William Lane Craig vs Andrew Pyle: "Does the Christian God Exist?" Bristol, UK; 2007 

Please underline a thing or too that shows that his arguments are sound.

@@ciprianpopa1503 I'm not sure I understand the question. In each of Craig's arguments here, the conclusions follow from their premises, and the premises are true (with the notable exception of the "personal experience" stuff that he sometimes mentions, which he acknowledges is not an argument for God's existence, but just for the rationality of his own personal belief).

@@Mentat1231 the question is very simple. What I am asking is to provide the definitive proof of god. This is what your idol is claiming. If any of his statements would be good we wouldn't be here discussing the topic. And of course, you cannot conclude from a premise. He states a premise as truth and then he continues without proving his premise. And therefore, all he says in relation with his premises is flawed and, therefore, your attempt to advocate his speeches as sound is flawed too.

@@Mentat1231 To make it more clear, what are you missing here is that any statement should be structured as premise - demonstration - conclusion. It is the demonstration part that is always missing from your idol flowchart.

@@ciprianpopa1503 So, first, I’m not sure why you’re calling Dr. Craig my “idol”. I don’t worship him, and I don’t even agree with everything he thinks (for example, I think he’s wrong about Molinism, and his argument from the applicability of mathematics is no good). But, the 4 arguments he gives in debates like this one are sound, and Craig does give reasons for each premise (as you can see in this video, for example). He doesn't just state them and then conclude.

amoeba

Pyles, WAY over his head here.

Drinking water means that you are thirsty in the real world. Don't confuse with why dragons drink water in your world of fairies, that is because they spit fire.

@@ciprianpopa1503 you should use your brain more

​@ciprianpopa1503 coping after two years. Dude, Pyle lost the debate with his first sentence. To preface, debate topics shouldn't be presented as questions, because it introduce ambiguity into the burden of proof. You can't defend or rebut a question, you can just answer it or refuse to. Pyles first sentence was a refusal to answer the question. He can critique the evidence provided as much as he wants, but it doesn't matter if he's the only one not answering the question and backing up that answer. He even conceded that he's an agnostic more than an athiest. So he even admits that he CANT answer the question in any certain sense. He gave up the debate during his introduction.

Which isn't evidence.

@USA TAMONDOMUNI I don't know what you're asking, there's 2 things that could mean... 1. Define evidence 2. State what the evidence is for god

@USA TAMONDOMUNI "Where is your “Which isn't evidence"?" - you need to get on the same page, that was a response to a comment stating the utility of 'faith' - I merely pointed out that isn't evidence for god

@USA TAMONDOMUNI - That was a pile of rambling bullshit - your sequence of etymologies and definitions are superfluous and irrelevant - one point that I will correct; you *CAN* see viruses, you ignoramus

@@michaelanderson7715 That guy is way off base.

Indeed, the fallacious bs that follows deserves laughter.

A typical comment from those who have no ability to engage philosophical arguments with any intelligence.

@@Freethinkingtheist77 "A typical comment from those who have no ability to engage philosophical arguments with any intelligence." - a typical comment casting baseless blanket assertions

@@michaelanderson7715 Not really... If someone looks at a series of philosophical arguments and all they can do is call them BS that deserves laughter it's reasonable to assume that person has precious little to say of any substance.

@@Freethinkingtheist77 bs, muted

Craig is an expert in the field. 👍

Yes though to be fair to him at least he had the guts to debate unlike fakers like Dawkins

@@stephenglasse9756 Dawkins has no business debating anything related to God but for maybe evolutionary science. I think he realized that after being destroyed in debate years ago. He seemed to have put his focus on strengthening the disbelief of God into students and laymen, like myself. I remember years back watching him humiliate a person that was more than half his age and less educated in front of others and realizing that he was a bitter, selfish arrogant man. Now I know he desperately needs God but back then I didn't believe either.

His tone and facial expressions are saddening yet disgusting. As for his arguments; I'm a layman and even I was instantly picking up on his weak argumentation. I don't think he or anyone needs to disprove God or else believe but in debate it's a tired and old posture. It's not an organic conversation on the street between laymen. The main purpose for live debate is to persuade the audience but you should bring solid arguments for and against the positions of your opponent. No way I would debate this Professor though. I don't have the skills or education for it.

You could propose him.

There are additional fields that could contribute here, as Pyle´s Ganesh ploy suggests. However, Craig´s standard is more than adequate to address Pyle´s reliance on fallacy. He´s clearly articulate in the science, and scientists are usually unable to grasp that this argument is not scientific. "Science" is a term that misrepresents the field, which was natural philosophy, and might be called scientific philosophy. The very origins of modern scientific philosophy are sociohistorically Christian, and for specific psychosocial and cultural reasons. Those reasons, the dynamic interaction amongst monasteries, churches, and political and economic authorities, involve special ingredients in Christian culture that make Western Civilization a leading influence in globalization and having established the UN community of human rights, and now sustainability. The monk Thomas of Aquinas, in fact, was taught by Albert Magnus as part of the founding shift of monastic schools to Universities. You couldn´t have had the scientist Galileo without Christian monastic schools and Universities with Thomas of Aquinas, and they all demonstrated the West´s exceptional capacity for social cooperating that led to the Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment sequence and legacy. The issue of emergentism would help contextualize the transcendental cause that the First Cause/Kalam Cosmological addresses, but Pyle shows little inkling that science itself is not reality, that absolute truth is philosophical, the actual nature of scientific philosophy. That involves logical coherence and correspondence with reality, with logical coherence involving conceptual analysis, not scientific experimentation. Social Studies actually involves empirical evidence for the additional signficance of Jesus´ legacy, and shamanic practices, no less, for additional indications like a Historical Sociological argument.

Pyle's laughing concerns his trying to withhold his mirth at the idiocy of the arguments Craig presents. Pyle is a philosopher and even if you don't know that Craig makes baseless assertions that have no substantive basis, Pyle and countless other philosophers do. Pyle decimated Craig's arguments by showing them to be deeply flawed. That's all he needed to do.

not relevant if Craig is right or not, Pyle is obviosly a jerk. Thats to point.

Uba Uba Wrong. The issues are the questions in hand. Whether you think Pyle is a jerk or not is irrelevant. Actually, Craig would be the jerk here in asserting arguments he cannot substantiate. Trying to tie up cutting edge cosmology with the god of the bible? The man is the epitome of an idiot.

@Dd S Mdr, tu a ta lu un livre sur la philosophie et tu veux te comparer ou parler de WLC? Déja, essaye de réfuter ses arguments après tu parle petit con

He didn't proof anything, he just said non senses. Craig used logic. If someone is in disagreement, please tell me, how does the universe tuned itself in such a complicated way? Do objective things exist or not? Is there an absolute truth?

Atheist debaters always come across as the most miserable people. It's sad.

That's what I think too, but most Christians would argue with you that the bible was inspired by God, so that's my point.

You're not a typical Christian. Are you Christian at all?

Most Christians are very attached to the bible they rarely read and you're not.

I like your view Lelouch Di Britana, but most Christians,at least in the midwest(bible belt), think it is.

It's all myth.Would that be between the earth and the moon? It just sounds ridiculous.

I guess because he writes good smart books that people like to buy. I would bet Dawkins, Harris and Krausse have made some good bank selling books, but I doubt you have a problem with that.

You are thanking god for making you look stupid on the internet? Why? :-)

Amen

I disagree and this is a real problem for the Christian religion. Because it basically is 3 different gods. But Christians try to reconcile this with the Trinity being one. But how can Jesus be the son of god and god at the same time. He can't, who is he speaking to through out the gospels? Himself?

Good point. The subtlety involves the fact that Jesus actually taught 2 key loving Commandments that also refer back to Moses. It is the definition of loving morality that serves as the foundation stone for any victim of violations, and perpetrator of violations. None of us wants to be violated, but amongst humanity it has become common, and has existed since the evolution of human symbolic culture. It has appeared in important ways elsewhere, with Buddha and perhaps Confucius as examples. And they are important for Christians "seeking the Kingdom of Heaven" to "go and learn..." Jesus´ legacy has had unprecedented achievements, and requires further clarity around the basis of ethics and morality. It requires a shift from church doctrine to the perception of Jesus´ legacy in UN human rights and sustainability for spiritual practice. Jesus´ role is specific and secure in its empirical place. In University-based society, it can achieve the integrity that can then feedback to churches, with synergies like Gandhi demonstrated. He read the Gita and the Bible, and more, as he demonstrated significantly the power of Jesus´ love. The later question about salvation without knowing Jesus relates to this. Shamans were achieving greater consciousness of God, and had opportunities to appreciate the power of the dynamics of Jesus´ loving Commandments, as the holy Buddha did in his culture. Scientific philosophy gives us the knowledge that things have to be done in cause and effect processes ultimately, with spiritual practice one key to sustaining our conscious contact with God and the salvation of integrity. The tragedy of infanticide amongst the Greeks and Romans, and deaths like Archimedes´ involve the burden of natural existence and efforts to improve it or just have dominators. Jesus´ special role is not without its limitations and needs for its own development. FDR´s and Eleanor´s vision of the UN and human rights have followed University-based society´s legacy to create amazing new levels of opportunities to accomplish Jesus´ teaching "go and learn...", not least of all.

Craig says the number of events can not be infinite, so anything can be an event, as me writing this sentence, so the number of past events can not be infinite, but you could still use seconds or days and that wouldnt make sense either. So yes he knows what he is talking about

I know this is an old comment of yours but I think Christians have a duty to some degree to mention the personal evidence from experience. In debate you're not just trying to win, you are persuading the audience. As a Christian you want people to understand that personal experience is important for belief and faith. It's required in some way actually. Logic isn't required but it is a stumbling block for some and that is the reason for a Christian to debate.

You aren’t making it exist by the argument, you are showing it to exist by the argument.

@@grosty2353 They're not though are they, because the arguments are so woefully inadequate. Pointless

@@houmm08 way to assert your position without evidence!