Why can't athiests beat him? The debates are boring since Craig dominates every single time

>atheists can never refute his arguments
>whatever begins to exist has a cause
Only cause anything that begins to exist is to continue existing until it ceases to.

His whole argument is a classic argument used in religions, "if you cannot prove whatever we stated as wrong, we are right", built as such for the purpose of avoiding any means of providing any evidence.

But whatever does exist must have a cause, and Craig uses the historicity of Jesus and the evidence of his resurrection to claim that it is more likely explained by God.

>historicity
Sure, I give that, but only about him having existed, being baptised and having been crusified.
>evidence of his resurrection
What evidence?

Craig's website
reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/

Follow your kike god overlord goyim

>turns to shitposting
Can't beat his arguments, I see.

>the tomb is empty
>his followers stated they saw him on accounts we can trace only around centuries later of when this was supposed to have happened
>possibility of bias, it being bullshit from his followers or the guys who decided biblical canon centuries later.

None of his arguments gives any good arguments for the resurrections and are on pretty shaky grounds on themselves.

If he has evidence, show it. Do not make statements of possibility (that and obvious lack of recreation for the purposes of evidence) and present them as evidence.

Adding and clarifying, his statements hold as much air as me stating that there is a possibility of god existing and creating the universe, but having also "designed" evolution instead of the biblical account of just "lol ribwoman and sandman", and does not give a single fuck about what we do and never tries to contact us.

There is no scientific proof, except maybe in The Shroud of Turim, which you can research. However, his argument still holds up. You can dismiss it by saying the disciples were bias, but they had no reason to believe that Christ would rise again, since resurrection before the end was not a jewish belief. You can still dismiss it as bias, but you can't be certain of that.

If his arguments aren't solid then why does he always win in debates? You don't seem to be able to refute them either. You're just saying they aren't good.

His argument is one of faith, not evidence.

>shroud of turin
proved false via carbon dating.

Craig uses old arguments as well. Claiming strict agnosticism (basically just hard skepticism) is the closest a theist can come to proving themselves, which is basically just admitting that anyone could be right.

No it didn't actually. The Shroud had been patched multiple times as it was moved and the false tests came from one of the newer patches. There really is some interesting stuff there tho. And yes it comes down to whether you think the evidence points towards resurrection or some other material explanation. For most people, the answer comes from their assumptions, but there have been historians that have converted over this evidence.

They're old arguments, but far from refuted, as opposed to athiest arguments for the existence of evil, etc. Athiests also can't prove that athiesm is correct, that's why he says agnosticism is as close as they can get.

You can't be certain is his best argument. You can't be certain of anything however. The historicity of Islam is just as well of not better documented (300 years didn't pass before the the compilation of relevant stories/documents and there wasn't a visible effort to destroy or suppress opposing views before they were recorded).

Pretty much this.
And even then they have to fight against impossibility of recreating the event as evidence.

No, the "admitting that anyone could be right" isn't an obsolete argument, his other attempts are.
Either way the best he can do is posit a coinflip.

His argument is that it's the most likely explanation, which is to say more than it's simply plausible. But the likeliness of this particular event is subjective, and depends of your presuppositions.

Except he doesn't argue that anyone could be right. He argues that the Christian God exists. However, he says that agnosticism is the closest they CAN get to refuting, which is not to say all that much. They still haven't addressed his arguments for God.

Thats silly.
I've seen people similar to him apply Occam's Razor to biblical texts and DNA and state "its easiet to assume that God did it" and then opponents saying "its easier not to presume some entity of unfathomable nature DOES NOT exist" or "its easier to assume religious material was made up due to the circumstances presented."
Personally I think any use of Occam's razor or similar procedures in debate is ridiculous. What qualifies as probability in assessing these things?

Why would it be the most likely explanation?
It just being a story of a jewish man that got killed by romans courts for his beliefs and then centuries later turned into an icon. Or that its a miracle of god?

I would choose the first because people might easily use bullshit in their way to get dominance over other men.

No, all of his arguments OTHER than agnosticism have been refuted. There's absolutely nothing that he or any other theologian has ever proven objectively beyond that. The same goes for atheists, however they do not start their argument with supposition that a complex being exists.

We have limited knowledge and there is no "standard of evidence" in proving God. So to say that something is more or less likely in debate is very subjective, but there's nowhere else to go, since the athiest has to contend with the likelihood that a human-life-permitting universe came into being, even tho that probability is uncomprehensively large.

Besides, if we would get evidence of god, how would we identify it as evidence of god?

You can say that the disciples were lying, although you have no way to prove that, since they would have no reason to lie nor believe before Jesus' resurrection that anyone would resurrect before the Judgement. What you think is "more likely" is mostly subjective.

>First mover
>Moral Argument
>Fine-tuning argument
There's many more, they have been addressed somewhat, but I'd say they're far from refuted. If they were tho, why then does he win his debates with beaten arguments?

Miracles, like the resurrection of Jesus, the creation of the universe, etc. Events that don't follow natural laws.

"Winning debates" to you means shouting like a monkey and getting the last word without care for the content. Like a whore, you steal arguments from greater theologians and hold them up for your own defense.

>they have no reason to lie
isn't power or money enough a reason to lie?
>nor believe before jesus ressurection
My problem is that they could have just stated and never had to prove anything to anyone.
And that is without even going to the deciding of the biblical canon at the council of nicea, which could have made it even crazier.
(and they were in a position of power given by the emperor)

"Winning debates" means that he laid out some arguments, and they weren't addressed fully or at all, whereas Craig often addresses the point brought up by athiests. I also don't "steal arguments" since that implies that I'm brandishing them as my own, when I'm clearly not. Athiest use past arguments as well so it goes both ways.

So in short, unprovable.

I don't think the disciples got any money tho. I'm pretty sure they traveled, spreading the Word. They had influence, in that they were Christ's followers, but to say that they reveled in that power in some immoral, greedy way, I think, is pushing it and has no foundation with evidence.

First mover is a topic of debate even within science. Not knowing the cause does not mean God exists.
Morals are social and darwinian constructs is a perfectly reasonable counter
The fine-tuning argument is an argument of probability and of unknowns. Again, just because we don't know how life began exactly, and just because it only can happen under a narrow set of circumstances, doesn't mean it proves anything.
All of these fall within a "cant prove it so anyone can be right" (although many experts on morals will actually say theres pretty conclusive evidence for many or all of our morals being social/evolutionary constructs).

Well if a miracle follows natural law, then it's just physics, not a miracle. By definition, a miracle is unprovable in an empirical sense.

>Winning debates means shouting many (((theories))) like a monkey and hoping they don't address everything

There are dozens of other religions and even today we can see cults rally around a messiah and claim that person has done great things. The validity of the bible as evidence of god begins to fall apart relatively speaking. Even today we don't take actual historian's and writers stories for the 100% truth either.
But again, none of that can be proven one way or another. That argument just breaks down into subjective reasoning at best.

The problem is that since Theists usually just keep shouting these sort of things (since they would stop being ones should they lose their faith), the whole thing is just a one big argument from ignorance because they cannot fill the burden of proof for a resurrection.

There's a name for this tactic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The Cause of the Universe, Craig argues, is personal
youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y

The darwinian explanation for morality is also not sufficient to explain the objectivity of moral values, which if you don't believe is no problem, but many do and think it important; not just thiests, athiests as well.
The likelihood of a fine-tuned universe is also unfathomably small, which suggests a creator.
They're arguments, not some mathematical proof, but even so, if you want to ignore all of the thiest arguments then what about the lack of arguments for athiesm? You're just being dishonest if you say that it's not 100% proven and then stay on the side that has less (and worse) arguments. You'd then be on par with those with faith, not that I see that as bad.
>he isn't shouting
>he uses ARGUMENTS
>hoping they dont address anything
I think Craig wants them to address his arguments. He's probably tired of saying nearly the same thing and coming out the stronger contender.

I'd say more specifically then subjectivity, it depends on your presuppositions of existence/reality, and whether you are open to changing those assumptions. Christian's have faith to close the gap, athiests think they don't, but I suspect they just hold faith in science or something.

> objectivity of moral values
i wasn't aware any moral values had been shown to be objective

Look up the debate with Shelly Kagan. He got schooled. Also Craig’s whole arguments fall apart when you realize all his moral arguments are predicated on absolute libertarian free will and he supports that at all costs. That’s not really supported on the atheist or Christian side. Look at his insane defense of Molinism.
He’s a good speaker and a decent debater, but when someone like Kagan goes against him, he folds.

What is "sufficient evidence" for proving the Resurrection? Historians have been convinced by the evidence I've linked to. There is no reasonable standard of evidence for these sorts of questions.

Atheism is not about proving anything, its a lack of faith.

and besides, how does a creator somehow explain morality? Because then we have to ask the question, "how did that creator get his morality?".

If you don't believe pedophiles, mass murderers, etc. are objectively evil, then that argument won't convince you. But if you do hold those people to be evil, then the argument holds.

You're using loaded terms. Those words already imply an unfavorable moral judgement.

>But if you do hold those people to be evil, then the argument holds.
that's just another way of saying if you believe the premises are true then so is the conclusion. but the point of an argument is to demonstrate a conclusion to be true by showing that the premises are true. by avoiding the question of whether or not the premises are true you're not really arguing anything

Athiesm is a positive claim that no God or gods exist. You can say it's a "lack of belief", but it's just a trick with words to say the same thing.

Objective morality can also only be founded on God because He is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. There is no other standard that objective morality could be based on.

>Athiesm is a positive claim that no God or gods exist. You can say it's a "lack of belief", but it's just a trick with words to say the same thing.
what you're doing now is the actual trick. there are two types of atheists: strong atheists/positive atheists and weak atheists/negative atheists. only the strong atheists make that positive claim. to say that both types of atheists make that same claim is to use a trick, especially since the person you're arguing with clearly agrees with weak atheism.

I don't think that matters if you don't personally believe in objective morality anyways, but if you do, I don't see how you can argue that people who prey on children or people who kill many other people aren't morally bad.
If you presuppose morality is not objective then I don't see how I could convince you otherwise unless I said that there are certain things that human beings universally find wrong. That universal feeling in humans that feels that certain actions are wrong is a sense of objective morality.

>If you presuppose morality is not objective then I don't see how I could convince you
nothing I said suggested that is what I presuppose. I just said you need to argue for objective morality rather than just presuppose it a true premise in your argument.

Is weak athiesm, simply strong agnosticism? I don't see why the distinction you make changes anything. An athiest does not believe in any God or gods. That is a positive claim, that no God or gods exist.

Then I addressed that somewhat in the post you replied to.
>unless I said that there are certain things that human beings universally find wrong. That universal feeling in humans that feels that certain actions are wrong is a sense of objective morality.

Atheism is either absence of deities, rejection of belief that such deities exist or in a more narrover sense, that there are none.
I myself will not accept a deity on blind faith, and as such, remain agnostic to this day.

It is not a claim. It is an assumption according to the evidence.

>Is weak athiesm, simply strong agnosticism?
Yeah, I guess.
>I don't see why the distinction you make changes anything. An athiest does not believe in any God or gods. That is a positive claim, that no God or gods exist.
No, a strong atheist does not believe in any God or Gods. That isn't the position of a weak atheist.
>Then I addressed that somewhat in the post you replied to.
If you're referring to you saying that you can't argue for why its true then that isn't really addressing it. I said you need to argue for the truth of that premise in order to use it in a sound argument. If you can't argue for it why are you using it in an argument?

you can see here that he is clearly a weak atheist and does not believe in that positive claim

I would disagree that most christians are blindly faithful. They have their own reasons for believing what they do. Some grew up christian, but find that the arguments for christian thiesm is rather strong, and some may have experiences they believe to be spiritual. You also have to have "faith" in something.
So a weak athiest is holding a belief that there is no God/gods, but that evidence would change his mind? Strong athiests make this same claim, but never give credit to arguments of the historicity of the Bible. Do weak athiests also reject this as evidence? What would it take to change your mind?

>So a weak athiest is holding a belief that there is no God/gods
no, holding the belief that there are no gods is what a strong atheist is. a weak atheist is an agnostic on this. they don't claim there are no gods and also don't believe there are no gods. weak atheists are called atheists because their position isn't a theistic one, not because they reject gods

I can repeat myself. Human beings have a universal feeling that certain actions are wrong. This universal feeling corresponds to humans' sense of objective morality. Therefore, objective morality exists. You can explain it through darwinism, but I don't feel that the darwinian explanation is satisfactory, personally.

So what evidence would change your mind?

Probably a personal appearance from god and a way to provide scientists proof of his existance.
Surely being outside of time and whatever would make this fit his time schedule.

>Human beings have a universal feeling that certain actions are wrong.
Why do you believe this to be true? Even within our western society there are people who don't have those feelings, and they get branded as mentally ill just because they can't function well in our society: the people known as sociopaths. Being a sociopath means you don't have that feeling at all.
>This universal feeling corresponds to humans' sense of objective morality. Therefore, objective morality exists.
What does it mean for something to "correspond" to something else and how does that prove objective morality to exist? You aren't explaining your reasoning in the slightest here by just saying one thing corresponds to the other in some way.
I'm not the atheist you were talking with.

Atheists themselves agree he always wins debates. They usually say that he wins debates while being wrong.

I'd counter by arguing that if God did that it would effectively end Free Will. I'd also add that it's rather arrogant to ask for God to demonstrate himself that way when there are many ways God could be speaking to you without you realizing.

I bet you take the Bible literally instead of allegorically.

I could still reject god on the basis that he is an asshole.
Proof does not make free will go away, it simply eliminates the need for faith.

Arrogant, maybe, but like I said, if he would be as powerful as is and gives a damn he could.

And why would he be speaking to me in ways I could not realize rather than in ways I could.

That is stupid from him.

Sociopaths don't want to be killed, don't want to be stolen from and they find certain things distasteful, likely most of the same things normal people find distasteful. It may be localized to themselves only, but I'd say it's there. My reasoning on objective morality is much like with the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. It could be explained in another way, but I believe that certain things are wrong in any circumstance, and there are many people who feel the same. That isn't a formal proof or anything, but if you do believe in objective morality, then the argument for God from morality holds true.

What if I do? :^)

not him, but how many disobedient kids have you stoned?

Maybe He speaks to you in ways you could realize but don't. The Christian faith depends heavily on Free Will. The idea is that He reveals Himself just enough for you to notice if you wanted to notice, but if you don't you won't. You have to be open to Him.
>7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
None. Why do you ask?

>Sociopaths don't want to be killed, don't want to be stolen from and they find certain things distasteful
Values are separate from a sense of right and wrong. Saying that one wants to live only shows that one values life, it says nothing about whether or not they think killing is wrong. Same thing applies to what you said about stealing. Sociopaths may not want to be stolen from because they want to keep their stuff but that doesn't mean they think there is anything wrong with stealing.

Yes, but nobody wants to be stolen from, killed, etc. This universal feeling, I'd say, points towards an objective morality.

I would consider myself open to him, but not as a being of salvation, faith or something told alongside red riding hood as a kid.

Asking about the stoning because if people say they take bible literally, it would sound as if they take everything as right as it is written in the bible and do not pick and choose like pretty much everyone does.
(and the stoning appears next to what people quote stating that homosexuality is a sin)

yawn

grow up

You are changing your argument then. Earlier you said that "a universal feeling that certain actions are wrong" is what corresponds to "humans' sense of objective morality". Now you are saying that "a universal feeling of not wanting certain things done to you" is what "points towards objective morality. By corresponds and points towards do you mean the same thing? And, like I asked above, can you explain how either of those two feelings correspond to objective morality and prove it exists?

Have you considered that it being an universal feeling might point towards it being there for the reason of multilateralism?

And like said, values are seperate from a sense of right and wrong.

blah blah blah

whether universe made or man it does not matter.

man is also universe.

my mind too massive for journalists. pls stop frying my brain.

I want to believe that the Bible is not only in-part historically true, nor simply symbolically true, but true at all levels of analysis. I want to see how far I can go with this, though I haven't finished the Old Testament yet. So far this belief is mostly faith. As for the stoning, I haven't read or don't remember that specific part and can't give an answer, although I do believe God to be good.

how many lives have you lived

mm? i bet not even one.

:P

(im just joshing; feel hyped, sorry)

namaste.

but reflect upon self. golden stuff, friends.

I do mean essentially the same thing. As for how I get from "certain things people don't like happening to themselves or other people" to "objective morality", I am implying that the sense humans' have of "certain things they don't want happening to them or others" is a sense of objective morality, an instinct/intuition natural to human beings.

wtf tossposter is that you?

>As for how I get from "certain things people don't like happening to themselves or other people" to "objective morality"
>I am implying that the sense humans' have of "certain things they don't want happening to them or others" is a sense of objective morality
You can see how that second line doesn't give me any more information at all about how you got from one to the other, right? You're just repeating your position that that particular feeling corresponds to/points towards objective morality, except this time you said "is a sense of" instead of corresponds to/points towards.

nono. you must live first. a son, a daughter, a soldier, a scholar, a hero, a king. You are children who bicker and banter.. in time you will see what i mean. but only if you will stay awhile and listen as I have, not rush headlong into a china shop.

and stop spying on me, i am serious.

...

do not wrong yourself by asking for names

are you not able to discern? perhaps you must learn to listen.

I don't have a formal proof for objective morality, though I'm not sure why we got stuck in this one argument. If you do believe in objective morality the argument holds. Many if not most people do believe in objective morality. I can't give you a proof for objective morality itself tho, except by saying what I've already said. That's the limit of what I know currently.

We are still on this point because the whole reason I joined this discussion was to say that you aren't making a sound argument if one of the premises of your argument has not been argued to be true and you can't even make an argument for it. Yes, people who presuppose the existence of objective morality could be persuaded by the argument, but that says less about the argument than it does of them.

you think too much of names

i am disappointed in you; have you neither observed nor listened?

Well, congratulations. You caught me. Now what's the next step in your master plan?