Dr. Craig contradiction.

[Abaddon_ire]

Because the religious know full well that they can present no evidence that ANY god exists, thus they avoid the question.

When Atheists blurt out things they want to be true like your phrase with no knowledge, there is seriously limitations to what a person aware of proofs can do to convince a person who doesn't want to be convinced of God.

Then you will be right away presenting evidence for whichever of the thousands of claimed deities you claim is true, right? You can do that at least, Right?
Of course you can't.

[quote pid='1654519' dateline='1510329490']
I tell you what - either A or B and I will change my mind of Atheists generally being stubborn people who want to hold on to ignorance as proof that God is not known to others.

[/quote]
There is no proof of any claimed "god".
Perhaps you will be the first to produce such. I will not be holding my breath.

[quote pid='1654519' dateline='1510329490']
A.  Present well in the best charitable manner all arguments for God by at least five famous philosophers and show they are wrong. Charitable means you ought to look for premises to further their premises and claims, not just debunk them. Show you really tried to see it - fill in hidden premises - and show why it's not true.

B. Present well all the arguments I have brought over the years for God or at least five of what you think are my better or clearer arguments. Do the same as above and show why it's wrong.

I have yet to meet a truly sincerely searching Atheist for the truth with all out resolve. I see people vehement with a passion to remain ignorant. I see some looking for evidence confused, but really a little effort on their part to understand.

I want to see at least one not like this.

[/quote]
That is shifting the burden of proof. You claim a god exists. Demonstrate that this is true. 
If any god was demonstrated, I would certainly believe in it. None ever has.

[Mystic]

God be praised and loved, the witness who sees things as they are defining them through his absolute true judgment and the reckoner by which we are accounted.

I am off for the day....will be back later tonight.

[Jehanne]

---

---

There's not one "theism", there are many.  Wide disagreements exist of the meaning of the word "god".  Is he (or, "she") omnipotent, for instance?  But, I digress.  But, no, I have not at all changed my mind regarding my OP. [1] I think that WLC has contradicted himself, as he does often.

The conflict between science (of which, there is only really one), and religion (of which there are an infinite number of) is intractable. [2] Science makes testable predictions; religion does not; scientific claims are falsifiable, religious claims are not; [3]science is universal (or, nearly so),  religions are not; in [4] science, strangers can agree, in religion, they don't; [5] science is well-defined, religion is ill-defined, or in many cases, undefined; [6] science reaches firm conclusions, religion is always changing, always evolving, etc.

Ok.  Seems like your views are based on an idealized view of science and misunderstandings.  Now if you want to say that religion is not science, in the modern sense of the word (meaning the natural sciences) I would tend to agree.

1 - As I explained previously, you have a misconception about falsifiability which leads you to this conclusion.  The concept is not subjective, and Craig's or anyone else's confidence level, does not effect it.

2 - Religions can and have made testable and falsifiable claims... this is simply false.

3 - I have no idea what this even means.

4 - Who says who can or cannot agree?   You are really grasping at straws here!

5 - Depends on what you are talking about and at what level.   Every hear of the demarcation problem of science.  Philosophers of science have found that it is not that easy to define.   There are also areas and subjects in science which are vaguely defined.   Equivocation and varying the meaning of the term evolution is often an issue in discussion.  And in religion it is going to depend on what you are talking about as well.

6 - You previously contrasted Criag's theism to science, criticizing it for being absolute and science as always provisional and able to change.  Why is this not a contradiction now? 

You are sounding more and more like the common mischaracterizations and idealism of the scientism bunch.

Wow, this thread is getting a LOT of responses, but let me take your points 1 by 1:

#1:  I agree with the following definition from 21st Century Astronomy, 4th edition (page 53):

1.3 The scientific method consists of observation, followed by hypothesis, prediction, further observation or experiments to test the prediction, and ultimately a tested theory. The scientific method is a way of trying to falsify, not prove, ideas.  All scientific knowledge is provisional. Like art, literature, and music, science is a creative human activity; it is also a remarkably powerful, successful, and aesthetically beautiful way of viewing the world.

Religion does not do this; one cannot claim that knowledge is "not provisional" and still claim that such is "falsifiable".

#2:  Name one.  Jesus has yet to return.

#3:  Science is universal, in that scientists from Iran and the US agree widely on physics; they do not agree on religion!

#4:  Same point as in #3; Islamic and atheist physicists agree on physics; they do not agree on religion. (Even those who have never heard of each other!)

#5:  Religions are a "dime a dozen"; they do not agree on anything and contradict themselves over time.  Which religion should I, an atheist, embrace, if I was going to embrace one?  And, why?

#6:  WLC has changed his mind about some fundamental things.  Why should I embrace anything that he has to say?  I can show you clerics on Twitter who rank well above Donald Trump in their number of followers.  Why not listen to them?

[Harry Nevis]

But none having to do with the supernatural or the existance of a god.  This is simply true.

Why not?

Because they have none.

[RoadRunner79]

Why not?

Because they have none.

So, then you would agree, that those trying to say it is false that Christ was raised from the dead are being irrational?

[Astreja]

If *I* were your god, I would arrange to have life slap you silly with a long string of misadventures and failures until you smartened the fuck up and apologized for your mischaracterization of non-believers.

*smiles* and would the "evil" I experience be worth it?

If it gets you to stop telling lies about me and other non-believers, and knocks you off your "I know The Truth and I'm going to teach you poor, misguided atheists" pedestal once and for all -- Yes, for me it would be worth it.  If I had the power, I would do it in an instant.

[Jehanne]

Because they have none.

So, then you would agree, that those trying to say it is false that Christ was raised from the dead are being irrational?

Jesus was not raised from the dead; of that fact, we can be at least certain.

[RoadRunner79]

So, then you would agree, that those trying to say it is false that Christ was raised from the dead are being irrational?

Jesus was not raised from the dead; of that fact, we can be at least certain.

On one hand, you say that religion does not make falsifiable claims, yet say that this one is false.   How is this not contradictory?
What do you base your claim here?


According to your previous arguments would your certainty here make this an unfalsifiable claim.  Because especially for those at the time, and even now, it would seem that this is falsifiable.   Keep in mind with your arguments here, that if it is not falsifiable, it's not really able to be shown to be true either.  I think you need to think through your arguments a bit more, and make them more consistent.

[Jehanne]

Jesus was not raised from the dead; of that fact, we can be at least certain.

On one hand, you say that religion does not make falsifiable claims, yet say that this one is false.   How is this not contradictory?
What do you base your claim here?


According to your previous arguments would your certainty here make this an unfalsifiable claim.  Because especially for those at the time, and even now, it would seem that this is falsifiable.   Keep in mind with your arguments here, that if it is not falsifiable, it's not really able to be shown to be true either.  I think you need to think through your arguments a bit more, and make them more consistent.

I used the word "certain" for a reason.  If Jesus would appear to me now, corporeally, then, maybe, I would change my mind.  What would it take for you to change your mind, to believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

[RoadRunner79]

On one hand, you say that religion does not make falsifiable claims, yet say that this one is false.   How is this not contradictory?
What do you base your claim here?


According to your previous arguments would your certainty here make this an unfalsifiable claim.  Because especially for those at the time, and even now, it would seem that this is falsifiable.   Keep in mind with your arguments here, that if it is not falsifiable, it's not really able to be shown to be true either.  I think you need to think through your arguments a bit more, and make them more consistent.

I used the word "certain" for a reason.  If Jesus would appear to me now, corporeally, then, maybe, I would change my mind.  What would it take for you to change your mind, to believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

You said that it is both a fact and that you are certain that it is false.  Would you agree that this is a falsifiable claim then? 
(note: This isn't about the establishing the truth or falseness of Jesus's resurrection.  It is about your logic and reasoning and false premises.)