Christian Apologetics get Demolished (William Lane Craig vs Arif Ahmed debate)

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. The problem of suffering and evil
   
   This is perhaps the only issue that Ahmed brings up that is worth the listen. It is the question men have pondered from forever. The Christian answer is, first, that suffering and evil are the consequence of sin and in many instances the choosing of evil over good. In short, we, both individually and collectively, do evil to one another and are the cause of suffering.
   
   Still, as the argument goes, God could do something if he chose - if he is omnipotent. So the argument is that God is either not able to prevent evil or is evil himself by allowing it. But that is far too cerebral and simplistic. That kind of philosophy is a fool's game. "Yet is it far better to light the candle than to curse the darkness." (William Lonsdale Watkinson)
   
   God has given men both perception and volition. We know that there is pain and evil. So, light a candle. Ahmed has chosen to curse the darkness when he could do something about it. He should not blame God for that.
   
   But secondly, the argument fails to consider that God has acted and is acting to deal with evil and suffering and will ultimately act to eliminate both by judging evil. In between, evil and suffering serve God's purpose in driving people to him. C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain writes that God shouts to us in our pain. In short, many people discover God is present and a comfort in their pain and a hope for the future. "Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning" (Psalm 30:5)
   
   I know in my case the suffering I see around me in the world wrenches upon me and drives me to pray that God would cause people to seek him and the hope of relief. And it drives me to act to relieve what suffering I can.
   
   But the fact is that suffering in this life is short though for many it is very hard. Eternity is long, and for those who find God in their pain, the cost of the pain is small compared to the gain.
2. What reason is there in thinking there are objective moral values?
   
   Rather an ironic question. Didn't Dr. Ahmed just say that murdering innocent people is wrong? Isn't that a deep down knowing that it is wrong?
   
   Dr. Ahmed: The source of evidence for the resurrection is pretty suspect. And Dr. Ahmed then points to the contradiction between Mark and Matthew.
   
   Just a minute, Dr. Ahmed. Why should we expect that Matthew and Mark would include all the same things. If two witnesses to an armed robbery said exactly the same thing, we would suspect collusion and we would wonder why. In the case of Mark and Matthew we might even suspect that one copied the other.
   
   But Matthew and Mark are different, and not at just this point. Would you say then that one did not copy the other?
   
   However, this whole issue is misrepresented. The fact that Matthew and Mark include different details does not mean they contradict one another. Your argument has to be better that that.
   
   The argument from experience Dr. Ahmed suggests that because experiences vary they are unreliable.
   
   But maybe this is like the contradictions in Mark and Matthew argument. Maybe he is looking at the differences and overlooking the similarities. But I guess we will not know. Dr. Ahmed is content to simply focus on the differences, and to do so without even describing them. Well, maybe they do things that way at Cambridge.
3. This guy is a good speaker, but wholly unoriginal. he is, for the most part just repeating most of the same arguments and points that Christopher Hitchens used to defeat Craig soundly many years ago. He is right, of coarse, but simply cashing in on the Hitch, and being a little too word for word, for my taste.. In a sense though, it was a good strategy. I'm sure if I were to debate Craig, who is a very convincing liar, I would likely borrow a few lines from the master too.
4. aah! He manages 'demolition' when WLC ain't around!
5. I find the title highly unlikely. What is a muslim doing arguing against theism Hugh?
6. Who has heard of an atheist coming up with an original thought.
   That is why we have years old debates by atheist continually uploaded - nothing new under the sun with atheists.
   It is just stupid to not believe in God.
7. WLC is out classed and his fairy tales from 2500 years ago show how out of date he is from reality.His arguments have been debunked and frankly silly, his views on relativity and timeindicate his ineptitude in math and philosophy relegating any further debating redundant and worthless listening too this delusional christian Apoligest.
8. God apparently relishes the smell of human blood and thrives on the sweet nectar of human tears. But, He IS love.
9. I didn't listen to all of this, but I know William was not speaking in it. Keep in mind that it's easy to "demolish" someone's reasoning with your own when that someone isn't present to bring things into context that may have been taken out of context, clarify ambiguous statements, correct his own mistakes (sometimes people say things/words they don't mean to), etc. If we are to be skeptic about William, we must also be skeptic about Arif by thinking about it ourselves, otherwise we are biased and are not truth seekers, but simply pleasure seekers.
10. This is not a fair depiction of the debate, it is only one side how in the world can you say he gets Demolished??
11. If you got in the Bible please feel free to visit my channel and watch my videos. Healthy discussion and feedback is encouraged.
12. christianity and islam is a load of shit!
13. Minor quibble: I don't think Jews believe in an afterlife.
14. This guy presents good arguments only if he is unchallenged and you are naive.
15. Obennon Z, read Organ Farms reply. can not be said any better
16. I remember Craig rationalizing the death of children as no bad thing because they were going to heaven - sicko.
17. Ahmed makes every possible failure of an argument even possible. It was painful listening.
18. the argument kills the argument for ressurection. If you do believe in ressurection, you must say that its by faith, and only by faith
19. I believe in God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Listened openly to those arguments, sounds like he put some thought into it, but really did not sway me the slightest. Not that I did not listen intently, but as he said at the beginning (except in this instance vise versa) you need to give me good reason not to believe in the resurrection. The arguments were quite weak and did nothing to rationally disprove Jesus or Christianity, but I guess he was trying to argue against Dr. Craig's arguments and not Christianity.
20. This is a rather strange title for a video that only plays the audio of one debater. It's like giving the title "Soccer team gets demolished" to a video that only shows the other team practicing on their own.