Not really any that both hold up to scrutiny *and* specify a particular god, and definitely not from that guy.

Thankfully /pol/'s too stupid to understand most of Craig's bad arguments, but jeez, he really did a number on the online apologetics scene. You could check out Alvin Plantinga's stuff, but most of it basically amounts to "how can god not be real if our eyes aren't real" and is based around ideas that lead to sollipsism a lot more easily than they lead to "turns out this 2000-year-old book was RIGHT", as much as he avoids trying to admit it.

But really, no. A lot of kids who either want to spite reddit-atheists, or have recently fetishized christianity as a political device, end up looking up apologetics and coming across Craig. Yes, he "wins" his debates - by demanding both the first and last word, bombarding his opponent with far too many arguments to respond to properly in the allotted time, and then claiming victory for not being proven wrong to his own satisfaction, /v/irgin-style.

>>1369477
If you believe they are, then yes.

No, there really aren't, certainly not the stuff that WLC offers.

Then again, self-contemplation was never meant to be analyzed scientifically, which is something abrahamists never picked up on

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/#GodExi

Recommended debate, a bit off topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

>>1369477
Are there any good arguments for the existence of subjective experience?

>>1369551
What exactly are you trying to tell me? It seems we are in agreement.

>>1369477
I have a 2 foot long dick. Ergo, God exists in the form of said 2 foot long dick.

>>1369519
>>1369551
>>1369603

As I see it, scientific exploration is an aspect of our experience of the world. Miracles and low probability events are describing the same thing only from a different perspective.

The question is, which perspective is the perspective that talks of miracles? Every discussion eventually leads to an argument over definitions which in turn is an argument over families of concepts.
Is it god miracles souls ghosts heaven? Or neurons, sensual experience, illusions, objective reality, coincidences?

>>1369629
There is no "or"

>>1369629
Scientific exploration is the only legit way of learning, understanding and making "miracles". It is only based on facts, and if someone find something wrong it's just changed as it should. It's going as peer with evolutionnism. Almost everything else than what we knew back in the past was wrong and still is now. I guess people tend to believe in God because they want to believe. It doesn't change the fact that no one does have The absolute truth, there is no such things. Holy books my ass.

Only anecdotal evidence.

Some of that is intriguing and work experimenting with, like meditation.

You can't trust eye witness testimony for evidence, though. Our brains are not reliable that way.

If you believe in God because other people do, you should also believe in; ghosts, UFOs; Bigfoot; trolls; gnomes; faries; ayylmaos; the holocaust; mermaids; and various other mythical creatures people have been seeing since recorded history.

>>1369477
His argument is quite simple.

There needs to be a thing outside of causation and time, and the natural laws, to begin the universe.

Christian God is thing owing to a) evidence of the disciples, b) fact Christianity spread so quickly and c) the courage the first generation of martyrdom Christians had could only be explained by being given to them by Christian God.

I think that there are some "logical" arguments for there being a cause outside of causation. None which are parsimonious, but still quite logical. No good arguments for Christian God, or any particular description of God.