greeney2 wrote:Any fool knows that dinasours never roamed with humans, even your science has proven that.
Any fool knows the cosmological first cause argument is not really a problem for atheists, too.
I'm glad you have made the concession that even fools can have PhDs though, and even people with PhDs can be completely wrong, and shown to be so by someone without one, Craig as a case in point.
greeney2 wrote:I also spotted frodo as a phoney a long time ago. Sorry it pisses you off, several threads get linked togather, but they are related, as to point of view. You insist we should find your science explanations, something we should disregard our Faith with, and than go on to say Science is not complete either. That is exactly the point, science has not figured it all out either, yet you think we should all throw our souls in the trash, following jerks like Dawkins. Even you admit he is an arrogant jerk, rude, and outspoken.
Science has never had all of the answers, that's why scientists still exist, to figure out the next problem on the list. However, if we were dumb enough to invoke God as the direct cause of everything else we didn't understand at the time, we would have been wrong every single time so far (so many examples, too!). I strongly suspect the cause of the Universe is going to be another example one day.
greeney2 wrote:yet you think we should all throw our souls in the trash, following jerks like Dawkins. Even you admit he is an arrogant jerk, rude, and outspoken. That is not the sign of someone who is comfortable in his own beliefs.
You are not comfortable with your beliefs, then?
greeney2 wrote:Your own Guru, Dawkins was unable to explain in laymans terms "Nothing" or the "Big Bang Theory",
That's not true. He said we need to define "nothing" as people's definitions differ, and he is well aware of what the big bang theory is. The audience laughed because many of them were, like yourself, ignorant.
greeney2 wrote:but the Cardinal did it perfectly.
He didn't, he made a hash of it. Sorry.
greeney2 wrote:For someone so dependant on Science Dawkins did not know his subjects, and was laughed at by the audience several times.
You have it backwards, and you are derailing again as this is completely irrelevant. Seriously, I hate to keep bringing up the moderator card but how can you justify breaking the rules by derailing every single thread?
Why are we discussing Dawkins in the William Lane Craig thread?
Why do you do this, I'm being serious.
greeney2 wrote:Craig, you declare is wrong, because he is wrong, because you say so,
No, he is wrong because of all the reasons I have given in pages upon pages of posts. You are being disingenuous, as usual.
greeney2 wrote:but if it were that simple, he would not have won every debate against Atheists, while you tell us all "Atheists just are not good at debating". WHY NOT, YOU TELL US HOW YOU ARE SUPERIOR CRITICAL THINKERS OVER BELIEVERS!
Atheists are good at debating, Craig is better than most of those he has debated so far because he has dedicated much of his life to the art. No other believer regularly wins debates but Craig, that's why a thread has been dedicated to him.
You, for instance, are appalling. Does your inability to debate at a high school level prove that atheism is true? Because you are implying the same of Craig.
Also, he has not won every debate, I strongly feel he lost pretty hard to Shelly Kagan (perhaps embarrassingly) and was perhaps equal to Hitchens.
greeney2 wrote:Maybe becasue the arrogant rude side of your Guru Dawkins is the only spiritual attribute and message you got from him. Oh Sorry, thats just my critical thinking mind again.
An entire page of words and nothing at all of substance.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris