Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
God Doesn't Exist
#76

God Doesn't Exist
(04-01-2024, 03:42 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(04-01-2024, 01:46 PM)no one Wrote: Got to love it when clowns like the bear and little stevieboi demand evidence, while never ever providing any of their own, other than the stupid huly buuk they so desperately cling to.

I guess we're just going to pretend as if I haven't been posting peer reviewed research this whole time.

Nah, we just don't care.

My guess is that now you're butt hurt.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#77

God Doesn't Exist
(04-01-2024, 04:37 PM)Huggy Bear Wrote:
(04-01-2024, 04:10 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Given that, for the sake of argument..... then why should anything in that fucking bible be given any credence at all?  Because primitive thinkers say so?  Don't make me laugh.

Terrible argument, no one has made the claim that "Science has proved the existence of God", God's existence has always been a position of faith. If you want to make the claim that "Science has shown that consciousness is brain-dependent", then you should have no problem submitting the 'scientific' data.

Google medical requirements for determining brain death, unless of course you're suffering transient brain death. If so, please see a medical professional.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 2 users Like brewerb's post:
  • pattylt, Alan V
Reply
#78

God Doesn't Exist
(04-01-2024, 02:36 PM)Inkubus Wrote: Here you go: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

You're welcome.

OK, I have to call BS on that one. Sorry, I'm entirely on board with viewing the stupernatural as utter bunk, but that's a load of horseshit.

The essence of that blog post is that we know everything about the physics that governs everyday life, it's just the fiddly details that we're still working on.

So, not to be too harsh, but those "fiddly details" are what govern everyday life. 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which we understand just well enough to know that it pretty much dictates the entire structure of the universe. Without an understanding of that you can't explain why we have a planet to stand on or a sun to orbit. On the other end of the scale you have those pesky quantum vacuum fluctuations, which govern everything from so-called spontaneous emission to radioactive decay. They're literally the reason that the sun shines and we have a very poor idea of why. And both of those play into very basic problems like why we have the distribution of elements that we do, AKA why is there enough carbon for life to be based on it.

So that blog post is just plain wrong from the title on down. That's no reason to go plugging ignorance in where our understanding is incomplete but it's every bit as ridiculous to suggest that it is complete.
The following 4 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • epronovost, Mathilda, Deesse23, mordant
Reply
#79

God Doesn't Exist
(04-01-2024, 08:05 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(04-01-2024, 02:36 PM)Inkubus Wrote: Here you go: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

You're welcome.

OK, I have to call BS on that one. Sorry, I'm entirely on board with viewing the stupernatural as utter bunk, but that's a load of horseshit.

The essence of that blog post is that we know everything about the physics that governs everyday life, it's just the fiddly details that we're still working on.

So, not to be too harsh, but those "fiddly details" are what govern everyday life. 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which we understand just well enough to know that it pretty much dictates the entire structure of the universe. Without an understanding of that you can't explain why we have a planet to stand on or a sun to orbit. On the other end of the scale you have those pesky quantum vacuum fluctuations, which govern everything from so-called spontaneous emission to radioactive decay. They're literally the reason that the sun shines and we have a very poor idea of why. And both of those play into very basic problems like why we have the distribution of elements that we do, AKA why is there enough carbon for life to be based on it.

So that blog post is just plain wrong from the title on down. That's no reason to go plugging ignorance in where our understanding is incomplete but it's every bit as ridiculous to suggest that it is complete.
This reminds me of some dim bulb early in the 20th century saying there was no need for the patent office anymore as everything that could be invented, had been invented.

Or Bill Gates saying who would ever need more than 640K of RAM.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#80

God Doesn't Exist
@Alan V -- I was listening to a presentation on Objections to God's Incorporeality and thought of your thread. If you would like to know the professional-level philosophical background to your objection and the analysis of the various views, you should give a listen.
Reply
#81

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 01:51 PM)SteveII Wrote: @Alan V -- I was listening to a presentation on Objections to God's Incorporeality and thought of your thread. If you would like to know the professional-level philosophical background to your objection and the analysis of the various views, you should give a listen.

William Lane Craig, really?
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 3 users Like brewerb's post:
  • Minimalist, pattylt, Deesse23
Reply
#82

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 01:51 PM)SteveII Wrote: @Alan V -- I was listening to a presentation on Objections to God's Incorporeality and thought of your thread. If you would like to know the professional-level philosophical background to your objection and the analysis of the various views, you should give a listen.

I gave you a link to two university press books by specialists on the subject in another thread (I think it was the Why Atheism one). Of course, nothing prevents a believer to believe that the Christian God is incorporeal today. It's now very commonplace within orthodox Christian Churches to believe in an incorporeal or transcendental God, but it wasn't the case until the Greco-Roman period.

I would also like to note that William lane Craig is not acting as a philosopher or even a proper biblical scholar despite having the education of one, but as an apologetics. His comments on such podcast and the vast majority of his writtings are not peer reviewed nor respect methodological practices associated with academic research. It's good to keep that in mind when listening to him, it's not because a man is a scholar that all or most of his intellectural production is reflecting academical research.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#83

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 01:58 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(04-10-2024, 01:51 PM)SteveII Wrote: @Alan V -- I was listening to a presentation on Objections to God's Incorporeality and thought of your thread. If you would like to know the professional-level philosophical background to your objection and the analysis of the various views, you should give a listen.

I gave you a link to two university press books by specialists on the subject in another thread (I think it was the Why Atheism one). Of course, nothing prevents a believer to believe that the Christian God is incorporeal today. It's now very commonplace within orthodox Christian Churches to believe in an incorporeal or transcendental God, but it wasn't the case until the Greco-Roman period.

I would also like to note that William lane Craig is not acting as a philosopher or even a proper biblical scholar despite having the education of one, but as an apologetics. His comments on such podcast and the vast majority of his writtings are not peer reviewed nor respect methodological practices associated with academic research. It's good to keep that in mind when listening to him, it's not because a man is a scholar that all or most of his intellectural production is reflecting academical research.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you listen to the talk and tell me he is just an apologist?

Reception
According to Nathan Schneider, "[many] professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, [Craig's] books and articles are among the most cited".[5] Fellow philosopher Quentin Smith writes that "William Lane Craig is one [of] the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time."[131]

In 2021 Academic Influence website ranked Craig the nineteenth most influential philosopher in the world over the previous three decades (1990-2020) and the world's fourth most influential theologian over the same period.[132][133]

In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Craig] very seriously. He's [Craig] thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would...I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down,' you know. But with him [Craig] I do."[134]
Reply
#84

God Doesn't Exist
Quote:William Lane Craig, really?


LOL.  Desperate people will grab for any lifeline!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • brewerb, Deesse23
Reply
#85

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 02:27 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(04-10-2024, 01:58 PM)epronovost Wrote: I gave you a link to two university press books by specialists on the subject in another thread (I think it was the Why Atheism one). Of course, nothing prevents a believer to believe that the Christian God is incorporeal today. It's now very commonplace within orthodox Christian Churches to believe in an incorporeal or transcendental God, but it wasn't the case until the Greco-Roman period.

I would also like to note that William lane Craig is not acting as a philosopher or even a proper biblical scholar despite having the education of one, but as an apologetics. His comments on such podcast and the vast majority of his writtings are not peer reviewed nor respect methodological practices associated with academic research. It's good to keep that in mind when listening to him, it's not because a man is a scholar that all or most of his intellectural production is reflecting academical research.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you listen to the talk and tell me he is just an apologist?

Reception
According to Nathan Schneider, "[many] professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, [Craig's] books and articles are among the most cited".[5] Fellow philosopher Quentin Smith writes that "William Lane Craig is one [of] the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time."[131]

In 2021 Academic Influence website ranked Craig the nineteenth most influential philosopher in the world over the previous three decades (1990-2020) and the world's fourth most influential theologian over the same period.[132][133]

In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Craig] very seriously. He's [Craig] thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would...I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down,' you know. But with him [Craig] I do."[134]

Do you really think I would not notice that these sentences are copied and pasted from his wikipedia article or that I have nor read and listen to him before?

William Lane Craig is an apologist. He himself isn't affraid to qualify himself as such. It might also be the reason why, like your quote mentions, most philosopher don't know or care about him, but in philosophy of religion, the place where apologist in search of academic credentialism and attention go, he is well known. Also, being the 19th most influencial philosopher from 1990 to 2020 is not exactly a great flex. It would be like saying you are the 19th greatest modern art sculpter of the 1990 to 2020; there is very little people in that field in the first place and you aren't even breaking to the top five or ten. Influence isn't a direct measure of quality too. Also, this year, he is number 34 (for the same period of time). Alvin Platinga has him beat fairly soundly at rank 13 despite both of them having very similar production; the reason why Platinga scores so much higher is because he his less obtuse prose and the fact he works in a more prestigious institution (used to, since I believe the man is retired now).
Reply
#86

God Doesn't Exist
Stevie is easily impressed.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#87

God Doesn't Exist
It's an easy task to find praise among supporters. And while Craig may be great at debating that does nothing to impact god(s) existence other than as a concept of the mind.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#88

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 03:24 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(04-10-2024, 02:27 PM)SteveII Wrote: You really don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you listen to the talk and tell me he is just an apologist?

Reception
According to Nathan Schneider, "[many] professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, [Craig's] books and articles are among the most cited".[5] Fellow philosopher Quentin Smith writes that "William Lane Craig is one [of] the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time."[131]

In 2021 Academic Influence website ranked Craig the nineteenth most influential philosopher in the world over the previous three decades (1990-2020) and the world's fourth most influential theologian over the same period.[132][133]

In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Craig] very seriously. He's [Craig] thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would...I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down,' you know. But with him [Craig] I do."[134]

Do you really think I would not notice that these sentences are copied and pasted from his wikipedia article or that I have nor read and listen to him before?

Kinda why I included the wikipedia link...

Quote:William Lane Craig is an apologist. He himself isn't affraid to qualify himself as such. It might also be the reason why, like your quote mentions, most philosopher don't know or care about him, but in philosophy of religion, the place where apologist in search of academic credentialism and attention go, he is well known. Also, being the 19th most influencial philosopher from 1990 to 2020 is not exactly a great flex. It would be like saying you are the 19th greatest modern art sculpter of the 1990 to 2020; there is very little people in that field in the first place and you aren't even breaking to the top five or ten. Influence isn't a direct measure of quality too. Also, this year, he is number 34 (for the same period of time). Alvin Platinga has him beat fairly soundly at rank 13 despite both of them having very similar production; the reason why Platinga scores so much higher is because he his less obtuse prose and the fact he works in a more prestigious institution (used to, since I believe the man is retired now).

You crack me up. Sure he is an apologist. You can say that about hundreds of thousands of people.

He is also a professional philosopher with 2 masters degrees, a PhD (which stands for Doctor of Philosophy) and a DTh who has written or edited over 30 books and over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Was president of the Philosophy of Time Society
Server on the Executive Committee of the Society of Christian Philosophers

Source: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig

There are over 8000 members of the American Philosophical Association and at least that many more around the world. So, that would put Craig in the 99.8 percentile by influence. Seems like that might mean we should recognize that he is not only an apologist and recognize he has reached the top rung of the ladder in his chosen field.

Did you listen to the talk?
Reply
#89

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 05:17 PM)SteveII Wrote: Did you listen to the talk?

I did. It was apologetics and absolutely not responding to the basic criteria of a proper textual critique of biblical texts implied in the discussion, neuropsychology, neuroanatomy or philosophy. It was fairly interesting despite this though; I don't think Craig aimed for this talk to be anything else than edu-entertainment and in service to Christian apologetics (well is particular brand of reformed Christianity). This is not an example of a proper presentation of philosophy of the mind. It's a nice discussion in how one can attempt to gin up a plausible excuse to explain God's incorporeal nature despite the corporeal nature of the mind. It's not convincing, at best it's plausible-ish, but that's not the purpose. The goal is to provide a fig leaf to support the faith. That's why it's apologetics.

PS: Careful about titles. The Comittee of the Society of Christian Philosophers for example is composed mostly of theologians and priests and produces apologetics even if some members do publish and produce proper philosophical research, articles and books. Another example can be seen in the American College of Pediatricians which is actually the name of a hate group composed mostly of therapist and discredited doctors who spend their time defending spanking, spousal abuse and conversion therapy for homosexual and transgender people all the while publishing falsified research. It's easy to give oneself a title.
Reply
#90

God Doesn't Exist
I lost any respect for WLC when it was pointed out that his debate style is to overwhelm his opponent with multiple arguments and if any one of them aren’t countered, declares that he won on that one missing counter argument.

Another reason, even more of a turn off, is when asked directly that if went back in a Time Machine and witnessed Jesus staying on the cross and not rising, would he change his opinion. Of course not because he believes that the Holy Spirit confirms his belief in spite of any evidence, even his own eyes.

Yes, he’s highly educated but his Christianity is based entirely on his “feelings” that it’s true.
The following 4 users Like pattylt's post:
  • epronovost, brewerb, mordant, Deesse23
Reply
#91

God Doesn't Exist
People with "theology" degrees are educated in the worthless.  I agree with Dawkins.

Quote:What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Richard Dawkins
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#92

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 05:44 PM)pattylt Wrote: I lost any respect for WLC when it was pointed out that his debate style is to overwhelm his opponent with multiple arguments and if any one of them aren’t countered, declares that he won on that one missing counter argument.

Another reason, even more of a turn off, is when asked directly that if went back in a Time Machine and witnessed Jesus staying on the cross and not rising, would he change his opinion.  Of course not because he believes that the Holy Spirit confirms his belief in spite of any evidence, even his own eyes.

Yes, he’s highly educated but his Christianity is based entirely on his “feelings” that it’s true.

Where did you get your misconceptions from? Perhaps you missed that his entire life's work has been to publish, speak, and debate philosophically sound reasons to think that God exists and Christianity is true. His best selling book was "Reasonable Faith", his ministry and website are named "Reasonable Faith." He is probably best known for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

It seems to me you might have missed an important nuance somewhere along the way.
Reply
#93

God Doesn't Exist
Quote:his entire life's work has been to publish, speak, and debate philosophically sound reasons to think that God exists and Christianity is true. 


What a way to waste one's life.

Actually, what he has done is sell books to gullible morons.  In that, he is a lot like Fuckface!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#94

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 08:06 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(04-10-2024, 05:44 PM)pattylt Wrote: I lost any respect for WLC when it was pointed out that his debate style is to overwhelm his opponent with multiple arguments and if any one of them aren’t countered, declares that he won on that one missing counter argument.

Another reason, even more of a turn off, is when asked directly that if went back in a Time Machine and witnessed Jesus staying on the cross and not rising, would he change his opinion.  Of course not because he believes that the Holy Spirit confirms his belief in spite of any evidence, even his own eyes.

Yes, he’s highly educated but his Christianity is based entirely on his “feelings” that it’s true.

Where did you get your misconceptions from? Perhaps you missed that his entire life's work has been to publish, speak, and debate philosophically sound reasons to think that God exists and Christianity is true. His best selling book was "Reasonable Faith", his ministry and website are named "Reasonable Faith." He is probably best known for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

It seems to me you might have missed an important nuance somewhere along the way.

I’ve watched him debate.  I’ve listened to him on podcasts.  I’ve seen him interviewed.  All he does is use philosophical arguments to determine what he already believes.  He never concedes a point and never allows himself to question his belief.

After all, if you went back in a Time Machine and saw Jesus die on the cross and not rise..even after weeks, would you still claim Jesus rose from the dead?  Are Christian’s so gullible and obstinate to not admit they were wrong? That’s not even faith…it’s a mental illness.
The following 3 users Like pattylt's post:
  • Minimalist, epronovost, Szuchow
Reply
#95

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 10:16 PM)pattylt Wrote:
(04-10-2024, 08:06 PM)SteveII Wrote: Where did you get your misconceptions from? Perhaps you missed that his entire life's work has been to publish, speak, and debate philosophically sound reasons to think that God exists and Christianity is true. His best selling book was "Reasonable Faith", his ministry and website are named "Reasonable Faith." He is probably best known for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

It seems to me you might have missed an important nuance somewhere along the way.

I’ve watched him debate.  I’ve listened to him on podcasts.  I’ve seen him interviewed.  All he does is use philosophical arguments to determine what he already believes.  He never concedes a point and never allows himself to question his belief.

After all, if you went back in a Time Machine and saw Jesus die on the cross and not rise..even after weeks, would you still claim Jesus rose from the dead?  Are Christian’s so gullible and obstinate to not admit they were wrong? That’s not even faith…it’s a mental illness.

If I remember correctly, what he said was that he would not believe what he saw because God has been real to him in a way that if given the choices between rejecting what he knew to be true and what the timetravel was to show him, he would pick what was real to him. Of course you can give me link so I can check my memory.

I suppose it would be somewhat akin to traveling back in time to be shown that my wife or my mother really didn't love me and conspired to fake it for some other purpose. Should I believe my experiences of a lifetime or should I believe some singular piece of counterevidence to the contrary? I think it comes down to if you think experience can be a defeater for apparent contradictions.
Reply
#96

God Doesn't Exist
(04-10-2024, 05:44 PM)pattylt Wrote: I lost any respect for WLC when it was pointed out that his debate style is to overwhelm his opponent with multiple arguments and if any one of them aren’t countered, declares that he won on that one missing counter argument.
This is sometimes referred to as. "Gish gallop" in (dis)honor of Duane T Gish, a fundamentalist apologist who also took that approach to debate.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#97

God Doesn't Exist
(04-11-2024, 02:26 AM)mordant Wrote:
(04-10-2024, 05:44 PM)pattylt Wrote: I lost any respect for WLC when it was pointed out that his debate style is to overwhelm his opponent with multiple arguments and if any one of them aren’t countered, declares that he won on that one missing counter argument.
This is sometimes referred to as. "Gish gallop" in (dis)honor of Duane T Gish, a fundamentalist apologist who also took that approach to debate.

That's not what Craig is doing. Often the debate topic is 'The Existence of God" and he has to argue the affirmative side (make the case--not poke holes in the other case) and may give 5-10 reasons (each one backed by a formal argument) in support of the premise. He has extensive published works on all of them and any debate opponent should be prepared--he pulls from the same basket of arguments every single time.

A Gish Gallop is presenting a series of arguments--regardless of their quality or relevance and with no intention of going deeply into any of them -- in an attempt to overwhelm an opponent. Because of his command of the material (there is almost certainly no one with a better grasp on the subject than him) no matter what way the opponent takes the argument, he understands the responses--in many cases better than they themselves do. He does not win by a rhetorical trick (gish gallop), he wins because he is better prepared.

During the debate with Kevin Scharp, (professional philosopher and atheist) - "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."
Reply
#98

God Doesn't Exist
(04-11-2024, 02:30 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(04-11-2024, 02:26 AM)mordant Wrote: This is sometimes referred to as. "Gish gallop" in (dis)honor of Duane T Gish, a fundamentalist apologist who also took that approach to debate.

That's not what Craig is doing. Often the debate topic is 'The Existence of God" and he has to argue the affirmative side (make the case--not poke holes in the other case) and may give 5-10 reasons (each one backed by a formal argument) in support of the premise. He has extensive published works on all of them and any debate opponent should be prepared--he pulls from the same basket of arguments every single time.

A Gish Gallop is presenting a series of arguments--regardless of their quality or relevance and with no intention of going deeply into any of them -- in an attempt to overwhelm an opponent. Because of his command of the material (there is almost certainly no one with a better grasp on the subject than him) no matter what way the opponent takes the argument, he understands the responses--in many cases better than they themselves do. He does not win by a rhetorical trick (gish gallop), he wins because he is better prepared.

During the debate with Kevin Scharp, (professional philosopher and atheist) - "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."

Has Craig ever provided any concrete evidence for god(s) existence?

Waiting.

Edit: Might as well be debating the existence of Superman.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 2 users Like brewerb's post:
  • Minimalist, pattylt
Reply
#99

God Doesn't Exist
Stevie is living proof of Caesar's observation:

[Image: 66e2cd94a1d71fc7bddbe43810b81dd1.jpg]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • airportkid
Reply

God Doesn't Exist
WLC also refuses to debate anyone unless they have a PhD, which means there are several excellent atheist debators that he won’t debate. He only agrees to debate those that he thinks he can best. Thats a bit chicken shit in my view.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)