Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
William Lane Craig vs Andrew Pyle: "Does the Christian God Exist?" Bristol, UK; 2007
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 апр 2012
- A treat for you from the 2007 UK Tour, while we edit and produce the remaining videos from 2011!
Andrew Pyle is Reader in Early Modern Philosophy at Bristol University. His research interests include the History and Philosophy of Science and the Metaphysics and Epistemology of the 17th & 18th centuries. He is the author of "Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: A Reader's Guide" and is on the editorial board of the British Journal for the History of Philosophy.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in California. He has doctorates in philosophy (Birmingham UK) and theology (Munich). A popular international lecturer on university campuses, Dr Craig has authored or edited over thirty books, including his signature work "Reasonable Faith". Website: www.reasonablef...
Gregor Mclennan holds the Established Chair of Sociology, University of Bristol. His research interests lie in the areas of social theory and philosophy of social sciences. His current work includes evaluating "post-secular" currents in social thought and the role of intellectuals in contemporary public debate.
I'll never understand why people think "he uses the same arguments all the time" is somehow equivalent to "his arguments are not sound". Indeed, if they'd been refuted, he wouldn't still be using them. His presentation of them is usually similar (not always, mind you), because his audience is different. This is common for speakers who have to present before various audiences (so they don't have to work up brand new ways of saying it to a new audience that hasn't heard the old way yet).
Please underline a thing or too that shows that his arguments are sound.
@@ciprianpopa1503
I'm not sure I understand the question. In each of Craig's arguments here, the conclusions follow from their premises, and the premises are true (with the notable exception of the "personal experience" stuff that he sometimes mentions, which he acknowledges is not an argument for God's existence, but just for the rationality of his own personal belief).
@@Mentat1231 the question is very simple. What I am asking is to provide the definitive proof of god. This is what your idol is claiming. If any of his statements would be good we wouldn't be here discussing the topic.
And of course, you cannot conclude from a premise. He states a premise as truth and then he continues without proving his premise. And therefore, all he says in relation with his premises is flawed and, therefore, your attempt to advocate his speeches as sound is flawed too.
@@Mentat1231 To make it more clear, what are you missing here is that any statement should be structured as premise - demonstration - conclusion. It is the demonstration part that is always missing from your idol flowchart.
@@ciprianpopa1503
So, first, I’m not sure why you’re calling Dr. Craig my “idol”. I don’t worship him, and I don’t even agree with everything he thinks (for example, I think he’s wrong about Molinism, and his argument from the applicability of mathematics is no good).
But, the 4 arguments he gives in debates like this one are sound, and Craig does give reasons for each premise (as you can see in this video, for example). He doesn't just state them and then conclude.
Pyle's always drinking water and shuffling around makes him look nervous and unsure of what he is doing. Craig once again does a fantastic job at communicating his reasoning, while also being so respectful
Pyles, WAY over his head here.
Drinking water means that you are thirsty in the real world. Don't confuse with why dragons drink water in your world of fairies, that is because they spit fire.
@@ciprianpopa1503 you should use your brain more
@ciprianpopa1503 coping after two years. Dude, Pyle lost the debate with his first sentence. To preface, debate topics shouldn't be presented as questions, because it introduce ambiguity into the burden of proof. You can't defend or rebut a question, you can just answer it or refuse to.
Pyles first sentence was a refusal to answer the question. He can critique the evidence provided as much as he wants, but it doesn't matter if he's the only one not answering the question and backing up that answer. He even conceded that he's an agnostic more than an athiest. So he even admits that he CANT answer the question in any certain sense. He gave up the debate during his introduction.
All these atheists attacking WLC on attributes and characteristics that he doesn’t have lmao that even plenty of their fellow atheists admit that WLC is respectable and gracious as a person
Apparently if you can’t refute WLC then attack his character is the answer smh 🤦♂️
amoeba
Always like listening to WLC. He is awesome
In my experience, nothing has helped me more than my faith in God and my relationship with Him. I trust Jesus.
Which isn't evidence.
@USA TAMONDOMUNI I don't know what you're asking, there's 2 things that could mean...
1. Define evidence
2. State what the evidence is for god
@USA TAMONDOMUNI
"Where is your “Which isn't evidence"?"
- you need to get on the same page, that was a response to a comment stating the utility of 'faith'
- I merely pointed out that isn't evidence for god
@USA TAMONDOMUNI
- That was a pile of rambling bullshit
- your sequence of etymologies and definitions are superfluous and irrelevant
- one point that I will correct; you *CAN* see viruses, you ignoramus
@@michaelanderson7715 That guy is way off base.
The mistake that Dr Pyle makes in not presenting an argument is that it leaves Craig to defend every area in which he is an expert. Craig won this debate, hands down.
Craig is an expert in the field. 👍
My gut reaction when watching Professor Pyle is, if you can't present a single argument against the existence of God, you probably shouldn't be in a debate about the existence of God. 🤷
Yes though to be fair to him at least he had the guts to debate unlike fakers like Dawkins
@@stephenglasse9756 Dawkins has no business debating anything related to God but for maybe evolutionary science. I think he realized that after being destroyed in debate years ago. He seemed to have put his focus on strengthening the disbelief of God into students and laymen, like myself. I remember years back watching him humiliate a person that was more than half his age and less educated in front of others and realizing that he was a bitter, selfish arrogant man. Now I know he desperately needs God but back then I didn't believe either.
His tone and facial expressions are saddening yet disgusting. As for his arguments; I'm a layman and even I was instantly picking up on his weak argumentation. I don't think he or anyone needs to disprove God or else believe but in debate it's a tired and old posture. It's not an organic conversation on the street between laymen. The main purpose for live debate is to persuade the audience but you should bring solid arguments for and against the positions of your opponent.
No way I would debate this Professor though. I don't have the skills or education for it.
When WLC starts talking and laughing at the same time ... HERE WE GO 😂
Indeed, the fallacious bs that follows deserves laughter.
A typical comment from those who have no ability to engage philosophical arguments with any intelligence.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 "A typical comment from those who have no ability to engage philosophical arguments with any intelligence."
- a typical comment casting baseless blanket assertions
@@michaelanderson7715 Not really... If someone looks at a series of philosophical arguments and all they can do is call them BS that deserves laughter it's reasonable to assume that person has precious little to say of any substance.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 bs, muted
Andrew Pyle joins the long line of Britatheists who can't make arguments to back up their contentions so they resort to derision and mockery in an obvious appeal to the basest elements of the audience. He should have lost on that, alone.
William Lane Craig also means Winning Like Crazy! 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾😇😇😇
Bill " the most feared apologist" craig
Dr. Craig wins.
by virtue of solid, coherent
arguments...
Dr Craig was awesome!
I love Dr Craig.
You could propose him.
Dr craig was on fire as usual..
I meant the chapter on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, obviously (seeing how that's the only one Sinclair was involved with). That being said, the Leibnizean Argument is even more compelling, in my view, and the Ontological Arguments are absolutely ironclad. You might also enjoy the Teleological chapter, and the Argument from Reason.
Anyway, you don't need to read it if you don't want to. Let's pick an argument, and I'll gladly defend it.
"In the technical sense, facts can answer certain ‘why’ questions, like ‘where’ or ‘when’, and even ‘how’, while truth answers the question ‘why’."
Well said, and you have zeroed in on the key. When one know the "why" the rest of the questions can follow more easily in regards to minds.
Here here! It's absolutely amazing, the number of appeals to mystery, appeals to authority (usually "ad verecundiam", since they're not even the authorities in the right field), and appeals to emotion and incredulity that I read from the typical RUclips atheist. And the published "new atheists" are no better (Richard Dawkins' arguments in his best-seller are a bad joke). It's just astounding....
There are additional fields that could contribute here, as Pyle´s Ganesh ploy suggests. However, Craig´s standard is more than adequate to address Pyle´s reliance on fallacy. He´s clearly articulate in the science, and scientists are usually unable to grasp that this argument is not scientific. "Science" is a term that misrepresents the field, which was natural philosophy, and might be called scientific philosophy. The very origins of modern scientific philosophy are sociohistorically Christian, and for specific psychosocial and cultural reasons. Those reasons, the dynamic interaction amongst monasteries, churches, and political and economic authorities, involve special ingredients in Christian culture that make Western Civilization a leading influence in globalization and having established the UN community of human rights, and now sustainability. The monk Thomas of Aquinas, in fact, was taught by Albert Magnus as part of the founding shift of monastic schools to Universities. You couldn´t have had the scientist Galileo without Christian monastic schools and Universities with Thomas of Aquinas, and they all demonstrated the West´s exceptional capacity for social cooperating that led to the Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment sequence and legacy.
The issue of emergentism would help contextualize the transcendental cause that the First Cause/Kalam Cosmological addresses, but Pyle shows little inkling that science itself is not reality, that absolute truth is philosophical, the actual nature of scientific philosophy. That involves logical coherence and correspondence with reality, with logical coherence involving conceptual analysis, not scientific experimentation. Social Studies actually involves empirical evidence for the additional signficance of Jesus´ legacy, and shamanic practices, no less, for additional indications like a Historical Sociological argument.
Repeatedly, Pyle's argument is, "I can't explain all these things from history, but I am sure it's not God".
But he doesn't really offer any actual explanation. If people argue that "onus of proof is on the Christians", I'd argue that that is still useless. In science, when we look for an explanation, tearing down bad explanations is important, yes, but you wouldn't be much of a scientist if you don't offer any of your own theories..
Besides being a brilliant & clear Philosopher & Theologian, in his graciousness & kindness, William Lane Craig is kind of like a Christian Mr. Rogers. Both WL Craig & Mr. Rogers might be seen as weak &/ or vulnerable by virtue of their gentleness but both are strong & masculine men in the truest sense of the word. ❤
I agree with u. Ya know, they already know what he's gonna say. So if he's soooo refutable, why is it they never refute him in the debates with him?. I know he gives a lot of arguments & that takes a lot of time, but they could at least spend time refuting 1 or 2 of his arguments...yet they don't. I find it unbelievable that most of them have the nerve to even call themselves atheists. But then, they seem to just make up different definitions for even what that word means vs using the standard.
wow, thank goodness someone has a good meta ethical understanding, thank you sir!!!!!!!
It was a bit disappointing at times.
Dr. Craig is a seasoned professional at this and it shows. His command of the available time and the clarity of his arguments was flawless.
Prof. Pyle on the other hand was clearly out if his depth at times and on several occasions resorted to smug dismissals and scoffing at Craig's arguments.
I'm watching this debate by first time and when I saw WLC's opponent, all I could think is "WLC going to lunch him only with two chips" jajajaja
pyles laughings after an statement shows how silly he really is.
Pyle's laughing concerns his trying to withhold his mirth at the idiocy of the arguments Craig presents. Pyle is a philosopher and even if you don't know that Craig makes baseless assertions that have no substantive basis, Pyle and countless other philosophers do. Pyle decimated Craig's arguments by showing them to be deeply flawed. That's all he needed to do.
not relevant if Craig is right or not, Pyle is obviosly a jerk. Thats to point.
Uba Uba Wrong. The issues are the questions in hand. Whether you think Pyle is a jerk or not is irrelevant. Actually, Craig would be the jerk here in asserting arguments he cannot substantiate. Trying to tie up cutting edge cosmology with the god of the bible? The man is the epitome of an idiot.
@Dd S Mdr, tu a ta lu un livre sur la philosophie et tu veux te comparer ou parler de WLC? Déja, essaye de réfuter ses arguments après tu parle petit con
He didn't proof anything, he just said non senses. Craig used logic. If someone is in disagreement, please tell me, how does the universe tuned itself in such a complicated way? Do objective things exist or not? Is there an absolute truth?
wondering the same thing myself
We know that there are minerals, plants, and animals.
Plants need minerals and energy to survive. Animals need plants and/or other animals to survive.
God, on the other hand, doesn't need anything and lives for ever and ever on nothing. Magic !
Love the way William Lane Craig told the Audience for those of you who might not of understood Pyles reply let me help you. Pyle had to resort to Sarcasm to make a point
Good points.
This debate made me stronger in my christian belief.
Quite liked what Pyle had to say and the way he said it. Enjoyed his portion of the debate.
1:39:07 "breaking the audience's glass jaw by using words like 'rape' ..."
This student questions the moral argument is an example of what I posted above. It's a good question, but Craig's answer is sufficient.
Good point. The subtlety involves the fact that Jesus actually taught 2 key loving Commandments that also refer back to Moses. It is the definition of loving morality that serves as the foundation stone for any victim of violations, and perpetrator of violations. None of us wants to be violated, but amongst humanity it has become common, and has existed since the evolution of human symbolic culture. It has appeared in important ways elsewhere, with Buddha and perhaps Confucius as examples. And they are important for Christians "seeking the Kingdom of Heaven" to "go and learn..." Jesus´ legacy has had unprecedented achievements, and requires further clarity around the basis of ethics and morality. It requires a shift from church doctrine to the perception of Jesus´ legacy in UN human rights and sustainability for spiritual practice. Jesus´ role is specific and secure in its empirical place. In University-based society, it can achieve the integrity that can then feedback to churches, with synergies like Gandhi demonstrated. He read the Gita and the Bible, and more, as he demonstrated significantly the power of Jesus´ love.
The later question about salvation without knowing Jesus relates to this. Shamans were achieving greater consciousness of God, and had opportunities to appreciate the power of the dynamics of Jesus´ loving Commandments, as the holy Buddha did in his culture. Scientific philosophy gives us the knowledge that things have to be done in cause and effect processes ultimately, with spiritual practice one key to sustaining our conscious contact with God and the salvation of integrity. The tragedy of infanticide amongst the Greeks and Romans, and deaths like Archimedes´ involve the burden of natural existence and efforts to improve it or just have dominators. Jesus´ special role is not without its limitations and needs for its own development. FDR´s and Eleanor´s vision of the UN and human rights have followed University-based society´s legacy to create amazing new levels of opportunities to accomplish Jesus´ teaching "go and learn...", not least of all.
The biblical universe is far different from the universe known today. Consider the solar system. I wonder if Dr. Craig has viewed the picture of the ancient Hebrew firmament? When the bible was written, they thought the earth was flat. Since the bible is divinely inspired, shouldn't God have stepped in and let them know the earth was round. The solar system we know today is far different than the firmament.
That's what I think too, but most Christians would argue with you that the bible was inspired by God, so that's my point.
You're not a typical Christian. Are you Christian at all?
Most Christians are very attached to the bible they rarely read and you're not.
I like your view Lelouch Di Britana, but most Christians,at least in the midwest(bible belt), think it is.
It's all myth.Would that be between the earth and the moon? It just sounds ridiculous.
"2+2=4" is just "opinion"
- it depends on your definition of 2 and 4.
Here's a simple question..:
Is the Father a "1/3-God"???..
Watching out of curiosity because Dr. Craig lists this as one of his worst experiences debating.
1) You not being sure is, frankly, a personal matter. It's possible until some impossibility is demonstrated.
2) Well, you mentioned three properties of the MGB ("maximally-great being"), but it has another: necessary existence. So, if it is even possible that the MGB exists, it follows that the MGB really does exist.
Atheists want me to define God down and out as they do so I too can prove eternal life with God does not exist for me.
Pyle was severely outgunned in this debate. His entire presentation was:
"I have no reasons why, but you're wrong." He seems to have no understanding of elementary argumentation. He comes off huffy, arrogant, insulting and convoluted. Indeed he typifies the 'new atheists' so prevalent these days. Classical Logic and Philosophy have suffered greatly in our modern educational institutions.
Dude WLC is undefeated in his debates, and he uses many of the same arguments, depending on the subject of the debate, over and over and no one can beat him.
Mr. Mclennan you are a fantastic moderator.
Where is the rest of the debate?
This debate is between dismissive and arrogant cynicism vs. Reasoned, systemic arguments. I thank God that he kept me from the trap of atheism, it is the worst game of cosmic Russian roulette in existence.
You are thanking god for making you look stupid on the internet? Why? :-)
Amen
All Andrew Pyle does is personally attack, and he is so aggressive
Atheist debaters always come across as the most miserable people. It's sad.
A woman's soul trapped inside William Lane Craig or a pure gay.
Killing the innocent is wrong, and Craig agrees. He said that, when God commanded that the Canaanites be driven out, and that any who remained should be killed, God was able to give eternal life to any innocent ones who died. No one else is capable of doing that, so it can not be generalized. I think that was Craig's point.
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy states that atheism is "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none."
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God" but also says that "Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God."
I don't think Craig should use the argument (which he admits isn't really an argument) from experience. It's a distraction and a non-sequitur in the context of this sort of debate. But his other arguments are quite good and Pyle was no match for him.
Craig just described infinity (the kind he says can't exist) as a collection of definite and discrete parts. He used this type of infinity before as rebuttal against the universe extending infinitely back in time. But, time isn't definite and discrete, it is continuous, there are no definite parts, at least none that we know of for certain. Did Craig ever take a stats class?
Craig says the number of events can not be infinite, so anything can be an event, as me writing this sentence, so the number of past events can not be infinite, but you could still use seconds or days and that wouldnt make sense either. So yes he knows what he is talking about
Craig did a very good job, as usual. I do wish he wouldn't use the Argument from Experience, which he admits is not an argument. Even if his opponent embraced everything Craig says about his own experience, it would only follow that William Craig in particular is rationally justified in his belief in God. No one in the audience came to find that out, and it doesn't hurt atheism at all to think that people are rationally justified to believe in their religious experiences.
But the other arguments are great, and while Pyle was much better than many others (especially at understanding that atheism is a negative claim, and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but he was no match.
I know this is an old comment of yours but I think Christians have a duty to some degree to mention the personal evidence from experience. In debate you're not just trying to win, you are persuading the audience. As a Christian you want people to understand that personal experience is important for belief and faith. It's required in some way actually. Logic isn't required but it is a stumbling block for some and that is the reason for a Christian to debate.
Dr Craig wins by ending up with the biggest bank balance….
I guess because he writes good smart books that people like to buy. I would bet Dawkins, Harris and Krausse have made some good bank selling books, but I doubt you have a problem with that.
I agree, Darell, Jason's message length proves that you are right in all things.
It's not an emotional argument, he's arguing that it seems to be intuitive that torturing is universally wrong (and thus objective) with or without God's existence
"God" is a very general term. It basically means, the universe has some explanation for its origin. We have no idea what the explanation is. Craig is arguing for the existence of Yahweh, not for the general term "God".
depends on the argument, he does both
I gave a reference when I said "...his very first talking point". You are absolutely correct, the big bang does nothing to prove Jesus is legit within a debate called "Does the Christian god exist?" If everything had a cause, what caused god? Before the expansion of space, time did not exist. Therefore, how could there be a cause to the universe when there was zero time for the cause to exist in? To think a thought or snap your magic fingers to initiate a cause, takes time. Nothing was the cause
Why is it that every time I hear WLC say Gerd Ludemann's name, I start giggling? :)
Missing my point, I meant that if scientists must be 100% objective you cant use arguments involving terms like "childish" because they are subjective. You have an emotional response that makes things seem absurd and silly. That is not objectivity. That's being a slave to you're emotions and thus EXTREMELY subjective.
If you asked Craig to define his favorite word (quantitative) he’d piss his pants and run off the stage
Craig speaks of numbers as abstract objects, which may be logically necessary in their existence. I think you've got Craig confused with somebody else.
God reached out and stepped into time so we would know that we are not alone. Thank you LORD Jesus for taking my sins away.
God is in control and He holds all things in His mighty hands. Blessed are thr poor in spirit who seeks God 's truth.
(continued) In fact, Andrew Pyle agrees with me in this video. Check it out: 25:37.
alright, i wanted to start with the "ironclad" ontological but i remember we did that already. lets see..
1. i'm not sure if being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent altogether is possible.
and..
2. i'm not sure if something that is possible is true.
That's not what I'm saying and don't jump to conclusions.
1/3 represents Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
You get one because the three agree as one.
WLC illustrates this well with an analogy to Cerberus.
1) As I've said more than once, Craig primarily uses the philosophical arguments against an infinite past, and these do indeed show the Universe is finite. Also, the cyclic model has serious problems.
2) Teapots are not the kinds of things that can do that.
Andrew Pyle has a crazy beard!
actually that is not just semantics, infinite does not equal eternal. Eternal has no beginning or end, infinity has a starting point
I think so too, but it doesn't change the fact that, if they are atheists, then they actually believe God doesn't exist; they are not neutrals.
Craig has never said, "That which exists has a cause." Rather, he has said, "That which begins to exist has a cause." (God never "began" to exist.) Please read/listen more carefully.
I have a degree in Graphic Design, and regarding the subjectivity and objectivity of colors, it becomes a silly argument. We cannot compare the objectivity of these subjects, the moral and the colors, because the moral is one and the colors are thousands. Colors are visible, colors are not felt. Morality is transendental and colors are observable. Therefore, it was stupid to use the subject comparison😔
I was an undergrad watching this debate all those years ago. At the time an evangelical and now an athiest.
A few things pyle said really stuck with me -
1) Craig's cosmological argument is an attempt to do physics apriori, an approach with an awful track record. Particularly his answer to the question at 1hr 43.
2) the comparison of the evidence for the ganesh milk miracles and the resurrection.
At the time I had no idea what Pyle was going on about with the 20 dimensional hyperspace etc in refuting the design argument. But now knowing my linear algebra and non-linear dynamics I find it pretty compelling!
are you gay ?
@@pankaja7974 irrelevant
This debate wasn’t even challenging for Dr. Craig.
1b. James Sinclair is a senior warfare analyst, actually, but he also specializes in these cosmological matters. You should read his chapter in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you have an open mind, that is.
Name one. If it's hard to believe that I can't pick one out, then you should be able to pick one out rather easily.
The impossibility of an actually infinite number of things applies to the physical world only, not to the "world" of the metaphysical or supernatural. For example, theoretically there are an infinite number of numbers, which are abstract entities; however, it's impossible to have an infinite number of apples, which are physical objects.
The questions and answers portion was infinitely stupid because the moderator only allowed each student to ask only 1 of the presenters, and he didn't allow the other side to rebutt the answers given.
William Lane Craig vs Gomer Pyle
"Well Golly"
Can't people from other religions/faiths claim the same thing? They think you're mistaken just like you think they're mistaken.
Right. The old "His arguments are so backwards and outdated that I won't even dignify them with a response" comeback. *Roll eyes*
If they were so easily refuted, wouldn't at least one of the literally dozens of brilliant academic minds (that DID see it worthwhile to debate these topics, for what that's worth) have dismantled Dr. Craig's assertions with ease? On the contrary, Dr. Craig soundly defeats each and every one of his opponents.
No one said science must be 100% objective. Science is as objective as physically possible. For instance, we know objectively that gravity does exist. But no scientist could ever claim 100% absolute knowledge on gravity.
But the main point (and probably the point which you will ignore) is that saying "childish" is an attack on how you are acting. It bears no effect on any other scientific arguments which may be presented. You cant use a single world to discredit all the other arguments.
Actually, lack of belief in a deity is referred to as non-theism, where as atheism is the claim that god does not exist. Atheism is not just saying I dont believe in god, it goes further and asserts that there is no god. There is quite a difference.
If, when God kills something, He is able to raise it back to life, and give it eternal life in perfection, it seems to me plainly different (in a moral sense) from any of us killing something. The same moral laws have vastly different application to someone who is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. They work with large-scale ramifications; while we just hope that what seems "good" to us right now doesn't redound in some much greater evil.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't think it matters if they are or are not, but it is an important distinction to note.
Somebody let Craig know that the "Big Bang" is not a problem for either cosmology or atheism.
But it is. If material is all that exists, nothing outside of it, then how can one say that the Big Bang came into existence from nothing. Science today points out that Time, Space, Matter and Energy all came into being during the Big Bang...The Bang is the effect, what is the cause?
Nope, it isn't. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, and we may never know. Science has no problem with "we don't know yet" as an answer. Much preferable to insisting a supernatural being did the creating--there's no evidence of one, or ANTHING supernatural. Why try to drag such a being into it?
I do accept the Big Bang, happily. How do you know that the only two choices are either a "conscious or unconscious mover"? You don't. Your uninformed opinion is that such a being exists, but there's no evidence for one existing. I have watched the debate. Lane tries to make the argument through Aristotelian "logic", but that has very little use in describing the physical universe, or the processes we see working in it. His arguments are not "nice". They are nothing more than his "god of the gaps" opinion. Read some Lawrence Krauss.
Theists have opinions, not a "hypothesis". "I don't know" is a much better answer for something we don't know than making up a ridiculous mythology that has no evidence supporting it.
Jesus Christ is indeed Lord and Saviour of our souls !!!
Oh but my repairman lives. He died for you too.
His resurrection is well established. Both you and I must meet Him one day.
Craig is a very wise man. You could learn a great deal.
You need to look into Dr. Craig’s credentials.
Time will tell.
No the comparison is made for you to understand how three can be one. And you don't take all aspects of an analogy literal.
He is like a rock.
That means he is strong. That doesn't mean he is lifeless as well.
You have to know what the analogy is trying to demonstrate.
Let's face it, religion is dying. And it's time. We need to enter the age of reason and not be shackled by the silliness of christian mythology.
He's lost on morality against Keagan, on the NT text against Ehrman and on Christianity in general against Parsons. If you do not concede ANY as losses, you are a fanboy, like someone saying Hitchens "hitchslapped" everyone he's ever debated.
Why don't you name me a few things Craig has said that is wrong, hm? Or is he irrefutably right about everything?
1a. Kant's thesis is almost universally rejected; Craig doesn't need to bother with it (though he actually does briefly mention it in this video, asking Pyle if he really wants to endorse it, and Pyle quickly says "no!").
There is only a paradox in the case of an infinite past; not in the case of a first cause. By the nature of a "FIRST cause", it doesn't have any cause, and exists necessarily. There is no special pleading in the distinction between "necessary" and "contingent" beings.
I'd agree, Craig uses virtually the same basic arguments every time, we all know whats coming and he just defends them and usually is picked as winning the debate.
In the limited context of the WLC/Atkins debate, you're right. But in the larger Christian context faith is absolutely fundamental. Read Hebrews ch. 11. Whatever WLC might say in a debate, Christian doctrine contains massive appeals to, and commendations of, faith.
Craig's God isn't said to exist for an infinite series of events. The Universe, if it were eternal, would have to persist for that kind of infinite series. That is the relevant difference, which is rather obvious if you listen to his argument.
With the Ganesha elephant god milk "miracles", it seems that people actually saw the statues taking the milk but it was subsequently put down to capillary action. Further support for this was that not all statues took the milk and those that did stopped doing so. So it appears to have been statues that were sufficiently dry and porous.
It's wrong because they're using Scripture to say that the Bible doesn't say the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are God. Except they don't know how to read the scripture because those verses they quoted are CLEARLY interpreted wrong. Again, they are saying the trinity is false because the Bible doesn't teach that but it does. Though the Bible doesn't mention the word trinity, the concept represented by the word “trinity” does exist in Scripture.
Creation itself proof that there is a creative Creator...Psalm 19...the heavens declared the glory of God and the earth demonstrates his handy work. God bless
Where did you see creation? I only see the world when I go outside and that seems to take care of itself just fine. ;-)
Colors are actually a perfect example of objective vs subjective. Scary that Dr. Pyle thinks otherwise.
Why not look up his arguments on the Interwebs, maybe add 'refuted' to the search ?
- Cosmological Argument : refuted
- Fine Tuneing argument : refuted
- Argument from Absolute Morality : refuted.
- Jesus Ressurection argument : refuted
1a. maybe craig forgot to mention it?
philosophically speaking the question of a beginning is not solved at all. it leads to paradoxa in both cases and it is hard to escape infinite regress when dealing with a first cause.
for instance one can ask: "what caused the first cause?" the problem with arguing for it's exemption is that it raises the question of why it is indeed exempt and it seems to lead to some sort of special pleading.
The right stance is to see what distinctions are made by the use of labels. If there is no distinction, then a label is superfluous. So, for example, if someone claims to be an atheist, but is NOT claiming "there is no God", and is claiming instead "I just don't know", then their claim is covered by "agnostic", and they should call themselves agnostics. Also, if all they claim is "there is no evidence for God", their claim is compatible with theism OR agnosticism, so it doesn't distinguish them
Q: Does the Christian God exist? A: Only in the minds of Christians.
the fact that evil exists is the best prove that god doesn't exists. there are only 4 possibilities:
1-god can get rid of evil, but doesn't want to (not benevolent)
2-god wants to, but can't ( not omnipotent )
3-god doesn't want nor can ( not benevolent nor omnipotent )
4-god wants to and can ( not possible because we have evil )
since we are told god is benevolent and omnipotent, this contradiction is just enough reason
to say that god can not exist.