Please? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
hold up hold up hold up. Who was the blonde in the picture then? Like who is she in real life?
So I'm assuming that you don't hold a PhD? And you're not a professor? The definition of atheism "the theory or belief that God does not exist." maybe you need to check your sources again. And btw William lane Craig's education consists of " Wheaton College, University of Birmingham, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich" which are schools that are not just Christian schools last time I checked :P. Maybe you need to go back to school. Or at least attend a class or two if you haven't already. lol.
There's no evidence for atheism, that means that's inaccurate to then?
I bet you'd like to see Tom Cruise take it up the ass, wouldn't you?
And can you test evolution? That's a scientific theory that was based off evidence and reasoning. Unless you can explain how the universe has set laws and how it began. Because in a 3D universe everything must have a beginning. And not WHAT made it begin, but HOW it began.
He's a professor. And he also holds a PhD and if you've seemed to have forgotten he's also won various debates against atheists. Atheism is the belief in nothing, therefore you have nothing to argue. Unless you have a PhD in quantum mechanics and would like to enlighten us on your vast discoveries? lol.
You really make no sense. lol. You write all this mis-grammared stuff and then expect us to understand your stupidity. You're an insult to atheists everywhere.
Quantum physics is pseudo-science? String theory and a multi-verse are all pseudo-science? Maybe you need to go back to college. Or go to college if you haven't hahaha
I've demonstrated why he could exist, unless you can demonstrate scientifically why he couldn't exist than you are wrong. End of story.
I didn't use any faith whatsoever. I used reasoning and scientific method to deduce his existence. Just like the theory of evolution we cannot see it, but we know that it's there due to overwhelming evidence and reasoning.
Unless you have anyway to dispute and give reasons why "the shit he says shouldn't be taken seriously" then he is right by process of deductive reasoning. And you should probably do it in proper English.
