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.

And the "desinger of the designer" reply is flawed as well. He says that you don't need an explanation of an explanation if the explanation is the best. Fair enough, but how does he come about to the conclusion that god is the best explanation. If he just can't think of anything else as an explanation as god that doesn't mean there wouldn't be one, he's just limited then.

Craig's response to the complexity argument is so stupid. He basically says that because god is not made of "stuff" he is not complicated. What?!?! He doesn't even say what he means with the idea of complexity. If god is all powerful he is damn complex regardelss of being "mateial" or "immaterial". And how does he know this anyway, what god is like? Where's the evidence`?

did he just equate biological complexity with the complexity of the universe itself? or should he have read a couple more lines. Infinite regress logically invalidates the creator concept - his logic goes -- animals are too complex to evolve thru natural processes but ultramagical superbeing capable of creating universes AT WILL is perfectly natural ----- RIGHT ! ! ! NO problems there at ALLLLLLL ! how did i do? sarcasm is so hard with text >.<

Craig forgets one thing... Intelligent design isn't the best explanation anyway. Biological evolution is.

what the hell did he just say?

If WCL can judge the logic of a person's argument, I can shoot lasers out of my eyes and hold my breath for days on end.

A mind is a very simple thing? What an extraordinary claim! He must have access to some super advanced secret research.

This man is talking in circles. His "explanation" is simply incorrect and not based on any type of fact. You cannot prove the existence of God by argument alone. If he came up with a mathematical formula to support his 'explanation' then that would be another matter. Oh by the way his divinity degree was from a small California Christian diploma mill.

@Turtlecream 'many of our best explanations cannot be further explained' no because they have proven to exist I don't need further explanation. There's proof of gravity, evolution and a million other scientific principles. If there was proof of a designer then I wouldn't need to know who created him, what's the point, but there isn't. 'it is no more than one person's ignorant initial assumption based upon horrendously limited evidence and information' sounds an awful lot like religion to me.

i thought WLC was smarter than this....boy was i wrong

all he did was just give other abstract examples that didnt relate to dawkin's theory

@Ozzyman200 - And I with you ;-) Cheers...

@utopiaopera Much better. I have made progress with you. And the same to you. Cheers, Ozzy

@Ozzyman200 My the Universe bless you and good luck mate.

@utopiaopera "So you are now comparing modern scientific studies (which you claim, are not scientific)" Yet another lie. I never claimed they weren't scientific. You lie so easily. Read my last post. Why do you lie so much? There was no way anyone was going to fall for that. You are prejudiced against atheists. Prejudice is based on ignorance and fear. All I want you to do is open your mind and heart to your fellow human beings. Deal with your issues. Live and let live.

@Ozzyman200 - So you are now comparing modern scientific studies (which you claim, are not scientific) to uneducated and fear based prejudice and stereotypes from an age where religion was used to control people through fear? My aim isn't to make people feel small in order to make myself feel big mate, my aim is to try and make people see that their outlook on life is often tained by their past. Their past is the cause, arguing athism is a realease. Deal with the issues & cause. Good luck mate.

@utopiaopera In your last post you agreed with me to live and let live, and this time you Uturn and post criticism of atheists. Why such bigotry, really? What have atheists ever done to you? You are so angry against us, what is your agenda? Also note very similar documents by christians telling us why blacks were inferior, women unsuitable for work, or homosexuality wrong or unnatural. Discrimination and prejudice are ages old, don't be part of them. They are not science. Live and let live.

@Ozzyman200 - Google 'Atheist talking points rebellion and elitism' for a Cambridge University study for the psychological profiling of an athiest. Quite an interesting read. Here's one quote "Psychologist Paul Vitz has documented the tortured childhoods of 25 renowned Atheists, finding missing or defective fathers in every case but one." How's that for science.

1:42 The reason the two are contingent is not because we demand an explanation for an explanation, but rather because the first explanation is contingent upon a concept that simply begs the question.

@utopiaopera Nope, all I am doing is applying logic. You keep trying to twist what I say and turn it back on me. No one is going to fall for it. All I am trying to do is open your mind and remove your anti-atheist bigotry. Stop wasting time on here spreading hatred. Live your life. Live and let live. Obvioiusly from your comments you don't subscribe to that philosophy. Just be cool, no need to critiicise a lot. I know I hit a nerve with the truth, but really, live and let live.

This is intensely stupid. Infinitely explaining explanations doesn't destroy science, it makes it. Wtf is wrong with that guy, the moment you decide you don't need to explain any further, there's no more science. That's the whole point in science, that's how it always go further and further. And when you realize that there's no possible coherent explanation to what you claim, you have to admit that your claim is simply wrong, like a designer

@Ozzyman200 The reverse psychology is boring now mate ;-) Live and let live is a knoble way to live and I think I do a pretty good job at it, but no one is perfect. I just hope yourself and other mouthy athiests take that advice and find a life outside of YouTube athiest video commenting and preaching their great life style and wisdom to non-athiests. Live and let live indeed...