William Lane Craig, John Humphrys and Lewis Wolpert

[caotico0]

LOL, Craig cassually is always "misunderstood"

[iLearnUyen]

Wolpert is an intellectual lightweight incapable of following an argument

[manwithouthat44]

the guy at the right is kind of a douche

[daverigby23]

Wolpert let him off the hook, he should have pursued his 'computer' argument

[JWGames]

@daverigby23 How did Wolpert let Craig off the hook? The computer argument concedes an un-caused first-cause exists and by using it Wolpert concedes God exists. All that's left is to argue over what this God is like.

[r0ll3dd]

understand*

[ep1strophy]

LACK of belief is closer to religion than belief. So what of fairies don't exist? We still seek meaning. We must!

[TerryStokeB]

WLC is a word-sharp peddling a sham that he has consistently failed to disguise as a coherent or convincing argument just as all others of his ilk have failed before him and as all in the future will. The argument for god only survives because of the deceitful and cunning wordplay used to exploit the gullibility of weak minded wish thinkers. LW is the one with the correct understanding of what is irrefutably true.

[breakinthebend]

@TerryStokeB Oh ok, well that solves everything. It's true because you said it is.

[r0ll3dd]

@TerryStokeB Circular argument.

[tomdenman]

It's clear who's presenting the more intellectual viewpoint in this debate.

[PrizeFighter]

the only thing Lewis Wolpert has proven is that debaters have an expiration date.

[NielsHPO]

Wolpert is quite funny, but he is no real opponent to Craig

[JusJuiceIt]

WOW.. Dr. Craig why do you waste your time!!!!

[LobarRobotic]

Haha. I like this. Both are very witty in their arguments. And as a non-christian I think that Dr Craig is very good. I like his style.

[MetaphysicsAddict]

Wolpert is rude, childish, and doesn't understand the nature of engaging arguments. They should have replaced him with Quentin Smith.

[Drgamedood]

@MetaphysicsAddict Quentin smith did participate in a debate with Craig. But it wasn't 1 on 1. It was Craig and Alvin plantinga vs smith and richard gale.

[MrMohjong]

Ah I don't really like debates like this, But It looks like it my be good

[LibertyUalum07]

I felt so bad for Lewis Wolpert in this video. He was clearly in over his head debating Craig.

[wycliffe35]

Lewis Wolpert was fantastically english here and in my opinion makes William squirm and I simply love it...although I don't dislike William whilst I disagree with most of what he says.

[SmalltimR]

Lewis Wolpert does nothing but act out like a little child during the course of this debate. And though its disappointing, I can't say I'm surprised as Dr Craig didn't leave him much room for anything other than saying No... otherwise, he would end-up on the short end of the stick.

[MauricXe]

Wolpert is rather entertaining.

Craig should understand what Atheism means and what the main argument for Atheism is as Wolpert states: I have no evidence to believe there is a god.

[sickeningsplat]

Did you miss the part about Agnosticism vs. Atheism? Whenever you make a knowledge claim (e.g. I KNOW Santa Claus exists or I KNOW Barack Obama does not exist), then you must be able to support that. (Wolpert can't seem to understand that.)

Atheism = there is no God.

Theism = there is a God.

Agnosticism = I don't know if there is a God, and because of my lack of belief, I don't believe in God.

[sickeningsplat]

If you search "William Lane Craig Austin Dacey" and watch their debate, you'll see an atheist who maintains that there is evidence AGAINST God. Simply alleging that there is no evidence for God doesn't make you an atheist--only by maintaining that there is evidence against the belief in God can you be a true atheist.

[MauricXe]

I saw that section. Craig, and yourself, are incorrect with his definition of Atheism.

There are Atheist that say: There is no God. But not all Atheist claim that, in fact I believe the majority do not.

Wolpert asks for convincing evidence to believe in God, and he has been shown known, thus he is without belief. That is not the same as him saying: I know God does not exist.

[sickeningsplat]

Whether you agree with Craig's definition, at 4:05 Wolpert says, "We atheists say, 'We do not believe that God exists.'"

Wolpert is using erroneous reasoning by basically saying that "Because I see no evidence for God, therefore I can say confidently that God does not exist." (Which is akin to saying that because I see no evidence for extraterrestrial life or a multiverse, I can be confident neither of those exist.)

If all he sees is a lack of evidence, then he must be, at best, an agnostic.

[sickeningsplat]

*Whether or not you agree

[MauricXe]

We do not believe that God exists is not the same as saying "God does not exist"

[sickeningsplat]

I guess the real issue here is on what the definition of Atheism and Agnosticism is. If you search "The REAL Definition of Atheism" and watch that video (and also maybe the video it's made as a response to), you'll see that Dr. Craig makes it quite clear that, to be an atheist, you must give arguments for the nonexistence of God. Until Wolpert (or any self-professing atheist) does so, he (they) must remain agnostic.

[MauricXe]

Because Dr. Craig is the authority on this issue...

I'm sorry but you are gonna have to do better than that. Maybe you should look up the word yourself from a neutral source? Or maybe you should listen to the Atheist, after all, it is "their club"

[sickeningsplat]

If you watched the video I gave, then you would have been given a neutral source!

There's really no point to arguing since it's obvious neither of us is going to change our mind. However, I'd like to just end by going back to your first post on how the main "argument" for Atheism is simply a lack of evidence for Theism: Until atheists present cogent arguments for the non-existence of God, theists are not irrational in their belief in God.

[MauricXe]

A neutral source? Perhaps we aren't viewing the same video. My results show:

watch?v=5TyI6Hxa4R4

Which is a video by dr. craig. I have no interest in his incorrect definition.

Did I say that theists were irrational? You are more than welcome to believe in God all you like, but I don't find the evidence as compelling as you do so I will withhold my belief.

If you expect anyone to believe ur claim, then you need some good evidence. Otherwise, I will withold my belief of your claim.

[dashan091]

Every worldview is about explaining reality and meaning. The reason why atheists dont debate the existence of aliens is because it doesnt address the fundamental questions of life. origin, purpose, morality and destiny. God is the only answer in town. The atheist must accept that everything is meaningless & without hope, as we're all destined for oblivion in the heat death of our solar system.

[r0ll3dd]

@MauricXe Absense of evidence does not necessarly entail evidence of absense though. Lewis needs to give some positive reasons/arguments to not believe in God.

[MauricXe]

@r0ll3dd I would agree that it doesn't. It would if we should expect substantial evidence. in the case of God, if one believes there is a lack of expected evidence, then one can withhold belief. That would be sufficient for Wolpert

[r0ll3dd]

@MauricXe That leaves you with agnostism though (not atheism), as Craig pointed out in this segment. Atheists have a burden of proof also as ''God does not exist'' is a knowledge claim.

[r0ll3dd]

@MauricXe I am not aware of any ''recent'' definitional variations of the word ''atheism'' - I'm almost certain within philosophical circles the common accepted understanding of the word is ''positival denial of God(s)''. In either case, when applying that (your cited) understanding of 'atheism' to the context of debate doesn't really help Wolpert as he's bringing no arguments to justify his position, which seems fallacious to me.

[MauricXe]

@r0ll3dd that's fair if you have no heard. This is the distinction between soft and hard atheism.

If he is trying to defend soft atheism he need only provide reasonable doubt of theistic claims.

[r0ll3dd]

@MauricXe I see what you're saying. I understanding the difference between ''positive'' and ''negative'' atheism. I haven't watched the entire debate but based on what I've heard/seen it seems doubtful Wolpert shed any real doubt on Craig's theistic claims. I still think Wolpert is creating a sort of 'smoke screen' (as a negative atheist) by not obliging to give arguments though.

[MauricXe]

@r0ll3dd i would agree that wolpert didn't do as well as Craig.

[darsal123]

Lewis uses distraction and ridicule, in order to hide his lack of argument!

[darsal123]

Dawkins will never accept a debate against craig, The reason? Dawkins is very afraid!!!!

[darsal123]

the weapon for a lack of sence is mockery!

[philipislam666]

Oh My God!!

what a annoying opponent!

this atheist guy is a psychic!

[JRocka114]

This can be summed up in two words: ATheist pwnage.

[MiracleOfRealism]

Craig is sharp & quick.

[JRocka114]

TOO sharp and quick... his opponent is a laughing stock for crying out loud omg...

[Iluvanonymous]

Wow! What a moron!

[kalsolarUK]

I think wolpert isnt taking this debate seriously at all.

[caotico0]

@kalsolarUK Who would with a clown like Craig.

[Knowntje]

okay I have to admit that Craig absolutely pwned that guy on that computer thing

[geoffreyefloyd]

Glad to see you appreciate his arguments after he spanked you on his site for your kalam critique :P LOL! jk

[Knowntje]

ha you wish ! :P the kalam argument remains false, but craig definitely pwned that guy in this video

[DiminishedStudios]

How is the Kalam Argument false?

[Knowntje]

watch my series on the kalam. third playlist onmy channel

[Birdieupon]

Aw, could we not have a very very quick summary? (Call it a teaser!)

[jahrob]

the argument doesnt hold because things don't begin to exist for a cause...cause and pourpose are human mind products...there is no evidence to claim the universe started for a reason or that there was a beginning. We do know the universe expanded and there is also no claim to make about time beginning then. To say God is the cause of this is to take the believe shortcut. sort of like any faith religious based believe premise...

[arktheball]

Well the extrapolation that there is no beginning is a statment of faith or belief. There is no way to go back before the big bang, so to say that there was something before it, goes beyond the relm of science to study. Therefore the BB is good evidence that the universe began. Its not a short cut to posit God, I believe, unless as a scientist you use it as an end-all answer and cease to persue the how. Things dont exist for a cause, I disagree. The statistical improbability of the human mind...

[arktheball]

Evolving is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe. That coupled with the fact that the universe seemingly started, the earth in its precise location allowing us to even observe the universe, out of all the creatures we see, only humans stand apart. To me the universe SCREAMS purpose, intentionality, and not to be egotistical, but I think WE are the reason for the universe. We are to unique and impossible for me to think otherwise

[Creationcreed]

William Lane Craig had this debate, Lewis just turned into a comedian for defending his position(in this video anyway).

[Kabane52]

Craig absolutely crushed Wolpert. I have little doubt he'll do the same to Hitchens. He knows how to quickly cut through the appeals to emotion that Hitchens will use.

[fenoglios]

I sure hope somebody puts it up here on youtube!

[lastdaysguitar]

Lewis Wolpert had NOTHING - Dr. Craig is so far beyond this guy.

Wolpert should be ashamed... his "tactics" wouldn't even qualify as proper debate even in high school.

God is real, and so are Dr. Craigs statements.

[migkillertwo]

What is this, philosophical sit-down comedy?

[babystinky]

Craig made Wolpert's arguments seem like nonsense. I got the sense that Wolpert realized he was just not up to it with Craig, I think it shows and he was humours about it. Thank you for the upload, it was very funny!

[RAIDERJO76]

Wow. I've been following Craig for a while, but this may be the worst "whooping" I've ever seen him dish out. :)

[tetralophodon]

im pretty sure it was the idiot he was arguing, Craig didn't have to do a thing :P

[Seriousdudes]

Nice clip. Thanx for posting it. I cant wait to see the full debate!

[Christianjr4]

I'll have it up soon. I'm just trying to figure out the best quality for YouTube. The quality here is less than expected so I'm playing around with different formats to see which works and doesn't for when I upload the entire thing.

[agnostaxian]

another atheist schooled by Craig.

[geoffreyefloyd]

I must be a moron, at the end of this video it says full debate coming soon ROFL sorry :)

[JewLovesAllah]

Craig absolutely destroyed Wolpert, I mean it wasn't even close. Lewis Wolpert has absolutely no business debating theology. If you want to see a great debate then watch Craig's debate with Shabir Ally on the concept of God. It's very entertaining. And Craig doesn't do so well in this one.

[AbdielAbiram]

Dr. Craig FTW

[TheGamingWeasel]

I'm eager for the Craig/Hitchens debate but I really want a debate with Dawkins. THAT would be a debate of epic proportions.

[jmanexpress]

Craid would have a field day with Dawkins

[whosinscription]

lewis is the perfect example of some one whos says that because he doesnt belive that God exists, no body else's argument for God is valid. he totally begs the question. makes himself look rather foolish.

[Freelance86]

The guy on the right needs to stop with the drinking. Seriously... just stop.

[Deliratio]

lol

[regelemihai]

BTW, I know how Hitchens is going to dispute Craig's premise pertaining to the Kalam Cosmological argument that states that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"...He'll point out, just like he does in his book, that at the quantum level atoms have shown to omit electrons and form ions without any cause in mind.

I really hope Craig goes far and beyond his comfort level and debunks Hitchens's easy-to-swallow arguments.

[Christianjr4]

"He'll point out, just like he does in his book, that at the quantum level atoms have shown to omit electrons and form ions without any cause in mind."

Craig has a response to this objection that I've heard many times already. Trust me, regelemihai, no one is better prepared to take on objections to his arguments than Dr. Craig is. He'll definitely hold his own in this debate.

[regelemihai]

...from your lips...

[ZeroShift5000]

Wolpert had some of the most ridiculous responses since Atkins Vs Lane Craig and his whole Christianity was invented because there was nothing to do in first century Palestine argument.

[DeeperRootsProject]

I loved that Atkins argument. Philosophical classic.

[emailgarbage20]

Christianjr4 - thanks for posting this excellent conversation!

[legodesi]

Notice how the guy on the right keeps panning across the audience with a confused look everytime he makes a pointed rhetorical question or a joke. I think he's in this for popularity.

[grandconjunct]

Romans 1:21-22

although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Atheists are progressively losing their minds.

[Theologica37]

good stuff

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

april 4th, and I'm bringing a camera!

[Christianjr4]

I know, I can't wait. My promo video for this event is going up soon (in approx 1 week).

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

Wait, will you be there?!?!?!

[Christianjr4]

Most likely not, unfortunately. I live in Canada, and I think it's just a little too expensive for me to fly over (although I was seriously thinking about it for a while).

There's some chance that there may be a live stream of the event, either video or audio or both. I'll probably cash in on one of those opportunities if it's available.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

OHHHH dang, cuz we could HANG!!! That rhymes, but yes, I am excited, Craig is going to destroy Hitchens, it'll be embarrassing. Tell me if you can go!

[Christianjr4]

Yeah man, I'll definitely let you know if anything changes. And yes, Craig is most certainly going to destroy Hitchens, at least on arguments 100%. The only good thing Hitchens has going into this debate is his rhetorical skills, which will be Craig's only challenge in controlling that.

Man, I don't think I've ever been so excited for a debate before lol. I wish I could be there. And it's great they got such a well known personality as Hewitt is to moderate the event.

[95TurboSol]

I feel the exact same, I can't wait to see this debate, its going to be awsome.

[regelemihai]

Holy...!!! He's really going to debate Hitchens? :S

I can't watch that debate, too many of the debates with Hitchens that I've seen were lost big time to Hitchen's intelligence.

I hope Craig can hold his own, but defeating him is almost a lost cause---and I'm sure people who have seen him debate his brother, Denish D'souza, Rabbi Boteach, understand where I'm coming from.

[Christianjr4]

"and I'm sure people who have seen him debate his brother, Denish D'souza, Rabbi Boteach, understand where I'm coming from."

I thought Boteach and his brother did quite poorly when they debated him also. D'souza did alright I would say in his debate against him at King's College. But I'm very confident that Craig will outclass all of these opponents that Hitchens has faced. I've just seen too many debates of Craig and others and no one comes close to the skill of Craig IMO.

[regelemihai]

Absolutely he will surpass them, but I have seen him getitng a punnding from Ehrman when he debated the case for Jesus's resurrection. And I daresay Hithens outweighs even Ehrman.

Plus, if there is the ever-so-skewed demographic in the audience like there always is, Hitchens will continue to get the most amount of cheering and laugh. Always annoys me.

[regelemihai]

* Getting

* pounding

*

[Christianjr4]

Actually if you want to get a better idea of how the debate will be like with Craig, then look at Hitchen's debate with Wilson or Turek (but with Craig even better). A lot of people, including Atheists, thought Hitchens didn't do so well in those debates compared to his debates with Boteach, his brother and others.

[Christianjr4]

The debate is at Biola University, a Christian institution. They audience probably won't even cheer at all even when he makes a good point. As for the Ehrman debate, I don't think Ehrman got the best of Craig, but this is one of those debates where people confuse good rhetoric for good arguments. And Hitchens absolutely does not outweigh Ehrman. Maybe on debating skills, but not on arguments. I think you're measuring these debates too much on the debater's speaking ability.

[geoffreyefloyd]

How true, I don't think any apologist are as skilled as Craig! also where can i find rest of this video I'm very eager to see this.

regards G

[babystinky]

I think Richard Carrier will try and pull some surprise on Craig. I don't trust Carrier, after seeing how he made up some story on his debate with Habermas and Licona. Hitchens on the other hand will be difficult, he is quick on his feet and he will try and make the debate be about certain issues more than other issues. His rhetoric will be difficult. I think everyone is overly confident, and that is not good. ONe should never underestimate anyone.

[Christianjr4]

I agree with your skepticism about Hitchens. I'm a little worried about his ability to take over a debate using his impressive rhetorical skills. I'm hoping though, that Craig, as an equally gifted speaker, will be able to counter balance this effect of Hitchens. On arguments though I"m certain Craig will mop the floor with Hitchens. I don't even think Hitchens will make a case against God's existence (like with his debate with Turek).

As for Carrier, all I can say is, it'll be interesting.

[stu1002]

What a wonderful video!

I reckon Wolpert and Lane Craig should get themselves a TV show..they do a brilliant comedy double act, with Wolpert as the comedian and Craig as the "Straight man" :)

On a more serious note though, Wolpert is blatantly looking to "unsettle" with his style, and Lane Craig absolutely nails him...atheist or theist, I don't think you could watch this video and not see that Craig has Wolpert in his pocket. :)

[mrpopo8603]

William Lane Craig is a beast!! I'm convinced that no atheist can out think him.

[PascalsWager5]

@mrpopo8603

Peter Slezak. Look it up

[Drgamedood]

@mrpopo8603 Shelly Kagan defeated him. :)

[scotsocool]

I have often wondered about the default atheism and agnosticsm. They seem the same to me (I know atheists would argue otherwise).

However, considering under the umbrealla of ''atheism'' it can cover both weak and strong (and everything in between) atheism CAN cover both lack of belief and truth claims, so I dont think craig is unjustified in his asertion about lewis being an agnostic.

Still, better than calling yourself a ''bright'', how pretentious is that?!

[Gentle135]

Great video. Amazing how clueless Lewis is. A lot of intelligent people seem to use thier intelligence to hide reality from themselves because they can't accept the implications.

[SeptemberCatholic18]

That was very humorous. Even in frustrating situations like that Craig manages to stay calm, logical, and solid. Lewis was going to make me cry his logic was so bad.

However, it is my opinion that Lewis did not completely understand what Craig was arguing, so he was refuting a totally separate position, which itself would have been fallacious. But Craig did not argue that.

[Vanmeter815]

Wow

[RzaaV2]

cool, seems interesting.