Fr lol!!!

I hate to inform you, but Craig actually lost this debate quite badly.

@@markfullbrighton5070Not at all. Why do you think so?

@@RationalThinkers172 Because he presented a very solid case for why he wasn't a Christian. But his rebuttals to Craig's arguments were masterful.

@@markfullbrighton5070 I'd like to hear some examples. There were many moments Craig was clearly superior. Like when they Parsons brought up Bertrand Russell to say that life had meaning, and Craig showed a quote from Russell that said life was meaningless without God. Or this timestamp where Craig used hallucinations against Parsons. Craig also thoroughly refuted the idea of hallucinations in both rebuttals. Just my opinion. I think this debate was very one sided towards Craig.

There is no prove of God. Only Believe.

@@Tessinentdeckenthere’s no proof of anything just evidence. Evidence is, that the universe is to fine tuned for all this to be an accident. Just do some research, worst case scenario you waste your time but tbh you waste time doing many things. If your right there are many things you can still learn from the teachings in the Bible and live a decent life from those and end up in everlasting nothingness. But if your wrong, that could mean your going to go to a place where’s there weeping and nashing of teeth for eternity. I care about ya.

Defending something that doesn‘t exist. 😂

@@Tessinentdecken What you're Brain

@@smallsmalls3889 you English 😅

I disagree. As an agnostic, I actually think that Parsons won this debate quite easily.

@@markfullbrighton5070 No reason to believe that. Bad things done by Christians is not even remotely good argument against christianity, as well as unreasonable skepticism about biblical scholarship.

@@SrEobardThawne I disagree. Even though Parson's arguments sounded emotional, I think they were perfectly logical and reasonable. I think his rebuttals to Craig's arguments were just as good. So, in my opinion, I would conclude that Parsons was the winner of this debate. The crazy thing is that while Parsons is good, he is nowhere near as good as Jeffery Jay Lowder, who in my opinion, is the greatest atheist debater there is. Check out his debates with Phil Fernandes and Frank Turek where he absolutely smashes both of them. Given how good Lowder is, you will see why William Lane Craig has been ducking a debate with Lowder since the late 1990s.

@@markfullbrighton5070 Sorry, but i cant see How anyone can think that, even as an atheist, about an argument which appeals to the practice of the worst members of christianity and to wild ad hoc contra-resurrection hypothesis. There are better served atheist arguments out there.

@@SrEobardThawne I simply have to disagree with you on that. When Parsons was appealing to "the worst members of Christianity", this is an actual legitimate atheistic argument in reference to the meager moral fruits of theism. Lastly, I have to strongly disagree with you about the resurrection. Parsons did exactly as he should have in showing why it's unreasonable to believe that the resurrection ever took place.

Why is that? I could silence him is seconds with the History of "Yahweh" and how he was originally one of many Gods in the Canaanite Polytheistic pantheon. You only know what you have been intentionally told. If you look into the similarities of religions , you can literally see who borrowed what from whom.

@@Valkonnen your not going to be silencing Craig with that, since the case you are trying to make is as weak as paper and that is why no one in any of these debates bring it up.

@@Valkonnen I feel sorry for you..... your own weak argument can be used against you. You're the only spewing the lies you were force fed, or willingly swallowed. Explain to me why The Jewish people have never be erradicated? From The Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Romans, the Nazis.... It's in the Bible, tell me if you can figure it out simpleton. Because Jesus Christ is Lord, and the one true living God. His people will never be destroyed.

No. Parsons won on the majority of the points.

@@Demonizer5134Not even close lol

And? We literally all have to be convinced ourselves to be convinced of anything. That's why all truth claims require faith.

@@gaseredtune5284 No, not from a practical standpoint. If someone is standing in front of you, you don’t have to convince your myself that the person is there because the evidence is conclusive. Likewise, if no one is standing in front of you, you don’t have to convince yourself that no one is there.

@@singwithpowerinfo5815 you're incorrect, epistemologically.

@@singwithpowerinfo5815 but very few things are as clear as a person standing in front of you obviously. The vast majority of what we believe is true is far less obvious than that, say for instance the priority of truth over lies, the law of non contradiction, the law of identity..etc. these things are FAR from obvious, yet they found all our ability to communicate. If you were someone who only believed what you could see you would be insane, no one operates like that except presumably an infant with no object permanence.

@@singwithpowerinfo5815 but I agree we should approach things fairly practically mostly, obviously when one starts to ask themselves about telos then that all falls apart and should. You cannot observe your immediate surroundings and find what your purpose and best course of action should be. We are far more complex creatures than that and we should ask the questions about why we are here and what purpose we are to have. If you decide to make your purpose yourself you do it under an implicit hierarchy of value , it's fine if you want to not ask the question about God, because it might not seem relevant, but those who's answer is "God obviously doesn't exist" are bafflingly dense. I definitely understand not knowing the obvious that He does exist, we are subjectively limited creatures, everything we think involves faith so I understand not having faith. It's still baffling that anyone could operate without impossible to prove things like logic or God, but some do.

Oh, hey Keith 👋

😂😂 Brilliant ​@@benmorgan9748

​@benmorgan9748 you ain't right lol

Nah.

Imagine that he has made a great living for decades by saying nothing?

​@@ValkonnenYet Richard Dawkins refused to debate William and his own Atheist colleagues called him a coward. Also, he made Christopher Hitchens visibly nervous and caused him to deflect and avoid answering direct questions that were asked of him.

@@joeturner9219 There are no "Atheist Colleagues" you limited dope. An "Atheist" isn't a group. It a person who does not buy the bullshit the Bible is selling, nothing more. Dawkins won't debate him because he is an apologist for Genocide.

@@joeturner9219 The Christian God, is the Jewish God, Yahweh, who they CHOSE from a Polytheistic Pantheon of The Canaanite people. Monotheism and your "One True God" is an idea that has been diluted like the telephone game, over time.

The problem with your lies and propaganda is this, you believe you're morally excellent, because you dont ''murder, lie, steal, hate''? What are your false reasons? You're not Good, the Bible says none are righteous. You condemn God, because this is his reality, his Universe? Would you like me to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life, your property? At the end of the day if God were malevolent, you would not exist, he would strike you dead at this very moment. Which debunks your whole argument and leaves you empty handed. You pseudo intellects follow a shallow moral ''compass'' and believe you're Good, and when you're faced with Gods existence, and Gods truth, you try to poke holes in his Goodness, news flash kiddo, he does not answer to you. Obviously you need to go to school and learn about what a ''hierarchy'' is. Jesus Christ doesnt answer to you, however you do answer to him, just wait until you die, you'll regret evert ignorant post you've made. Do not bother responding, I wont be reading it, but I hope you enjoy these facts I've provided you.

But you are looking through a human lense. You don’t know what reasons God has and he doesn’t have to answer to you.

@@darthrevan6713 But God wants me to see him as a God of love. Performing actions that goes counter to love, challenges the notion that he's a God of love. Secondly, good luck trying to get men to serve you out of love, if you have the fear of being destroyed for undefined reasons? Finally, the only perspective I have is the human perspective.

What’s your grounding for even finding that objectionable? There’s no justification for morality in the atheist paradigm. It’s simply something you either borrow from theism, or say is right because it gives you fuzzy feelings. The argument from morality is entirely incoherent from the materialist worldview.

@@stackofbooks7306 because someone applies the basics of critical thinking, you automatically assume they're an atheist, well I'm not. You just spewed the Frank Turek talking point almost word for word, without thinking about it. There was a story of a man skiing, and in passing saw a color that didint fit. in going back to investigate, he found another skiier who got buried, and would have died without his intervention. So according to you, in order for him to have helped another human being, his morality needed to be grounded in God. Its impossible for the basics of human decency to lead to action, without that grounding.? In that moment he asked himself why should i save him, and because e didnt have a nudge from God, continued on his merry way? Can you even see how ridiculous that is? Lets say i grant that you need grounding to prompt human decency, one has to believe in YOUR VErSION of God for it to count. All other groundings are inconsequential, as they're false Gods. Next, how has that grounding worked out for Christians when they used the bible to perpetuate slavery, or when they were stoning the man in the bible for picking up sticks on the sabbath, or when they were burning heretics at the stake in the Dark Ages? What good is that grounding, when it doesnt lead the loving actions? I dont have to be an atheist to see God drowning babies in the flood as an atroious act, or the slaughter of innocent Canaanite babies as barbaric. The same children that were slaughtered in the OT, we're called to minster to in the NT- kind of surprising for a God that changes not.

You are correct in that Parsons did win this debate.

​@@markfullbrighton5070 He won the least amount of hair award.

@@sarshanden8033 Well that is certainly true as well.

​@@sarshanden8033😂

@@markfullbrighton5070 keith made a fool of himself, in every respect of the word.