hahaha😂
I'm a Christian. Before any discussion of "does God exist" or "from nothing came something" we must realize that the atheist only sees the natural scientific universe. We see the same universe but we also know of a supernatural world called the kingdom of heaven. The atheist laughs at that notion. Don't debate the atheist. It's a waste of time. Just offer kindness and friendship if accepted. If not, wish them well and move on.
Masters Larry:How would you go about trying to convince an atheist of the existence of the kingdom of heaven? Personally, I am unsure of it’s existence. Is it possible you are wrong and, if so, how would this change the way you look at the world?
Lane is so arrogant and proud of himself,but he doesn't realize that his whole belief is based on stuff which is no better than fairy tales.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"-Richard Dawkins.
Let's us know when that fraud is done running and willing to put his Scientism to the test. Or can you just admit he is a charlatan that is more interested in selling books than seeking truth?
Dawkins attributes all of creation, which *literally* has to be either the result of design or chaos (and nothing else), to chaos, despite 1/10000000000000000 odds. I wouldn't champion his work too much.
Ist lesson:pick your fights carefully.
As someone who grew up in the speaking forensics world, I can say everything he describes is just as we would do it. I was in Lincoln-Douglas style debate in High School, Extemporaneous Speaking, and later, I was a judge for all types of events. I judged state debate tournaments on a panel of 3, to smaller town one day events. I can tell you there is a difference between those who spent time preparing at their home practice setting, from those who did less. We would also call them "briefs". The idea is to try to be more steps ahead of your opponent, than he is of you. Think of what they'd say before they say it. Prepare responses so much that you're just waiting for them to say it. It was fun and I hope to get into it again.
Dr Craig is a wonderful speaker and skilled in debate.
Craig is a complete moron, i am not aware of a single valid point he has ever made. the best he can do is the good old "nobody knows how the universe came into existence therefore my god" and try to force atheists to prove the nonexistence of his imaginary friend, as if that would make any sense.
@@hitman5782 William Lane Craig is good with people who already have that Christian nonsense in their head.
Sure Craig wants to debate Atheists. Craig wants to show the problems with Atheism. What Craig wants to stay away from is why the stories of Christianity are not true. Much better debates against Christianity being true are debaters from the Age of Enlightenment Philosophers. Modern day Atheists are to much into proving Science and whether there is a Nature's God or there is not a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is never a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero, not a Nature's God.
@@ronaldlindeman6136 You do realize Craig has on numerous occasions debated the resurrection. That is the central most part of Christianity so how can you say this-"What Craig wants to stay away from is why the stories of Christianity are not true"
@@kristheobserver Because debating the story of the resurrection is not debating why Christianity is not true. That is only debating the story.
How would you debate that the story of Santa Clause is not true? Would you take the text of the story of Santa Claus and if there are any mistakes in the text of the story, then we can decide that the stories of Santa Claus are not true about someone who got Reindeer to fly and pull his sleigh and get elves to build toys. The reason we don't think the stories of Santa Claus are not true is all the Supernatural stuff is not believable.
That is my argument on why Christianity is not true. The way I think about the debates, we should not debate the text, but debate just how stupid and ignorant Jesus of Christianity is about knowledge of Nature. Look up where Jesus and Disciples did not have to wash hands before meals. Would a real God of the Universe know about microbiology? If Jesus is claimed to be a God of the Universe, where is the knowledge of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biology, etc..
@@kristheobserver How do we figure out what stories are true and what stories are not true?
It has to do with making an analogy with stories that we can believe happened, and an analogy with stories that we believe did not happen. And use the thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of stories that humans have created, both true and not true.
Do we think the stories of the moon landings are true?
Do we think the stories of Star Trek are true?
Why do we think the moon landings and coming back to the Earth actually happened? Because Neil Armstrong was a great pilot of jets, Buzz Aldrin had a PhD from MIT in orbital mechanics. The Scientists and Engineers knew how to build rocket ships.
Why might we think that the stories of Star Trek are not true? Aside from the timeline problems. Because the stories don't contain knowledge on how to make Warp Drive Star Ships, Photon Torpedoes, Transporters. In order for us to think the stories of Star Trek are true, we would have to be able to build a Warp Drive Star Ship and fly to Vulcan and look and see if there is anybody there that looks like Spock. Then we might think that Star Trek is true.
It is all about knowledge vs story claims. In order for someone to turn a 3 day old stinky body to new again, that being would have to know a lot about the human body, about blood, skin, bones, eye balls, liver, heart, etc.. Did Jesus tell us anything about the human body? Anything about first aid that we humans can use? Anything about CPR? Anything that would start Science to research into starting Medical Science so humans can build hospitals, medical research facilities and ways to prevent diseases naturally?
All Jesus of Christianity gives us is Story Magic. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero. Jesus of Christianity is not a Nature's God.
Did Jesus tell us about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Geography, etc.. If Jesus was a God, Jesus should have been able to fill entire books on economics, much more than Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, 1776. Instead of just telling people to give to the poor. If Jesus cared about humans, Jesus would have talked about how to build more wealth with good economic practices to build businesses and on how to make things.
Then lets understand Thomas Jefferson and his phrase in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Thomas Jefferson did not think that Christianity is true. Jefferson knew that the stories of Christianity only gets to a human created story God, stories created by humans. Jesus is a Supernatural Superhero, who only knows Story Magic. Jefferson thought that a Nature's God would have knowledge of Nature. That is what the Philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment gave us, is to not believe in Supernatural Superhero Story Magic, but to build on knowledge of Nature and Reason. A phrase used to describe the Age of Enlightenment was 'Dare to Know.'
It is the Age of Enlightenment Philosophies that gave us the advances of Nature, like electricity, electronics and machine created power, medical care and medical hospitals. Not the Story Magic thinking from the ancient world.
Science > Religion in every way.
They aren’t mutually exclusive
Miasma Yes... They are.
@@parkjammer i would love to hear how force and momentum, speed of sound, refraction of light and particle physics all are mutually exclusive with simply believing in a god
@@Alex-hv8rj
Let's take two cases.
Case #1: simple Deism
==================================================
- somehow pushed the first quanta of energy that started the Big Bang or otherwise initiated the existence of the universe
- otherwise remains a non-interfering observer of what was created
- does not intercede when hominids on one pale blue dot in a universe of trillions of planets whines into the great expanse about something desired (prayer)
In this case there is no interaction between the proposed deity and the reality we all experience. Therefore there is no test possible to confirm the existence of the deity and no impact from the deity on our reality (for if there was, it would cease to be "supernatural" and become "part of the natural" and could thus be measured).
So here you could argue that the proposed deistic deity is not exclusive of science... but it might as well be a "null set" since it does not interact in any way. A non-interacting and non-detectible deity is functionally equivalent to a non-existent deity.
Case #2: specific monotheistic god (e.g. one of the three Abrahamic flavors)
==================================================
- singular deity
- typically defined as all-everything (all-knowing, omniscient, omnipresent, beyond space or time, omni-benevolent, omni-just, etc).
- intercedes on behalf of hominid whiners (prayer) on our pale blue dot among trillions in the visible universe
Not only is there no evidence for this type of deity (Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah) or for any other supernatural proposition, there are hundreds of points that exclude this deity from existing through factual incongruity with observed reality along with internal and external contradiction in the myth-texts (e.g. Torah, Talmud, Bible, Quran) that attempt to describe the deity and/or its supposed communication with humanity.
Let's start with the accurate description of the Biblical deity as noted by Richard Dawkins:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
There are literal examples of EACH of those adjectives.
A deity who creates something, apparently can see the future, but still manages to be "disappointed", who at times mass-murders nearly all of humanity, entire civilizations, entire cities, or individuals (about 250,000 in the bibble) while claiming to be moral.
A deity who creates a supposed problem (eating a fruit) by people who did not (per myth) have the ability to discern good from evil and thus weren't responsible for their actions, who wouldn't have done it if the deity itself didn't "harden the heart of Adam" so as to make it happen... then condemns all generations for the situation it (the deity) created, to be forgiven only by a blood sacrifice of himself, to himself, for the problem he himself created... when all that was necessary was to say "I forgive you for my dickishness as a deity".
The earth happens before there is light... direct conflict with how we understand the universe and our solar system to be created and as supported by fact, evidence, and various demonstrated and peer-reviewed scientific theories.
Then there is a lack of instruction on how to minimize disease (e.g., instructions for antibacterial soap and instructions to wash hands several times per day). Fairly stupid deity.
Or the means to treat leprosy (e.g. blood of a couple of birds... summarizing).
Or how to breed particular colors of sheep/goats (e.g. have them mate while pointing at a particular tree).
I could go on for days.
The fact is any of these particular proposed gods are actively excluded from accepting science as fact-based, predictive, and useful to society. Such religious beliefs are directly antithetical to the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of true knowledge (that is, verifiable facts).
Accept science, work to correct it where it is off track, work to add to it, and work to use it to "add value and avoid harm".
Avoid adult-Santa (religion and/or theism) at every turn.
@@Alex-hv8rj Your answer is provided.
"I don't debate atheists who don't have a degree. I don't platform them" - Craig
"Now, is the reason you don't talk to.... to non degreed atheists, is it because you don't want to platform them" - Person clearly not listening
Also, I'm suspicious platforming has nothing to do with it, and Craig only debates degreed atheists so Craig can seem more relevant. After all, Craig is the one with a degree in what's effectively a fairy tale. Not very impressive when you call it what it is.
He has a PhD in philosophy. What do you mean?
Only one with a degree? Look up Tim Mackie, Carmen Joy Imes, Richard Baukham, Gary Habermas, or Frank Turek. All 5 of these people have multiple masters degrees and/or a PhD. This is not a fairy tale. It takes way more faith to be an atheist.
Well we know at least 8 atheists are as ignorant as you are.
@@jacobstephens8447 Faith ...what's that?
Summation:
1. Don't give atheists time to explain.
2. God requires people to have specific modern day degrees in order to discuss the bible meaningfully.
3. If people want to be successful off debating (like he is) then their opinion is invalid.
4. Make personal attacks of character towards the atheist instead of arguing for your subject point.
5. Organize with portfolios.
@Vincent Kinney Did we learn a new word today?
A strawman is a fabricated argument that is attacked instead of the argument presented.
That means it cannot be a strawman if what he says actually means what I am saying it means, which it does.
Here are some time marks for when he advocates these ideas:
0:38 - 0:48
"In fact I routinely turn down debates with atheists who are popularizers, who want to have the spotlight and acheive a reputation for their opposition to Christianity." (My 3rd and 1st point is supported by this. By the way what difference does it make towards the truth of their claims?)
0:48- 1:00
..."But frankly, who haven't done the hard work of getting a degree and uh, doing serious scholarship (My 2nd Point) uhm, I don't give these people a platform (My 1st point)." (Why not? Are there souls not in danger too? Or poor people can burn in hell?)
That's why you love this guy so much, he sounds like you got a sophisticated professional on your side. Doesn't matter what he's actually saying right?
People like that because suddenly their ideas don't sound so silly. Just like you claim atheists are guilty of. (This part is my personal opinion and not part of the video).
1:32 - 1:58
" That's part of it, some of these people are very eager to have the spotlight and be the big man the big anti-christian... and I say you got to earn that stature." (My 4th point, and this is nothing more than a personal attack with no significance to truth of what atheists say. It discourages atheist conversation as anyone can be interpreted that way).
2:10- 2:34
"I usually regretted it because the level of conversation is so... low its debating people who don't understand the issues, much less are capable of giving good arguments in favor of their view... so they have generally been very unprofitable." (My 4th point again).
4:00 - 4:30
(My 5th point). Using portfolios also known as "briefs."
He's kind of a snide prick hypocrite if you ask me but i see the appeal of his fancy accent, though it advocates garbage.
Isn't it a responsibility to save everybody? He has a biblical scripture citable responsibilty to use his apparent genius on the matter so people dont burn in hell.
So how was anything I said a strawman?
@Vinsplosion
"
Summation of your summation:
1: Strawman
2: More people made of straw
3: Hey guys do we need any more straw men? I have a lot...
4: I don't appear to be running out
5: Welp I'll just throw this out there
"
That's such a content-free comment
For years he lost all the debates with atheist scientists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, ...) he should debate some without title - some day he might win eventually
Sure, Jan.
When will Bill Craig stop running from Matt Dillahunty?
He just explained that he doesnt debate popularizers.
Matt Dillahunty = Jerry Springer evangelist
@@inaudiblearia8047 Craig's days of debates are in the finish line, indeed.
As a theist, your opinion would be the same as mine when it comes to Kent Hovind LOL
Lol what was the takeaway here? An opportunity for WLC to brag about how important atheists need to be to debate him? Taking notes and researching your opponent seems like... common sense
No that's the bare minimum. And even this he slips on.
Prepare he says? Well, this is my favorite WLC quote: ""there are no good reasons to believe atheism is true" WLC in debate with C Hitchens.
He didn't even take the time to procure his logic before writing that debate. Or he intentionally wrote it like this in order to bring his own crowd closer.....Which is funny, cuz debates are won by notions passes, not the total amount of votes. If you start a debate with 60% of the notions on your side, and at the end it remains 60%, then you failed at having ANY impact in that debate. And that quote can't possibly convince any skeptic.
The best way would be to just provide valid, objective, positive evidence that his god actually exists. But he has never done that, and cannot do it.
They only have speculations and opinions and they count it as real facts. That's what preachers do but they never had any real proof to begin with.
@@MommyMilkersGoBrrr Along those lines .... Science speaks of facts without having absolute certainty: religion speaks of absolute certainty without having facts.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Right. They have philosophical arguments but that's a very medieval way of thinking. It's funny how people trust a book with talking donkeys vs. science.
@@MommyMilkersGoBrrr wait really where’s the talking donkey? 😂
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger This is one of the best quotes I have ever read.
How does an atheist lose a debate vs religion
Great question. I’d like to know too.
When the religious person incontrovertibly proves their God. It's not happened yet!
How to debate an atheist.
Faithful: Quotes a book written by men, made up by men, told by men, based totally on faith.
Athiest: .........
believes 0=1
Really like WL Craig, an awesome debater and defender of the truth
I have seen several of this guy debates, he always wins in his mind. Never wins in reality.
😂 and I've never seen an atheist argument hold up. You can start by proving God doesn't exist.
It's called "faith" because it's not fact. That's why atheism in winning. You don't need to have debates and arguments. If god really exists why would he need apologists and atheists to debate for or against him? He'd just turn up and show himself.
He has shown himself. The evidence is literally undeniable. You need more faith to reject Christianity then to accept it. Please look at the evidence man. There is so much evidence it is incredible. There is archaeological, historical, prophecy, logical and scientific evidence (to name a few) that proves that the Bible is true, that Jesus really did die and rise from the dead and that the Bible is the word of God.
But please don’t just try and refute my comment and leave, look at the evidence for yourself, look for God and you will find him
@@zacy-t2771 in your opinion what is the most convincing piece of evidence?
@@CaptainFantastic222 hmm good question, maybe the historical evidence (archaeological probably falls under this category as well if im going to be honest)
or the prophecies
@@zacy-t2771 The historical accuracy of the bible has *ZERO* relevance to its authenticity. Even if the bible were written by mere ordinary superstitious primative tribesmen. They would still know about towns , places, people , leaders kings ect . That's the very LEAST we would expect.
Herodotus wrote about life in 500bc he spoke of real people and places does that mean his works are inspired of god ??? Of course not .
If some future archeological dig discovered the ruins of New York and the empire state building would they be justified in thinking *KING KONG* was therfore real ???? Nonsense.
There is no archeological evidence for anything supernatural only the normal mundane stuff we find with everything else.
Almost every fictional book ever written will contain references to real places and people even Harry Potter it means nothing.
However if there were historical INACCURACIES (and there are lots ) that's a different story.
When was jesus born for example ? Because the historical evidence disagrees alarmingly with the bible on that for starters .
Quirinius's census for example we know conclusively did not occur until 6 ad not 3 years before the death of herod but several years after. And yes I know there was more than one herod, I can go into detail if you like about how we know exactly which one it was and can cross reference with Mathew ect.
@@zacy-t2771 I’m sorry but saying “the evidence is literally undeniable” gets tossed around way too much and isn’t accurate because I do not believe any gods exist.
What scientific evidence supports a god?
I have seen Dr. Craig debate non scholarly atheists. It is embarrassing for the atheist. The world is a better place because of Dr. Craig.
The world is a better place because of Dr. Craig's god 😌
So you all really believe this? That you know the truth and 5 other billion people on Earth are wrong? That because you say certain words in a certain order, you know the truth about the universe??? Think about what you are saying...
@@martingirard1949 Hi Martin (salut Martin ?).
Let's put it differently : how many causes has the universe? just one, OK? so there is only one truth about this point.
Same for life : how did it appear on earth (how did it appear at all)? Just one reason, just one cause.
From there on, you may discuss which is the correct answer, but not critic those who search for the truth. All discoveries in science where made by people who searched "the" right answer to a specific problem.
How do you feel about things presented that way?
@@martingirard1949 Yes, I believe this. Yes, I have thought about what I am saying (a lot). Over 5 billion people on earth don't know advanced calculus, but I do. Just because so many don't know it doesn't mean that I am wrong.
Dr. Craig's arguments are very well laid out and explained. The fact that 5 billion people have never heard these arguments is irrelevant to whether they are truthful or not. My original statement still stands: I have watched Dr. Craig debate atheists. The debates that I have watched were embarrassing for the atheists because they had no sound arguments, they only threw stones and hurled insults.
@@ThefrenchFranz religious people don't search for the truth. They already "know " it and they try to read it into thing... It's dogmatism... The contrary of free inquiry. Salut à toi.
I want to see frank turek vs matt dilahunty
Is this guy considered to be a good debater / defender of christianity ? Really ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The main problem is Religious people can’t grasp that they are dealing with a religion and not science... the two are not the same.
buymebluepills ?? What is scientism??
Religious people try so desperately to convince people science is another religion but it’s not. Religious people make claims that cannot be verified and therefore requires faith to suspend that view. Complete opposite to science
Proud to see many comments open about religion being BS.
The incredibly, almost indescribably, complex nature of the universe merely being a result of chance and the hilarious notion that someone need convince you that that is *NOT* the case is what I'd call BS.
Andarovin questioning scientists best guess is very reasonable. But the idea that if they are wrong means the Bible must be true is completely insane.
It breaks my heart to know that WLC must lie on behalf of his faith. His paycheck is dependent upon his lack of understanding.
How to debate atheists? Try evidence
*Gives evidence*
Atheist: I’m not convinced, muh LACK BELIEF.
(Hey guys atheist here, today I’m going to approach a metaphysical question with my personality psychological state, and set the bar for success to be my own idiosyncratic psychological incredulity!!!! Category errors and beyond.)
@@affinity1746 yeah I'm still waiting for solid evidence.
Gracious. Honest. Lethal. Christian!
1:17 None of Craig's opening statement is true. What he is actually known for is giving the same Kalam Cosmological argument at every debate since 1979. What he fails to understand in spite of his claim of great knowledge and wisdom concerning philosophy is that Kalam is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. Secondly, Craig has debated people who don't have a PhD. In other words, Craig claims he won't debate someone without a PhD to avoid debating Dillahunty who would be happy to debate him, but then tosses that rule out the window when he so chooses.
2:00 Craig is vastly overstating his importance. No one would be seen as Dawkins or Hitchens after debating Craig. Further, Hitchens did not attend graduate school and certainly did not have a PhD. Finally, Richard Dawkins has stated that he will never debate Craig. Grayling has made the same statement. I did read an article in the Guardian where someone suggested that Dawkins was afraid to debate Craig because Craig is so much smarter. No. Dawkins is a biologist which is an area that Craig knows almost nothing about. If Craig only wants to talk about Kalam, he needs to debate an astrophysicist. Finally, we can see that what Craig really means is that he only wants to debate someone well known enough to give him some validation.
2:30 Not exactly. In a purely abstract debate (like with Hitchens) where arguments are based solely on logic and intuition, Craig does quite well. However, in any debate where science is involved he quickly shows his vast, scientific ignorance. I recall one such debate where Craig claimed that he had knock down arguments meaning that his opponent was not able to make any defense. In reality, Craig never got up to a college Freshman level of discussion. He didn't understand how ridiculous his arguments were. Kent Hovind does the same thing.
4:18 What Craig is failing to understand is that he can only give a response with which he is familiar which is limited to medium level philosophy and apologetics. This doesn't work with a discussion about science.
Is you last sentence true or are you making a joke? Because it sounds like you are vastly overstating your importance
@@gabrielbernal6309 I don't have any importance today. I don't know how I could be any clearer on that point. But what I said is completely true.
This was a laugh!
This guy loses debates and then in his closing statement says my oppinent hasn't raised any good reasons for his arguments and I have raised only good reasons for mine. He is so indoctrinated that he can't even consider another view point and see he is wrong. Man I wish Hitchens was still alive to kick his ass publicly once more
No bias on your end there! I can just as easily say your comment applies to your own self.
@@First1it1Giveth Hitchens argues facts, Craig argues conjecture and belief. I can't be biased because you can't be biased if you have factual evidence to backup your point. It's like saying you're biased towards the colour orange because the sun is orange even if other people believe it's purple. It doesn't make sense. And Craig does pull that stunt at the end every single time.
@@MrDav020 "He is so indoctrinated that he cant even consider another viewpoint and see he is wrong." The irony......
@@First1it1Giveth I was a christian for 25 years. I've considered christianity and found it contrived and contradictive. I know true freedom now.
@@MrDav020 Maybe you can resurrect Hitchens as an undead zombie and kick Craig's ass on PPV, though its tantamount to the big bad wolf huffing and puffing trying to blow the house down. The idea that you are asserting how absolutely right you are about anti religious sentiment will be as good as dead as you will be in the grave. Follow that fact all the way to its core and you should easily see how contradictory it is, if not morbidly futile. Think about it, you being "right" about your position will mean that, in finality, it meets utter annihilation and therefore, ultimately nothing. It's why Sarte said that life is absurd.
We already know the tactic. Keep pestering them about science to keep from talking about God as proof of anything.
Truly if we’re talking about science, we’re talking about God. Atheistic science is not science at all because science is repeatable, testable, and observable. Yet Darwinian evolution is none of those things.
The big bang is “scientific” yet it contradicts science, The Bible is actually scientific being that it speaks of scientific things like photosynthesis in Genesis, when photosynthesis wasn’t discovered until the 1600s and genesis was written around 1400 to 1450 BC.
If you want proof for God, just look around you it’s obvious the world is a creation and that God is Real. What I don’t advise you to do is look for answers in man because man will fail you God won’t.
Repent and Believe Christ.
I don't get your point-keep pestering the atheist about science?
@@jesusistheway682 Questions of your post
If your talking about science you may feel your talking about god, but that doesn't go for everyone who talks or studies science right?
When you say Darwinian evolution what are you talking about specifically? Why use Darwinian when most scientist say the theory of evolution?
Please explain how the big bang contradicts science?
Just because scientists weren't using the term photosynthesis and didn't fully understand it it seems a pretty big jump to assume that people didn't grasp that plants need sunlight.
*you* may feel that don't look for answers in man but that doesn't work for everything in the world or life. Are you saying to not learn from any man in any situation or specific ones?
@@jesusistheway682 you can observe evolution.
Also can you observe or test god?
He doesn't debate, he spews religious doubletalk.
Why do you believe God doesn't exist?
Nothing like starting at "B" and trying to work your way to "A". Logic.
I love Craig William
Who's Craig William?
How to debate atheists: keep things vague
My god is real, because I believe it to be so..."it is known"
@TREX LEX paranormal phenomenons and spirits exist around the world if they exist so does a spiritual God
@TREX LEX oh and to answer what does that prove easy try to fit evolution into that, explain to me if evolution is FACTS like many idiots say explain the paranormal happening around the world and how does that connect to evolution.
And make sure to beg the question and use non sequiturs!
whybother now seems to work especially avoiding any methodology that actually investigates these beliefs
I find it very challenging to debate people who dont believe in Harry Potter. So kudos to this man that has the ability to do something similar with apparently great success!
Yeah convincing people that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist is a tough task, but Dawkins does it real well!
Humans naturally seek order and meaning in an inherently meaningless world....the idea that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is watching over us gives comfort to many
YuQing Jiang meaningless?
That doesn't make it true
Nunov Yurbiznez agreed
The precise opposite is just as true. Humans, being aware of their many shortcomings, pray they'll never be judged for them and pine for a world where they can live as selfishly as they please, despite all available evidence pointing to an intelligent creator.
@@Andarovin what evidence?
You can’t debate someone who issues magic as their premise....
@Scott Seufert something coming from nothing would sound like magic to me
@@ramigilneas9274 if He is the one who created it - then all has a cause, and therefore that cause is what we call God. Besides, creating from nohing is different than nothing creating everything, if there is something that exists, in this scenario, God, then there is something that existed forever, and "everything came from nothing" can't apply here, since God is not nothing, in this case
The notion that life arose by chance - requires far more than magic
@@ionutdinchitila1663 the origin of the universe is irrelevant to the god debate. Stop that "something from nothing" strawman. It's the weakest, dead horse "gotchya" Christians have.
"Atheists off the street" Lol. I don't know why that made me laugh.
Yeah it is pretty funny. Just remember, there are many “intellectual” theists who have very elaborate arguments about the nature of god, yet many such theists hold mutually contradictory views. This shows that having elaborate arguments and using fancy jargon doesn’t mean they are talking sense.
@@xaindsleena8090 sounds interesting. could you name one or 2 with an example please?
@@somesoccerguy4817Im sure the Dalai Lama can come up with explanations for evil and suffering which are just as elaborate (maybe even more) than those of WLC. Both can't be right, so either one or both are deluded
@@xaindsleena8090 sounds subjective. Thanks for your opinion.
Some Soccerguy Do you disagree with what I said?
I don't Agree with Dr. William Lane Craig regarding the existence of god, but I respect him & believe that he is a terrific thinker.
ROFL!
@@stanstevens6289 Why?
William Lane "If you disagree with me you're a RUclipsr" Craig
The difference between religion and science, God and religion is certainty without evidence,science is evidence with no certainty.
When I became convinced that the Universe is natural - that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world -- not even in infinite space. I was free -- free to think, to express my thoughts -- free to live to my own ideal -- free to live for myself and those I loved -- free to use all my faculties, all my senses -- free to spread imagination's wings -- free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope -- free to judge and determine for myself -- free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past -- free from popes and priests -- free from all the "called" and "set apart" -- free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies -- free from the fear of eternal pain -- free from the winged monsters of the night -- free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought -- no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings -- no chains for my limbs -- no lashes for my back -- no fires for my flesh -- no master's frown or threat - no following another's steps -- no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain -- for the freedom of labor and thought -- to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains -- to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs -- to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn -- to those by fire consumed -- to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.
STAND FOR TRUTH
OR LIE WITH FABLES
SET YOUR MIND FREE
IF YOU ARE ABLE
Hi brother I like what you said , but by saying yes to one thing you are saying no to something else , my question to you do you believe in the scientific impossibility of nothing created everything ? Or something else created everything ? Thanks brother enjoy God bless you
@@stpick7 ZERO KELVIN is but a concept.
When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed; but look only and surely at what are the facts.
@@stpick7 for CERTAIN the JUDEO/HEBREW Eden fables are the foundation of ignorance, superstition and FEAR. There was Never an EDEN and Never will be.. BTW Peter Pan and NEVERLAND aren't real either no matter if one BELIEVES in TINKERBELL or NOT..
To understand the actual world as it is, not as we should wish it to be, is the beginning of wisdom.
NOT FEAR...
STAND FOR TRUTH
OR LIE WITH FABLES
@@aldenzane9118
Hey brother what you are saying doesn't make sense . How do you explain the triangle of Bermute , ships , air plane disappeared just by passing by this area ?
You with your small brain you think you know everything .
How do you explain for someone who has aids got completely heeled just by prayer I witnessed this , how do you explain someone who has been blind from birth just by prayer both eyes open ? Please if you have never witness any miracles it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist ,
Please find the answer for the Triangle of Bermute and the mistry behind it
Have a great time God bless you all
@@aldenzane9118
My friend is here is something to deal with if man knows everything . Then why the word Miracle exist in your dictionary
One of the greatest philosopher said this one day " none sense remain none sense even if it is said by the greatest philosopher have a great time God bless you "
What do atheists need to prepare for exactly? It's the apologist who has to prepare evidence and if he gives it than the atheist rejects it. Either give evidence of god and win the Nobel prize (which is pretty much impossible) or don't. He has nothing - nothing in the bible - nothing in reality points to god existing. He seems to think he knows more because he "read the literature" on philosophy. But humans know nothing about God or if he exists so that doesn't help at all.
I can prove the existence of miracles:
My cat likes having his nails trimmed.
Q.E.D.