# William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss debate existence of God



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2011)




----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

I didn't listen to all of them, but Craig's definition of evidence is more of a definition for possible evidence. You can define it as mathematically as you want. And he just barely mentions other possible scenarios that could easily serve as stronger possibilities. And it just assumes that stories are true... an assumption that's necessary to start where he did. 

Krauss definitely isn't a great public speaker...


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 2, 2011)

Krauss isn't a pro at debate. He does give some good talks in his field though.

Here is basically what Craig does...

He uses the Kalam Cosmological argument to posit that there must be a God. Then using the assumption that there is a God he plugs "God" into a probability equation for the likelihood of the resurrection of Christ. See his debate with Bart Ehrman for that (also on youtube). Then once he has "confirmed" the resurrection he uses it as further proof of not only God's existence but his God in particular. He's a true master of circular logic.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 2, 2011)

You guys would love the videos I listened to this morning. Truly fascinating.  

Here is the link to the video. This is part one of four. 

"Can science tell us right from wrong?"

I want to listen to the OP videos in the morning.


----------

