Is God the Cause of the Universe? William Lane Craig vs New Atheists (Dawkins and Dennett)

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Its always so difficult for atheist to listen to what they believe in.
2. He says that the universe could not have created itself. Ok, so does that mean God can create himself? If not, then where did God come from. Even if you go with the assumption that the universe could not create itself, your still stuck with the question of where did something else then come from. Can anybody give a sufficient answer to that other than simply saying "I don't know, its too complex?" I think this complexity cannot be fathomed one way or the other. Thus proving that maybe the universe could create itself, and its just too vast to comprehend the process.
3. wow, theologians really just have no good arguments left. He just reiterates the same stupid arguments that were in vogue circa 1700. They just don't understand that no one cares about the subtleties of their definitions, we all just care about reality. Thus, blah blah blah I understand God and the purpose of existence itself... blah blah blah....idiot....
4. Let me clear this up for everyone who thinks Craigs logical philosophy sounds logical.
   
   - Everything that exists has a cause. The universe exists, therefore it needs a causer. The causer is eternal and does not need a causer.
   
   By this logic you can argue that the laws of physics too would need a causer. Since Craigs theory is based on observation of these laws it is flawed. If there were no laws of physics at the time that these laws were created there would be no laws of physics to dictate that anything would need a cause in the first place. Therefore a causer is not necessary for these laws to have come into existence... and thus everything that exists does not necessarily need a cause. Furthermore... if then on the other hand the laws of physics are also eternal.. it would mean that the universe is eternal. This also eliminates the need for a cause. 
   
   Suck my dick William Lane Craig
   
   Sincerely
   
   Kimeradon
   - Atheist
5. The essential problem is that non-physicists have nothing to say on this matter. Only a person who understands quantum mechanics, special and general relativity at a technical level can make any significant statement here. As an advice for all the others: Listen and stop talking about things you don't understand.
6. I don't think ajnode has actually see any debates with Craig, or he just casually skipped over his parts.
7. God, being timeless, never didn't exist.
8. HAHAHA - I love how when a religious person unloads a video entitled "VS." it literally only has the religious person speaking... You wouldn't want them to ACTUALLY vs. anyone, or they'd be humiliated - case in point: every time Craig has ever gone into a formal debate.
9. Lol, you're a fucking moron.
10. Lol, he's being mean to you and you don't even know it.
11. Craig loves to hear himself talk. Repeating the same drivel over and over, it's so fucking annoying! And he completely misreads, if not intentionally quote mines, other's positions. He seems to have no concept of rhetorical device in taking Dawkin's intentionally hypothetical concession on his point. He's either completely retarded or completely dishonest, I think we all probably know the answer.
12. I honestly think these debates about the beginnings of the universe and its potential causes are fruitless given how little we know about it. It's quite likely, I think, that this frontier of mystery to physics (the question about what caused the big bang etc.) will be pushed back just like every frontier before it, and that the premises for such arguments as Bill explains in this talk will be shown to have been created from nothing more than what we knew at the time, and be as irrelevant.
13. Well that was just rude. lol
14. I know he is a philosopher. Unfortunately these people do very little for science with exception to Bertrand Russell. I suggest before you put your faith in nonsense, you study, chromosome no. 2. The human genome project and Charles Darwin. Real facts are amazing. In particular the fossil record, palaeontology, astrophysics. You want to know how educated I am? Bring it on, I will have a debate any time and win just like Richard Dawkins once said. 
15. God caused himself you moron! He had a wank and artificially took the sperm and made himself pregnant. God is not female or male. He has this enormous power and can do that. Evolution is a man made thing. Bacteria evolving and mutating. It all nonsense. Next you'll be saying we have sequenced the entire genome of 32185 genes, all 23 chromosomes with base pairs (genetic code) Of some 3 billion letters long. And discovered the speed of light and light wave spectrum. lol
16. What is around you, is not evidence of a god. It is evidence of gases, minerals, elements etc. What a lot of crap stating that! Next you'll be saying the sun is evidence of god. Instead of nuclear fusion of heavy elements. Hydrogen and helium for example. The more religious you are, the more uneducated you are. Don't believe me? Check out the 18,000 scientists around the world. I'd start with Nobel prize winners in physics, chemistry etc. Why do people laugh at religion? lol
17. The law would allow for random, spontaneous creation of matter and energy. The law would already exist before matter, because of course something must always have existed. Whatever always existed must have created all that does exist, but a personal God is too complex to just happen to exist.
18. PS - And 'evidence' (that which makes something clearly 'evident') appears around you 24/7. But if you choose delusion, you will be blinded to reality...That's why they call it 'free will.'
19. He covered this very well, so it seems you didn't understand. Or at least you didn't respond...How exactly does a 'simple law of nature' create anything, when it doesn't exist prior to existence... You are saying things have to have already existed,in order for things to come into being.
20. He's a philosopher retard. What did you think he was? You thought he was a scientist? Not too bright on your part. You obviously have NO IDEA what classical logic (symbolic, deductive logic) is...which tells me you never went to college (real college, not community college). If you had even gone to any 4yr state school, you would have had to take this as a math credit. You are showing how poorly educated you are. America is in sad shape...