Creationist Dr. William Lane Craig: "Egad! What an Explanation!" (an atheist's response)

And this is how creationists debate atheists. Apparently finding finding arrowheads and believing God created the universe are the same thing. The main difference here is that we have seen people make pottery and arrowheads and we have seen people. In other words, we have seen the process for how arrowheads and pottery are made, and we have seen the maker. Another problem with Dr. William Lane Craig (got his doctorate at clown college) is that he is comparing the shaping of matter into objects with the creation of energy itself. There is no evidence that energy even needs to be created, but there is evidence that arrowheads and pottery need humans to be created (they aren't grown on trees). Dr. William Lane Craig is probably one of the more popular debaters against atheism out there, would think he could come up with better arguments—being that he has a doctorate and all. Here are two main problems with his argument.

-We don't know that energy needs to be created (our best physics shows it to be eternal)
-We don't know that God exists (we know humans exist)

To be able to claim that something caused something, we need to know that that something is, and then we can assess what that thing is responsible for doing. Atheists win any debate against creationism because creationists are unable to backup any of their claims. If we don't know something we don't know, an unknown cannot be used to explain an unknown—doing such a thing gets us nowhere, and is really just playing with words. At the end of the day, God is just an empty word. 

Dr. William Lane Craig: "Richard Dawkins destroys science"

William Lane Craig is great at warping logic by playing with words and creating false-dichotomies (would make a good lawyer). We know Indians exist, we have proof that they do. We do not have any proof of God, this is the end of the line. We have proof that people wrote of this 'God character', but no evidence of the actual character's existence in reality. You cannot believe everything you read, there are many books of fiction that aren't properly labeled. Science should be an atheistic-force until it is able to provide evidence for a God-created universe. Obviously atheists see this man as being a fool, but I wonder what believers think of him. Do they think he presents sound arguments?

William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins

Just because an argument exists, doesn't automatically make the argument valid. I could argue that millions of little gnomes engineered the universe, and would maintain the same level of intellectual honesty as William Lane Craig.

Many children "personally experience" the present of a boogie-man, that doesn't obviously count as proof of their existence. The title of this video is "William Lane Craig pwns Richard Dawkins", and this just shows how delusional certain people can be. Many atheists have already refuted  all of his points. Creationism is a product of intelligent (using the word 'intelligent' loosely) design. The reality is that there is not a shred of evidence to show the complexity that exists cannot come about through natural processes. Supernatural causes cannot be assumed to exist without evidence. Atheists will always be right unless actual evidence comes about. Experiencing a "feeling" does not count as evidence (these feelings are created by the imagination, like when a child fears a boogie-man). If a person was told from birth that the sun is god, they would believe it. When people are young, they are incredibly vulnerable to nonsensical ideas. 

The 'Find Tuning' Argument Fails

The puddle says to the crater in the ground: "wow, you fit me perfectly, there must be a God!'

*rant inc.*

The fine tuning argument is so bad. You know, it is also crazy luck that we were born on planet earth—a planet that is good for humans—imagine if instead humans were born on the sun? It would be quite a bitch because we would instantly die.

Of course we find life in a universe and a planet that supports life, WE ARE LIFE. We wouldn't be here if this universe couldn't support us. Dr. William Lane Craig is a slimy pseudo-intellectual moron (to put it nicely).

In Shockofgod's video description he says "I do not have enough blind faith to be an atheist". But how much blind faith does it take to believe that the universe was created by an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing being that designed the universe with intent? The universe could have been created intelligently by 1,000s of cosmic gnome engineers! Or maybe it was created by unicorns getting into a fight with a turtle. Jokes aside, we KNOW complexity can and does arise from unconscious natural forces (e.g. biological evolution). Complexity is bound to happen, given enough time. Complexity by itself doesn't come about from nothing, but from a competition of efficiency among things that already exist.

This universe is much more complex than we can possibly understand, believers in God want to understand how it came into existence (i.e. how/why we are here), and would rather make up a fantasy than to accept their ignorance. It's okay to not know how we got here (we have no choice), it is mysteries like that which make life interesting.


Being an atheist doesn't take faith, it takes lack of blind faith in ideas which have been used throughout our history as a means of exploitation. Faith is not a good thing, it is the most overrated value in our society. For shockofgod to bash faith shows his hypocrisy, because with his religion (or the religion that is source of his god) faith is the most important value a person can possess. As an atheist, I have very little faith in anything. I am not trusting of ideas that cannot be proven, and am very skeptical of ideas in general. To claim that to be an atheists takes faith is the most ironic thing ever. 

Dr. William Lane Craig: "Some Atheists Are Just Not Open To The Truth"

It's interesting how the religious ninja atheist arguments and turn them on us, like it is an applicable argument against the atheist pov. There is one big thing this guys is forgetting EVIDENCE! He says that no amount of evidence of a god would convince atheists that a god exists, yet there is no evidence at all. I guarantee, if there were any evidence to support the existence of a god, atheists (or at least 99% of them) would accept it. Believing that the world was intelligently designed does not count as evidence that it was designed. Dr. William Lane Craig needs to understand what evidence means. I can say that I believe a team of comic-gnome-engineers created the universe, but that doesn't qualify as evidence just because I believe it to be true.

People like this guy are frustrated by atheists. They want to prove their side right, but fail to provide any solid arguments or evidence, both of which the atheists always have in their arsenal. Until solid, empirical evidence for the existence of a sky-daddy is presented (don't hold your breath), atheists win by default.