David Wood vs. John W. Loftus: Does God Exist? (Part One)

[theDuctapeUnion]

I miss the Hitch.

[XSC3]

anybody notice how Mr. Loftus' voice sounds a lot like JezuzFreak777's?

[razieldumas]

I want to watch this video. I really do. But David Wood just comes out with the same, incredibly tired, explanations that Saint Augustine came up with in the fourth century. These have all be refuted and explained away numerous times. Do apologists have anything else to argue with?

[loremdolorfu]

@razieldumas It is not necessary for a transcendentalist to prove the existence of God. The condition where the individual is cognizant of the divine can't be properly explained within a empirical framework of reasoning. At least not in the current definition of what that is.

The condition occurs in a pre-analytical state (before logic kicks in) for both the theist and the atheist. The belief systems either one adopts rests on their respective core-visions. Logic is secondary.

[loremdolorfu]

@razieldumas I would submit that the reason you find it tiring hearing Woods is because you're looking for the answers in the wrong place. It is not in logic, rather in your own heart, your own core-vision is where you should direct your inquiry. Haha.. wow that sounded flowery even I'm cringing :)

[kevrs2]

dont ya just love ,god heads schooling us all on science ! :(

[thequantumvacuum]

Cosmologists agree that there wasnt a singularity? Really? John, do you think that is going to fly with anyone that can read?

[TheDataMonkey]

@thequantumvacuum Actually, yeah. In the last decade or so, the idea of a singularity has fallen out of favor.

[thequantumvacuum]

I am an Aboogymanist. I believe that there is no boogyman. I am going to debate around the world to prove that the boogyman doesnt exist. Never mind, now that read what I typed I realize am claiming to be able to prove a negative. I guess I must believe in him on some level if Im willing to be that intellectually dishonest with myself. I guess Ill go try to figure out why I dont want to believe in him.

[RichieJohnSauls]

So many fallacies, so little time.

[ultim4t32]

Failed attempts at humor does not an argument make. Sadly overmatched.

[vicachcoup]

John has no answer to the proof of God.

So he smartly sidesteps the arguments and attacks the easier target of Christian dogma.

I can only assume he doesn't have an adequate refutation of the proof of God.

[TheDataMonkey]

@vicachcoup There is no proof of god.

[ergatis1001]

I have heard about Loftus.  He seems very ordinary. Good debate though

[MauricXe]

this guy is a bozo.

he should be ashamed of himself.

he doesn't engage in the arguments at all. what if someone finds their beliefs to be reasonable? but thats impossible according to loftus. don't waste your time on this blowhard

[Sakib241]

@santisevenX: Difference between science and religion. 6 Billion dollars spent on an experimental setup, data analyzed by some of the top scientists in the world to find a particle faster than light. Still we want more proof. Bible- written 2000 years ago. Has dead people walking around, people walking on water. Shouldn't we apply the same standard of proof everywhere? BTW people walking on water on any context is not believable. I have nothing against GOD. I have a thing against religion.

[Sakib241]

@santisevenX: My statements are illogical and irrational. But people walking on water perfectly goes with experimental observation. Thank you for correcting me.

[santisevenX]

@Sakib241 ( face palm ) Your statements make no sense because clearly, you rip things out of context, committing a plethora of argumentative fallacies along the way, and ignore circumstances and other contextual details of passages presented in the Bible to suit your own anti-God agenda. case and point above ^^^

[dahlusion]

thank you!

[Sakib241]

@livisda: Hey. Did God show u how to build a computer? How to produce electricity? How to mass produce fertilizer to bring on the agricultural revolution? How to build infrastructure to support modern life style? How to create the internet? If the bible is literally true, he tried to put obstacles in every stage of human development. Read the tower of Babylon story. I need not say anything.

[santisevenX]

@Sakib241 What a load of garbage. Your statements literally make no sense at all. That is one of the most illogical ,irrational statements I've ever heard. But then I look down to your other comments and I realize that they're all tied for the former superlative. Typical youtube atheists.

[DocReasonable]

@santisevenX

There is not some tantrum-throwing little man who hates unbelievers behind the scenes pulling all the strings to make scientific laws work as they DO NATURALLY.

Get over it and grow up.

[albertlisty]

@DocReasonable

You said, "pulling all the strings to make scientific laws work as they DO NATURALLY."

How do you come to this conclusion?

[Sakib241]

@mrstevenjake22 : U'd assume if such a GOD thought we were important he'd put us at the centre of the universe, ryt? But we are not even at the centre of our own galaxy which is not even at the center of the universe. He should have just created a bigger earth with more resources to fit all the people here instead of wasting time on creating stars we'd possibly never reach.

[Sakib241]

@mrstevenjake22 : U can think through common sense really. Our earth is a small planet in a solar system. The biblical GOD took 6 days(or long periods of time) to supposedly create it, all of heaven(sky), earth(ground) and sea. Problem is this is only the earth. There are 8 planets in the solar system and there are billions of stars in our galaxy, there are billions of galaxies in the universe. And he took most time to create the earth???

[albertlisty]

@Sakib241

Really? How do you come to the conclusion that the earth took longer then the rest of the universe? I'm not following your common sense in this comment.

[Sakib241]

@mrstevenjake22 : The biblical GOD displays no knowledge of science and it is a precise standard of divinity. Coz the sign of creator is someone who can explain how he created it. If I showed u a computer and said I created it, my first proof for being a creator would be that I can explain how it works. If I make some wrong assumptions on how it works and fail to show any knowledge on its configuration, then u'd rightly assume I didn't make it.

[livisda]

@Sakib241 If you explain someone how u created a computer it's because you assume they'd know what u're sayin and perhaps produce one themselves. if "God" explained you how He created the universe i doubt u'd be able to produce a single quark (you need to produce all three cause they can't be separated). so, wouldn't He be wasting His time? It's much better He showed us how to live, though, we hardly get along with each other let alone respect one another's point of view!

[athinsz]

I must agree with Loftus' statement that David had one of the most powerful opening statements I've ever heard about the existence of God, dead wrong but articulate, logical (to a degree), well structured and seemingly well informed. I wish David Wood would (excuse the pun) help the Theist community by taking the spot-light away from people like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort. I think that Atheists would enjoy those debates more just as the world population would benefit from them.

[mrjholland1]

I had a conversation with a Christian last week and after defeating all her her arguments for the existence of god and Christianity being the right religion, she told me that I study too much and all I have to do is believe.....typical. And I am the one that is closed minded?

[albertlisty]

@mrjholland1 None of what this makes a difference to the issue of who Jesus claimed to be.

All this does is show her lack of knowledge in the substance behind her faith. The thing she was saying you do too much of, 'studying', is what she should have been doing more of, right?

Her response to you does not define her as closed minded but rather that she doesn't require the same amount of proof that you might to believe.

By the way, what would you require to believe that God exists?

[tuck5649]

I think it's funny that he started off with a scientific argument then went on to deny evolution.

[Sakib241]

Fourth mistake, assuming that the creator of life on earth and the creator of universe is the same. So, if we assume that a creator created the universe, we can't jump off and say that he created us too. It might just be he created some other being or beings who created us. So, the Christian GOD is really in trouble now. He could be created himself by someone else and facing judgement from that greater GOD. But we can say on the basis of evidence, that neither GOD exists.

[mrstevenjake22]

@Sakib241 You cant say "on the basis of evidence" God doesnt exist. Science studies and observes the natural world. So if there was something outside the natural world, for instance God, science wouldnt find it. So no, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[integralmath]

@mrstevenjake22 if there is something outside of the natural world, that means it is not in contact with the natural world and thus doesn't influence the natural world. We would therefore as a consequence not detect evidence of this other realm because it wouldn't affect this realm. And, of course, beings in that other realm would have same the problem with our realm - the barrier is a wall for either side. If we can't detect it, then you can't claim to know what's inside it either.

[mrstevenjake22]

@integralmath I never claimed I knew. I simply asserted that you cant say "God doesnt exist" because science cant find Him.

[integralmath]

@mrstevenjake22 what I'm saying in context of your question is that it's immaterial if this particular god exists since it cannot interact with our universe, and we can't ever hope to know of it. This god existing, but being in another universe that doesn't interact with our universe is an indistinguishable claim from simply saying it doesn't exist. In the frame of reference of this universe, it doesn't exist is an identical claim to it does exist but we will never encounter it.

[mrstevenjake22]

@integralmath Not at all. Take for instance the famous Multiverse Theory. If its valid it wont matter because we will never observe it. So, then why even suggest the theory if those two claims are indistinguishable. Because theyre not. 

[integralmath]

@mrstevenjake22 you shouldn't talk about science you don't understand because it makes a fool of you. One concept in the multiverse conjecture is that it might be possible for gravity of one universe to propagate into another. Here's the difference though: we understand that it's a potential model. No one is claiming that this is true as there isn't sufficient evidence bearing on the matter to support such a claim. How do we scientists then deal with it? We look for relevant evidence to see.

[integralmath]

@mrstevenjake22 further, you might want to take up that with someone else as I haven't made an argument involving the existence, or not, of a multiverse. But if there is a multiverse which does exist, then we are just one universe embedded in it and thus it would be part of the 'natural' world. That is to say that we might be able to detect it. If it works out that we can't determine whether one exists or not, then it will remain NOT part of our standard model, as it isn't part right now.

[93Wrain]

@integralmath Christian God can exist in this universe. We live in four dimensions to which we are limited to. God of Christianity being timeless exists in more than these, including more than one dimension of time. That does not mean that he is outside of our universe. It just means that he exists in what is more than our universe.

[DeconversionCentral]

@93Wrain

Yes, we can postulate all kinds of things...

[integralmath]

@93Wrain so is this extra space where god exists inside our universe, or outside of our universe? Further, where's the evidence these extra life supporting dimensions exist?

[WowUrFcknHxC]

@93Wrain where is your evidence for these additional "time dimensions"? can you explain them precisely? have you performed experiments to test for their existence or done the math involved in theorizing their existence? if you have, i'd love to see it... or maybe you could just say that these dimensions are your hypothesis instead, and maybe give a few sound reasons, that don't use the bible or anything else that requires blind faith, as to why you hypothesize their existence?

[WowUrFcknHxC]

@mrstevenjake22 but science won't ever try to find Him. most scientists don't care about the existence of God, simply because they don't need Him to explain nature. basically it boils down to this: science studies the natural world. God is inherently supernatural, science doesn't try to explain the supernatural, nor does it care about the existence of anything supernatural.

[Sakib241]

Third mistake, the fine tuning argument proves nothing for the Christian GOD, rather debunks him. Because the fine tuner of the universe(if there is one) would have precise knowledge of the fundamental constants of nature. Yet, throughout the bible there is no mention of at least one fundamental constant or its value. If the bible just predicted the value of the gravitational constant or the planck's constant, it could be presumed that it might be divine.

[mrstevenjake22]

@Sakib241 How does that debunk the Christian God? Because the bible doesnt have a constant of nature its not divine? Thats not a logical conclusion. The Bible never claims to be a book of science so it would be silly to look for science claims in it.

[Sakib241]

Second mistake. He says time and matter came into existence with our universe. That's what contemporary scientists have concluded since the basic laws of physics break down at singularity. But there's a new hypothesis called M-theory which may allow us to trace time beyond singularity. The reason this hypothesis is controversial is because we haven't devised a way to experimentally test it yet. But the mathematics behind the hypothesis is pretty strong.

[Sakib241]

Christians should look at the argument very carefully. You're defining GOD to be eternal and uncaused. But that's just an assertion. We came to the conclusion that universe had a beginning by making scientific observations. Similarly if we had a GOD to observe, it might turn out that even he's not eternal at all. Christians have to PROVE that he's eternal. My point is even if the universe is created, there is no reason to believe that the creator is eternal.

[mrstevenjake22]

@Sakib241 If the creator wasnt eternal then he would cease to be God. Any God that popped into existence and had a beginning would have a cause and therefore couldnt be God. So, God has to be eternal. 

[Crosell]

david talks a lot of shit

[Deutschland48527]

Gott ist nichts als ein Stück Papier einen Stift und einen sadistischen Phantasie.

[ThieleM]

David Wood = Master of the Argument from Ignorance

[artwdog]

David, David, David, Just say you believe for no good reason...FAITH, and save us all a lot of yammering.

[Dancinstan1]

David Wood states in his opening argument that god and the human mind are both "immaterial and visible". That simply does not make any sense. Anything visible is material, so the brain might be visible, but both god and the mind are constructs, and therefore not visible, though there is certainly more evidence for the mind than for god.

[VlaDiDaDiY]

Was that Mike Licona who was helping John out with his mic @20:22? Or no?

[santisevenX]

@VlaDiDaDiY yes it was

[HaecceitasQuidditas]

@VlaDiDaDiY

Probably. Licona was present at the conference where this debate took place.

[2nDoppelganger]

Ahh Loftus, I see you are still going around insulting people and expecting to get through to them. What a tool.

[bwconklin]

Just an argument from design? Lame..

[JHK1976]

Yes theology stifles not just answers but all of civilization, all throughout history ! Why would they do that ? Well they fear to uncover a real truth, nature.

[sukruoosten]

this is yust a wast of time

you dont give holy teachings en the bible to dogs-heidens-pagans

people saw jezus dy en raise en stayed for 40 days

end still they denied him so you cant proof ore disprove god

in a way wich man rejects the bible

i mean ofcourse you try to save them from hell

were they 100% not 99.999999999999999999% but 100% will go to

psalm 53 the fool has said there is no god wicked is he

he is already judged uppon

50% of world denies god so dont botch efforther to much effort

[redchango]

I've debated numerous religious people, most of them Christians. I know I've won when they resort back to faith. "You just gotta believe." lol

[888kraven]

@redchango - Theists have their reason of beliefs and so does Atheists. I know I've won when they resort back to faith. I can say the same about what you believe. Does that make sense?

[luker4459]

Wood got owned.

[spartacandream]

I'm sorry, but I was able to debunk that pastors arguements when I was 14. Sad thing is, I was a fundamentalist baptist christian then, trying to keep faith. I can argue better for the existence of god.

[daemonowner]

Omfsm. This guy is so stupid!

[daemonowner]

what are you talking about? i would have loved to replace john and tell the christians they are wrong!

[D3PyroGS]

Wow, David's argument sounds almost exactly like every other argument a Christian has given in this kind of debate. I wonder if seminaries just distribute a "debate introduction" with a written transcript to read from...

[CorrosionX3]

I can see why David calls his opening argument "The Juggernaut"

[followerofjesus1984]

so wot do u class ur self as .............. an athiest or agnostic

[alucard2010]

So If something did create the universe, what did it? He assumes it is his God, I can say its something else. We have a fantastic mystery with no falsable answer. So we try to give the unexplainable an explanation.

[MagnusRulerHardt]

Christianity being nuts and Atheism not being ingenious (more "obvious" than ingenious), but CORRECT, I'll go with Atheism.

The Universe has no cause for existence. The universe doesn't have a start in time except for its center. Time is a dimension, not some law that affects the universe. The Universe IS existence, it doesn't exist.

[blazereef]

at 3:28 he fails, just because a god didn't cause the universe doesn't mean that it was not caused, but that it just wasn't god, it could be timeless and imaterial but how the fuck he gets the idea that it must be a personal god is bullshit. he is a good speaker but his arguments fail as theist arguments ALWAYS do

[MagnusRulerHardt]

@blazereef

It is "timeless and immaterial". Time is not something that affects the universe. The universe isn't an OBJECT in a universe, the universe is the universe. He fails to realize this. "10 000 years ago" is a PLACE in the universe. "The beginning of time" is a PLACE in the universe, the center. Is there something closer to the center than the center? No, there is not. There was nothing "before" the universe. Nothing caused it. It doesn't get older, it IS older in SOME PLACES.

[Vire70]

@MagnusRulerHardt

Really well said.

David Wood... I had initially felt enthusiastic about this debate because he started out funnily, and then he started vomiting fallacies.

/Sigh.

[blazereef]

halarious, the juggernaut argument i mean, just pathetic

[jesusgimmeaname]

Wow, Loftus is a mealie-mouthed idiot.

[Adonimtg]

David Wood destroyed this guy.

[MrMohjong]

@Adonimtg Yeah, John is pretty smart, Norman Geisler said that Johns book was a good test of faith, but John is a horrible debater, he wants to debate William Lane Craig but it would be a waste of time, Craig would destroy him.

[graphixfanatic]

This is just so typical of the ridiculous and unintelligent arguments that religious people make for the existence of God. This guy's arguments are extremely shallow and using the existence of something to argue for the existence itself. That is called "circular reasoning". If God existed and wanted us to believe that he existed, he should have made it a lot more obvious. In reality, the delusion of God has been used by religious leaders as mind control for centuries.

[tiemo25]

@graphixfanatic

agreed, wood makes the most ridiculous arguement to the existence of god ever.

he's basically saying "I am using alot of big words and sound sentence structure, however i am offering no proof for my belief"

[Adonimtg]

@graphixfanatic He proved it though. creatoion exists means there is a creator

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

The fine tuning argument is evidene against a god because one who was powerful enough to make a universe would not be limited to having to fine tune life. He woud have been able to make life in the vacuum of space.

[babystinky]

My goodness, John Loftus is worse then I could imagine. And this is the guy who wants to debate William Lane Craig!~ LoL

Its one thing to hide behind your blog, its another to come out in the open and put your views in front of the public. I understand why people were laughing at this now. Also see the debate where Dan Barker got absolutely destroyed by James White. My goodness.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@babystinky he doesn't have the insane ammount of debate time that some of these other guys have. Why don't you read his books and then decide.

David wood is using the same god of the gaps argument first cause that is stale and subject to the advancments of people who study cosmology and not theology.

[popemobile15]

ah I see he's doing the teleological argument now

so basically this guy is taking easily debunkable arguments and presenting all of them in succession and using it as proof.

WELL GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR

[popemobile15]

lmao okay I'm 3 minutes in and he's doing the cosmological argument. Someone respond quick and tell me why I should watch the rest of this because this is ridiculous

[RAMSEY1987]

the fat guy in th red talks about biological complexity then talks about tables and laptops doesnt he know the difference between biology and technology? a dog and a watch?

[Bugzelot]

I'd love to see Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller, and John Loftus vs David Wood, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Hugh Ross debate. That would make for an interesting few hours.

[alvcard2]

@Bugzelot That would end in blood shed.

[HaligonianType1]

@alvcard2 It probably would. Heh... BTW, Bugzelot was my old YouTube account, and I'd still love to see Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller, and John Loftus vs David Wood, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham and Hugh Ross debate. Hah...

[graphixfanatic]

@Bugzelot Yes it would, because Richard Dawkins would blow them all out of the water. He's funny, intelligent, and has a lot of good logical and philosophical arguments for why there almost certainly is no God. Everyone on this page should read The God Delusion, and there wouldn't even be a reason to debate these ideas anymore. The human delusion of the existence of God has done a lot more harm than good in the world, including justifying the murder of innocent people.

[blazereef]

@Bugzelot well, ken miller could not debate against god so he would have to stay out of that portion of the debate but none the less, it would be great

[JusJuiceIt]

@Bugzelot

lol indeed!!.. but it would be a much, much, much better debate if Dr. William Lane Craig was in it also, and another atheist to fill the other side to make it even

[babystinky]

David Wood was impressive. Not bad.

[KevJJ888]

Too much reading on John's part.

[RussianAssassin21]

@KevJJ888 David was reading from his laptop...

[Randomicity912]

HAHAHAHAH! He still thinks people back then believed in a flat earth. What a moron!

[Feldmm1]

Much of Loftus's opening statement seemed like a big ad hominem to me. He was able to say a little bit that was relevant to the question of whether God exists, but he said much more about how some Christians are inconsistent. However, whether they are consistent or not seems to be irrelevant to the question at hand, so Loftus would have to argue that those double standards would not occur if God exists. Yet, he did not seem to argue for that in this opening statement.

[mavaddat]

The consistency of the Christian's arguments is incredibly relevant to the question of whether God exists, since if the arguments for God are inconsistent, we can safely toss them out.

Ad hominem is to reject an argument by addressing facts about the person, rather than their argument. It would be silly to say (as you do) that accusing someone of inconsistency is ad hominem, as if pointing out inconsistency implies *attacking them*.

You might want to read more about the nature of "ad hominem".

[Steve00077]

The main point Loftus made was Christians use double standards. However, It might even be the case that Christians use double standards, and Christians are right that God exists. Also, a lot of arguments for the existence of God are valid arguments. If the premises are true, then the conclusion will always be true no matter how inconsistent Christians are or what double standards they use.

[mavaddat]

@Steve00077 Your last point is quite false, Steve. True premises do not guarantee a true conclusion — the premises themselves must be validly connected. Any inconsistency or contradiction in the premises renders the whole argument logically invalid, and thus, is sufficient reason for us to reject the conclusion.

Validity alone also does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

For the conclusion to be necessarily true, the premises must be both valid and true.

[yahya2006]

@mavaddat,

Premises aren't valid or invalid. Arguments are valid or invalid. Premises are true or false. If an argument is valid and contains all true premises, the argument is sound. But that's what Steve said. He said that "a lot of arguments for the existence of God are valid arguments." Then he said, "If the premises are true, then the conclusion will always be true." And he's entirely correct here. Hope that helps.

[mavaddat]

Yes, my last sentence was shorthand due to lack of character space. I would've written, "[...] the premises must be validly connected and true" if I had space. But you can see I wrote first that the premises should be "validly connected."

I understand your interpretation of Steve's comment. That wasn't how I understood it, so your comment helps. My point was only that the statement, "If the premises are true, then the conclusion will always be true," by itself is false.

[vengencefrom1979]

@mavaddat speaking of premise.

[HaecceitasQuidditas]

Good debate, though a bit one-sided. I haven't heard David debate the existence of God before, and I was almost expecting him to take the presuppositional route after hearing few of his preliminary comments. But it was actually more evidential type of a presentation. And a good one at that.