#195 Debate - Kari Enqvist vs William Lane Craig - Can the Universe Exist Without God - 2012
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
April 16, 2012 - University of Helsinski *Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MatthewJudge?ty=h *Twitch Channel: https://www.twitch.tv/darkviper88 *Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/MattTheJudge *Main Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/darkviper8888 *Video Debate Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistTheistDebates *My Gaming Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DarkviperGameChannel
Comments
-
Easy win for Craig
-
the biggest bullshiter this WLC, he's logic is a bunch of nonsense,
-
Maximally perfect being :D What percentage of atheists are convinced by this type of reasoning?
-
How about unicornological, and satanological arguments? Both satan and unicorn exists; ergo , god exists!
I know he just now applauded!! -
All the debates between apologists and the unbelievers are in vain because Big Bang not only struck deaf all gods, but also struck them dumb and blind because of an acid, rancid, biting, burning, poisonous smoke the size of a regular universe which BIg Bang must have created and which gods had to inhale; having no another universe to flee to.
So, as you can see, bible, quran, torah are not the only proofs that the four gods [yahweh, god, jesus, allah] are indeed very dumb! -
I love how Enqvist destroyed the cosmological & teleological arguments right off the bat!
-
Anybody who thinks that argument at 30:00 has validity is mistaken. Craig is jumping all over the place with that argument. Of course it is possible that a god exists. It is possible that anything exists. There is the possibility that a flying, pink elephant exist. There is the possibility that you will live from AIDS /HIV infection, but that doesn't mean that you will. Craig jumps the fence when he says, "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world." Hello? Does anyone see a problem with this? This argument is completely incoherent.
-
I can't even begin to address how fallacious that argument is at 21:40.
-
Craig once again beginning his rebuttal by trying to switch the burden of proof. Dick bag
-
This guy Kari Enqvist was very philosophically disappointing in this debate.
-
WLC doesn't listen to himself talk.
he says it's possible a universe different than our own could have come into existence, so why did our specific universe come into existence.
he answers that by saying a different one "could have" come into existence. that literally means they didn't, and to back that up I give you exhibit A: "our universe existing the way it does" notice it doesn't exist as it "could" exist, it only exists as it is.
something that "could have" happened has never existed for all we know, there's no probability of nonexistence existing. -
There is purpose in your prison https://www.createspace.com/6345861?ref=1147694&utm_id=6026
-
Nice straw man argument Craig @40:45.
-
If a mind is needed to create stuff... You should also use the same intuition on the fact minds only have evidence to exist with brains.
So please provide intuitive evidence minds can exist without brains.
The universe began to expand. We don't know if the material which it existed of began to exist. What ever that material was. And if a God or pixie(that's almost a God but not) died and the property of his death created our universe... It had no choice in death... It doesn't require a mind then.
So a natural force could in fact have always existed until it started to expand. Intuitively everything dies in this universe... So why do we special plead and say that a God could not have died? Or that some natural force existed for 20 billion years before and then started to expand and will eventually die out leaving its skeleton of an empty space...
Oh because you are trying to pick the intuition you need to get to the answer you like.... Gotcha. -
Craig got shut down before he even spoke.
-
"I am trying not to take any philosophical standpoint", this is itself a philosophical standpoint!
-
Logically the universe can't be infinitely old, but I am not convinced it isn't? FAITH.
-
William Lane Craig dominated.
-
LANE WON?!??
WTF I clicked on this in hope to laugh my ass of at his arguments but I didn't expect this. -
This is hilarious, Enqvist already shuts down the Kalam before Craig can even use it, but will Craig go ahead and make fool out of himself anyway? I hope so!
*Edit, of course he does lol!
And I can't believe this asshole is stilling whining on with the moral argument. It is an appeal to consequences fallacy you fucking idiot!!!
0m 0sLenght
23Rating