Evidence for God from Science

Listen to this debate, rather lengthy, and post your opinions on who won and why.

Atheism Sucks wrote:It's quite refreshing to listen to a debate with Dr. Craig when he debates an atheist who is actually good! I was impressed with Dr. Dacey's arguments to say the least; however, I did pin-point a few flaws. Other than that what's interesting is he brought up some sophisticated arguments for atheism. About 80% of Christian-vs-Atheist debates you listen to consists of the atheist hardly ever (if not, never) defending his own philosophical assumption of atheism. What you'll listen to is a never ending case against Christianity in their opening arguments without a case for atheism at all. All in all, I believe that Dr. Craig won the debate due to his rapid salvo and smooth presentation and refutation compared to Dr. Dacey's casual and slow response; but Dr. Dacey held his own quite well. You can listen to the debate here.

SOURCE: CLICK HERE

DOES GOD EXIST?

Two skilled philosophers will debate the existence of God. Craig contends that the universe is created and sustained by the God of the Bible. Dacey argues that evidence points to the absence of the supernatural.

STREAMING AUDIO DEBATE: CLICK HERE (2:07:16)

DOWNLOADABLE AUDIO DEBATE: CLICK HERE (Right click (PC) or control-click (Mac) and select Save Target As)

CLICK LOGO TO VISIT WEBSITE

Does Science Point to Intelligent Design?

Listening to it.

In his attempt to discredit God, he uses anthropomorphism, the assumption God wouldn't give free will, and, above all...he assumes that God in fact exists. That's what you get when you attack the problem of pain-it's in fact your problem And he falls back on an actual infinite number of things. AND...AND...he assumes GOOD and EVIL exists! OH MY GOODNESS! LOL!

In his attempt to prove that there is no God, and the universe is meaningless...he assumes that there is meaning in the universe. Oh I love it, August could mop the floor.

Thinker wrote: Dacey argues that evidence points to the absence of the supernatural.

Now that is halarious. I guess he means that the evidence for atheism? Sorry no Broadband, didn't listen to the debate, no time.

I always look forward to Craig debates. Everyone who debates him has to know what arguments are coming but strangely enough his opponents always seem suprised or never seem to know how to tackle them. I always look forward to seeing him debate opponents who will at least challenge him. This one looks promising in such a way so will see what I think.

Oh, there's also one on the resurrection with Craig—The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?. I'll be listening to that one too, and although haven't heard it, would also recommend since Craig is one of the foremost scholars when it comes to defending Christ and the resurrection.

Kurieuo

The atheist isn't capable of responding to a large portion of what Craig says. (or wasn't, since I listened to the first 1.5 hours....he was finished, so I thought why bother)

.
.
DL'd it and put it on my Nano for my listening pleasure this evening...

Thx.
.
.

.
.
Well...I listened to this last night. In all seriousness...Dr. Dacey was/is ill equipped to debate this subject. He's a horrid orator and and even worse Atheist. I sincerely believe that jimmyhiggins and ipazia would've done a better job at defending Atheism or better, the non-existence of God.

It was laughable that a "Dr." would attempt to use the point that the birth canal is too narrow for child birth and that the design is flawed. How I wish I had been in that audience for the Q&A after. I would've asked the audience females if they would prefer a vaginal opening the size of a small cantelope vs. the existing "design". Likewise, I would ask "Dr." Dacey if he enjoys sex...and if sex with a vagina the size of a small cantelope would be better...sorry to be crude, but I feel his early "humor" comments towards God (really sarcasm...humor's ugly cousin) deserves such a response...there is more, but I have no time to continue.
.
.

that cracked me up...

I just finished hearing the closing arguments. I think as an Atheist that Dacey did quite well. He kept to a coherent structure, assumed burden of evidence as an Atheist (which nearly all don't!), and presented I think an interesting overall argument for God's hiddenness (despite some silly statements such as the woman's birth canal ).

I think Craig was able to successfully refute all Darcey's arguments. I think Darcey wasn't able to refute Craig's arguments, but was able to make a dint in Craig's use of the "big bang" as scientific evidence the universe has a beginning. It is the case like Darcey says that scientists debate the beginning point. Many-universe theories are perhaps a way out, or a break down in the laws of physics so that the universe "just is." Still, we have great evidence in the way of the inflationary big bang model (which is the theory that currently has broad acceptance) that the universe has a beginning. And Craig's argument still holds up regardless of the "big bang" since Craig provides other logical arguments for accepting a beginning.

And those last five minutes of Craig, really blasted Darcey in my opinion and quite convincingly wrapped up the debate in Craig's favour for me.

Kurieuo

The atheist had good points? Didn't notice. It seemed like in the evidence against God part-anthropomorphing-what I believe or what I would do, God must too.

Strangely, Craig only used two of his five usual stock arguments for God in that debate. He has debated many others, and generally follows the same procedure every time. I am amazed his opponents wouldn't be better prepared considering the time they would have to ponder over each of Craig's arguments.

Anyhow, many of his debates can be found transcribed at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... bates.html. There is also another debate, on video, between Craig and Peter W. Atkins which can be found at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... tkins.html.

Kurieuo

What are his other arguments he uses?

Kurieuo wrote:I just finished hearing the closing arguments. I think as an Atheist that Dacey did quite well.

Really? I mean, seriously?

Come on, you have to admit, ipazia and jimmyhiggins could run circles around the arguments this Dr. Dacey used...they were elementary at best...I would expect much more from a "Dr."...and one that would put himself in the position of debating such a topic.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I just finished hearing the closing arguments. I think as an Atheist that Dacey did quite well.

Really? I mean, seriously?

Come on, you have to admit, ipazia and jimmyhiggins could run circles around the arguments this Dr. Dacey used...they were elementary at best...I would expect much more from a "Dr."...and one that would put himself in the position of debating such a topic.

I don't think so... Jimmy was mainly concerned with theology and focused largely on specifically discrediting Christianity and Scripture. Ipazia was familiar with physics so probably could have possibly caused a bit of doubt regarding Craig's "big bang" argument, but then I believe Dacey did this effectively enough. I sincerely doubt both would not be as equipped philosophically nor as qualified as Dacey.

I should remind you, that Craig is a veteran debater, and has much knowledge and experience. There are many well respected opponents who "the other side" (that is, non-Christian/Athiest side) choose. These discussions aren't rigged in Craig's favour by picking out someone easy for him to debate. And I think any lack of persausive arguing on Dacey's part does not come down to his lack of skills, but rather I think it is simply because Theism is so much more consistent and rationally grounded than Atheism. Now it still could be that the quality of Craig's opponents (and Dacey "may" be a poor opponent like you believe), but once one sees Craig win against well-respected opponents time after time, my feeling grows more and more that it is simply the Atheistic worldview that is lacking and not his opponents.

Kurieuo