@DarrinRT This is a perfect example of why WLC Craig wins all his debates. Atheists can't even understand the arguments let alone refute them.

@Hufflewaffle According to Dawkins definition complexity is a function of working physical parts ... thus a mind, having no physical parts would, by Dawkins definition be simple. I think WLC's advanced secret research is called 'logic'.

oh this guy really just needs to stfu. All his points are completely weak and easily torn down with the slightest moment of thinking.

Craig is not logical listen why. This is so easy. 1)He uses a false analogy of loking at ancient artifacts because there is in fact an explanation of where ancient people came from. 2)Dawkins point, which is logically correct (that's an objective fact), is that the premise that "something can't come from nothing" begs the question of who designed the designer because as stated, "something can't come from nothing". Therefore, if god can exist without being designed, so too can the universe.

Craig is not logical listen why. This is so easy. 1)He uses a false analogy of loking at ancient artifacts because there is in fact an explanation of where ancient people came from. 2)Dawkins point, which is logically correct (that's an objective fact), is that the premise that "something can't come from nothing" begs the question of who designed the designer because as stated, "something can't come from nothing". Therefore, if god can exist without being designed, so too can the universe.

@TooManyTights Not my logic Dr. William Lane Craig's I think you'll find.

What the Average Youtube Atheist - perhaps no such being exists, but the hypothetical AYA represents certain features of Youtube Atheism that do exist - seems to have in mind in answering that question, doesn't match what Mainstream Christian Theism (an equally approximate category) has in mind. The question assumes as understood on both sides in the same sense things that may not be understood in the same sense So we end up talking past one other, instead of learning from one another :(

So God is remarkably simple for being immaterial, for having no parts or composition? Even granting that, the omnipotence seems quite complex to me however. The ability to shape energy and craft planets and lifeforms at will really is quite complex.

@28daveslater Wow - that was a truly bizarre attempt at logic.

@GaryLyons "The only explanation for the universe's existence is for something that is uncaused, timeless and immaterial to have created it" Thats an assertion. Any evidence for this? No? Didnt think so.... Silly christians and their word games, they hate science and have no idea how difficult and counter intuitive it is. But they sure come running back once their kids get sick, when the chips are down, no amount of faith can keep reality from slapping them in the face.

@2CSST2 After watching some of WLC's videos I feel a strange compulsion to write a book called "Willian Lane Craig is a Stupid Turd".

@spacecowboy95 Indeed. Craig complains about the poor critical thinking skills of atheists and yet he's the king of poor critical thinking.VFX makes more sense than this guy.

@GaryLyons The First Law of Thermodynamics demands that the energy of the universe was uncreated. The God Conjecture contradicts thermodynamics!

Once again Craig defeats his own arguments. The assumption that a complex thing needs designer is predicated upon the assumption that a simple thing can't give rise to a more complex thing. For if you allow that a simple thing can give rise to a more complex thing then if you go far enough back you wind up with life emerging from a primordial soup, so no designer is needed.

@signofthehammer Your statement sums up religion's attitude to this sort of question to a tee, they have no solution so they argue.

@28daveslater he's not saying it's the solution, he says it's the best argument.

@GaryLyons Evolution DOE NOT EQUAL Abiogenesis(I.E,Big bang and whatever other theory's).

craig really tries hard to get his dawkins debate, isn't he? well try harder..

How this guy knows that god is "a mind without body"? He made some experiment with god?

Science IS about and infinite explanation model, otherwise if nothing more needed to be explained Science would have an end at some point. The only thing that brings me to the conclusion that an explanation is the best explanation is evidence. Only when an explanation can not be disproved based on all other evidence is it the best explanation. Who designed the designer is a valid question, much like what's smaller than an atom? It's not something that does not need to be explained...

@GaryLyons " evolution is seriously lacking as a plausable explanation " Please don't pretend that evolution attempts in any way to be an explanation for the origin of the universe. It makes you look either desperate or stupid. As for everything else you said... just because you state something does not make make it the least bit true or even plausible... and that added to your blatant misrepresentation of evolution puts you on a par with WLC when it comes to useless arguments.

The only explanation for the universe's existence is for something that is uncaused, timeless and immaterial to have created it. Science demands such a hypothesis; thus evolution is seriously lacking as a plausable explanation. Something that exists outside of the three dimensional material universe had to have created it,; the first law of thermodynamics demands this as does the fact that time had a beginning. Evolution = absurd lie

Ugh, I know I could deconstruct the faulty reasoning and misunderstandings of this man, but what a waste of time it would be. Especially when it could be spent reading a proper science book. At its core, all this is more religious obsccurantism dressed in the guise of critical thinking.

His point that the argument atheists use creates and infinite loop is exactly the point. We are pointing out TO HIM that his argument of the universe needing a creator (do to its complexity or for any other reason) creates and infinite loop because the complex creator can be questioned in the same way. He actually just did an excellent job of supporting our claim and refuting his own. Of course, I don't expect his lap dogs to admit that.

@FutureHyperion Well put! Just because Craig cannot come up with a better explanation and even if no one else could, that does not mean that a better explanation does not exist. Dr. Craig wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to say first that the universe had a creator and furthermore had to have a creator (without proof of any sort) because of the complexity of the universe and then wants to say that he does not have to explain god, who is infinitely more complex than the universe.