he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Mugnuts said:I would love to hear Carrier destroy Sye Ten Bruggencate.
[sarcasm]Sye Ten Bruggencate? Who is that?[/sarcasm]
EDIT: Added snark.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mugnuts said:I would love to hear Carrier destroy Sye Ten Bruggencate.
he_who_is_nobody said:Mugnuts said:I would love to hear Carrier destroy Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Sye Ten Bruggencate? Who is that?
Inferno said:he_who_is_nobody said:Sye Ten Bruggencate? Who is that?
You're joking, right? Can't tell without someone using the sarcasm function...
Mugnuts said:I would love to hear Carrier destroy Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Mugnuts said:I'd rather listen to Sye than William Lain Craig any day.
Yes he's admitted this himself. It should be noted however that they debated the proposition "did Jesus rise from the dead?", not "Did Jesus exist?" so the relevance to this thread is not really there.abelcainsbrother said:Mugnuts said:I'd rather listen to Sye than William Lain Craig any day.
Richard Carrier lost the debate against WLC.
abelcainsbrother said:Mugnuts said:I'd rather listen to Sye than William Lain Craig any day.
Richard Carrier lost the debate against WLC.
[/quote]Yes he's admitted this himself. It should be noted however that they debated the proposition "did Jesus rise from the dead?", not "Did Jesus exist?" so the relevance to this thread is not really there.
Craig is an excellent debater, he's full of shit and as delusional as basically any fundamentalist christian, but he's good at debating you can't take that away from him.
But since you brought up billyboy:
Craig lost to Bart Ehrman, Sean Carroll and Shelly Kagan.
Ehrman showed the resurrection to be more implausible than basically almost any naturalistic theory, Carroll showed that the Kalam and fine-tuning shite is a giant fallacy, and Kagan showed that divine command theory is inhuman and immoral. Those are Craig's four most important arguments. So that's basically Craig's entire case for god out the door.
It doesn't matter that Craig has defeated all sorts of atheists (and I'll be generous and say he has), there are actual refutations of his arguments that he can't run away from. His case for god is bunk and it's been debunked in debates he's had. So since actual refutations of his most important arguments exist, that's it we're done. Craig's case for god is flawed.
SpecialFrog said:Both premises of the KCA are unsubstantiated. Both Sean Carroll and Victor Stenger have demonstrated that Craig's scientific claims are unsound.
The big bang theory does not justify any of the premises of KCA.abelcainsbrother said:They cannot be unsound because the big bang theory is established science
Actually Craig himself has admitted that his arguments don't really matter, since he's admitted he'll believe what he does because of the selfevident testament of the holy spirit within him even if (well, when really and repeatedly) all his arguments are refuted.SpecialFrog said:I don't think Craig cares if his arguments are valid or true. He's not trying to convince non-Christians. He's just trying to help Christians pretend that Christianity is intellectually and scientifically sound. And people who don't know how to evaluate evidence but only cherry-pick bits that seem to support them find him convincing.
abelcainsbrother said:They cannot be unsound because the big bang theory is established science,
people like Sean Carroll and Victor Stenger ignore the big bang theory
and how it points to the God of the bible and a creator.
They just deny it with woo woo science that might or might not be substantiated like the big bang theory is.
The big bang theory points to the God of the bible and rules out a natural cause for the universe.