Who else has watched him debating? He destroys every atheist in every single one. He makes Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins look like children trying to build a valid argument.
You cannot remain an atheist after watching a debate with William Lane Craig.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
WLC is a compromiser who likes to excise portions of the bible to help convince atheists that "a god" (read: not the Christian God) exists
well you gotta start somewhere
baby steps user
WLC is correct that if Jesus rose from the dead then Christianity is true, however what he fails to realize is that if Jesus rose from the dead ALL of Christianity is true. He should point that out instead of offering people to abandon inerrancy.
this
atheists judge themselves to be smarter than religious people, when they chose the easy path
Most atheists didn't study a chapter of the bible, they mosly watch famous atheists on youtube and go out mocking religion
William Lane Craig is the perfect example that when an intelligent, studied theist fights an atheist, the latter can't move in their arguments because every single one is debunked by wlc
Being a theist and a christian is much more difficult than assuming there is no God, because it requires a lot of research, deep reflections, philosophy and many other factors that will lead you to the ultimate conclusion
atheist just go for the: "i don't see, i don't believe"
The only worthwhile thing WLC has done in his career as a philosopher is some minor contributions to philosophy of time. He is quite small time in contemporary philosophy.
Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins are philosophers, so they are quite irrelevant here, but some people love to bring up youtube debates that have no significance in academia.
>Most atheists didn't study a chapter of the bible, they mosly watch famous atheists on youtube and go out mocking religion
No, most atheist are simply indifferent to religion and are usually at least nominally part of a religious group.
t. """christian""" that attends mass twice a year
Any athiest who will debate in defense of athiesm is bound to be unintelligent.
The entire purpose of athiesm is to free a person from the responsibilities of organized religion; not spend more effort arguing about it.
Catholics aren't Christian
>He makes Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins look like children trying to build a valid argument.
So you are saying that the non philosophers look stupid when discussing philosophy with philosophers?
Any good debates between him and other philosophers?
Get out of my Church, fucker. Go out into the darkness.
I'm just telling it like it is, the vast majority of atheists aren't ridiculous trench coat wearing caricatures you seem to picture in your heads, it's most likely your fellow church goer that just goes through the motions out of respect for tradition or just simple conformity.
and they didn't study anything about theology or religion
they go for the simple easiest path, which will ultimately lead them to destruction and doomation
>You cannot remain an atheist after watching a debate with William Lane Craig.
I did ama
>Get out of my Church, fucker. Go out into the darkness.
Your attitude is exactly the kind of thing that makes Christians so easy to pick on. It's like you never cared about anything Jesus said.
Catholics aren't Christian
>yfw literal fedora btfo wlc
french are not european
>William Lane Craig
People like this idiot is why the atheist community became as outspoken as it did. Nobody has a problem with the calm and collected Christian guy that goes, "Well, I can't prove this, and it wasn't meant to be proven, but I'm going to have faith on this one, and if you don't that's fine, because I still consider you my brother in Christ even if you don't."
Instead we get,
>SCIENTISTS ARE ALL LIARS!!!
>NOTHING IS STABLE IN SCIENCE!!!!
>MUH QUANTUM MECHANICS!!
>GOD CAN BE PROVED BY REASON ALONE!!!
What makes them cancerous is that they have the same outlook as the atheists they're debating (that is, they're staunch rational materialists) yet they choose to get autistic over "proving" God's existence and imposing that "truth" on every other person.
Nietzsche wasn't wrong when he said these Christians are the ones that killed God--hardly any atheist or deist. They're the ones that are OBSESSED with the material world and/or philosophy proving their claims, instead of simply living a good and honest Christian life and inspiring people by example. They're fucking trash Christians.
I don't have to argue against the existence of a god any more than I have to argue against the existence of the tooth fairy. Arguing with people who live to argue is pointless. I'm sure there are people out there who have some really compelling arguments for a flat earth. It doesn't matter because literally everything we can prove says that's retarded and only what can be proven really matters.
This.
William Lane Craig is an imbecile who's semi-good at wordplay. This doesn't make him right, it just makes him a good con-artist.
>most atheists didn't study a chapter of the bible
Most atheists are born in Christian households and/or are former christians you fucking mong.
Maybe in america retard, a country like Australia is 80% atheist and even the Christians are very "go on easter or christmas"
I'm a Christian and I came here to post that debate.
Although WLC could still be right, he jumps too quickly on the finite Universe model when it hasn't been conclusively proven and (as mentioned in the video) there are working models which suppose an inifite past.
Of course this leaves only one of his arguments in contention until more information is found on the subject.
On top of that, if you watch the debate Sean Carrol's positive reasons for atheism are the usual disproven diatribes of the New Atheists™.
The problem with WLC is he steps out of his field when he argues from authority to prop up the Kalam cosmological argument.
Nice implications you've got there.
>Can atheist
>American flag
...
The moral objection to God is always the most retarded
>hurr God is le evil man in the sky who killd peepl
>*can't give an objective reason why anything is morally objectionable*
The denunciation of WLC in this quote only holds up if you also think the Canaanites were NOT wrong for willfully rejecting God. The only reason you think that wouldn't matter is if you thought God did not exist.
However, God is presupposed in this hypothetical else there would be no point of the story.
>atheists judge themselves to be smarter than religious people
I don't
>Most atheists didn't study a chapter of the bible, they mosly watch famous atheists on youtube and go out mocking religion
I've read the bible out of curiosity, but I've always been an atheist, as has everyone in my family. I don't even mock religion 99% of the time, I just simply don't care about it.
>argument from outrage
>implying objective morality exist
Are atheists really this incompetent?
Incredibly stupid post.
That's only in your edgy piece of shit of a country, here in France most of the youth is atheist and nobody is as edgy as any of the reddit tier atheist l've seen on the internet
God is omnipotent, why can't he do the right thing for ALL of humanity to agree upon ?
Hmmph
atheism essentially forced him back into the realm of the perpetually unknown /unknowable at which point you could hypothesise any number of eventualities . he has yet to prove why it should be a single unified perfect being ahead of anything else.
also he just uses arguments from history (kant, kalam etc). no original talent
I disagree with your premise OP also this guy is only relevant in the states, nobody ever gives a shit about him in europe
Europe doesn't have Christian fundamentalists to the same degree that the US does.
Fundamentalists ruin fucking everything, regardless of which god they worship.
>God is omnipotent, why can't he do the right thing for ALL of humanity to agree upon?
man is given free will
man falls into sin
man is given the choice to listen to God or not
God does wondrous miracles for people to witness
Yet they still refuse
Because of their selfish desire to do what they want aka sin
>Hmmph
for some reason that was quite adorable
I don't like this mans condescending furrowed brow. I don't like how even the must mundane subjects become trendy because then you get hobbyists like this man who just adds brainless numbers to either side of an argument. For that, i too do not believe in democracy.
>hurr God is le evil man in the sky who killd peepl
>*can't give an objective reason why anything is morally objectionable*
Given that god and his followers aim to impose their own morality on the masses, killing people makes him an untrusthworthy hypocrite however. Which doesn't mesh well with expecting people to act on faith.
>god is omniscient
>god gives man free will
The implication is that god knowingly condemed man to sin.
Also
>god creates man with urges
>god expects man to deny said urges on pain eternal suffering
It follows that god is a sadist.
>men are selfish for wanting to do what they want
>god is unfailingly good for compelling everyone to obey his biddings on pain of hellfire
Gee god, is coherence too hard for an omnipotent being?
>killing people makes him an untrusthworthy hypocrite
When did God lie?
Where did God say He would never kill/aid the killing of anyone?
He didn't
>man is given free will
Totally 100% unbiblical.
He expects other people to behave in ways he's not willing to behave. That's literally hypocrisy.
God never said killing was wrong. The original 'Thou shalt not kill' command was translated from the original word 'murder'.
Therefore there is just killing and unjust killing.
The seperation of the two depends on God's will. Therefore God is not a hypocrite
>being a Christian is hard!
Life isn't a fucking videogame, you autistic mong. No one cares if it's "harder" or "easier".
>free will is not Biblical
Try me nigga
he's write their's literally nothing wrong with murder
>Being a theist and a christian is much more difficult than assuming there is no God, because it requires a lot of research, deep reflections, philosophy and many other factors that will lead you to the ultimate conclusion
Most people are religious user, and it's not because of deep introspection. They were simply born into a religious society and have adopted their culture's mores.
Anyways haven't watched the vid but if it's like every other American Christian vid where they try to "prove" the existence of God it seems to be missing the point. You can't prove God's existence - hence the leap of faith.
Sure you can study scripture, theology and have a good grasp of biblical history but it's silly to think one can simply invest X hours and suddenly have proof of God.
>The original 'Thou shalt not kill' command was translated from the original word 'murder'.
Don’t you just love it when people retroactively revise a text using modern concepts because it doesn't fit their modern theology, then claim the unrevised version was a mistranslation?
>retroactively revise
Are you being serious? Theologians knew the original translation since the beginning of the Church. It's only in the King James translation was the wording different. (In case it wasn't clear: no serious theologian uses the KJV as their source even if they recite KJV day by day)
also sick dubs senpai
>The seperation of the two depends on God's will.
If god is above the morality he forces on others, he necessarily is a hypocrite. As I said, he's not willing to play by the rules he wants to enforce. How can you have faith in someone manifestly untrustworthy? Who's to say good behaviour and faith will be rewarded if his whim can make good behaviour into bad and faith into a negative attribute?
>atheists judge themselves to be smarter than religious people
actually not, but statistics judge religious people to be dumber than non religious ones.
>tfw you hit the right time line to see Christianity fade into obscurity in the West and only shitskins remain
How is it hypocritical to say words to the effect of "kill as I command" and then cite His killing as he wishes as evidence of contradiction.
Even if you were right on the 'can't be trusted' point, you would still be stupid to refuse to submit to a being infinitely superior to yourself.
>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''proving''''''''''''''''''''''''''' the existence of god.
I think I prefer fedora-atheists to fedora-Christians.
>you would still be stupid to refuse to submit to a being infinitely superior to yourself
A being whose superiority we're supposed to believe in on faith. Don't you see the problem here?
this
No I don't. The merits of the arguments for God's existence are irrelevant to my point.
Hypothetically, if God exists and is also dishonest you would be unwise to upset such a powerful being. That was my point.
How do you even know what upsets him? If his word is not to be trusted, he might well be laughing his ass off watching over as you waste your life performing meaningless acts just to kick you down to hell after you die. All while rewarding rebels because why the fuck not?
You are making up nonsense. The "original translation" is thoroughly ambiguous, since the word originally meant "break into pieces" and was later extended to human killing. And it's not only in the KJV, many theologians across history have interpreted it as "kill".
The Tyndale Bible, older than the KJV, says this:
>Thou shalt not kyll.
The Latin Vulgate has this:
>non occides
where "occido" means kill, cut down, torment to death, ruin, etc., with no specification of justness.
Wycliffe's bible has this:
>Thou schalt not sle. (Thou shalt not slay.)
and so on. No pre-modern English translation, as far as I know, has anything but "kill", "slay", and synonyms of them.
>How do you even know what upsets him?
I would have thought it obvious that being disobeyed is not a positive feeling.
lol
An omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, omnipresent God is expected to have the same feelings and reactions as humans? Really?
>it's not only in the KJV
My mistake, you're correct here.
>as far as I know, has anything but "kill", "slay", and synonyms of them
The word that was used in the original Hebrew in the commandment is not used in the context of war. We can conclude that the two words are to have different definitions.
This: Also even if god reacts like us, it still leaves the fact that most people can't respect slavish obedience, and if anything bullies and sadists are only encouraged by such behaviour to further torment their victims.
That's right, when an almighty power commands us mortals, He doesn't actually care whether we obey or not. /s
Why would someone/thing even give a command without wanting it to be fulfilled?
>watch his debate with Christopher Hitchens
>crowd starts yelling and hooting while they clap
why do americans do this? it's very disrespectful
Maybe He wants to test whether we can think for ourselves. Maybe He’s just playing with us. Maybe he likes to see a little rebellion now and then. Maybe He issues commands without even thinking or caring about them. Maybe His sense of morality is so far beyond ours that we cannot comprehend His motives. There are a thousand possibilities.
It would have to be the case that *everything* He says is just to mess with us in order for total indifference to Him to be a good move.
But this scenario seems far-fetched given the lack of substance you have put forward for God's alleged dishonesty. So I take you back to the original contention: How is God a liar?
>So I take you back to the original contention: How is God a liar?
The original contention was 'god is a hypocrite'. Which is pretty much undeniable given he wants to enforce laws he doesn't subject himself to.
>How is God a liar?
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. Ezekiel 14:9
It turns out humanity and God are different things.
If God's will is morality itself, then God cannot commit immoral acts and therefore is not a hypocrite.
>projection the post
Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. God says we ought to do shit, but he ain't willing to do shit. Hence god is a hypocrite.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
>Given that god and his followers aim to impose their own morality on the masses, killing people makes him an untrusthworthy hypocrite however
Morality has everything to do with it given your original claim was that he violated His own morality.
You misunderstand me. The issue is that he doesn't subject himself to the rules he lays down (in this case christian morals), not the fact that he's immoral himself. Indeed, the very impossibility of him being immoral, due to his placing himself above his words is what makes him a hypocrite.
The issue is that he doesn't subject himself to... christian morals, not the fact that he's immoral himself
I would have thought those two were the same thing.
That being said I understand your point of 'He says don't do X and He does it' but He doesn't.
The original texts give two seperate words for 'kill' in The Ten Commandments and 'kill' in the context of war. There is understood to be a difference between the two actions.
>implying that means you read your bible
No shit most of you come from "Christian households" but I doubt most of you came from ones that dealt with the heavy issues like how abortion is address in it. Hell that's my personal bar to anyone that claims they read the bible I throw that out there and see what they say, if it's stone faced shock that the bible has rules about abortion in it then I know they have invested in their faith as they would a TV show or video game.
Found the lazy atheist
His molinism is a total cop-out because his whole moral apologetic relies on libertarian free will which is neither biblical nor defensible from what we know about the brain.
On morality, when he's actually put up against a legit philosopher like Shelly Kagan, he just falls back on bullet points and flounders.
>God does wondrous miracles for people to witness
eternal kek
just so people like this doesn't stand unopposed. I've studied christian theology for several years and I'm still an atheist. Most of their arguments are shit, even at a "hard" academic level.
Statistics also suggest atheists are more likely to be autistic
>christians are more autistic than jews
>Jews
>Least autistic
We win again, goyim.
That is all of Christianity. Jesus is God, and He rose from the dead.
Autists cannot form interpersonal connections, autism implies atheism because god is literally an imaginary friend.
What he has done will ring in heaven for eternity.
You're forgetting something, aren't ya?
Name one scientist who has never told a lie, and let us know how you gathered that information.
Name one scientific "fact" that has not changed over the past 3500 years of written language.
Name one shred of evidence for quantum mechanics describing the known universe.
Name any other reason other than "God did it" to explain the existence of the universe.
See?
You're on the bullshit side of this, not us. We have an unalterable foundation upon which to stand: the revealed Word of God.
You? The shifting sands of mankind's opinions.
What do you think I left out?
People like you think you can brute force the mind of God.
Your failure is typical of your kind.
Studies show that average Athiest knows more about the Bible than the average Christian...that being said...most athiests are very ignorant of the Bible, as you say.
However, your idea that Athiesm is easy compared to being religious is just ridiculous. Christians use their faith as a crutch all the time...I live around a bunch of white trash and they use God as an excuse to not work hard and keep to their life in their trailer parks. My life didn't get any "easier" when I realized that I no longer believed in God.
>Not the children, for they inherit eternal life
Wow he hasn't studied his faith AT ALL. The Old Testement is about the covenant and God rewarding you with a good life, not about "eternal life."
>Studies show that average Athiest knows more about the Bible than the average Christian.
Not only retarded, but ridiculously retarded.
no, he is the son of God
he says dozens of times he'll meet his father, that the father is greater than him, etc
Yup. The Old and inferior Covenant dealt only in the flesh, here on earth. More flour for your mixing bowl; bumper crops; lack of mold and mildew; defeat your enemies in the field of battle; be lenders and not borrowers.
Nothing about a relationship with the living God.
Nothing about eternal life.
Kind begets kind.
God begets God.
Jesus saying He is the Son of God = saying He is God.
John 10
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
You have a book written by people about a God that noone has ever see or heard from...blah blah blah shifting sands of mistranslation and moral relativism of societies over time blah blah blah and the fact that every Christian has their own interpretation of the bible....if they bothered to read it that is
what is? the fact that (In America at least) that athiests are more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians or are you disputing my claim?