http://www.uer.ca/...3&action=newthread

From professional douche William Lane Craig.

For atheists, Christmas is a religious sham. For if God does not exist, then obviously Jesus’ birth cannot represent the incarnation of God in human history, which Christians celebrate at this time of year.

However, most atheists, in my experience, have no good reasons for their disbelief. Rather they’ve learned to simply repeat the slogan, “There’s no good evidence for God’s existence!”

In the case of a Christian who has no good reasons for what he believes, this slogan serves as an effective conversation-stopper. But if we have good reasons for our beliefs, then this slogan serves rather as a conversation-starter.
The atheist who merely repeats this slogan after having been presented with arguments for God’s existence makes an empty assertion.

So what reasons might be given in defense of Christian theism? In my publications and oral debates with some of the world’s most notable atheists, I’ve defended the following five reasons why God exists:

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe. Given the scientific evidence we have about our universe and its origins, and bolstered by arguments presented by philosophers for centuries, it is highly probable that the universe had an absolute beginning. Since the universe, like everything else, could not have merely popped into being without a cause, there must exist a transcendent reality beyond time and space that brought the universe into existence. This entity must therefore be enormously powerful. Only a transcendent, unembodied mind suitably fits that description.

2. God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. Contemporary physics has established that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, interactive life. That is to say, in order for intelligent, interactive life to exist, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature must fall into an incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range. There are three competing explanations of this remarkable fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first two are highly implausible, given the independence of the fundamental constants and quantities from nature's laws and the desperate maneuvers needed to save the hypothesis of chance. That leaves design as the best explanation.

3. God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties. Even atheists recognize that some things, for example, the Holocaust, are objectively evil. But if atheism is true, what basis is there for the objectivity of the moral values we affirm? Evolution? Social conditioning? These factors may at best produce in us the subjective feeling that there are objective moral values and duties, but they do nothing to provide a basis for them. If human evolution had taken a different path, a very different set of moral feelings might have evolved. By contrast, God Himself serves as the paradigm of goodness, and His commandments constitute our moral duties. Thus, theism provides a better explanation of objective moral values and duties.

4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Historians have reached something of consensus that the historical Jesus thought that in himself God’s Kingdom had broken into human history, and he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms as evidence of that fact. Moreover, most historical scholars agree that after his crucifixion Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by a group of female disciples, that various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and that the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection despite their every predisposition to the contrary. I can think of no better explanation of these facts than the one the original disciples gave: God raised Jesus from the dead.

5. God can be personally known and experienced. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Down through history Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their lives.

The good thing is that atheists tend to be very passionate people and want to believe in something. If they would only put aside the slogans for a moment and reexamine their worldview in light of the best philosophical, scientific, and historical evidence we have today, then they, too, would find Christmas worth celebrating.

i would tie this guy down to a table and smash him in the balls with a rubber mallet the whole time chanting over and over, 'where's god now?' BOINK-ball tap! "where's god now?" BOINK-BOINK (double tap).

you know what christmas really is? it's a point in the year where, hopefully, douchebaggery is at it's low point. Because the other 364 fucking days, it's fuckhead central everywhere you look.

I don't see anything wrong with items 1-3. It's philosophy, and similar arguments are subscribed to by the great majority of the planet. Whether these are true or false is beyond the ability of science to determine (and this is the fundamental flaw in atheism as it happens, claiming as religion does to know with absolute certainty something that cannot be proven scientifically).

4 and 5 do seem a better alternative than whatever Sam is suggesting above, and would probably tend to win the crowd on the fence more ably than militant atheism.

That said, I have a hard time taking 4 and 5 seriously and feel they are out of place in the article.

1) Assert that nothing can come into existence without cause. Then conclude that God came in to existence without cause as a way to explain everything else.

2) Assert that current conditions are the result of design because they are so unlikely to exist as they do. Forget that the point is essentially moot, since we are only here to observe them in the way that we do because they are the way that they are. (If you flip a coin a hundred times and get a hundred heads by chance, the fact that you got a hundred heads doesn't mean that you can control the coin with your mind.)

3) "If human evolution had taken a different path, a very different set of moral feelings might have evolved." Yes, that's true. In fact, quite different sets of moral feelings exist in different cultures. And they change over time in the same culture.

4) I simply do not believe the assertion that "most historical scholars" agree that those things are true. Biblical scholars maybe, but that is, like Camelot, a silly place.

5) "Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their lives." Essentially the same can be said about schizophrenics.


And, his concluding thought, about atheists being able to find Christmas worth celebrating? Hell yeah, Christmas is worth celebrating. It's a special time of year, where people will often do nice and considerate things, and be more charitable, and there's presents and all kinds of fun stuff.

The one thing that Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with is Christianity, unless there's some third testament of the Bible that I couldn't find the class for.

Not again....

#1-Infinite regress argument. Fail

#2-circular argument. Fail

#3-The holy books of (at least) the Abrahamic faiths are immoral and support and/or condone homicide, genocide, human sacrifice, rape, incest, and slavery. Hence there is no moral guidance to be found in these books. Fail

#4-There is no proof that Jesus actually existed. Please provide evidence or fail.

#5-Down through history Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their neighbors lives by directing them to engage in the activities listed under #3. Fail.

My turn. William Lane Craig, BTW, is a professional philosopher and apologetics advocate who gets a boner debating big shot atheists like Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris. The thing is, the debates are always organized by religious colleges and are framed in such a way to give Craig an advantage.


1. This might have been true 30 years ago, but no more. Several astrophysicists have hypothesized that the universe did indeed pop into existence without a "cause" as we understand it. But regardless, say "God did it" ends the discussion. Why research anything if God did it? Science continues to make the God hypothesis less likely.

2. This is based on a fallacy, so I am reluctant even to answer it. The universe is anything BUT fine-tuned for life. Try living on Venus for a while. We live here because we can, not because it was created for us. Here's the analogy I use: imagine a plane spreading frog eggs over a large area. Most of the eggs will land on dry ground and never hatch into tadpoles. Some will land in puddles, hatch, but then die as the puddle dries up, or is polluted by a car leaking oil. Some will land in small, permanent ponds and hatch into tadpoles, but get eaten by the inhabitants before they establish a population. But a small few will land in bodies of water large enough for them to survive and thrive. Those bodies of water are the Earth.

3. Again, Craig makes an erroneous supposition. There are no objective moral values. There are many values that are shared across cultures, but none that are universal. Some come close, but how does someone never exposed to Christianity or the Abrahamic god have a similar morality to a Western Christian? When people like Craig ask questions like "Is murder always wrong?" they are asking the wrong question. Yes, it is wrong to commit murder, because we have defined murder as a specific crime. Is it always wrong to take someone else's life? THAT is the question we should ask.

4. Again, false supposition. Historians have not, in any sense, reached a consensus. Show me evidence provided by someone who doesn't have a stake in the game that Jesus was a real person. That's the fundamental problem with biblical archaeology: the people doing it are seeking to confirm their own beliefs, rather than reach conclusions based solely on evidence. If you assume the Bible is an historical document, then set out to prove it's true, you are being intellectually dishonest. Read an issue of Biblical Archaeology Review if you doubt me.

5. Personal experiences are worthless. Show me the lifelong Hindus who had visions of Jesus and then converted without being previously exposed to Christianity.

So there. Thanks for reading.

Posted by splumer The universe is anything BUT fine-tuned for life. Try living on Venus for a while.

True, the universe is a mostly inhospitable place, with, to our empirical knowledge, a single tiny location that can support life as we know it, but there are aspects of the universe which are within certain parameters which might be described as "unexpected." Some values that might have gone drastically one way or the other which would have made things even like planets unlikely propositions at all. It has been a few years since I really stuck my nose into any of it, but I have heard it described as a crest between two valleys - if some parameters had been slightly different (on a slightly different course, let's say), they would have slipped into one of the valleys and accelerated to a limit, thereby propelling physics into a vastly different rule space.

Of course, there may be very good and even simple explanations as to why those variables stayed where they did, but we don't have the information to explain it yet. Maybe it was a god that kept it in line, but in what possible way could that matter? What a piss poor god it would have to be to put training wheels on the universe.

1) Assert that nothing can come into existence without cause. Then conclude that God came in to existence without cause as a way to explain everything else.

2) Assert that current conditions are the result of design because they are so unlikely to exist as they do. Forget that the point is essentially moot, since we are only here to observe them in the way that we do because they are the way that they are. (If you flip a coin a hundred times and get a hundred heads by chance, the fact that you got a hundred heads doesn't mean that you can control the coin with your mind.)

3) "If human evolution had taken a different path, a very different set of moral feelings might have evolved." Yes, that's true. In fact, quite different sets of moral feelings exist in different cultures. And they change over time in the same culture.

4) I simply do not believe the assertion that "most historical scholars" agree that those things are true. Biblical scholars maybe, but that is, like Camelot, a silly place.

5) "Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their lives." Essentially the same can be said about schizophrenics.


And, his concluding thought, about atheists being able to find Christmas worth celebrating? Hell yeah, Christmas is worth celebrating. It's a special time of year, where people will often do nice and considerate things, and be more charitable, and there's presents and all kinds of fun stuff.

The one thing that Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with is Christianity, unless there's some third testament of the Bible that I couldn't find the class for.

That's beautiful.

Posted by KublaKhan 5) "Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their lives." Essentially the same can be said about schizophrenics.

I'm going to steal this for my next argument if you don't mind.

No. 3 is the worst to me.

As a semi-religious/spiritual person, nothing pisses me off more than when religious folks tell me people who don't believe in God can't be good, moral people.

Are you fucking kidding me? What exactly is keeping them from murdering you right now? Is the only thing keeping you from murdering me the fact that you believe in God and you'll be punished if you do kill me?

Some people need "consequences" (made up or not) to do the right thing, and shit that's a TERRIFYING thought.

Posted by blitz No. 3 is the worst to me. As a semi-religious/spiritual person, nothing pisses me off more than when religious folks tell me people who don't believe in God can't be good, moral people. Are you fucking kidding me? What exactly is keeping them from murdering you right now? Is the only thing keeping you from murdering me the fact that you believe in God and you'll be punished if you do kill me? Some people need "consequences" (made up or not) to do the right thing, and shit that's a TERRIFYING thought.

Indeed. I like what Penn Jillette said about it: "I murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero." and "Whatever you do, don't read the Bible for a moral code: it advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because: we need more atheists — and nothin' will get you there faster than readin' the damn Bible."

This whole "debate" bums me out. I know people are unjustly fed religion at a young age and that sucks. But I also know that people hold onto that shit to get them through some terrible times in their lives. I don't want to feed ignorance but nor do I want to dis something that a perfectly good soul holds very dear to themselves. Can we be kind to each other? Or is it a no-win situation?