Dr. William Lane Craig

[*SD*]

Or it could be that God does exist

If it is true, the burden would lie with the person offering such an idea to make their case, if you're such a person (this is probably the part where you claim you aren't even though really you are) then you can make your case and people who wish to can respond to it.

and that your ideas about Christianity and burden of proof just aren't particularly useful.

You don't know what my ideas about Christianity are because you haven't asked me, and nor have I expressed any.

I guess if I'm right we'll all know soon enough.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, not going to lose any sleep over passive aggressive threats though.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

​

 

[*SD*]

Ha! I've seen that one a few times! Best thing for LZ to do if he wishes to make a case for the existence of Jesus or some "God" or other is to just start a thread about it presenting his argument and people can respond as they see fit. These wacky interjections, which seem random aren't really doing it for me tbh. LZ, feel free to start a new thread if you wish, as always.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

If it is true, the burden would lie with the person offering such an idea to make their case, if you're such a person (this is probably the part where you claim you aren't even though really you are) then you can make your case and people who wish to can respond to it.

But thats not really how God in the bible says it works, is it? I think He says that me telling you about Him is the proof. And if that's what God says, then I don't have any reason to see it any other way. Especially when the prize I'll get for being right is so much better than the penalty I'll get for being wrong.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, not going to lose any sleep over passive aggressive threats though.

Ok, I'm sorry!

 

[*SD*]

But thats not really how God in the bible says it works, is it?

Isn't it?!

I think He says that me telling you about Him is the proof.

Then "He" is obviously wrong.

And if that's what God says, then I don't have any reason to see it any other way.

That sounds like you problem.

Especially when the prize I'll get for being right is so much better than the penalty I'll get for being wrong.

Pascals Wager. How original.

 

[ldmitruk]

I think He says that me telling you about Him is the proof. And if that's what God says, then I don't have any reason to see it any other way.

Why should I believe a god exists just because you say so?

Matt Dillahaunty has some interesting comments about God revealing himself as proof of god's existance.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Why should I believe a god exists just because you say so?

I don't really know. It's a good question. I'll try to start a new thread if I think I come up with an answer.

 

[*SD*]

I don't really know. It's a good question. I'll try to start a new thread if I think I come up with an answer.

Kudos to you for acknowledging that you don't have an answer, many would just try to bullshit their way through this without acknowledging the glaring problem. If you do come up with some argument or whatever, then please do start a thread about it. But in the (yours) interest of not getting obliterated the argument will need to be something more substantial than "God exists because I said he does" or similar. Not trying to be sassy, genuine respect for owning the error, just take your time and hit us with that new thread if you feel like it.

 

[Desertphile]

I like Dr. William Lane Craig. He’s a really nice guy. He is beautifully eloquent. He is an outstanding debater – possibly world class. There are respected atheists who consider that he rarely if ever loses a debate and respect him.

Gosh, Reverend Craig cannot debate worth shit. Christopher Hitchens kicked his ass. Craig also defended genocide. Craig claims to be a "philosopher" yet he is unknown among philosophers. Pah! You should probably find a decent and educated human being to worship.

 

[Desertphile]

I think it is Richard Dawkins who claimed to restrict his debates to qualified scientists who’s expertise is in the area of discussion.

Yes, and Dr. Dawkins refused to debate Reverend Craig for the same reason Dr. Hawking refused to debate crazy people.

Craig "threatened" Dr. Dawkins by stating he would debate an empty chair if Dawkins refused to debate him. It reminds me of the fascist Eastwood who talked to an empty chair, and expected the chair to reply.

 

[Desertphile]

P1 - That which begins to exist has a cause for its existence
P2 - The universe began to exist
C - The universe has a cause for its existence

No mention of God, anywhere. One can (should they be in a generous mood at the time) just grant the argument as sound (it's already valid) and we still aren't at God, it requires a LOT of further extrapolation (and usually sophistry) to get there. I don't think it is sound, but we can just grant it because we're in a good mood and then examine it further.

One might just as well claim that I caused the universe: there is more evidence I caused the universe than the gods caused the universe to exist. Reverend Craig skips a few vital steps before he can legitimately assert "the gods dun it."

0) Produce evidence that shows the universe needed a cause.

1) Produce evidence that shows the gods exist.

2) Produce evidence that show the gods created the universe.

3) Produce evidence that shows which pantheon(s) was/were involved.

Reverend Craig appears to have selected the Canaanite valcano god "yy" created the universe. If so, the Bible claimed "yy" did not: the universe was primordial water before "yy" came along and started creating stuff (in the wrong order).

 

[Desertphile]

Like a tiger vs a shark.

Perhaps more like a tiger versus a mouse.

 

[Desertphile]

It sounded like an excuse, when I would think that he could state much more understandable reasons....

Er, Dr. Dawkins did make an excellent excuse: he found and finds Reverend Craig unworthy of debating. Dr. Hawkins also made excuses for not debating idiots about black holes.

One of my fields of study is autism. I have excellent excuses for why I will not debate the vile people who claim autism is caused by vaccines / diet / bad mothers / chakras misaligned / whatever.

I have excellent excuses for why I do not debate the "Einstein was wrong" idiots.

I have excellent excuses for why I do not debate the "Earth is flat" idiots.

I have excellent excuses for why I do not debate the "gods exist" idiots.

 

[Desertphile]

I recall Michael Drosnin’s, ‘The Bible code’ coming out and it seemed to be a very powerful argument for a genuine code within the Bible’s original language.

It seemed this to whom, other than cultists who already believed / believe the Bible is special / a paper god?

Also, it does not matter what language is used.

When this idiocy was fresh, I used the memoir Desert Solitaire to show that my name was coded in the book, as well as the town I was born in, as well as the color of my eyes. I suppose this means Edward P. Abbey was a god, or inspired by one.

As for the Hebrew Testament, thousands of phrases are based upon educated guesses of where the words start and where the words end. Different guesses lead to different sentences.

Also, the Hebrew Testament asserts that the Canaanite volcano god created everything out of primordial water. It also asserts that unspecified Canaanite gods did it. How likely is this something that makes the Bible Code anything other than what it is?

 

[ldmitruk]

I thought he used that as an excuse not to debate Matt Dillahunty, though. I've seen a good number of his (WLC) debates and I do find my self eye rolling a lot, however. He is a huge proponent of the KCA and I find this bizarre considering God isn't in either of the premises or the conclusion when presented in Modus Ponens format.

P1 - That which begins to exist has a cause for its existence
P2 - The universe began to exist
C - The universe has a cause for its existence

No mention of God, anywhere. One can (should they be in a generous mood at the time) just grant the argument as sound (it's already valid) and we still aren't at God, it requires a LOT of further extrapolation (and usually sophistry) to get there. I don't think it is sound, but we can just grant it because we're in a good mood and then examine it further.

Matt's recent video on the KCA is good in depth explination of your argument.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Gosh, Reverend Craig cannot debate worth shit. Christopher Hitchens kicked his ass. Craig also defended genocide. Craig claims to be a "philosopher" yet he is unknown among philosophers. Pah! You should probably find a decent and educated human being to worship.

I have to say that I see Craig in a worse way now, because of what I have learned about him in this thread. The second Historical Adam video HWIN posted was especially good.

 

[*SD*]

The KCA, of just about all of the potential arguments that can be offered for the existence of a God is just about the worst of the worst. As mentioned, even when in a generous mood it still doesn't conclude where they want it to.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

​

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

​

 

[Led Zeppelin]

​

Atheists are correct to point out that the creation account given in Genesis is fundamental to Judaism/Christianity and was regarded as a historical account by the ancients Jews and Christians, as it was meant to be. If it was a figurative myth, as Craig claims, then surly he would be expected to provide us the "true meaning" of the text. He's a scholar after all. And a Doctor.

Atheists know Craig can't do this. I find that amazing. The Atheists understand Craig has no metric to judge Biblical verses by, so may as well say the ressurection is also a myth and so on.

Good job Atheists. Bad job Craig.