William Lane Craig disproves atheism in 3 minutes

No wonder Richard Dawkins is too fearful to debate him.

youtube.com/watch?v=f_vO6H-iIvM

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zGs9rZqnbBc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state
youtube.com/watch?v=eg8vJ9oMdlA
tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Best christian thinker alive.

Atheists have no good arguments in debates with him.

"Reasonable Faith" is an amazing book for both struggling believers and atheists.

>Best christian thinker alive.

Preach.

I've yet to read that book I'll have to check it out.

>William Lane Craig
>Got his ass handed to him by Christopher Hitchens
No one with any critical thinking skills can endure more than 2 minutes of WLG's firehose of fallacies and fabrications.

Are you serious? Even Hitchens admitted that he lost - he admitted that he was ill-prepared and argued poorly. WLC dominated.

Thankfully physics has advanced to the point where invoking God--which has heretofore only been used to fill in fewer and fewer question marks--is no longer necessary.

>>Got his ass handed to him by Christopher Hitchens

You MUST be trolling.

Physics has disproved the existence of a god? Can you elaborate?

Christopher Hitchens fanboys are literally the most annoying faggots in the world. He was a pseudo-intellectual hack.

Peter was ALWAYS the superior Hitchens, and anyone who hasn't realized this by the time they've hit their 20's is beyond saving.

youtube.com/watch?v=zGs9rZqnbBc

>Even Hitchens admitted that he lost
I'd like to see that - Hitchens admitting that he lost. Poorly prepared maybe, but WLC's lack of logical arguments alone means he can't win

Why are Christ cucks such babbies. You have no proof why must you make such extradordinary claims? Because grandpa made them? And his grandpappy did? If you look at religion from the meme perspective it makes sense why it's still around -- it preys on the stupid and the fear of death and it gives you everything you want and you'll only get it until after you die. Have fun living your life knowing that no one ever has come back to tell you all about heaven. You'll rot in the earth just like me except I will love a life free of things I know don't exist (Christ cuck god). Maybe a creator, probably not. Definitely not yours idiot.

>He was a pseudo-intellectual hack.
Still light-years ahead of WLC.

>Peter was ALWAYS the superior Hitchens,
Speaking of fanboy, Peter says he already nutted, you can stop now.

Daily reminder that literally every attempt by Christian apologists to use logical arguments to prove the existence of their particular God is useless

The ontological argument, the Kalam cosmological argument, etc. all attempt to prove the existence of a supreme being. But what's to suggest that this being is the God of the Christian faith. It is just as possible that it is a being which we know nothing about.

Therefore, the only form of theism which apologists like WLG can claim to be defending with any honesty is deism.

>with any honesty

>Abrahamic religionists
>intellectual honesty

pick one

Anytime people try to bring up God in science, it's just to fill in gaps until we find a better explanation from "what is lightning" to "how did the universe begin". We now have theories of the origin of the universe that do not have those gaps, such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

God just isn't necessary in science anymore, which is great because the idea can just remain a religious thing and people can stop pretending it's a useful idea in science.

Peter doesnt have fanboys or even 'fans' for that matter, and hes fine with that, he even described Chris as the rock star of the family. Peter is simply a vessel for traditionalist's frustration and the remaining sane.

The thing is, those arguments within themselves only go for some sort of generic theism and even WLC admit that himself. While he obviously advocates for Christian Theism, he isn't saying those arguments within themselves prove Christianity to be true, rather it is the groundwork to build from later.

How do you disprove atheism, which is simply the non-belief that there exists deities, as there is no concrete evidence of them existing?

>Physics has disproved the existence of a god? Can you elaborate?
He didn't say that, dumb flag poster.

He got wrecked by Harris and Hitches. Face it Christcucks.. it's over.

Also the cosmological argument is a joke.

Don't bother, everybody and their dog still thinks atheism means "believes god does not exist". Our language has been bastardized beyond repair.

>You MUST be trolling.
The kid says, "You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing." Right there he's stating the position incorrectly. I would argue that if it's truly a "thing", it already exists in our minds. However in this case, the argument is only whether theists can prove their gods exist outside their minds. Until they do, there's nothing for the atheists (or naturalists) to disprove.

His question is, "Does the invocation of gods to explain natrual phenomena contribute to the advancement of knowledge." The answer will always be, "Of course not." Belief in gods, fairies, sprites, spirits, demons, angels, leprechauns, boogiemen and other supernatural beings is irrational. Starting out with one as a premise to a syllogism, or adding one to a logical argument instantly renders the argument illogical. Calling his deductions "logical" does not make them so.

But that doesn't stop William Lane Craig from being a complete idiot. Tyrannosaurus Rex alive? Who really knows if there isn't a Jurassic Park lab somewhere doing just that with a CRISPR. There may actually be Muslims in the US Senate, but they are smart enough to keep it a secret. His example of self contradictory terms is anti-semantic.

Finally, WLC pretends he does not use his gods to explain his positions, but this is patently false.

With respect, you are confusing an arguments validity with the soundness and cogency of the argument. Eventually, physics has to start borrowing from metaphysics at some level, and that hardly makes sense, especially from a metaphysical naturalism standing. If "inside the mind", serves as the barometer for "existence", then all the lovely SJWs are spot on. The difference between Christians and SJWs being, once is committed to reality and that it can be objectively known through a variety of epistemological methods, including science and revelation.

youtube.com/watch?v=eg8vJ9oMdlA

Can you prove your mind exists outside your mind?

>what was the Soviet war in Afghanistan

> Daily reminder that literally every attempt by Christian apologists to use logical arguments to prove the existence of their particular God is useless

That's a Petition to Principle fallacy.

You are so fedorable!

>With respect, you are confusing an arguments validity with the soundness and cogency of the argument.
A logical conclusion can be wrong and yet still be logical, or arrived at by logical processes.

>Eventually, physics has to start borrowing from metaphysics at some level, and that hardly makes sense, especially from a metaphysical naturalism standing.
Every science uses irrational thinking to hypothesize, and speculate. However, what you don't find is a physicist experimenting with muons suddenly adding Bigfoot to his analysis to make all the pieces fit. Using gods to bridge gaps is exactly how Gods of the Gaps get their reputations.

> reality and that it can be objectively known through a variety of epistemological methods, including science and revelation.
First, what can be "objectively known" by revelation? Your ancient Middle East shepherds invent a story, you believe it and pretend it is "objective"?
Second, revelation is not knowledge, and just like a trillion opinions can never rise to the level of a single fact, whatever was told to a Bronze Age guy who heard it from another Bronze Age guy 3000 years ago is nothing more than folklore.

Here is the way he answered that question.

1. Point out something literally true that the question figuratively disagreed with.
>You can prove that there are no muslims in the Senate
God is far more complicated than that to prove or disprove because God is not just found in a tiny controlled space if he exists. As God he can be literally anywhere in the universe. Have fun disproving that there are no muslims in a senate in the universe.

2. Talk about word definitions, i.e. Agnostics and Naturalists.
Gloss over the fact that Agnosticism can be held by Theists and Atheists alike.

Here is a question for the Christfags. What arguments against the existence of Odin do you have that is not as equally valid when applied to Jahwe.

>Can you prove your mind exists outside your mind?
I can't prove I exist, therefore your gods do exist? That's hilarious. 2/10 I should have pretended you don't exist.

He's not disproved Atheists at all because he's not proven God exists.

We have no factors to measure that God exists, you merely have a theory which we cannot perform an experiment to prove.

> the argument is only whether atheists can prove they exist outside their minds. Until they do, there's nothing for the theist (or spiritualist) to disprove.

>As God he can be literally anywhere in the universe.
"He can be anything and everything and nothing all at the same time! He can be whatever we want him to be! He can be any flavor, any color, any size or whatever. He's always good never bad unless he sends bears to kill children but the children broke the law so it was OK to murder them for please god."

This is what we have to put up with.

>Prove they exist outside of their minds.

You can set up an easy experiment with that by asking an Atheists to explain their perception of objects and then ask them to change the objects and then re-task their perception.

There, the Atheist has proven his perception and his-self are infact existing.

Can we do the same experiment for God?

The results of that experiment would not prove your existence as a conscious agent.

How does it not?

Can't prove a negative, amirite

How does it?

>disproves a negative

Is this fucking 2007? Who gives a fuck about athiests or christians?

>I ask for your reasoning
>CAN'T PROVE E NEGATIVE LOL

That's not how that works.

Secondly, the experiment is there to determine if the Self of the person exists, not that they are a purely conscious agent.

The experiment is set up to get feedback from Perception.

If you wanted to get conscious agent, you can easily use more Opinionated subjects to get feedback, like moral choices.

Your argument proposed because we cannot confirm people exist, that god MUST also be able to exist in the same nebulous terms.

But we can quite easily confirm people exist, because if you ignore a person and refuse to belief they don't exist, they can still interact with you.

Seemed clear that the student meant that it's impossible to prove the existence of God. This is why he brings up the burden of proof in the first place. WLC doesn't engage with that argument (that proving something exists rather than doesn't) which is what all atheists believe, but instead attacks the phony position that you "can't prove the non-existence" of something.

>these are deductive arguments
Okay pal.

WOW FIRST SLIDE THREAD THIS MORNING !

DNC MURDERED SETH RICH

lol, man is an idiot
asks student to repeat one of the most fundamental arguments against theism like it's new
provides red herring counter by limiting scope with irrelevant constraint
true 'xtian logic'

Let's assume for example God exists. What are the parameters of God?

What does the knowledge of a god do to help advance scientific thinking at all?

There are thousands of cultures across the world with Gods referenced. Do we use all of them as the basis of god?

What experiments can we set up that can use the Knowledge of God to better technological progress?

Do we need to form mathematical equations to avoid the "God Problem" that may face certain future Engineering projects?

That's the proof god doesn't exist. He literally doesn't factor into any scientific method or mathematical formula we know. He has literally no impact on anything besides psychological ideas.

>Your argument proposed because we cannot confirm people exist, that god MUST also be able to exist in the same nebulous terms.
Strawman

I am asking you to demonstrate your existence as a conscious agent, or else there is no point in demonstrating any of my arguments for the existence of any other conscious/causal agents.

If you can't prove to me that you exist, why should I even attempt to prove to you that any one ELSE exists?

That you can interact with me is irrelevant. Gravity and rocks interact with me - but I am not going to rationalize with them. Would you?

>A logical conclusion can be wrong and yet still be logical, or arrived at by logical processes.

I think we are settled on this point.

>Every science uses irrational thinking to hypothesize, and speculate. However, what you don't find is a physicist experimenting with muons suddenly adding Bigfoot to his analysis to make all the pieces fit. Using gods to bridge gaps is exactly how Gods of the Gaps get their reputations.

In my case, I am not invoking God as the material causation,but rather stating that eventually, invoking natural causation for everything in metaphysical existence breaks down. Also, is science "irrational" or is it individual scientist? Would that imply science is lacking as an epistemological methodology? Bigfoot to God is an apples to oranges comparison because while you view them as having the same properties (non-existent and non-effectual), the properties of the two beings are vastly different in terms of physical composition, logical composition etc (temporality,consisting of atoms,etc)

>First, what can be "objectively known" by revelation? Your ancient Middle East shepherds invent a story, you believe it and pretend it is "objective"?
Second, revelation is not knowledge, and just like a trillion opinions can never rise to the level of a single fact, whatever was told to a Bronze Age guy who heard it from another Bronze Age guy 3000 years ago is nothing more than folklore.

Your fallacy is appealing to the age. With respect, you are unaware of what the Bible consists of as anthology of writings. Also, oral tradition is not the same thing as the modern equivalent of telephone games. Memory devices are used to preserve the record of events, given the scarcity of writing devices in the ANE. Do you know of any of the background of biblical writers? I'm a historian by education, though not a specialist in antiquity,but consider those

What is true is different from ones understanding of what is known.

...

>Strawman

Fallacy Fallacy, if I misunderstand your position, don't try and use that as a defense against my own position.

Also, I I told you how to perform several experiments to prove someone exists. You set up observable experiments.

You're confusing the Philosophical argument of "What is consciousness." with "What is existing"

...

...

I guarantee he didn't arrive at his Christian faith through deductive philosophical arguments, so it always strikes me as a bit disingenuous that he always brings these out first in defending theistic belief, and also the reason I have no real interest in his literature. If I'm going to take the effort to read someone's work I expect them to be honest with me about the structure of their beliefs.

...

>That's the proof god doesn't exist.
Ask theists if they believe in all the past gods (Ra, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus, etc.) and they will say something like "No, those weren't real gods".

But this is what happens to all gods. They eventually are replaced by new ones. The strong inductive evidence is that all gods are made up, all gods come and go, and all gods eventually die out. The inevitable truth is that the Semitic gods will follow this same path.

...

That sounds more like mental illness and neurosis than an argument of any kind
Descartes settled it a few centuries ago too, get on with the times

...

National Socialist-Libertarian-Right-Agnostic-Atheism is literally the sanest best tier belief system. This is not bait, I truly believe NS's end goal is a form of Libertarianism, reverting back to former stages of National-Socialism along a spectrum should things degenerate.
And Agnostic-Atheism because along with the NS-libertarian spectrum it keeps every aspect of morality, order and yet continuous progress without succumbing to illogicality, yet keeping in line with modest reasonable abstract arguments such as god creation and the universe, not denying but intelligent enough to understand what is plausible and what is not, what is subjective and if anything at all is ever objective.

I am not unhinged this is the future screenshot this.

The Pagans in India and China had some beautiful art and architecture too. Just look at the Forbidden City or a Hindu Temple. What's your point?

>see this is why you HAVE to believe in Christianity
Why do you fags wanna try and force the whole world to convert?
>inb4 muh morals argument

That's the thing - he wasn't trying to sincerely engage with the student. WLC, like a petulant child, instead obfuscates the true question being asked with semantics and language. If anyone was a 'punk' it was WLC.

>"god's real"
>"got any proof?"
>hour long digression without proof

Christ-fags who take 'god' as some literal entity are the fucking worst. God is a metaphor composite.

Actually, WLC did have periods of doubt. While he was brought up in a Christian background, it didn't stop him from questioning his beliefs. Craig's position as far as argumentation is that it is logically defensible and plausible that a generic theistic God exists and the second point that it is best explained by the Christian faith. While WLC ultimately holds those two positions, he takes them one step at a time.

>don't have an argument
>post memes instead
Your average counterculture neo-Christian.

Arguably, you can historically trace most of Christianity's morals back to Pagan native influence.

Unless people think the ideas behind the ten commandments were somehow founded by the jews a good 2000 years at least after the founding of many other Semitic religions.

Why is it best explained by the Christian Faith, when if we did do a huge logical analysis of Gods, it would probably be closer to Zoroastrianism.

>Craig's position as far as argumentation is that it is logically defensible and plausible that a generic theistic God exists and the second point that it is best explained by the Christian faith.
I'd love to hear some of his arguments.

why do you fags keep debating this shit

it doesnt fucking matter

whether you spend all day fucking bitches or flagellating yourself in some church basement, it makes absolutely no fucking difference

life goes on

we will never know

if you think there's an afterlife and what you do now affects your position in it, then just don't be a dick while you're alive

problem solved

>don't have an argument
>what is self evident truth

Fallacy fallacy does not oblige me to address your strawman. I redressed my position. Pointing out the fallacy is merely to illustrate it is not my position, and therefore I will not be addressing the position as you stated.

>Also, I I told you how to perform several experiments to prove someone exists. You set up observable experiments.
And these do not describe you as a conscious agent. What results in your experiment would falsify your agency?

>You're confusing the Philosophical argument of "What is consciousness." with "What is existing"
I am addressing both, as the former without the latter is nonsense, and the latter without the former is analogous to very complex rocks; not something to reason with in conversation.

Settled to himself, yes, and from it he reasoned to God. Hard problem of consciousness is still present, however.

>I am not unhinged this is the future screenshot this.

Not sure if you are going the route of the Pagan copycat route,but it seems consistent if one is not well-versed in ANE culture.
tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.php

Enjoy

>redditspacing
Leave now

That isn't enough for genuine Christian faith though. Christ faith doesn't involve looking at a crucifix and thinking "yeh, this is the most reasonable account of how a theistic God has organised the world", it involves looking at a Crucifix and believing with absolute certainty "this is Jesus the Son, come down to earth to sacrifice his life for the absolution of my sins".

>Christians believe in something that isn't true, yet again.
Predictable.

Something the argument for god simply doesn't have.

We have no way to measure god, we have no way to observe god, we have no way to judge what god is doing or how he impacts ANYTHING.

So we can safely assume God doesn't exist, or if he does he is such a non-issue we never need to calculate for him in any scientific process ever invented.

>These do not describe you as a concious agent

No, but they prove you exist. YOU are the one argument something must be a conscious agent to be proven it exists. I disagree; because inanimate objects very much exist.

If you're going to argue "But perception through self is flaws, how do you prove your perception is wrong" then I simply ask you if through all our collective perception God still doesn't show up in hard science then how can we prove he exists?

I'd say it more because Zoroastrianism is simply older than Christianity and indeed modern Judaism.

Your entire language is meme buzzwords like cuck. Look into what evidence even is before making such retarded assertions. Thousands of brilliant minds looked at the testimony of the earliest encounters with Jesus and thought them true; some died and were ridiculed for doing so. Meanwhile, you jump on the bandwagon of pretending it's a meme forced by parents and ignore those of us who came to faith after asking hard questions and investigating who wrote the Gospel, when, and why

And now scientists are doing that with multiverse and simulation meme theories. It's a straw man argument most Christian thinkers don't touch anymore.

This meme needs to end.

>the properties of the two beings are vastly different in terms of physical composition,
Neither have any physical composition. As only being crafted in the mind, they can only share imaginary traits.

>With respect, you are unaware of what the Bible consists of as anthology of writings.
That anthology of tales contains stories of miracles, talking donkeys and serpents, flying horses, dragons, angels, demons, gods, etc. The assumption that it must be taken figuratively and metonymically instead of literally, ie there are no *actual* flying horses, dragons or gods.

Age is an important aspect because we cannot judge literature from our current age, we must judge it from the age it was written. These ancient texts were not written for us and our misinterpretations are being used to justify beheadings in the Middle East today.

>Do you know of any of the background of biblical writers?
Saul mostly, but he wrote one of the synoptic texts and half the new Testament.

you can say the same about anything

why discuss anything user

And agnosticism is...?

>Some people had an opinion
>So it MUST be true.

A bunch of Desert Dwellers and Romans wrote the gospel.

None of them especially profound scientists of the time.

They gave us no knowledge on how to measure god or how to calculate for god.

We cannot perform experiments to confirm god exists, so everything the bible spouts is pure theory and fiction.

As soon as you say belief in a thing is irrational, even fairies and other such new age bullshit, you become more dogmatic than the religious zealots most atheists hate.

>le insightful """christian""" philosopher

This is the same guy who said dead children are a salvation from God

Anonymous posters like you of either religious or atheist persuasions give me hope for humanity.

...How?

Explain your reasoning?

Shifting the burden of proof... seriously? You wasted my time.

While the cross is the center of what makes Christianity what it is, relational, it would be a disservice to ignore the other aspects touches on in Christianity. Check out WLCs defenders meetings online. He breaks down Christian Theology on a wide variety of topics which you may find, if nothing else, informative.

Evidence and consistency. How many independent accounts of encounters with Odin were written historically close to said meetings and verifiable by others? How many such writers had nothing to gain from their testimony? Does Odin remain consistent with science?

Agnosticism addresses knowledge, atheism addresses belief.

Can and is are different things. God is consistent. He can be anything, yes, but we know he remains the same. And nice cherry picking to historical Jewish texts.

great point champ

youre really astute

college professors should watch out 4 u

>As soon as you say belief in a thing is irrational,
Belief is irrational. You really should look this up before your embarrass yourself any further.

>even fairies and other such new age bullshit,
Too late. Btw, old age bullshit, new age bullshit, it's all the same to me.

>you become more dogmatic than the religious zealots most atheists hate.
The Dunning-Kruger truth of the matter is, the more stupid people hate me, the more valid I am.

>No, but they prove you exist.
Ok.

>YOU are the one argument something must be a conscious agent to be proven it exists. I disagree; because inanimate objects very much exist.
And rocks exist. I don't try to prove anything to them. unless you are ALSO a causal agent, your insistence that I prove God exists might as well be like waves eroding the shore; it happens, but it doesn't mean anything.

I am arguing something must be conscious, but not for purpose of illustrating it exists. I am arguing it must be conscious because it is silly to attempt reasoning with a rock.

>misses the argument
>resorts to ad hominem and calling things stupid

>i dont think this certain topic matters so why are you guys talking about it still
You really told me bud.

So you're just refusing to try and argue god exists and trying to use a strange "Prove YOU exist" clause that hinges on Philosophical shpeal?

It doesn't matter if I am conscious or not, you cannot create an experiment that proves god exists or measures god as a factor.

We can create AI, that are most certainly NOT conscious, that need to calculate things the human brain cannot even conceive of, we have the same AI setting up the experiments to measure these things.

Yet we cannot do anything to prove God exists. Where is god? What is he doing? How is he impacting the scientific methods we use?

He shows up nowhere, we don't need to calculate for his Being. so he is literally a non-factor.

How does Odin not remain consistent with Science, but the Christian God does?

Lying cunts like Craig make assertion after assertion with nothing to back it up. This is why Christians still, to this very day, have failed every single time to back their claims of this 'god' thing up.

Sorry, but reality doesn't accept fiction as an answer.

you sound smart. pls continue
demonstrate equivalence between 'proving the negative' of no marble in my hand versus no deity exists in infinite universe/s