Evidence for God from Science

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_fd

I fear this mans soul is lost for ever - maybe this is an example of the unforgivable sin. Such bitterness and for an intelligent man - a severe lack of any real intelligence, wisdom and proper research ethics.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_fd

I fear this mans soul is lost for ever - maybe this is an example of the unforgivable sin. Such bitterness and for an intelligent man - a severe lack of any real intelligence, wisdom and proper research ethics.

Silvertusk.

Unbelievable. I'm actually glad he wrote that, this may sound harsh on the surface but this guy is basically an agent for the devil (ironic since he doesn't believe in the devil, but I think its true). It has come to the point that NO honest person with a mind could take him seriously on this issue. No one. Simply laughable, more then laughable really. Despicable might be more like it.

Sometimes I WISH Craig would get a little mean (ultimately I'm glad he won't), but I still expect him to respond and tear that piece of writing to shreds. Its comically wrong on so many levels, I'll repeat- for ANY person who doesn't irrationally hate God and Christians (and therefore won't criticize any atheist), this is just unacceptable. What it does is confirm what people have written, he's given "internet Christians" even more ammo. Handle it with class and I think this will be a good thing. I've already seen Craig tell a story or two about how Dawkins cowardice and lack of intellectual integrity has disillusioned a couple of his followers, hopefully this will do more of the same.

That may sound like an over-the-top rant, but Dawkins truly deserves it and I don't think I'm overstating things with my words.

Of all the "major 4", Dawkins is the one I have to struggle to not hate. There are so many "internet atheists" who take this man seriously. He is in danger of losing his soul forever, if he hasn't already. If he really believes he's right, then he should have no problem coming to debates with anyone. What could the problem be? Is he so arrogant to say that Craig isn't worth his time? Yet Christians are the immoral and arrogant ones? Please. Atheism appeals to the arrogant nature within all of us - to serve one's wants and desires first and to abandon all restraint to our whims. Dawkins is no different.
Then again, it's the existence of these men who put Christian nature to the test. It's easy to love the lovable. We must love the unlovable, too.

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

Dawkins is a relic of the intellectually defunct enlightenment philosophy. Same old baseless arguments, same old choir.

Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_god ... eview2.htm

This is old, but apparently still relevant, since Dawkins just hasn’t moved on.

Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf? No-one!

Nice article. Yeah, nobody who is strong in the faith should ever fear Dawkins. His objections are so easily refuted, as I said it would be humorous were there not souls at stake. Its almost child's play. But its so easy to see who your average internet atheist is emulating, its pretty striking to see how similar Dawkins and his followers are. They'll take on your younger, naive Christians who are "still on the milk" and haven't done any research, but when it comes to the big guns they'll just laugh say "Its not worth my time, stupid!" and put on a big show instead of raising valid points.

Anyone who believes that the reason Dawkins gave is the real reason he isn't debating Craig, I'll sell him every bridge in America. Its disgusting cowardice, he's a walking ad hominem with no arguments of his own.

Isn't Dawkins one of the guys who says that objective morality doesn't exist anyway? And now he's trying to invoke morality to excuse his dodging WLC? Boy, you must really have a lot of FAITH in Dawkins if you're going to buy anything he's selling, whether its his explanation here or his worldview.

LOL i actually wish atheists would read the quotes from Craig out loud and leave, it would be hilarious. The atheist comes in refutes himself on the spot and walks away- they would be doing the job for us hahaha.

My goodness reading comments from his fan base is a little bit of a shocker at how insulting they are, though has anyone noticed that they went a little too far with dawkins being a coward? There like a million videos ridiculing him for like a month or 2 straight - i thought it was a bit too much.

LOL wow as i kept reading the comments i even found Justin Brierley from the radio program "Unbelievable" doing a great job defending Craig's name from ad hominem attacks.

I think it should have been handled better yes. Its certainly understandable, this guy has been mocking Christians for so long and he still does so despite his... well, you know. I read a Craig interview the other day and he said that he didn't think that it was so much about him but more that (paraphrasing here) Lennox took him down to size and he doesn't think its beneficial to his cause to keep debating us crazies. To me that fits new atheists better anyway, ridicule people like its beneath even interacting with them. But in the long term I think this is still only a good thing that could maybe be better in some cases if Christians handle it with grace and class, kind of like Craig always does.

Anyone know how the rest of the tour went?

narnia4 wrote:I think it should have been handled better yes. Its certainly understandable, this guy has been mocking Christians for so long and he still does so despite his... well, you know. I read a Craig interview the other day and he said that he didn't think that it was so much about him but more that (paraphrasing here) Lennox took him down to size and he doesn't think its beneficial to his cause to keep debating us crazies. To me that fits new atheists better anyway, ridicule people like its beneath even interacting with them. But in the long term I think this is still only a good thing that could maybe be better in some cases if Christians handle it with grace and class, kind of like Craig always does.

Anyone know how the rest of the tour went?

Here's Craig's opinion of his experience with the tour in general - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW9uuPi8 ... ture=feedf

Craig's response in print to Law's "evil God" argument.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/Pag ... me=q_and_a

Bit late with this - sorry.

Frank Turek interviews William Lane Craig at Southern Evangelical Seminary’s National Conference on Christian Apologetics. Dr. Craig speaks on his experience with the Reasonable Faith tour in the UK.


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=9184

DannyM wrote:Craig's response in print to Law's "evil God" argument.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/Pag ... me=q_and_a

From Craig's response:

Now neurobiology indicates a similar situation with respect to animal pain awareness. All animals but the great apes and man lack the neural pathways associated with Level 3 pain awareness. Being a very late evolutionary development, this pathway is not present throughout the animal world. What that implies is that throughout almost the entirety of the long history of evolutionary development, no creature was ever aware of being in pain.

Huh?!?!

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:Craig's response in print to Law's "evil God" argument.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/Pag ... me=q_and_a

From Craig's response:

Now neurobiology indicates a similar situation with respect to animal pain awareness. All animals but the great apes and man lack the neural pathways associated with Level 3 pain awareness. Being a very late evolutionary development, this pathway is not present throughout the animal world. What that implies is that throughout almost the entirety of the long history of evolutionary development, no creature was ever aware of being in pain.

Huh?!?!

Craig made this same point in his debate with Law. He's saying that, when animals are 'in pain,' they do not know they are in pain, they are not aware that they are in pain. I'm not sure how much weight there is to this, but it's so warming that it's forcing me to believe it!

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:Craig's response in print to Law's "evil God" argument.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/Pag ... me=q_and_a

From Craig's response:

Now neurobiology indicates a similar situation with respect to animal pain awareness. All animals but the great apes and man lack the neural pathways associated with Level 3 pain awareness. Being a very late evolutionary development, this pathway is not present throughout the animal world. What that implies is that throughout almost the entirety of the long history of evolutionary development, no creature was ever aware of being in pain.

Huh?!?!

Craig made this same point in his debate with Law. He's saying that, when animals are 'in pain,' they do not know they are in pain, they are not aware that they are in pain. I'm not sure how much weight there is to this, but it's so warming that it's forcing me to believe it!

Danny, the "Huh?!?!" was in regards to this in blue:

Now neurobiology indicates a similar situation with respect to animal pain awareness. All animals but the great apes and man lack the neural pathways associated with Level 3 pain awareness. Being a very late evolutionary development, this pathway is not present throughout the animal world. What that implies is that throughout almost the entirety of the long history of evolutionary development, no creature was ever aware of being in pain.

RickD wrote:Danny, the "Huh?!?!" was in regards to this in blue:

Now neurobiology indicates a similar situation with respect to animal pain awareness. All animals but the great apes and man lack the neural pathways associated with Level 3 pain awareness. Being a very late evolutionary development, this pathway is not present throughout the animal world. What that implies is that throughout almost the entirety of the long history of evolutionary development, no creature was ever aware of being in pain.

Oh yes, I saw that. These little unspecified soundbites seem to just roll off the tongue, even the theist's...

I'm not sure what his position is on creation/evolution, he doesn't speak of it often (and he has a very specific purpose in mind by avoiding that subject imo). He does commonly use "evolutionary language" however, or language that seems to imply that evolution is true. Of course we should all recognize that "evolution" has become a very, very loaded term.

But I would like some clarification on the phrasing there.