William Lane Craig is just saying the same bullshit over and over ...Craig began with an attempt to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials by writing a rather meaningless equation on this first slide, which he then argued would be the basis for his ‘evidence’. The equation, in words said that if the probability, given the data, gave one a greater than 50% likelihood for God’s existence, then this was evidence. He even presented this as a pseudo- Bayesian Argument.
I enjoy listening to Dr. Craig talk philosophy, but not so much when he turns to theology. How can he say that the Bible doesn't teach creationism? It clearly does so in Genesis 1.
Not only that, but the big bang which he supports is flatly contrary to the creation account that the Bible gives.
I don't think I've ever seen such a cantankerous attention seeking display as that given by Wolpert here. He seems to abandon all pretense of actually engaging with Craig very early on in the debate and by the point reached in this video he just adopts an incredibly insolent tone and body language, all the while supplying sparse unintelligible explanations of his position. as if to intimidate or humiliate Craig into submission. Pathetic. Craig dominates as per usual.
Lewis is simply out matched and tries to joke and indirectly insult his way out. Here near the end Lewis AND the moderator seem to team up on Dr. Craig and beggin a kind of muck slinging. But, always true to form, wlc remained polite and to the point at hand. I don't think he understood a single thing wlc said.
06:00 it really gets me when people accuse animals of being immoral and then use the example of a predator eating it's prey. humans do the same, humans eat other animals, but we torture them their whole life and mutilate and murder them in the most cruel fashion. who the fuck are we to claim a cat eating the only thing it can eat is immoral? humans even treat their own just as bad on a big scale. humans are the least moral creature there is. claiming we have god given moral is ridiculous.
This is what I don't understand these two are scientist,philosophers or what have you, educated! men but they don't get what Craig is really saying about morality. He even dumbs it down and explains it many times yet it goes right over there head.
Lions kill other lions, They also can copulate by physical force without consent, They often will kill lion cubs and frequently kill animals for sport
Craig was caught far off guard here. Never has he even taken into account the possibility that someone may be so radical as to claim that morals are relative. As entertaining as it was to listen to the candid senility of Professor Wolpert, I was disappointing that he didn't even invest the necessary attention so as to understand that Craig in no way disagrees with contemporary science. That showed a great lack of comprehension of Craig's position.
I don't get Craig's argument about GOD being the basis for morality. I don't believe in god, therefore I should be immoral. For him to proclaim god is the source for morality (whether we believe in it or not) is just lazy and detracts from his credibility. If Craig wants to prove this point, then he must present an alternate universe where the absence of god leaves an absence of morality.
His morality 'fact' is a nonfalsifiable claim... therefore, it has no validity.
'The moderator and Wolpert are either very dim or are being obtuse. What Craig is saying is not difficult to understand.'
You're kidding, right? How can anyone expect to understand a guy who deliberately misrepresents the truth whenever he can? These guys expect reason, getting instead an arrogant asshole making extraordinary claims with no evidence to support it. Obviously these guys aren't going to comprehend Craig because he really has nothing of worth to offer them.
Truth is that which is true or in accordance with reality. Everything that escapes Craig's lips has some biblical twist to it. He's so deluded to believe a fictional world the bible describes actually existed, and expecting everyone to believe the same crap. So when he spouts off about a bunch of fairy tales... you could imagine why some people can't see any substance in his 'facts'.
Craig's 'argument' only works under the assumption that the bible is true... which is nonsense.
That's a question you should direct at Craig, considering as he's the one making the bogus claim without evidence. He foolishly thinks quoting the bible constitutes evidence, which is the source of his lies. One might as well debate the Force from Star Wars, and it would be equally valid... if not more than Craig's so-called logic.
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, if he believes that his assertions are true. What would be the point of asking him? How would you know if the bible is true or not? Do you have evidence against it? I like star wars, but i hope your not setting yourself up for an argument fallacy.
What a person believes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how strongly anyone can manage to convince themselves of anything; it won't change the reality of things. Belief does NOT equal knowledge.
Why the bible isn't based on fact: all available evidence cannot validate that Christ rose from the dead. A STORY about the resurrection does exist, but there's nothing that validates this story as a literal historic event. Craig doesn't know that. There's no way anyone COULD know that.
Do you know about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Such fictional characters were created in direct response to religion, but they have as much validity to reality as God.
If everyone believed in the FSM, would that make this figment of someone's imagination any more real? Does a person's rejection of evolution make the theory any less valid? Belief is irrelevant, which is why Craig has no case applying what he believes to this debate and proclaiming it as fact.
@BattleshipAgincourt At a 2000 year old period, what kind of evidence would you think it would take to prove the Resurrection? And how would you know if he did or not? You must have some good evidence that he did not? Right? I must admit, Craig has some really good arguments and he sounds like a great debater.. He might end up giving me a good edge on god.. Hmm
1. Maybe a few miracles by god can at least make Craig's argument viable
2. Insufficient/contradictory evidence to an extraordinary claim
3. His pathetic lack of evidence is sufficient for me to call Craig a liar
4. No, he makes nonfalsifiable claims, dismisses counter evidence, and lies to win his case. That is exactly the opposite of what it takes to win a debate.
5. Craig is a good lawyer, a good liar, but a terrible debater.
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, do you really need extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim? And another thing, is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence? I just don't see how you can call him a liar when he has good arguments on these types of debates.. I just saw some other debates from him and it looks like he is well respected by his atheist adversaries. I just saw him destroy Christopher Hitchens, he took his mic off to avoid his screw up lol!
I call him a liar because he shifts the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. Craig presents things which can't be falsified, therefore it's worthless. He might as well burn his PHD in philosophy, because he can't make a case without evidence.
Why Craig generally has the advantage is because he can fall back on the pathetic 'god did it' excuse, whereas he demands unreasonable evidence from his opponents. He is a good lawyer, but there is nothing backing his arguments.
Craig should be the one presenting evidence, as he's defending the extraordinary claim, yet the bible is his ONLY reference. There are hundreds of books written about the Star Wars universe, but do they ALL make it true? You'd be more likely to prove the Force exists because it's the best explanation for how Master Yoda lifted that X-wing out of the swamp in Empire Strikes Back.
You'd tell me that's stupid, but it's the exact same logic that Craig is using.
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, we could keep talking about this all year nonstop.. We all have our opinions and our points of view, these are interesting topics to talk about.. Nevertheless, we must seek truth and answers.. There are no good sides on this.. I should inspect the bible and judge it myself, school should help me out with the rest..
That's fine by me. All I ask is that you conduct your own research. Don't take Craig for his word, because his primary objective is always to present the truth to whatever shape best suits his convictions. When WLC or Ray Comfort deliberately misrepresent the truth, they only give nonbelievers that much reason NOT to believe.
If you want believe in god by faith, then that's exactly how it should be; but don't take Craig for his word... base it on proper evidence.
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, if he believes that his assertions are true. What would be the point of asking him? How would you know if the bible is true or not? Do you have evidence against it? I like star wars, but i hope your not setting yourself up for an argument fallacy
If atheism (the natural materialistic kind) is true, atheist are not amoral, because there are no morals, that's the main point. All life, including people have no relevance, so moral truth is just a delusion that comes from our biology.
This video is so painful to watch. Is it really that hard to understand if objective moral values do not exist than objective moral values do not exist. If that is the case there is nothing objectively wrong about what hitler did. Why is that hard to understand.
In H.G. Wells' "The time machine" Morlocks are humanoids but not moral agents. The Eloi are humanoid moral agents. When the Morlock eats an Eloi, Is it wrong? and for whom is it wrong? in an alternate world, if there were no sentient beings there would be no right and wrong. Had we evolved differently and were we not capable of moral reasoning, turture would be pretty much like the lyon who kills the gacele. The gacele doesnt feel humiliated, abused, opressed, etc. Those are moral feelings.
Raping and murder are wrong FOR SENTIENT BEINGS. The murderer and the rapist have brain damage, they dont see they're doing any wrong, just as lyons etc. In another world with different evolution, nobody would be able to notice the wrongness of rape, and to a certain extent the wrongness wouldnt exist, because moral values are not metaphysical entities but valuations and feelings of sentient beings.
I want to konw how Craig knows objective moral values exist. Because all he ever presented was that we all agree and that deep down we all know it. His evidence for their objectivity is a mere human opinion.
His evidence was intuition, or more precisely, our own moral experiences. This is a perfectly legitimate method of knowing whether objective morals exists or not . Indeed this is essentially how ethicists do moral philosophy. It's similar in application to how we come to know the objectivity of other things through our sensory experiences.
@Christianjr4 That is not "a perfectly legitimate method of knowing", intuition is personal perception. If you say X is wrong because your intuition tells you, the nazi can say the same thing. Who has found an objective moral ground, you or the nazi? Your intuition is not evidence, i could say my intution tells me electrons and nuclei do not exist, but evidence (experimental measurement) refutes me.
@Christianjr4 What about the argument from moral disagreement or the argument from queerness? These seem to be powerful arguments against the idea that morality is objective. Just look at world cultures. What is "moral" greatly differs from one culture to another. Craig's "God hypothesis" does not account for moral disagreement. A better explanation of this disagreement among nations would be that morality purely subjective.
@Christianjr4 You've got to understand next to nothing about moral philosophy and ethics if you think that ethicists arrive at moral objectivity through sensory experience and intuition. Besides, we can't get objective moral values from God and certainly not from Yahweh. This is because, as a theist, one must believe that an action is good because God commands it and an action is evil because God forbids it.
@Christianjr4 But, as any reading of the Bible demonstrates, God changes His mind throughout the course of history rather dramatically about what is morally good and what is morally evil. First, stoning a person to death for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16) or for picking up sticks on Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32--36) and burning the prostitute daughters of the priests of Israel (Leviticus 21:9) are commanded by God and therefore must be morally good.
@Christianjr4 Thousands of years later, however, God tells us that only he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. God commanded the cessation of stoning people to death as a form of punishment and therefore stoning a person to death must be morally evil. Suddenly, Leviticus 20:10 is no longer valid. What this means is that, on a theistic view, there is no inherent good or evil in any act. An act only becomes good or evil in virtue of whether God commands or prohibits it.
@Christianjr4 God can tell us at one point that we must put adulterers to death and then change His mind and prohibit us from putting adulterers to death. For the Christian, the act of stoning or carrying out capital punishment in and of itself cannot be inherently good or evil. Indeed, if it is, then the Christian faces a problem: one can then appeal to the inherent reason why capital punishment is good or evil without bothering with the alleged reason-giver.
@Christianjr4 Our intuition and sensory experiences count for nothing. My intuition and experience tell me that stoning a person to death for any crime is morally wrong. But invoking God to say so doesn't help because God Himself has commanded stoning people to death for certain crimes. To say, "Well, it was okay in that time and cultural context" merely begs the question of what kind of conceivable context could justify stoning someone to death for picking up sticks in the woods on a holy day.
@Christianjr4 Thus, the argument that God--and specifically Yahweh--is necessary to ground moral values and principles objectively collapses. All we get from Yahweh are moral principles and values that are here today only to be replaced by completely antithetical moral principles and values a few hundred or thousand years later. If they're always changing according to "historical and cultural context," then they're hardly objective in the first place.
Where is this moral of God? and how do we even consider them...what god tells is good is good? Why? How do we work together better under this mysterious god moral, when even the same religious denominations can't decided on ANYTHING, and even to do so would not inherently mean what they are contending is gods desires?
If it weren't for the british accents (which add at least 10 IQ points to anyone), I'd be very worried about their intelligence. (tongue in check of course). I don't quite understand the double mindedness of Dr. Wolpert. There isn't a chance in the world he would think child rape and murder, if were to become advantageous on a grand scale to society, could be morally right.
craig seems to think that just because morality is due to evolution, that therefore there is no real right and wrong... -_- there IS right and wrong and it evolved along with our brains. he cant seem to accept the fact that morality evolves, and that perhaps theoretically there IS perfect morality apart from god creating it. were evolving towards it. y does it have to be created by an external agent... craig is a dumbass.... :(
craig seems to think that just because morality is due to evolution, that therefore there is no real right and wrong... -_- there IS right and wrong and it evolved along with our brains. he cant seem to accept the fact that morality evolves, and that perhaps theoretically there IS perfect morality apart from god creating it. were evolving towards it. y does it have to be created by an external agent... craig is a dumbass.... :(
@nickallah actually, most atheist philosophers agree with craig. without god, there is no absolute morality. for example, if morality "evolves" it is ARBITRARY (meaning it changes for each individual, there is no ideal). When there is a God, morality has a solid basis found in God. also, how can we evolve TOWARD perfect morality if it is dependent on the evolutionary construct of whatever is most advantageous? what is child rape becomes advantageous? what if infanticide becomes advantageous?
@linebacker5635 yes, the smoothest functioning moral values ARE most likely to sustain themselves from generation to generation. child rape is not one of them. what if it does? then it would be a totally different world.
where is this objective morality written? why hasnt god shared this code of conduct? precise code on every issue we face? weve had to rely on ourselves to figure out or (evolve) our moral values up to this point on the human timeline. go back 200yrs and examine our moral values.
I love how the audience begins to applaud when Wolpert says, "As an Atheist I'm not a rapist," and then Craig says, "You're misunderstanding the argument," and the audience almost immediately stops applauding.
Well, by 11/12 the Brits on this stage have turned cringeworthy, regardless of how specious Craig's pro-theist arguments were before this. Wolpert is simply out of his depth here when it comes to moral philosophy.
@MareIngenii very much agree with you. I'd much rather see Craig debating a philosopher (he has, and it was much less cringe worthy), but I think he debates scientists for a reason...to show people that these very intelligent men and women (has he debate a woman?) are not gods and do not even come close to answering some of the deeper questions and yearnings human beings have.
It is the lack of integrity Craig permits, that they are confused about. His logic is backwards and it is not accepted to mean anything but conceptual desires, at least until he provides some sort of testable hypothesis to which we can OBJECTIVELY show accurate prediction. Craig seems to think conceptual postulation are objective. Craig is only stating what he wants to prove, and then acting as though he has proven something... It is troubling how many people are falling for this.
Craig should've talked about a lion taking over a pride eating a baby lions. They do this so they have supreme control. But he was getting it from both sides and had hardly any time to think.
LOLL, I'm a devout Christian .. but i disagree with Craig on his point of Objective Morality. In my eyes, animals without personable spirits show exactly how sin has corrupted human spirits as told by the Bible.
Animals don't usually kill their own kind, and especially not 'for the hell of it' like a lot of humans will, they only do what is necessary to survive. They don't manipulate and conspire.
You can tell he lied about his pet mice lmao, "it was...umm...awful"
@zcaz23 The point is that animals arent moral agents. This is not a lie. I come from a family that raised chickens and one of things that shocked me was that bigger chickens that were in cages would kill chicks that got inside these cages for no apparent reason. Well the reason might involve competition for food in the cage but I can clearly see that the hen did not even mind her chick being pecked to death.
Also as a fish enthusiast fish also eat their young and we separate aquariums for that
that applause at 0:41 to Wolpert's comment "as an atheist I'm not a rapist" sounds like it was made by the last 4 people in the room who were still supporting him and at that point even they gave up. And funny to see Wolpert so desperate for some kudos turning and thanking them for that half-hearted attempt to shore him up
Wolpert has imcomplete knowledge, he teeny brain does not know when a snake gives birth to lots of its off spring, by natures law they eat thier young... Yet he is acclaimed as a very intelligent man.....Well not in my opinion.
@MrMohjong I like how Craig keeps presenting false evidence such as saying killing offspring in the animal kingdom is common and present in many species when he only presents ONE case which was caused by starvation.
@kuntakentae I've raised dogs and can attest that a mother dog will often kill the runt and weakest in order to better provide for the healthier pups. So it is a survival of the fittest. Even some ancient and/or primitive cultures have been known to kill off the weakest in order to better provide for their healthier offspring during a famine. What Craig is asking; is, how can atheism from a strictly naturalistic world view say rather that is absolutely wrong or not?
The objective morality argument is a silly non-sequitur. If God exists, what's good and bad is still his subjective opinion, which is informed by what he values. "Good" and "bad," are labels we use to express the merit or lack thereof of something. There is also no objective beauty either, but that doesn't mean that you can't say that your wife is beautiful. When Craig says that Wolpert's arguments aren't persuasive, that's a subjective value judgment. That's how moral judgments work too, Craig.
What makes Craig assume evolution is anywhere near through with us? In another billion years, if we don't kill each, a completely different creature will roam this planet. Maybe even with their own gods...
@Brushles83 I don't wonder why at all. Many channels of atheistsare comprised of clusters of atheists smiling and patthing each other on the back with hands clutching logical fallacies. There is no discussion, and there is no respect for people who hold other views - which, at least is consistant with the atheist view in denying objective morality. So I guess whilst the behaviour is disrespectful and shameful, it is, consistant with what we find elsewhere in atheist circles.
Wolpert for the win, easy. He's actually attempting to explain things from a simple scientific basis upon which he is correct in every aspect and he's doing it with a bit of wit and humour as well. Unfortunately you religious people just don't get it.
@Brushles83 I'm sorry but Wolpert has, on many occasions, simply said, "No!" as an answer. I think you may find that that doesn't refute or even go a distance to answer an argument. I like Wolpert, but I'm afraid he is completely out of his depth here. Craig is teaching them both philosophy and logic as he makes his arguments, it's amazing to watch. :>
How can that babbling idiot Wolpert go on for so long. His objection to the moral argument is just a confusion between epistemology and ontology. It is the fact that atheists feel like they should be moral that proves that atheists can not be consistent. Atheists shouldn't have to be moral, ifg atheism is true, but they are.
@lifeandphilosophy right. how dare atheists not go along with theists' expectations? why be moral if no one will reward you for your goodness or punish you for your badness, right? surely, there's no other reason to be moral. caring about others without God's orders (and heavenly rewards)? screw that! so atheists must be "inconsistent" when acting morally, because what's in it for them? I mean if I was an atheist I couldn't be moral, so how could they? yeah, they've gotta be missing something..
@AgeOfReasonXXI You make the same mistake Wolpert made. The argument isn't about the "belief" in morality, it is about the ontological foundation of morality. However, if atheism is true, why do anything that could harm yourself? Obviously it is false that you can do whatever. However, this means theism is true. If God does not exist, then objective moral values don't. They do, therefore, God exists.
@lifeandphilosophy " If God does not exist, then objective moral values don't."
I'm not sure you know what 'objective' means- independent of anyone's opinion. so if moral values are dependent on God's opinion, or existence, they're, by definition, subjective (to Him). case closed.
the only view where moral truths are objective, which means they're necessary truths such as mathematical truths (therefore independent of God) is Moral Realism, adopted by many atheists and theists alike
@AgeOfReasonXXI Morality is no depedent on God's mentail states. Rather, he is by nature loving, just, kind, indeterminate of his mental states. Moral realism is absurd. What does it mean to say that "The good" exists, independent of a description? Even if it did, how would we know these values which are causally disconnected from us. Lastly, what is the probability that we would evolve the correct moral absolutes?
@lifeandphilosophy Imagine telling her that her being raped is only wrong when God exists. Doesn’t the most obvious response seem: ‘what does God has to do with anything?’
And what does your objection ‘getting away with it if not caught’ has to do with the discussion? Now if God’s role is solely as a policeman, fine, but that’s not what you’re arguing. Besides if you’re a Christian, you believe that a person CAN get away with anything, all s/he has to do is repent and accept Jesus as his/her
@lifeandphilosophy (cont.) personal savior. If actions (rather than beliefs) are punished/ rewarded then there’s no need for Christ, and Christianity disappears.
To say that God is ‘good by nature’ means you’re logically committed to an independent standard by which this makes sense (not talking about semantics here). Otherwise you’re creating an empty tautology: god is good bc god is good. In other words, just as saying “something is hot” presupposes an independent standard for what hot is
@lifeandphilosophy (cont.) and this something’ cannot itself be that standard, “God is good” presupposes such an independent standard. Without it, His commands are arbitrary: whatever God commands, is defined as good. Why is this so hard to understand that?
I concede that IF God exists, he exists necessarily (which is what Craig says as well). The problem is that this means there are possible worlds where God doesn't exist, and since, on your view, He makes something wrong, rape is fine,
@lifeandphilosophy (cont.) which seems absurd. Hense God is not the reason why it's wrong but as you yourself wrote-- the harm it causes. and as pointed out, this doesn't depend on God in any way: if causing harm is wrong when God exists, then it's wrong when He doesn't exist as well. I don't see why anyone would argue otherwise
Finally, you’ve misunderstood Moral Realism in that It doesn’t hold that moral truths exist in a platonic sense. but I don’t have space or time to elaborate here
@lifeandphilosophy the view that morality is somehow dependent on God leads to the absurdity that rape, murder, torture is only wrong when God exists. and if it turns out that God doesn't exist, then raping a person would be fine, simply because God isn't there to prohibit against it! Do you serioisly believe that?
If you do, then you're essentially conceding that the HARM inflicted is not what makes such actions wrong (which is the ontological basis for their wrongness), but something else!
@AgeOfReasonXXI Yes, but because God exists necessarily(on my view) it is impossible for rape to be wrong. And if God did not exist, if someone could get away with it, why shouldn't someone rape? Of course it is necessarily wrong, but that is why this argument provides evidence for God.
I do concede thaty harming someone is wrong. But why is it wrong on your view?
@lifeandphilosophy so you think that God has some reason for his prohibition against, say, torture OTHER than the fact the it causes harm, misery, etc.? and what could it be? and would you accept it as a serious answer if God told you that the suffering inflicted by torture has nothing to do with the reason why it is wrong? bc if the harm & suffering is the ontological basis for the wrongness of an action then God couldn't be its author, he could only recognise it.
@AgeOfReasonXXI God's reason is that people have interinsic moral worth and shouldn't be harmed. However, on atheism, I fail to see how humans posses authentic, mind-indepedent worth. God is good by nature. His commands flow necessarily out of his nature. He is still the stoppoing point on this view.
@lifeandphilosophy You concede that the reason why it’s wrong to rape, murder, etc. is because it causes harm, suffering (that’s the ontological basis!), but you try to tie this reason to God by saying He provides some intrinsic worth. So, according to you, your daughter, say, has moral worth only when God exists? Her feelings, emotions, reasoning faculties, etc. are less valuable if there’s no God to somehow “make” them valuable? That’s strikes me as nonsense
@othellopiano why? because he concluded with Wolpert's contention that religion is a comfort blanket and Craig had the look of a silly child on his face that has just been spanked? hahha
despite the fact that Woplert is not a pro debater like Craig, he did an excellent job exposing Craig utter ignorance of evolutionary biology! and it's funny to watch Craig readily endorse scientific theories when that suits him, and dismiss darwinian evolution in spite of its universal acceptance by scientists
The debate was not over the coherence of evolution. If you disagree with Craig, you probably should disagree with his stance within the debate. For example, you wouldn't say that you have refuted Craig by pointing out a grammatical flaw in his speech.
@othellopiano well I disagree with Craig, but here I was merely pointing out his dishonesty: he regularly endorses scientific theories that suit his case, mainly in cosmology, and yet when it comes to Darwinian evolution, where there's an overwhelming consensus among scientists (much more so compared to the consensus for any Big Bang model), Craig has "scientific" doubts! he's either ignorant or disingenous. for someone with his erudition, I have no doubt it's the latter.
Well I am not sure where you have heard of Dr. Craigs thoughts on evolution. He merely would assert that God had a hand in evolution. Which has nothing to do with what science says.
@othellopiano Craig asserts that left on its own devise random mutations and natural selection could never produce humans. He quotes physicists(!) Barrow & Tipler that there're 10 steps in human evolution, each of which so improbable that the Sun would've burned out before they could take place
Of course any evolutionary biologist would dismiss that as nonsense. Craig realizes that so he insists that the consensus among biologists is not due to evidence, you see, but a philosophical disposition
When did he say that "random mutations and natural selection could NEVER produce humans" ? If I remember correctly he merely points out the ridiculous numbers of improbability.
@othellopiano right. so according to him natural selection couldn't have done the job. at which point any reputable evolutionary biologist would call him on his ignorance, just as Wolpert did. Craig seems to be taken in by Behe's bogus arguments (because it suits him, othewise I can't see why he would dismiss the overwhelming consensus among biologists and bet on a biochemist's religiously inspired work), which have been thoroughly debunked
The moderator's an okay guy. Not the best one I've seen but okay. Craig must have had some pain dealing with these guys. They completely miss his points on a regular basis.
I feel bad for Craig in this debate. He got paired with someone that is entirely philosophically ignorant. This is worse than the debate he had with Shook.
wow, i'm sure there HAS to be some atheists out there that recognize that this Wolpert did a HORRIBLE job.
@shashintokyo how was he destroyed...he in fact illustrated that atheism offers no absolute morality. so nobody is wrong unless they go against societal "trendiness". So was it wrong for the rest of the world to interfere in Hitler's corner of the world? if we are all correct by moral standards of the societal norm than the rest of the world was in fact bullies for moving into germany to expunge Hitler.
I personally believe there IS an overarching objective morality that all of us can detect.
@hexusziggurat Destroyed simply because his argument fails. He (again) asserts that something exists (there can be no morality without god) without the slightest evidence for his assertion. Morality is easily explained by evolutionary necessity, no god required.
Your statement about Hitler would be one I disagree with, it was quite appropriate that societal norm was sickened by the actions of Hitler.
I can see that you believe that but believe without evidence does not make something true.
@shashintokyo he asserts that morality exists...that assertion is shared by all sides of philosophical outworkings of any credo whether atheist, agnostic or theist!!!
"Morality is easily explained by evolutionary necessity, no god required" only subjective morality then.
"Your statement about Hitler would be one I disagree with" what do you disagree with?
@hexusziggurat I never denied that morality exists. It does. Yes it's subjective. So what? Craig never proved that objective morality exists, he just (once again) asserts it and ergo, so god exists. Failed logic.
I disagree that the rest of the world acting to expunge Hitler makes the rest of the world bullies.
@shashintokyo i think you are examing only part of his entire platform of ideas on the subject (which is easily asserted as wrong or even presumptuous).
"I disagree that the rest of the world acting to expunge Hitler makes the rest of the world bullies."
Though where do you derive the idea that the world didn't act like a group of bullies?
Why is Hitler wrong & your sense of moral values right?
This must be the dummest opponnent that Craig has ever debated. He doesn't even understand the arguments being made. I like the Craig/Dacey debate because Dacey really is an intelligent atheist that really does understand the arguments put forth.
@KBrimstone "whole exchange flew over head didn't it" now I'm not sure whether you agree or not. the point I was making is that craig used the example to show the neutrality of such action on atheism, yet according to him on theism a man killing a turkey is also a morally neutral act. so ironically craig just showed that on theism man is no more a moral agent that on atheism
@AgeOfReason21It did fly over your head! The point was why is killing a human muder and not a turkey on the atheist world view. Why aren't ALL act of killing morally neutral?
@KBrimstone "The point was why is killing a human muder and not a turkey on the atheist world view. Why aren't ALL act of killing morally neutral?"
for the same reason they're not morally neutral on theism. you see no difference between yourself and a turkey? and are you suggesting that God you deem killing humans morally wrong for any other reason than the (ultimate) harm it inflicts? if not, then this reason is independent from God. if yes, what could that reason be? just bc He says so? or?
@KBrimstone you ever wondered why 93% of the most elite scientists in the U.S.(NAS) are atheists? here you see that the compatibility between science and religion is just a myth- all of these scientists are atheists BECAUSE of their scientific knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality! so the more you know about the Universe the more likely you are to see how ridiculous religious doctrines are, and become an atheist. And the best scientists (worldwide) are a perfect example of that
It is you who misunderstands the limitation of science. There many things that science can't prove that we are rational to believe. It's funny you mention scientists. Right now there is a movement happening in the feild of philosophy. Most of the top philosophers in anglo- american achidemia are confessed Christian Theists. This topic we are disscussing is a metaphysical one not a scientific one. Science has little to no place here.
@KBrimstone it's not about what we're rational to believe, it's about what is true. and the only reliable method in understanding objective reality is the scientific method! (or do you know of another?) it doesn't matter how many philosophers are theists (they are in the minority anyway). philosophy is speculative by nature, once a philosophical speculation is supported by enough evidence it invariably becomes part of science. and by far most scientists, including 93% of NAS, are nonbelievers.
@Mrstarman3 Wow. You are quibling over samantics. The point is when infanticide does happen in the animal kingdom like in the case of mouse or shark is it morally wrong?
@KBrimstone Dealing in absolutes as always.. what circumstances led said animal to ingest its young?.. the real world is not black and white. Mice will eat their young when under stress and they have good reason to. Sharks are not capable to distinguish between their young and any other fish as they have very poor vision. Lack of knowledge does not make your arguments any more sound.
@drnekodr Sigh. Now you being naive here. Do animals murder, steal and rape? When a hyena takes the carcass from a vulture does it steal? When a a baboon male kills another baboon male does it murder? Why can't you just answer the question?
@KBrimstone and again you are lumping things into absolute categories like a child. Things are not cut and dry, black and white. Theists want to lump all things into neat little boxes, there are NO absolutes. No I would not call it murder (again you are showing a lack of zoological understanding but whatever), no I would not call it stealing, are you stealing milk from a cow? Honey from bees? Why can you steal from this animals? Its childish.
@drnekodr Okay. So when an animal kills it's not murder. Why then is it murder or rape when the animal called human does it? There are no absolutes huh? Is it absolute that are no absolutes or sometimes there are absolutes?
@KBrimstone No. I'm not 'quibling' over 'samantics' WLC clearly stated a biological falsehood. Again, infanticide does not occur all the time in the animal kingdom.
The vast majority of animals do not attack their own young, for obvious reasons.
WLC has displayed the stereotypical Christian ignorance of biology and animal behavior.
@Mrstarman3 It's irrelevant. The point that Dr. Craig was making was when animals do kill it isn't morally wrong. Because they aren't moral agents. "all the time" is relative. I repeat the rate at which animals do these acts is irrelevant to the case William Lane Craig was making for objective moral values. So I'll ask again; do animals kill their young? Yes or No.
@Mrstarman3 Indeed, sharks have extremely poor vision and cannot tell their young from a salmon. Mice have good reason to eat their young when under stress. They want to make the world black and white.. two choices.. the world does not work like that. Its childish.
@drnekodr But you do agree that WLC's statement about animal infanticide is spit-take worthy. KBrimstone is desperately trying to defend it with obscure examples.
@drnekodr Wow this is intellectually shallow. The point you are missing by miles is; Are animals moral agents? Do they steal, murder, rape, and covet? These are clearly philosophical questions.
Craig uses the "objective morality" argument all the time. But how do we establish what "objective morality" is? Does Craig have a list of what God has established as "objectively wrong"? If he does, then he has to defend its veracity. If he does not, then he is just relying on "what the majority agrees on", which functions just the same whether God exists or not.
@Springheel01 Objective morality comes from an objective standard, i.e. the revelation of the Bible. Since atheists have no such standard, the have no basis for an objective value system. That is what WC is trying to communicate to the seemingly obtuse LW.
@mmarley The Bible is a pretty poor source for establishing "objective morality", as it does not condemn actions like rape or slavery. How does Craig know that rape is "objectively wrong"?
@Springheel01 From the scripture! The Bible specifically condemns sexual sin and related violence. Consider the mandate in Deut 22: 25-28 and the rape of Tamar in 2 Sam 13. Please research before making further assertions. Slavery, which was (and is) practiced worldwide is restrained and regulated by the law eventually leading to freedom for the enslaved. Remember, slavery to sin is the worst kind of bondage.
@mmarley You mean the verse that says a man who rapes a virgin must pay her father and then marry her? Wow, that's a strong condemnation! Especially since it comes two verses after a commandment to kill anyone who commits adultry. Of course, if a man rapes a virgin who is *engaged*, then he must be stoned to death. You're not bothered that the punishment for raping an unengaged woman is a mere slap on the wrist compared to "humbling" an engaged one? Does that *really* sound like morality?
@KBrimstone Where does it say in the Bible that raping and torturing an infant for fun is objectively wrong? The Bible never condemns rape, other than to say you have to marry the woman (presumably talking only about adults, but you never know) afterwards.
So if you believe raping and torturing an infant for fun is objectively wrong, you're going to have to explain how you *know* it is.
@Springheel01 Firstly there are so many things wrong with your rebuttal I’m not sure where to start. Firstly The Bible certainly affirms that rape is wrong, more over a small child and for fun at that. Read What Jesus says in Mathew.
Secondly it’s irrelevant to this argument how we come to know moral values. This isn’t an epistemological question (how we know)
Craig either doesn’t understand how something could happen, or instead believes that events happened that confirmed his pre-existing belief system.
In the absence of understanding physical causes or exploring alternatives, this implies evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore there is evidence that God exists.
Nietzschean1000 1 week ago
William Lane Craig is just saying the same bullshit over and over ...Craig began with an attempt to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials by writing a rather meaningless equation on this first slide, which he then argued would be the basis for his ‘evidence’. The equation, in words said that if the probability, given the data, gave one a greater than 50% likelihood for God’s existence, then this was evidence. He even presented this as a pseudo- Bayesian Argument.
Nietzschean1000 1 week ago
What is the value of "absolute moral standards"?
StopSpamming1 1 week ago
in determining mens moral compass, why did god impress it to be ok to have slaves, kill babies, sacrifice people and animals etc.
swann62 2 weeks ago
I enjoy listening to Dr. Craig talk philosophy, but not so much when he turns to theology. How can he say that the Bible doesn't teach creationism? It clearly does so in Genesis 1.
Not only that, but the big bang which he supports is flatly contrary to the creation account that the Bible gives.
terminat1 2 weeks ago
I don't think I've ever seen such a cantankerous attention seeking display as that given by Wolpert here. He seems to abandon all pretense of actually engaging with Craig very early on in the debate and by the point reached in this video he just adopts an incredibly insolent tone and body language, all the while supplying sparse unintelligible explanations of his position. as if to intimidate or humiliate Craig into submission. Pathetic. Craig dominates as per usual.
Vimesisdaman 3 weeks ago
Lewis is simply out matched and tries to joke and indirectly insult his way out. Here near the end Lewis AND the moderator seem to team up on Dr. Craig and beggin a kind of muck slinging. But, always true to form, wlc remained polite and to the point at hand. I don't think he understood a single thing wlc said.
Grinthor86 3 weeks ago
06:00 it really gets me when people accuse animals of being immoral and then use the example of a predator eating it's prey. humans do the same, humans eat other animals, but we torture them their whole life and mutilate and murder them in the most cruel fashion. who the fuck are we to claim a cat eating the only thing it can eat is immoral? humans even treat their own just as bad on a big scale. humans are the least moral creature there is. claiming we have god given moral is ridiculous.
Devoti 1 month ago
This is what I don't understand these two are scientist,philosophers or what have you, educated! men but they don't get what Craig is really saying about morality. He even dumbs it down and explains it many times yet it goes right over there head.
very entertaining I might add by both parties.
meterojinn 1 month ago
humphreys and wolpert don't really "get" morality....
DanYoungMusic 1 month ago
Craig is debating a child.
warezwarrior 2 months ago
Lions kill other lions, They also can copulate by physical force without consent, They often will kill lion cubs and frequently kill animals for sport
FeignofCordor 2 months ago
Props to WLC for calmly sitting through Wolpert's frustrating inconsistency and the moderator's not helping matters.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
I just got bit by a flea
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
I believe in God and say It's foolish to be altruistic
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
In 1567 Fernando de Toledo, Duke of Alva, arrived here with his Spanish soldiers, followed by the Inquisition.
Thousands of protestants were tortured and burned to death on the stake.
A few years later, when the fortunes of war turned, the catholics were tortured and burned by the protestant Geuzen.
Both the inquisition and the Geuzen were convinced they were doing God's work.
Now we aren't so sure that it was god's wish.
It seems objective moral values given by god can change over years..
Spirifiume 4 months ago
Craig's objective morality argument is ridiculous.
wownov83 4 months ago
@wownov83 Saying it is "ridiculous" does not make it ridiculous.
CarlosMarti123 3 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 No, the fact that it's ridiculous makes it ridiculous.
wownov83 3 months ago
Craig was caught far off guard here. Never has he even taken into account the possibility that someone may be so radical as to claim that morals are relative. As entertaining as it was to listen to the candid senility of Professor Wolpert, I was disappointing that he didn't even invest the necessary attention so as to understand that Craig in no way disagrees with contemporary science. That showed a great lack of comprehension of Craig's position.
scar504 5 months ago
I don't like the word 'just'.
AdamOuissellat 5 months ago
I don't get Craig's argument about GOD being the basis for morality. I don't believe in god, therefore I should be immoral. For him to proclaim god is the source for morality (whether we believe in it or not) is just lazy and detracts from his credibility. If Craig wants to prove this point, then he must present an alternate universe where the absence of god leaves an absence of morality.
His morality 'fact' is a nonfalsifiable claim... therefore, it has no validity.
BattleshipAgincourt 6 months ago
'The moderator and Wolpert are either very dim or are being obtuse. What Craig is saying is not difficult to understand.'
You're kidding, right? How can anyone expect to understand a guy who deliberately misrepresents the truth whenever he can? These guys expect reason, getting instead an arrogant asshole making extraordinary claims with no evidence to support it. Obviously these guys aren't going to comprehend Craig because he really has nothing of worth to offer them.
BattleshipAgincourt 6 months ago
@BattleshipAgincourt What is truth?
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII
Truth is that which is true or in accordance with reality. Everything that escapes Craig's lips has some biblical twist to it. He's so deluded to believe a fictional world the bible describes actually existed, and expecting everyone to believe the same crap. So when he spouts off about a bunch of fairy tales... you could imagine why some people can't see any substance in his 'facts'.
Craig's 'argument' only works under the assumption that the bible is true... which is nonsense.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Hmm, how would you know if they are truth or not?
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII
That's a question you should direct at Craig, considering as he's the one making the bogus claim without evidence. He foolishly thinks quoting the bible constitutes evidence, which is the source of his lies. One might as well debate the Force from Star Wars, and it would be equally valid... if not more than Craig's so-called logic.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, if he believes that his assertions are true. What would be the point of asking him? How would you know if the bible is true or not? Do you have evidence against it? I like star wars, but i hope your not setting yourself up for an argument fallacy.
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII
What a person believes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how strongly anyone can manage to convince themselves of anything; it won't change the reality of things. Belief does NOT equal knowledge.
Why the bible isn't based on fact: all available evidence cannot validate that Christ rose from the dead. A STORY about the resurrection does exist, but there's nothing that validates this story as a literal historic event. Craig doesn't know that. There's no way anyone COULD know that.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
Do you know about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Such fictional characters were created in direct response to religion, but they have as much validity to reality as God.
If everyone believed in the FSM, would that make this figment of someone's imagination any more real? Does a person's rejection of evolution make the theory any less valid? Belief is irrelevant, which is why Craig has no case applying what he believes to this debate and proclaiming it as fact.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
@BattleshipAgincourt At a 2000 year old period, what kind of evidence would you think it would take to prove the Resurrection? And how would you know if he did or not? You must have some good evidence that he did not? Right? I must admit, Craig has some really good arguments and he sounds like a great debater.. He might end up giving me a good edge on god.. Hmm
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII
1. Maybe a few miracles by god can at least make Craig's argument viable
2. Insufficient/contradictory evidence to an extraordinary claim
3. His pathetic lack of evidence is sufficient for me to call Craig a liar
4. No, he makes nonfalsifiable claims, dismisses counter evidence, and lies to win his case. That is exactly the opposite of what it takes to win a debate.
5. Craig is a good lawyer, a good liar, but a terrible debater.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, do you really need extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim? And another thing, is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence? I just don't see how you can call him a liar when he has good arguments on these types of debates.. I just saw some other debates from him and it looks like he is well respected by his atheist adversaries. I just saw him destroy Christopher Hitchens, he took his mic off to avoid his screw up lol!
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII
I call him a liar because he shifts the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. Craig presents things which can't be falsified, therefore it's worthless. He might as well burn his PHD in philosophy, because he can't make a case without evidence.
Why Craig generally has the advantage is because he can fall back on the pathetic 'god did it' excuse, whereas he demands unreasonable evidence from his opponents. He is a good lawyer, but there is nothing backing his arguments.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII pt. 2
Craig should be the one presenting evidence, as he's defending the extraordinary claim, yet the bible is his ONLY reference. There are hundreds of books written about the Star Wars universe, but do they ALL make it true? You'd be more likely to prove the Force exists because it's the best explanation for how Master Yoda lifted that X-wing out of the swamp in Empire Strikes Back.
You'd tell me that's stupid, but it's the exact same logic that Craig is using.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, we could keep talking about this all year nonstop.. We all have our opinions and our points of view, these are interesting topics to talk about.. Nevertheless, we must seek truth and answers.. There are no good sides on this.. I should inspect the bible and judge it myself, school should help me out with the rest..
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
@WSSIIWarlordII
That's fine by me. All I ask is that you conduct your own research. Don't take Craig for his word, because his primary objective is always to present the truth to whatever shape best suits his convictions. When WLC or Ray Comfort deliberately misrepresent the truth, they only give nonbelievers that much reason NOT to believe.
If you want believe in god by faith, then that's exactly how it should be; but don't take Craig for his word... base it on proper evidence.
BattleshipAgincourt 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BattleshipAgincourt Well, if he believes that his assertions are true. What would be the point of asking him? How would you know if the bible is true or not? Do you have evidence against it? I like star wars, but i hope your not setting yourself up for an argument fallacy
WSSIIWarlordII 4 months ago
If atheism (the natural materialistic kind) is true, atheist are not amoral, because there are no morals, that's the main point. All life, including people have no relevance, so moral truth is just a delusion that comes from our biology.
kvash3154 6 months ago
John and Lewis both concede the morality point without actually realising it. It's a bit mad.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago 2
This video is so painful to watch. Is it really that hard to understand if objective moral values do not exist than objective moral values do not exist. If that is the case there is nothing objectively wrong about what hitler did. Why is that hard to understand.
mike10121996 6 months ago
In H.G. Wells' "The time machine" Morlocks are humanoids but not moral agents. The Eloi are humanoid moral agents. When the Morlock eats an Eloi, Is it wrong? and for whom is it wrong? in an alternate world, if there were no sentient beings there would be no right and wrong. Had we evolved differently and were we not capable of moral reasoning, turture would be pretty much like the lyon who kills the gacele. The gacele doesnt feel humiliated, abused, opressed, etc. Those are moral feelings.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
Raping and murder are wrong FOR SENTIENT BEINGS. The murderer and the rapist have brain damage, they dont see they're doing any wrong, just as lyons etc. In another world with different evolution, nobody would be able to notice the wrongness of rape, and to a certain extent the wrongness wouldnt exist, because moral values are not metaphysical entities but valuations and feelings of sentient beings.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
I want to konw how Craig knows objective moral values exist. Because all he ever presented was that we all agree and that deep down we all know it. His evidence for their objectivity is a mere human opinion.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@sirdelrio
His evidence was intuition, or more precisely, our own moral experiences. This is a perfectly legitimate method of knowing whether objective morals exists or not . Indeed this is essentially how ethicists do moral philosophy. It's similar in application to how we come to know the objectivity of other things through our sensory experiences.
Christianjr4 6 months ago 4
@Christianjr4 That is not "a perfectly legitimate method of knowing", intuition is personal perception. If you say X is wrong because your intuition tells you, the nazi can say the same thing. Who has found an objective moral ground, you or the nazi? Your intuition is not evidence, i could say my intution tells me electrons and nuclei do not exist, but evidence (experimental measurement) refutes me.
sirdelrio 6 months ago 3
@Christianjr4 What about the argument from moral disagreement or the argument from queerness? These seem to be powerful arguments against the idea that morality is objective. Just look at world cultures. What is "moral" greatly differs from one culture to another. Craig's "God hypothesis" does not account for moral disagreement. A better explanation of this disagreement among nations would be that morality purely subjective.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
@Christianjr4 You've got to understand next to nothing about moral philosophy and ethics if you think that ethicists arrive at moral objectivity through sensory experience and intuition. Besides, we can't get objective moral values from God and certainly not from Yahweh. This is because, as a theist, one must believe that an action is good because God commands it and an action is evil because God forbids it.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@Christianjr4 But, as any reading of the Bible demonstrates, God changes His mind throughout the course of history rather dramatically about what is morally good and what is morally evil. First, stoning a person to death for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16) or for picking up sticks on Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32--36) and burning the prostitute daughters of the priests of Israel (Leviticus 21:9) are commanded by God and therefore must be morally good.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@Christianjr4 Thousands of years later, however, God tells us that only he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. God commanded the cessation of stoning people to death as a form of punishment and therefore stoning a person to death must be morally evil. Suddenly, Leviticus 20:10 is no longer valid. What this means is that, on a theistic view, there is no inherent good or evil in any act. An act only becomes good or evil in virtue of whether God commands or prohibits it.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@Christianjr4 God can tell us at one point that we must put adulterers to death and then change His mind and prohibit us from putting adulterers to death. For the Christian, the act of stoning or carrying out capital punishment in and of itself cannot be inherently good or evil. Indeed, if it is, then the Christian faces a problem: one can then appeal to the inherent reason why capital punishment is good or evil without bothering with the alleged reason-giver.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@Christianjr4 Our intuition and sensory experiences count for nothing. My intuition and experience tell me that stoning a person to death for any crime is morally wrong. But invoking God to say so doesn't help because God Himself has commanded stoning people to death for certain crimes. To say, "Well, it was okay in that time and cultural context" merely begs the question of what kind of conceivable context could justify stoning someone to death for picking up sticks in the woods on a holy day.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@Christianjr4 Thus, the argument that God--and specifically Yahweh--is necessary to ground moral values and principles objectively collapses. All we get from Yahweh are moral principles and values that are here today only to be replaced by completely antithetical moral principles and values a few hundred or thousand years later. If they're always changing according to "historical and cultural context," then they're hardly objective in the first place.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
Wolpert was such a petulant child here.
lexidart 7 months ago 8
@lexidart I agree.
Soul4JC 6 months ago
@lexidart same here
signofthehammer 6 months ago
Where is this moral of God? and how do we even consider them...what god tells is good is good? Why? How do we work together better under this mysterious god moral, when even the same religious denominations can't decided on ANYTHING, and even to do so would not inherently mean what they are contending is gods desires?
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
If I were an atheist, I'd be rather embarrassed while watching this "debate."
justinkeithmorgan 7 months ago 3
@justinkeithmorgan Same. If i did not read the title I would have thought Craig was teaching this two guys
REDRAGON12345 7 months ago
If it weren't for the british accents (which add at least 10 IQ points to anyone), I'd be very worried about their intelligence. (tongue in check of course). I don't quite understand the double mindedness of Dr. Wolpert. There isn't a chance in the world he would think child rape and murder, if were to become advantageous on a grand scale to society, could be morally right.
linebacker5635 7 months ago
Dang, I feel sorry for Craig, it's like he's dealing with two prissy cartoon characters.
Bigjon145 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
craig seems to think that just because morality is due to evolution, that therefore there is no real right and wrong... -_- there IS right and wrong and it evolved along with our brains. he cant seem to accept the fact that morality evolves, and that perhaps theoretically there IS perfect morality apart from god creating it. were evolving towards it. y does it have to be created by an external agent... craig is a dumbass.... :(
nickallah 7 months ago
craig seems to think that just because morality is due to evolution, that therefore there is no real right and wrong... -_- there IS right and wrong and it evolved along with our brains. he cant seem to accept the fact that morality evolves, and that perhaps theoretically there IS perfect morality apart from god creating it. were evolving towards it. y does it have to be created by an external agent... craig is a dumbass.... :(
nickallah 7 months ago
@nickallah actually, most atheist philosophers agree with craig. without god, there is no absolute morality. for example, if morality "evolves" it is ARBITRARY (meaning it changes for each individual, there is no ideal). When there is a God, morality has a solid basis found in God. also, how can we evolve TOWARD perfect morality if it is dependent on the evolutionary construct of whatever is most advantageous? what is child rape becomes advantageous? what if infanticide becomes advantageous?
linebacker5635 7 months ago
@linebacker5635 yes, the smoothest functioning moral values ARE most likely to sustain themselves from generation to generation. child rape is not one of them. what if it does? then it would be a totally different world.
where is this objective morality written? why hasnt god shared this code of conduct? precise code on every issue we face? weve had to rely on ourselves to figure out or (evolve) our moral values up to this point on the human timeline. go back 200yrs and examine our moral values.
nickallah 7 months ago
wolpert exposed craig a little bit this part
nickallah 7 months ago
@nickallah when?
linebacker5635 7 months ago
@linebacker5635 literally the second wolpert opened his mouth, all the way through the entire video
nickallah 7 months ago
I love how the audience begins to applaud when Wolpert says, "As an Atheist I'm not a rapist," and then Craig says, "You're misunderstanding the argument," and the audience almost immediately stops applauding.
Halfturretslicer 8 months ago
@Halfturretslicer
because we live in the world filled with stupid people
JusJuiceIt 8 months ago
Craig is a beast! I like how he torture that old man on stage, lmao!
KevinVang1000 8 months ago
Well, by 11/12 the Brits on this stage have turned cringeworthy, regardless of how specious Craig's pro-theist arguments were before this. Wolpert is simply out of his depth here when it comes to moral philosophy.
MareIngenii 8 months ago
@MareIngenii very much agree with you. I'd much rather see Craig debating a philosopher (he has, and it was much less cringe worthy), but I think he debates scientists for a reason...to show people that these very intelligent men and women (has he debate a woman?) are not gods and do not even come close to answering some of the deeper questions and yearnings human beings have.
linebacker5635 7 months ago
The moderator and Wolpert are either very dim or are being obtuse. What Craig is saying is not difficult to understand.
Dexiclecom 9 months ago 23
@Dexiclecom
It is the lack of integrity Craig permits, that they are confused about. His logic is backwards and it is not accepted to mean anything but conceptual desires, at least until he provides some sort of testable hypothesis to which we can OBJECTIVELY show accurate prediction. Craig seems to think conceptual postulation are objective. Craig is only stating what he wants to prove, and then acting as though he has proven something... It is troubling how many people are falling for this.
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
Im a tad astounded at how Wolpert and Humphreys could'nt grasp the conclusions of the morality issue. Genuinely astounded.
SonOfThomasdd 10 months ago
Craig should've talked about a lion taking over a pride eating a baby lions. They do this so they have supreme control. But he was getting it from both sides and had hardly any time to think.
comeonfolks 10 months ago
Crap!! Wolpert almost made my brain to melt ok: Was wrong what Hitler did? Yes There is right and wrong? No! What the heck he was smoking???
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
there is war in the animal kingdom...... giant wasps will slaughter the bee's in asia for no necessity of their own or for there colony.
remieres 10 months ago
LOLL, I'm a devout Christian .. but i disagree with Craig on his point of Objective Morality. In my eyes, animals without personable spirits show exactly how sin has corrupted human spirits as told by the Bible.
Animals don't usually kill their own kind, and especially not 'for the hell of it' like a lot of humans will, they only do what is necessary to survive. They don't manipulate and conspire.
You can tell he lied about his pet mice lmao, "it was...umm...awful"
zcaz23 10 months ago
@zcaz23 Hmm I would say when a Lion kills off a pile of cubs so that they do not grow to challenge him is conspiring.
SonOfThomasdd 10 months ago
@zcaz23 The point is that animals arent moral agents. This is not a lie. I come from a family that raised chickens and one of things that shocked me was that bigger chickens that were in cages would kill chicks that got inside these cages for no apparent reason. Well the reason might involve competition for food in the cage but I can clearly see that the hen did not even mind her chick being pecked to death.
Also as a fish enthusiast fish also eat their young and we separate aquariums for that
emmthreejonny 8 months ago
that applause at 0:41 to Wolpert's comment "as an atheist I'm not a rapist" sounds like it was made by the last 4 people in the room who were still supporting him and at that point even they gave up. And funny to see Wolpert so desperate for some kudos turning and thanking them for that half-hearted attempt to shore him up
happysappy21 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
boy the atheists sure are quiet on this video
happysappy21 11 months ago
boy the atheists sure are quiet on this video
happysappy21 11 months ago
Wolpert has imcomplete knowledge, he teeny brain does not know when a snake gives birth to lots of its off spring, by natures law they eat thier young... Yet he is acclaimed as a very intelligent man.....Well not in my opinion.
TheJohnskinner 1 year ago 3
This is the funniest debate i have ever seen
7TJBarba 1 year ago
I feel bad for Craig he keeps having to repeat himself
MrMohjong 1 year ago
@MrMohjong I like how Craig keeps presenting false evidence such as saying killing offspring in the animal kingdom is common and present in many species when he only presents ONE case which was caused by starvation.
kuntakentae 1 year ago
@kuntakentae I've raised dogs and can attest that a mother dog will often kill the runt and weakest in order to better provide for the healthier pups. So it is a survival of the fittest. Even some ancient and/or primitive cultures have been known to kill off the weakest in order to better provide for their healthier offspring during a famine. What Craig is asking; is, how can atheism from a strictly naturalistic world view say rather that is absolutely wrong or not?
Krydan2167 11 months ago
@MrMohjong - That tends to happen when you're not making sense ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
The objective morality argument is a silly non-sequitur. If God exists, what's good and bad is still his subjective opinion, which is informed by what he values. "Good" and "bad," are labels we use to express the merit or lack thereof of something. There is also no objective beauty either, but that doesn't mean that you can't say that your wife is beautiful. When Craig says that Wolpert's arguments aren't persuasive, that's a subjective value judgment. That's how moral judgments work too, Craig.
reasonformirrors 1 year ago
What makes Craig assume evolution is anywhere near through with us? In another billion years, if we don't kill each, a completely different creature will roam this planet. Maybe even with their own gods...
setmedic 1 year ago
nice of you to censor the comments as well. Something you wont see on any atheist channel I might add. I wonder why.
Brushles83 1 year ago
@Brushles83 I don't wonder why at all. Many channels of atheistsare comprised of clusters of atheists smiling and patthing each other on the back with hands clutching logical fallacies. There is no discussion, and there is no respect for people who hold other views - which, at least is consistant with the atheist view in denying objective morality. So I guess whilst the behaviour is disrespectful and shameful, it is, consistant with what we find elsewhere in atheist circles.
DigitalDecadence 1 year ago
Wolpert for the win, easy. He's actually attempting to explain things from a simple scientific basis upon which he is correct in every aspect and he's doing it with a bit of wit and humour as well. Unfortunately you religious people just don't get it.
Brushles83 1 year ago
@Brushles83 I'm sorry but Wolpert has, on many occasions, simply said, "No!" as an answer. I think you may find that that doesn't refute or even go a distance to answer an argument. I like Wolpert, but I'm afraid he is completely out of his depth here. Craig is teaching them both philosophy and logic as he makes his arguments, it's amazing to watch. :>
DigitalDecadence 1 year ago
Ageofreason, give me a couple days to respond to you. I don't have the time right now.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
How can that babbling idiot Wolpert go on for so long. His objection to the moral argument is just a confusion between epistemology and ontology. It is the fact that atheists feel like they should be moral that proves that atheists can not be consistent. Atheists shouldn't have to be moral, ifg atheism is true, but they are.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy right. how dare atheists not go along with theists' expectations? why be moral if no one will reward you for your goodness or punish you for your badness, right? surely, there's no other reason to be moral. caring about others without God's orders (and heavenly rewards)? screw that! so atheists must be "inconsistent" when acting morally, because what's in it for them? I mean if I was an atheist I couldn't be moral, so how could they? yeah, they've gotta be missing something..
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI You make the same mistake Wolpert made. The argument isn't about the "belief" in morality, it is about the ontological foundation of morality. However, if atheism is true, why do anything that could harm yourself? Obviously it is false that you can do whatever. However, this means theism is true. If God does not exist, then objective moral values don't. They do, therefore, God exists.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy " If God does not exist, then objective moral values don't."
I'm not sure you know what 'objective' means- independent of anyone's opinion. so if moral values are dependent on God's opinion, or existence, they're, by definition, subjective (to Him). case closed.
the only view where moral truths are objective, which means they're necessary truths such as mathematical truths (therefore independent of God) is Moral Realism, adopted by many atheists and theists alike
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Morality is no depedent on God's mentail states. Rather, he is by nature loving, just, kind, indeterminate of his mental states. Moral realism is absurd. What does it mean to say that "The good" exists, independent of a description? Even if it did, how would we know these values which are causally disconnected from us. Lastly, what is the probability that we would evolve the correct moral absolutes?
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy Imagine telling her that her being raped is only wrong when God exists. Doesn’t the most obvious response seem: ‘what does God has to do with anything?’
And what does your objection ‘getting away with it if not caught’ has to do with the discussion? Now if God’s role is solely as a policeman, fine, but that’s not what you’re arguing. Besides if you’re a Christian, you believe that a person CAN get away with anything, all s/he has to do is repent and accept Jesus as his/her
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy (cont.) personal savior. If actions (rather than beliefs) are punished/ rewarded then there’s no need for Christ, and Christianity disappears.
To say that God is ‘good by nature’ means you’re logically committed to an independent standard by which this makes sense (not talking about semantics here). Otherwise you’re creating an empty tautology: god is good bc god is good. In other words, just as saying “something is hot” presupposes an independent standard for what hot is
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy (cont.) and this something’ cannot itself be that standard, “God is good” presupposes such an independent standard. Without it, His commands are arbitrary: whatever God commands, is defined as good. Why is this so hard to understand that?
I concede that IF God exists, he exists necessarily (which is what Craig says as well). The problem is that this means there are possible worlds where God doesn't exist, and since, on your view, He makes something wrong, rape is fine,
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy (cont.) which seems absurd. Hense God is not the reason why it's wrong but as you yourself wrote-- the harm it causes. and as pointed out, this doesn't depend on God in any way: if causing harm is wrong when God exists, then it's wrong when He doesn't exist as well. I don't see why anyone would argue otherwise
Finally, you’ve misunderstood Moral Realism in that It doesn’t hold that moral truths exist in a platonic sense. but I don’t have space or time to elaborate here
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
Harm/pain is not always morally wrong. A woman in labor or getting a broken bone set hurts a great deal, but there's nothing evil about that.
SycrosD4 1 year ago
@SycrosD4 You need to read Genesis 3:16. A woman having pain due to labour is a DIRECT result of evil.
(Read it before replying.)
rexy5 11 months ago
@rexy5
What's your point?
SycrosD4 11 months ago
@lifeandphilosophy the view that morality is somehow dependent on God leads to the absurdity that rape, murder, torture is only wrong when God exists. and if it turns out that God doesn't exist, then raping a person would be fine, simply because God isn't there to prohibit against it! Do you serioisly believe that?
If you do, then you're essentially conceding that the HARM inflicted is not what makes such actions wrong (which is the ontological basis for their wrongness), but something else!
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Yes, but because God exists necessarily(on my view) it is impossible for rape to be wrong. And if God did not exist, if someone could get away with it, why shouldn't someone rape? Of course it is necessarily wrong, but that is why this argument provides evidence for God.
I do concede thaty harming someone is wrong. But why is it wrong on your view?
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy so you think that God has some reason for his prohibition against, say, torture OTHER than the fact the it causes harm, misery, etc.? and what could it be? and would you accept it as a serious answer if God told you that the suffering inflicted by torture has nothing to do with the reason why it is wrong? bc if the harm & suffering is the ontological basis for the wrongness of an action then God couldn't be its author, he could only recognise it.
so could we, without him
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI God's reason is that people have interinsic moral worth and shouldn't be harmed. However, on atheism, I fail to see how humans posses authentic, mind-indepedent worth. God is good by nature. His commands flow necessarily out of his nature. He is still the stoppoing point on this view.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy You concede that the reason why it’s wrong to rape, murder, etc. is because it causes harm, suffering (that’s the ontological basis!), but you try to tie this reason to God by saying He provides some intrinsic worth. So, according to you, your daughter, say, has moral worth only when God exists? Her feelings, emotions, reasoning faculties, etc. are less valuable if there’s no God to somehow “make” them valuable? That’s strikes me as nonsense
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
the moderator is also a complete idiot.
othellopiano 1 year ago
@othellopiano why? because he concluded with Wolpert's contention that religion is a comfort blanket and Craig had the look of a silly child on his face that has just been spanked? hahha
despite the fact that Woplert is not a pro debater like Craig, he did an excellent job exposing Craig utter ignorance of evolutionary biology! and it's funny to watch Craig readily endorse scientific theories when that suits him, and dismiss darwinian evolution in spite of its universal acceptance by scientists
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
The debate was not over the coherence of evolution. If you disagree with Craig, you probably should disagree with his stance within the debate. For example, you wouldn't say that you have refuted Craig by pointing out a grammatical flaw in his speech.
othellopiano 1 year ago
@othellopiano well I disagree with Craig, but here I was merely pointing out his dishonesty: he regularly endorses scientific theories that suit his case, mainly in cosmology, and yet when it comes to Darwinian evolution, where there's an overwhelming consensus among scientists (much more so compared to the consensus for any Big Bang model), Craig has "scientific" doubts! he's either ignorant or disingenous. for someone with his erudition, I have no doubt it's the latter.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
Well I am not sure where you have heard of Dr. Craigs thoughts on evolution. He merely would assert that God had a hand in evolution. Which has nothing to do with what science says.
othellopiano 1 year ago
@othellopiano Craig asserts that left on its own devise random mutations and natural selection could never produce humans. He quotes physicists(!) Barrow & Tipler that there're 10 steps in human evolution, each of which so improbable that the Sun would've burned out before they could take place
Of course any evolutionary biologist would dismiss that as nonsense. Craig realizes that so he insists that the consensus among biologists is not due to evidence, you see, but a philosophical disposition
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
When did he say that "random mutations and natural selection could NEVER produce humans" ? If I remember correctly he merely points out the ridiculous numbers of improbability.
othellopiano 1 year ago
@othellopiano right. so according to him natural selection couldn't have done the job. at which point any reputable evolutionary biologist would call him on his ignorance, just as Wolpert did. Craig seems to be taken in by Behe's bogus arguments (because it suits him, othewise I can't see why he would dismiss the overwhelming consensus among biologists and bet on a biochemist's religiously inspired work), which have been thoroughly debunked
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgeOfReasonXXI
"so according to him natural selection couldn't have done the job."
ehh no, I don't think he would say "could not".
The argument from design simply combines improbability with a pattern. that's it.
othellopiano 1 year ago
@othellopiano
The moderator's an okay guy. Not the best one I've seen but okay. Craig must have had some pain dealing with these guys. They completely miss his points on a regular basis.
SycrosD4 1 year ago 31
@SycrosD4 Hell yeah! These fuckin faggots & atheists can get off my planet, kkfhx. Christ died for them and this is how they repay Him?
They'll get what they deserve when the go to burn in Hell; just too bad our socialist government won't expedite the trip.
ExaltedLeader 6 months ago
@ExaltedLeader how christian of you. you hypocrit.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
I feel bad for Craig in this debate. He got paired with someone that is entirely philosophically ignorant. This is worse than the debate he had with Shook.
wow, i'm sure there HAS to be some atheists out there that recognize that this Wolpert did a HORRIBLE job.
othellopiano 1 year ago 2
these two british are so stupid....what an embarrasement
kdd1228 1 year ago
WLC on moral values was destoyed.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
@shashintokyo how was he destroyed...he in fact illustrated that atheism offers no absolute morality. so nobody is wrong unless they go against societal "trendiness". So was it wrong for the rest of the world to interfere in Hitler's corner of the world? if we are all correct by moral standards of the societal norm than the rest of the world was in fact bullies for moving into germany to expunge Hitler.
I personally believe there IS an overarching objective morality that all of us can detect.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Destroyed simply because his argument fails. He (again) asserts that something exists (there can be no morality without god) without the slightest evidence for his assertion. Morality is easily explained by evolutionary necessity, no god required.
Your statement about Hitler would be one I disagree with, it was quite appropriate that societal norm was sickened by the actions of Hitler.
I can see that you believe that but believe without evidence does not make something true.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
@shashintokyo he asserts that morality exists...that assertion is shared by all sides of philosophical outworkings of any credo whether atheist, agnostic or theist!!!
"Morality is easily explained by evolutionary necessity, no god required" only subjective morality then.
"Your statement about Hitler would be one I disagree with" what do you disagree with?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat I never denied that morality exists. It does. Yes it's subjective. So what? Craig never proved that objective morality exists, he just (once again) asserts it and ergo, so god exists. Failed logic.
I disagree that the rest of the world acting to expunge Hitler makes the rest of the world bullies.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shashintokyo i think you are examing only part of his entire platform of ideas on the subject (which is easily asserted as wrong or even presumptuous).
"I disagree that the rest of the world acting to expunge Hitler makes the rest of the world bullies."
Though where do you derive the idea that the world didn't act like a group of bullies?
Why is Hitler wrong & your sense of moral values right?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
This must be the dummest opponnent that Craig has ever debated. He doesn't even understand the arguments being made. I like the Craig/Dacey debate because Dacey really is an intelligent atheist that really does understand the arguments put forth.
99percentatheist 1 year ago
Craig: "when a lion kills a zebra.."
Wolpert: "what about when you kill you turkey?"
Craig: "fine use that example..."
craggie, my boy, he just showed how stupid you analogy is, but your rotten brain just didn't get it, did it
AgeOfReason21 1 year ago 3
@AgeOfReason21 Wow. I guess that whole exchange flew over head didn't it.
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone "whole exchange flew over head didn't it" now I'm not sure whether you agree or not. the point I was making is that craig used the example to show the neutrality of such action on atheism, yet according to him on theism a man killing a turkey is also a morally neutral act. so ironically craig just showed that on theism man is no more a moral agent that on atheism
AgeOfReason21 1 year ago
@AgeOfReason21It did fly over your head! The point was why is killing a human muder and not a turkey on the atheist world view. Why aren't ALL act of killing morally neutral?
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone "The point was why is killing a human muder and not a turkey on the atheist world view. Why aren't ALL act of killing morally neutral?"
for the same reason they're not morally neutral on theism. you see no difference between yourself and a turkey? and are you suggesting that God you deem killing humans morally wrong for any other reason than the (ultimate) harm it inflicts? if not, then this reason is independent from God. if yes, what could that reason be? just bc He says so? or?
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@KBrimstone you ever wondered why 93% of the most elite scientists in the U.S.(NAS) are atheists? here you see that the compatibility between science and religion is just a myth- all of these scientists are atheists BECAUSE of their scientific knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality! so the more you know about the Universe the more likely you are to see how ridiculous religious doctrines are, and become an atheist. And the best scientists (worldwide) are a perfect example of that
AgeOfReason21 1 year ago
It is you who misunderstands the limitation of science. There many things that science can't prove that we are rational to believe. It's funny you mention scientists. Right now there is a movement happening in the feild of philosophy. Most of the top philosophers in anglo- american achidemia are confessed Christian Theists. This topic we are disscussing is a metaphysical one not a scientific one. Science has little to no place here.
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone it's not about what we're rational to believe, it's about what is true. and the only reliable method in understanding objective reality is the scientific method! (or do you know of another?) it doesn't matter how many philosophers are theists (they are in the minority anyway). philosophy is speculative by nature, once a philosophical speculation is supported by enough evidence it invariably becomes part of science. and by far most scientists, including 93% of NAS, are nonbelievers.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Infanticide goes on all the time in the animal kingdom......WLC
LOL
Mrstarman3 1 year ago 2
@Mrstarman3 I know.. he is a moron.
drnekodr 1 year ago
@Mrstarman3 Sure does have you studied a how Sharks kill their young?
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone
No, infanticide DOES NOT go on all the time in the animal kingdom.
WLC only proves how very little he knows about biology. Your ability to cite an find an obscure example would prove nothing.
Mrstarman3 1 year ago 4
@Mrstarman3 Wow. You are quibling over samantics. The point is when infanticide does happen in the animal kingdom like in the case of mouse or shark is it morally wrong?
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone Dealing in absolutes as always.. what circumstances led said animal to ingest its young?.. the real world is not black and white. Mice will eat their young when under stress and they have good reason to. Sharks are not capable to distinguish between their young and any other fish as they have very poor vision. Lack of knowledge does not make your arguments any more sound.
drnekodr 1 year ago
@drnekodr Sigh. Now you being naive here. Do animals murder, steal and rape? When a hyena takes the carcass from a vulture does it steal? When a a baboon male kills another baboon male does it murder? Why can't you just answer the question?
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone and again you are lumping things into absolute categories like a child. Things are not cut and dry, black and white. Theists want to lump all things into neat little boxes, there are NO absolutes. No I would not call it murder (again you are showing a lack of zoological understanding but whatever), no I would not call it stealing, are you stealing milk from a cow? Honey from bees? Why can you steal from this animals? Its childish.
drnekodr 1 year ago 3
@drnekodr Okay. So when an animal kills it's not murder. Why then is it murder or rape when the animal called human does it? There are no absolutes huh? Is it absolute that are no absolutes or sometimes there are absolutes?
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone No. I'm not 'quibling' over 'samantics' WLC clearly stated a biological falsehood. Again, infanticide does not occur all the time in the animal kingdom.
The vast majority of animals do not attack their own young, for obvious reasons.
WLC has displayed the stereotypical Christian ignorance of biology and animal behavior.
Mrstarman3 1 year ago
@Mrstarman3 It's irrelevant. The point that Dr. Craig was making was when animals do kill it isn't morally wrong. Because they aren't moral agents. "all the time" is relative. I repeat the rate at which animals do these acts is irrelevant to the case William Lane Craig was making for objective moral values. So I'll ask again; do animals kill their young? Yes or No.
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@Mrstarman3 Indeed, sharks have extremely poor vision and cannot tell their young from a salmon. Mice have good reason to eat their young when under stress. They want to make the world black and white.. two choices.. the world does not work like that. Its childish.
drnekodr 1 year ago
@drnekodr But you do agree that WLC's statement about animal infanticide is spit-take worthy. KBrimstone is desperately trying to defend it with obscure examples.
Mrstarman3 1 year ago
@Mrstarman3 I agree with you 110%,
drnekodr 1 year ago
@drnekodr Wow this is intellectually shallow. The point you are missing by miles is; Are animals moral agents? Do they steal, murder, rape, and covet? These are clearly philosophical questions.
KBrimstone 1 year ago
Craig uses the "objective morality" argument all the time. But how do we establish what "objective morality" is? Does Craig have a list of what God has established as "objectively wrong"? If he does, then he has to defend its veracity. If he does not, then he is just relying on "what the majority agrees on", which functions just the same whether God exists or not.
Springheel01 1 year ago 3
@Springheel01 Objective morality comes from an objective standard, i.e. the revelation of the Bible. Since atheists have no such standard, the have no basis for an objective value system. That is what WC is trying to communicate to the seemingly obtuse LW.
mmarley 1 year ago
@mmarley The Bible is a pretty poor source for establishing "objective morality", as it does not condemn actions like rape or slavery. How does Craig know that rape is "objectively wrong"?
Springheel01 1 year ago
@Springheel01 From the scripture! The Bible specifically condemns sexual sin and related violence. Consider the mandate in Deut 22: 25-28 and the rape of Tamar in 2 Sam 13. Please research before making further assertions. Slavery, which was (and is) practiced worldwide is restrained and regulated by the law eventually leading to freedom for the enslaved. Remember, slavery to sin is the worst kind of bondage.
mmarley 1 year ago
@mmarley You mean the verse that says a man who rapes a virgin must pay her father and then marry her? Wow, that's a strong condemnation! Especially since it comes two verses after a commandment to kill anyone who commits adultry. Of course, if a man rapes a virgin who is *engaged*, then he must be stoned to death. You're not bothered that the punishment for raping an unengaged woman is a mere slap on the wrist compared to "humbling" an engaged one? Does that *really* sound like morality?
Springheel01 1 year ago
@Springheel01
Is raping and torturing an infant for fun obejectively wrong?
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone Where does it say in the Bible that raping and torturing an infant for fun is objectively wrong? The Bible never condemns rape, other than to say you have to marry the woman (presumably talking only about adults, but you never know) afterwards.
So if you believe raping and torturing an infant for fun is objectively wrong, you're going to have to explain how you *know* it is.
Springheel01 1 year ago
@Springheel01 Firstly there are so many things wrong with your rebuttal I’m not sure where to start. Firstly The Bible certainly affirms that rape is wrong, more over a small child and for fun at that. Read What Jesus says in Mathew.
Secondly it’s irrelevant to this argument how we come to know moral values. This isn’t an epistemological question (how we know)
KBrimstone 1 year ago
@KBrimstone "The Bible certainly affirms that rape is wrong"
Show me where the Bible condemns rape (other than the Duet verses I already mentioned). I can show you several where God specifically condones it.
Springheel01 1 year ago