Theists and theistic ideas can have a hard time at the Philosophical Society, especially if they stray into the world of science. But not tonight – the philosopher William Lane Craig has taken the ultimate cosmological discovery – that the Universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago, and turned it back on the atheists and challenged them to explain why God is not the most reasonable explanation.
On Friday 26 Feb 2016, theists can sit back and watch with glee as the atheists and skeptics squirm trying to answer the ultimate question – just why is there Something rather than Nothing? Do they have any good arguments against the Kalam?
Craig’s argument goes like this:
-
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
-
The universe began to exist
-
Therefore the universe has a cause
-
(…………) → GOD!
So simple to state, so hard to refute!
So, will we see the tables turned – skeptics and atheists frantically grasping at quantum mechanical straws to explain how the universe just popped into existence from NOTHING?
There’s only one way to find out – bring your best arguments to the Quaker Meeting House, Eastrop Hill, on the 26 February 2016, 7:40pm.
Philosophy in Swindon - click here for next talk 
William Lane Craig – dubbed “the foremost living Christian Apologist” by Premier Christian Radio, has used his formidable debating skills to take on a host of celebrity Atheists, philosophers, and top scientists (Christopher Hitchens, Graham Oppy, Prof Atkins, Stephen Law, Sean Carroll, AC Grayling, D Dennent, …..) .
I think any honest person would say that Craig often makes mincemeat of his opponents, to the fury of the on-line atheist community (and me! Hence this talk). Was this why Dawkins refused to debate him?
Watch the Master of debate in action here http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates
Or search Youtube for William Lane Craig for about 100 more.
Think you can do better – well bring it on !
LikeLike
you can see our own Andrew Pyle vs Craig at
LikeLike
Religion seeks primarily to describe the conditions of personal existence and their practical implications for us.
To exist as a “person” (Latin) or “soul” (Germanic) is to be, and know oneself to be, a responsible agent, i.e., subject to judgement under the Golden Rule: “In any situation, treat others as you would wish to be treated if your roles were reversed.”
It is the task of religion also to make us understand how it will affect our happiness if we break that rule.
“God” is merely one of the possible ways of explaining how we come to be persons/souls (and remember, – “soul” means just what “person” means: it carries no necessary implications of “life after death”).
The debate between theologians and atheists focuses primarily not on persons/souls, but on “God”, and it focuses on Him primarily as the creator of the universe rather than as the creator of persons/souls and thereby actively diverts attention away from persons/souls (and therefore away from religious concerns) onto questions of cosmology.
This is an area in which atheists can play happily for hours at a time, but it’s strange that advocates of religion should allow themselves to be drawn into these dialogues of the deaf, -public displays of ritual combat in which everyone knows that neither side is able to land a knock-out blow, but each can score a rhetorical point here or there and both sides go home happy.
I’m almost tempted to see participation in these contests shows as a form of idolatry, – we might call it “Cosmogenism”, consisting in the worship of forces great enough to bring a universe into existence, – and to suggest that atheists are never happier than when they can draw theologians into these Punch and Judy shows.
My question to theologians like W.L.Craig is this: Would the God who created persons/souls still be worthy of their attention if it turned out He didn’t also create the universe?
LikeLike
Hello Chris Turner,
Is this better?
It isn’t surprising that Craig makes mincemeat of the likes of Pyle.
Craig is a seasoned professional with a script and Pyle is a genuinely confounded guy facing a daunting task.
I am an atheist and I use the word nature. I have no need for gods.
The debate puts me in mind of Dennett on freewill…I paraphrase perhaps…”We need a new definition here”.
The god argument is not about god, it is about accepting INFINITY or not.
Craig knows the weakness to his argument and tries to dispose of it quickly. He uses weak scientific argument to dispose of the idea of infinity…”Subtract infinity from infinity” is a silly game played by those who like to measure all that they can.This leaves them room for their god notion.
Science is a process of measurement.
Science is unable to have any tags on infinity. It doesn’t deny that infinity exists…Hawking once asked said, “Don’t go there”.
Craig says that there must have been a beginning. This is anti-infinity talk. Infinity is not an, “idea in the mind”, as he says…. There was no beginning at all.
Infinity is dimensionless, spreading from everywhere to everywhere in all space and in all time past and all time future. There has always been infinity and there always will be infinity. There is no more to it than that. No beginnings and no ends anywhere at all.
God has nothing whatever to do with it. Nature has.
Nor is there an edge to the universe for anyone wondering about that one…infinity answers it all.
Turn it around. Ask Craig to prove that there is no infinity. He isn’t very good on that.
End of?
Regards,
Bill (Williams)
LikeLike