Morality doesn't require theism - simply a real basis for existence of value - The idea that objective value cannot exist without God - cannot find any argument -
@thethikboy well if there is no rule maker or creator or purpose or reson to liove why should people get nagry at me if say i want to go and shoplift a whole load of new clothes? What if i want some nice nike air trainers but i can not be asked to pay for them.I nick them and save money so whats the problem? why is it wrong to steal? says who? lol society? Fuck society, we all heading to the ground to be buried 6 feet right? well fuck soceity and man because life is to short.
Glory of itself? Where dis I say that? Don´t put your words in my mouth. Evolucionism is a name gave from scientists to a natural process, a toy of the nature in question. And nuclear phisicists, today, are estill lost trying to find a particle that can explain everything. Let´s wait. Have a good day.
The biggest problem with many theists is their inability separate atheism from a kind of belief. Craig's "ah theism" retort is an example of this. The a- prefix is greek meaning 'without'. Just as asexual means without sexuality, and apolitical means without interest in politics, atheist (without theism) means without a belief in god. Not a belief that there is not god. Until they understand this theists cannot begin to understand an atheist's argument.
@svenypoodles Oddly enough, atheists also seem to misunderstand the meaning of atheism. They seem to think that the only meaning is the meaning they hold as true. Which is of course false. Philosophically speaking, atheism is the view or position that god does not exist. This definition can be found in pretty much any dictionary or encyclopedia of philosophy. As a philosopher, that is the definition that Dr. Craig uses.
@crlsjvrm No its doesn't mean that. What you are describing is a gnostic atheist. Dictionaries have also defined the word atheist to mean "without morals", they don't define words but give common usage for the time.
Just as a dictionary may describe "theory" as a rough idea. But when you're talking about a "theory" in the context of science its meaning takes on a new role.Thus talking in the context of theism the correct def. should be used and not a bastardised colloquial definition.
@crlsjvrm It's worth noting that u will find very few atheists who are gnostic when it comes to the general principle of gods existence, altho you might find someone who is about a particular god. If we get rid of the concept of absolute knowledge i'd say i'm as certain as i can be that the god of the bible doesn't exist, this is largely due to the contradicting nature of many of his claimed attributes, which make his existence logically impossible (eg he gives us freewill but knows the future)
"Until they understand this theists cannot begin to understand an atheist's argument"
Exactly. But for Craig, this quibbling over definitions is simply part of his rhetorical game. It allows him to argue with a strawman insteand of his actual opponent.
One of the great ironies is that the very term "atheist" was, for centuries, used to describe Christians - after all, they didn't believe in the deity or deities that the dominant Roman & Greek cultures believed in.
Hitchens introduces a myriad of facts from years of study while Craig can only mouth the exact same inanities over & over again ..and then over & over again . . Craig at the end can barely stand up , his voice cracking terribly & almost falls to his knees getting back to his chair . Hitchens was even being really gentle with him , the poor wretch ...
@Treadlightlyful I KNOW RIGHT! I love Hitchens' facts! Like attacking mother Theresa! Or saying he can take any moral action any theist can. Or suggesting the audience they get their cheeks swabbed to see what part of Africa they came from. Oh, my favorite was when he educated the audience on who Darwin's bulldog was, now known as Darwin's pitbull. See, I know that thanks to Hitch! The one that almost sent Craig to his knees was when Hitch talked about the near mass extinction of humans.
@Treadlightlyful The one that got Craig's voice to crackle was when Hitch told him atheism wasnt even a world view and shouldn't even need a word to describe the lack of faith! I particularly liked that one because that form of atheism doesn't try to draw near the truth,since it's not a position, its not a world view. Hitch hit the nail on the head when he said atheists can be moral without god. But yeah, Hitch was being gentle with Craig because he didn't even address any of Craig's arguments!
They call it schizophrenia when you kill yourself while you are praying to yourself not to kill yourself. Jesus, son and father of Jesus, prayed to himself not to kill himself and then ignored his prayers and the prayers of his father and his son and killed himself like crazy in any event. And we have had cross dressers ever since....amzing !
Atheists are blind to undeniable truth that the universe carries an intelligent principle which manifests itself in nature. This is a property inherent to the universe and produces intelligence. So, this principle necessarily acts at all times in all places and beings because it is part of the universe. No one may be immune to its action. To ignore or deny this evidence is like being in a pool and imagine that you are not getting wet or that no one sees you are wet. Something like that.
@gorlagster so are you defining evolution at its glory? By the way, we don't actually get wet as we never interact with any particle. It is a matter of gravity and friction on a subatomic scale.
@thethikboy Well according to your beliefs he would come to find that he was wrong in death.... however the billions of men/women/children sent to hell without ever having heard of Jesus Christ or the revelation, past and present..... they couldn't know they were wrong. In your universe, the innocent are damned for eternity.... therefore I reject your universe and your God.... fore they are contemptible.
atheists have this conspiracy theory that because there so many gods they must all be false and made up by man for political gain or lack of understanding of reality.What if there are so many gods because one God does exist?.The God, the one and only ever lasting God who is eternal and the creator of time and space and all that exists within it.Maybe juts maybe the other gods of false gods and idols are rip offs to take you away for the one true God.The God if the jews christians and muslims.
@Yrhp8268 I actually highly respect Hitchens' intellect, but he looked so out-of-character and not his usual self...I was quite surprised. I've never seen him stall, trip over his own words, and go off on tangents like that.
stall?? worse?? hmmmm.. The tragedy is that I am the first to correct you while three others have given you a thumbs up. I think you meant worst. Does this inaccuracy illuminate your lack of education or your lack of attention to detail? Both perhaps? Hitchens was not stalling. You were defectively extrapolating. Hitchens could've written a book on correcting the fallacious arguments propagated here by Craig. He needed more time, not less. Stalling is not what he does.
@pancakepuddle He was stalling actually. Prior to him coming unwired, Craig kept pressing Hitchens on wether Hitchens thought god existed or not. Hitchens kept evading the question. Thrice Craig had to press him to answer the goddamn question. We all knew what Craig was getting at. He wanted to see if Hitchens would affirm the nonexistence of god, and then ask Hitchens what arguments he had for such affirmation. Finally when Hitchens affirmed the nonexistence of god, Craig says [continued]
@pancakepuddle [continuation] " Ok, so you do affirm then that God does not exist. Now, what I want to know and and do you have any justification for that?"
And since your good ol' pal Hitchens had NO justification, he "came unwired" he was a joke, and you are a joke. Hitchens could have written books correcting Craig's fallacious arguments? Please! He didn't say a single word to address any of Craig's arguments. Craig has written books on those arguments, all he did was give a brief sketch here
If you understood debate tactics and were skilled in identifying logical fallacies you would have no option but to concede my points. Craig initiated a deluge of fallacious arguments. If Hitchens addressed all of Craigs arguments he would've had no time to establish his own points. Craig was attempting to control the debate in this way. The burden of proof still lies at the feet of the faithful. Craig pulled this same scheme in his debate with Harris. Do your homework.
@pancakepuddle Well, since apparently I am not skilled in identifying logical fallacies, then perhaps you can point out to me Craig's fallacies. How about it champ? You want to show me how each of his 4 arguments are fallacious? Now you say if Hitchens decided to reply to Craig's arguments he wouldn't have time for his own. Funny because Craig had time to develop his arguments, and reply to what ever garbage Hitchens said. Anyway, I am more interested in hearing the fallacies, so go for it!
Reductio ad absurdum is littered throughout Craig's pseudoscience-laden diatribe. His debate tactics were deplorable. "Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience. He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; The fact that such tricks often work is a real weakness of the debate format" -Harris. Find The God Debate on Harris's website. He outlines the issues in his blog.
@pancakepuddle Oh! I see, so you want me to go and read the biased opinion of Harris? I think I'll do just that then. Thank you. Also, thanks for pointing out the fallacies in Craig's arguments. You know, saying stuff like "redictio ad absurdum is littered throughout Craig's pseudoscience-laden diatribe" doesn't do ANYTHING to point out the reductio ad absurdum. You just asserted that his speech is littered with it, but didn't actually give an examples. You really need to try harder than this!
@crlsjvrm craigs argument for why god waited so long to put humans on earth is flawed. his answer was "god has unlimited resources and unlimited time" . where does he get that conclusion? Just because his god created the universe doesnt mean it has ulimited time and unlimited resources. hes taking a major leap of faith to assume these are qualities of god. He also states that god doesn't need causation? where is the evidence for the god that has these qualities?
@floorkillacris Craig doesn't have an argument for god waiting so long. Craig was merely replying to a question raised by his opponent. You should learn the difference between the two. As to "where does he get that conclusion?" I think it is obvious. If god is eternal, then he has unlimited time. If mass and energy are conserved like our thermodynamic laws say they are, then god has unlimited resources. As for god needing causation, notice that the causation principle deals with things which
@floorkillacris begin to exist. Being an eternal being, god does not have a beginning, therefore god does not need a cause. It is really inductive logic that is being used there, that's all. As for "where is the evidence for the god that has these qualities" again it is inductive reasoning. God created the universe, and as the cause of it, he preceded the universe therefore god lacks all of the properties observed in the universe, so he is timeless, immaterial, spaceless etc.
@floorkillacris I am not religious but one could argue because he is"omnipotent" and such and such that he has abundant amount of time and resource as well. Hes god for crying out loud, they can fantasize about him which ever way they want that's the point of religion. cough* oops lost a bit of sanity there.
@blah1311 If religion wants to debate science it needs to stop making stuff up. What i was getting at is that craigs argument is flawed BECAUSE he assumes god to have infinite time ect. Lets assume god did create the universe and we are the evidence of that.. he cant then go on to assume that god is timeless and has unlimited resources. Where is the evidence for that? He cant get away with saying his god is a causeless entity with no evidence whatsoever.
@floorkillacris well why the fuck would the creator not be timeless?? You cant prove your belief and he cant prove his but guess what hawk eye, that is why they are called BELIEFS.You get me blud? Something always had to exist, maybe that something is the creator and then people will say but who created the creator.Well maybe the creator was not created because God IS the creator.The creator OF the universe, so he has explaned the questions you have.A creator created the creation.
@crlsjvrm ohh and craig talks about hitchens's presuppositions pre-determine the outcome of his findings. If god is true we should be able to demonstrate him without the need of assuming him at the start of an argument but that is EXACTLY what craig does. The reason hitchens assumes a naturlistic view is because there is no testable, demonstrable evidence for the existence of god AND the all of science including evolution of universe and life can be explained WITHOUT a god
@crlsjvrm "perhaps you can point out to me Craig's fallacies."
After Hitchens addressed the fine-tuning argument, Craig claimed that the argument remained unrefuted because when we're all destroyed, christians will go to Heaven. Was the universe created and fine-tuned just for christians? Why didn't god just create heaven in the first place and fill it with christians made from the dirt on the ground?
@freatork1 Oh hi there, nice of you to not reply to anything I said earlier. What happened there, buddy? Notice that Craig didn't say that in reply to Hitchens addressing the fine tuning argument. Hitchens says that the universe isn't fine tuned since it is heading towards destruction. Craig's reply was, well is a car not designed just because it is also bound to fail? So you can't judge the design of something just because something will eventually fail. That in no way is refuting the argument
@freatork1 and of course, that isn't showing an argument to be fallacious either. Which is quite odd since you quote me saying "perhaps you can point out to me Craig's fallacies" but never really did so yourself. How odd...
@pancakepuddle but atheists have faith to, you are master skeptics and evolution itself is based on religous assumptions apart from micro evolution wich is simply a variation.Both the thesist and the atheist have faith but the theist is open in saying this is a belief.Why do you want people to prove a belief? if you know then how can you believe?.How can there be faith and spirituality if you see the creator physically? Maybe you can not see God witth the physical senses for a good reason.
I could retort with the same response. Bravo for resorting to ad homenim by the way. You can demonstrate your true colors magnificently all on your own. I clearly need not point anything out. I stand corrected.
@SuperMrAtheist I know right! I loved it when Hitchens demolished his argument by attacking mother theresa! Oh, and when he was telling us about Darwin's bulldog too. That one destroyed Craig's arguments. Or when he suggested the audience they get their cheeks swabbed to see what part of Africa they came from. Or when he said he can be moral without god. How about when he gave his own definition of atheism? That one put Craig in his place! Completely destroyed his Kalam with that one!
I love how the duplicitous Craig rants on improbability and then proceeds to profess/defend faith in the infinitely absurd and improbable proposal(s) of Christianity. This man is either a liar or the personification of cognitive dissonance. What a buffoon. The morons at Biola are cheering like they're at a football game... This is classic.
The stupidest thing that Craig says (paraphrasing) : "Who are we to judge that Nazism was wrong etc, without God."
It's a bit fucking obvious isn't it?
Even Godless monkeys would understand genocide.
If one group of monkeys rounded up another species of monkeys and decided to beat them to death one by one. I believe the victim monkeys would think: hold on a minute, this aint right, what are you Nazi monkey bastards doing to my friends. it's on like Donkey Kong now motherfuckers!
Is it just me or do Christian audiences always have this stupid look about them? I don't mean to be a dick & it's a superfical statement I know, but they always come across as dopey in appearance.
Craig obviously is well educated, a good speaker & has a decent vocab. Although his actual arguments are vacuous in nature.
His use of intellectual sounding words disguises his baseless assertions. The audience thinks to themselves: "He sounds smart, therefore he must be right!" That's IMO anyway.
How can there be a study of the resurrection of Jesus as Craig says?
How does one calculate the probability of a dead guy 2012 years ago moving a giant rock from his tomb & walking around for a while. Based on witness testimony.
Is this guy the best they can come up with?
His main argument is: I make an unfounded statement based on no evidence & if you don't refute that with absolute unequivocal proof then I am right.
It's up to Craig him to prove God's existence, not the other way around
Craig said God revealed Jesus at an ideal time in history. Why the fuck would God do this at a time when the technology was primitive & ppl were unable to record Jesus' "miracles". Imagine Jesus walking on water & changing water to wine etc on youtube & the news: how many atheists would deny that?
For an omnipotent being, it's not a well thought out plan.
If Jesus were to be born tomorrow, lived his life, healed the sick & came back to life. Every person on the planet would be a Christian.
I'm an atheist & a fan of Hitchens, but I think this was not his finest 2 hours. He didn't answer several of the arguments made by his opponent, while Craig stuck to the arguments he laid out throughout and while I think many of Craig's arguments were flawed & hardly objective, he did argue his position methodologically. Craig had obviously prepared well for the debate & Hitchens seems to have been winging it, which left Hitchens looking less credible, despite holding the most credible position.
@citizenghosttown "He didn't address Craig's Cosmological argument but I think he covered all of the others."
No, Hitchens actually missed every one of them. He took a few blows at the resurrection argument, but I think Craig explained the misunderstanding Hitchens had when dealing with it. He tried to reply to the moral argument, but it was clear Hitchens had no idea what the moral argument even was.
It is sad to see how little can theists say about their beliefs and we can clearly see it in every one of Craig's rebuttals, it is like hearing his introduction statement over and over again, whilst Hitchens can so eloquently and brilliantly answer every one of his points and Craig refuses to pay attention to anything Hitchens says, that's what is truly depressing about religion, that for some people, it is so easy to believe in religion having so little arguments for their beliefs.
@asolony Xtianity is sentimental darwinism, not a bonafide religion. Christianity is not meant for your upliftment, but for your enslavement. Christians are not much different from atheists that dont practice some form of yoga or meditation. Both are meat eaters, both are superficial yet sophisticated animals. Isnt it a downright shame that your tax money goes to assist the Catholic church in its village bombing campaigns. Christians and their atheistic counterparts both suck cock.
Do Our Values Come from God? The Evidence Says No .Moral instinct itself is rooted in the laws of nature (Physics) via the working of the brain. Morality is latent in the laws of nature. It finds expression through the process of evolution... latest physics offers many refutations of the Argument of Design . The one thing is certain that whatever the ultimate reality is , is far stranger than anything as simple as a creator that primitive men dreamed up .
It's hysterical to me that WLC scoffs at the purported "lack of evidence" for multiple universes. Yes, an all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent constructor of every intricate detail of the unfathomably large universe is far, far more likely. Fucking loon.
@ArcheryWarlock Me too. Part of it stems from the fact that Craig said absolutely nothing that approaches sense and Hitchens took it to mean it was obvious he is correct and didn't bother responding. Part of it might also have been that nothing Craig said was new so why speak it it again? Of course, I wish he would have said "one cannot prove a negative." Just outright and concisely because that was essentially the argument used over and over against him.
"i am a bit dissapointed that christopher didnt respond to most of W.L.C's claims."
He specifically responded to Craig's 2nd argument, (fine tuning argument), his 3rd argument (the moral argument), his 4th argument (resurrection of Jesus) and his 5th argument (witness of the Holy Spirit).
True, he also spent a good deal of time promoting his book, arguing for his main thesis "God is not Great" and criticizing religion generally.
"There is no good argument that Atheism is true"....I already knew after that clear misunderstanding of the burden of proof that Craig was finished...He is a smug fool.
Typical William Lane Craig: "Assertion #1, Assertion #2, Assertion #3, Assertion #4, and Assertion #5. For these reasons, God is real.":
He doesn't seem to realize that making an assertion is not the same as demonstrating a thing to be true. This put Hitchens in an odd position - he couldn't respond to the assertions because no evidence was made for them. So he ignores them - as he's said before, 'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
@Stevarious Does something have to be scientifically proven to be real or true? If so, you statement you just made, saying "God doesn't exist", numbers, justice, love...none of these things exist in your naturalistic worldview.
The problem is, Craig's assertions all consist of 'This is the only way it could have happened therefore it must be true.' You don't even need to 'prove' his assertions wrong, since they hinge upon there being no other viable option. All you need is another possible answer, and his claim that his answer is 'the only possible answer' is invalidated.
If god is so fragile that he can be invalidated by a thought experiment, who needs it?
@Stevarious "He doesn't seem to realize that making an assertion is not the same as demonstrating a thing to be true."
Except for he doesn't do that. For example, he gives scientific, philosophical, and mathematical reasons for thinking the universe began to exist which is premise 2 of argument 1. Premise 1 of argument 1 is the causal principle, which has been demonstrated to be real in science and metaphysics. The teleological argument he gives three reasons for the fine tuning. It could either
@Stevarious be due by chance, physical necessity, or design. He gives mathematical reasons for discarding chance. As for physical necessity, since the constants are independent of the laws of nature, and of each other, then there is no reason why they were necessarily that way. The 4th argument is based on historical evidence. So I don't see any argument that is not backed up by evidence of some sort.
@crlsjvrm chance - doesn't work because of the number of observations = 1. Right now I'm beating odds, you just choose what we're observing and I'll retroactively apply probabilities...theistic probability is all fun and games until somebody wins the lottery.
design - same as probabilities. "We exist therefore god" is the argument from fine tuning. Can't do that, using existence as evidence for god? I'm not impressed.
historical - It's written in the Bible so it's true? Not impressed.
@badblueman If this is the best you can say I can already tell this is going to be a quick argument.
Chance doesn't work because of the number of observations is 1? Except for the fact that it isn't the amount of samples we have that we count. It is the number of values that each constant could have assumed at the inflation and expansion of our universe. For example coulomb's constant which deals with electromagnetism has a value of 8.99x10^9, but it could have been 7x10^5 or 6x10^25. So what's
@badblueman done is, you theoretically change the value of a constant and see how the new value alters the universe. You can literally theoretically change the value of a constant and see if the new value is a "life permitting" value, or a "life prohibiting" value. You then compare the ratio of life permitting and life prohibiting that that is your probability. You then say "theistic probability is all fun and games until somebody wins the lottery" which made me smile. The probability of wining
@badblueman the powerball jackpot is 1 in 80 000 000. The probability of the cosmological constant falling in a life permitting range has been calculated to be 1 in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. There are 25 other constants in particle physics similar to the cosmological constant which fell in their respective life permitting range.
@crlsjvrm You don't understand the analogy. The appeal from probability is an appeal from ignorance. You say "I cannot imagine I'm so lucky, therefore a)God made me win; b)there is a lottery conspiracy; c)I'm dreaming; d)karma..."
Your fancy numbers mean only one thing and one thing only. Homocentism : "the meaning of the value of Λ should be measured relatively to human existence"
This stance is what defines the difference in perspective between agnostic atheism and dogmatic theism.
@badblueman Oh no, I understood the analogy. But perhaps it is you the one that doesn't fully understand the example I gave. Again, compare the two numbers I provided. One for the powerball jackpot, and the other for the cosmological constant. Keep in mind that there are at least 25 more constants in particle physics. Each of these numbers could be said to be mathematically zero. Keep in mind that when these numbers are calculated, all of the other constants are left untouched. So at the end of
@badblueman your calculations, there must be one region where all of the life permitting ranges overlap. Each life permitting range is extremely small as demonstrated, and the range in which they all must overlap is even smaller. That number is incomprehensibly small,and is virtually zero. So I think that appeal to probability is a good way to demonstrate the amount of fine tuning that was necessary in order for the universe to even exist.
@badblueman As for "it's written in the bible so it's true" is a bit ignorant. Notice Craig says that there is somewhat of a consensus among historians and new testament scholars about the truth of three events that took place and dealt with the life and death of Christ. So this is something that is agreed upon by experts on this topic. If you have a better objection other than "Not impressed" please feel free to share it.
@crlsjvrm Everything important from the Bible is true? I'm not impressed is an excellent objection. I don't see why I should put "faith" in claims made by superstitious desert dwellers 2000 years ago. People today have a knack for seeing what didn't happen and being stupid...and you/Craig want us to believe "witnessings" from then are some amazing thing?...I don't know what to make of the present day Colares UFO flap for example, but I'm to take the Bible as evidence for god? Argh.
@badblueman I never said everything important from the bible is true. But no, "I'm not impressed" is a statement, not an objection so you'll need to try harder than that. Now you say me and Craig want us to believe "witnessings" from then are some amazing thing? Well, yes. I mean, I'm sure you've taken an ancient history course in your life. How do you believe other ancient records? For example the biographies of Alexander the great, written 400 years after his death? Lets be serious.
@crlsjvrm "He gives mathematical reasons for discarding chance" That are based on the incredibly flawed assumption that WE, specifically, were the intended result. Why assume that?
"since the constants are independent of the laws of nature" How could you or anyone possibly know this?
"and of each other" Another specious assertion. This is not evidence. This is assumption after assumption, PRESENTED as evidence for the gullible.
@crlsjvrm "The 4th argument is based on historical evidence"
There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever performed a miracle, and it wouldn't prove a thing if there was - even in the context of the bible. As Hitchens pointed out, pharaoh's sorcerers were able to use magic too. Were their gods real as well?
@mbelma6329 "Do you have a real objection" Sure! How do you respond to WLC's infamous defense of genocide? IMHO it makes him ineligible to discuss morality with the grown-ups.
@Stevarious But notice Craig doesn't claim that there is historical evidence for the miracles Jesus performed. He claims that there is historical evidence for the post mordem appearances of Jesus where people claimed to have seen him after his death, the empty tomb, and the new belief of the disciples. He says there is a consensus among new testament scholars and historians about those three events.
"How do you respond to WLC's infamous defense of genocide? "
Leave it to a brit to a 1 to 10 scale. I am probably about a 3 to 10. I did not realize that about MrHawkins. Ive met many people of faith that live there lives like agnostics. Its wrong to drive planes into buildings and Jesus would have condemned the pope for backing franco and hitler. And by the way i would of much rather hung out with Mr Hitchens than an asshole like jerry falwell.
Craig quoted "you cannot access the truth of a world view by seeing whether it is good for a society or not." BUT he using this argument to prove that absolute morality supports the existence of god. He said that w/out god, there is no such thing as objective morality. Which means, he suggests that god has to be true because we need an objective morality. There is nothing in the world to suggest that an underlying morality is necessary/present or desired by the universe.
@littlemoretime1 Where do you live? Bc I want to break into your house, beat your stupid face in, and steal all your stuff. If God exists/not exists, there's nothing you can tell me that will convince me that your morality that says what I just did is wrong is true. My truth is just as good as your truth so I technically didnt do anything wrong.
The idea that the universe needs a system of morality and the only way to provide one is thru god is ludicrous, arrogant and far too human-centric. I do not deny that objectively, there is nothing wrong with me being beaten to death in terms of cosmic relevance, of course, u seem to suggest that people cannot come to an understanding of morality and live well enough without god and that is wrong.
@littlemoretime1 No, you mean that objective morality doesn't exist. Therefore anything including child rape, genocide, murder, stealing, are all ok according to your worldview. You cannot say that your pain and suffering are wrong under any circumstances even if you think you're innocent
@mbelma6329 I am saying that the is no reason the universe requires objective or absolute (because god would technically provide absolute morality). Morality is merely a biological and cultural construction. To suggest that the need for a morality is evidence of god assumes the existence of humanity, and by extension, the survival or goodness of humanity, matters at all to the universe- which is most likely does not.
@mbelma6329 continued...Of course, just because atheists lack a god to decide what the "right" morality is does not mean we don't value human life or condone raping, murding, etc. But this is merely a function of the fact we, as humans, want to live and want others to not inflict emotional or physical pain against us. As part of our biology, people want to live and they want to not feel pain. That is universal on a basic level to all people.
@mbelma6329 continued again.. Part of the issue I have with this notion that god is necessary for morality assumes that everything humans are transcends the material world we live in. Why is it necessary for a god to explain why people don't want other people to murder one another? Why is it necessary that morality stems from a holy place rather than simply a primal desire to live?
@mbelma6329 continued a third time...A finally (for now), if it is true that god is to provide an objective or absolute morality, then why hasn't he, she, it they? It is clear by the variety of cultures and religious practices that humanity has not reached a consensus on what is right and wrong beyond what biology and society already explains. So, Occam's razor suggests that we don't need god to explain a morality by which people may live.
There might be a god, but a god, as defined by christians, loving, compassionate, forgiving, caring, JUST is not possible, unless you have a different set of definitions for love,justice etc. as the ones in our dictionaries. God, if he exists, is either a desinterested spectator of human misery, or worse a sadist enjoying it
@mbelma6329 God does exist: he is a mass-murderer:Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !!
@larjjlion every 'atheist' is agnostic to a degree, otherwise the argument would be settled, as they'd have proved God doesn't exist. Dawkins said he was 6 out of 7, where 7 is knowing God doesn't exist and 1 is knowing that s/he does.
some one told me that scientists claim that writing apeared 5000 years ago. please help me understand what conclusion I must have from this. Either man was swinging in trees, acting like morons in caves, and loosing the appendix for over 200000 yrs and all of a sudden began to write the Illiad, the bible, build prymids,sail the seas within a period of 3000 years out of nowhere. Or out of nowhere some angel was told to go to the basement and change everyones languagesforcing themtoreinventwriting
@larjjlion There are cave paintings from much further back in human history that you could see as "language" so that "someone" wasnt really telling you the truth
How many times is Craig going to ask Hitchens to prove a negative? Should I turn this into a drinking game? Best not to, I suppose, as it is before noon.
Thank you for posting this. It was worth staying up late, and being tired for work! Excellent debate. The world isn't the same without Christopher. :(
How dare he say that "to the atheistic view there's nothing really wrong with raping someone". REALLY? It's wrong because it hurts people, that's my atheistic view- I don't need to be threatened or bribed by an imaginary dude, particularly yahweh, who commanded his followers to rape children, to believe that rape is wrong. facepalm.
Doesn't his properly basic idea hinge on the notion that every person arrives at this sensing of a supernatural creator? Just like everyone senses the world around them.
It is amazing how human-centric Craig's points are. Every point he makes seems to hinge on the notion that life is the better outcome and means more than what would replace it in its absence. If you consider that life is one of many improbably outcomes- neither of which is preferential because life or the absence of life has no intrinsic meaning to the universe- it stops seeming so wonderfully convenient that we are here.
Hitchens is a fool.. he offers no better answers, you just like the idea of not being judged more then being.. shit, who doesn't? even christians hate it.. doesn't mean it isn't true. If there is no God and athiests really believe it, why do give a shit that we do? we have a motivation. you have none, except an insecurity that lurks inside of you - it's called conviction.. and he will be back. His bow and arrow are pointed right at.. dripping with the blood of his last victim.
@koolguy7031 Your mind-numbingly stupid question shows that it is you who is a fool. Hitches is considered one of the biggest intellectuals of our time. He doesn't offer a better answer? so the fuck what? Idiot. NO answer is better than "god did it" lol.
And because idiot religious bigots try to impose their backwards views in modern politics. You seriously know nothing. You have no motivation, we have everything. Insecurity? What a load of nonsense you speak hahaha craig got owned.
There's something technical, practiced, machine-gun-like, and monotonous about Craig's tone that makes me stop listening. He quotes others (undefined "experts" or "scientists") too much and is too eager to talk loud and fast. It seems a little desperate. His logic doesn't seem self evident. But he does lay out a highly organized outline of his argument, and Hitchens doesn't seem all that interested in addressing it specifically on those terms.
Agreed. They like dont believe in hell. However they more often than not dismiss the bible as all nonsense even though it may have some historical literary and moral content. The historical myths of ancient cultures if they especially contain similarities must be taken into consideration on this subject and the possibility of serious dillusion may exist amoung the scientific community if they dont
I don't get how anyone can listen to Craig and feel as if he's saying anything worthy. The guy uses no evidence for any of his claims - just theological (=pseudoscientific) theories which hold no value in science AT ALL.
You cannot philosophically prove the existence of god, you can't disprove him either obviously but that's like saying we can't disprove goblins ride unicorns on a planet 1000000 lightyears away.
Craig: "so you mean atheism is A-theism or non-theism" - Yes - that is what it means, without theism. And no Atheism is not a religion - it is simply a way of life without belief in the supernatural of any kind. We take ultimate control over and responsibility of our lives. I do not behave in various ways with the goal in mind, that I get a prize of eternal life in some heavenly theme park.
Also, I do not see a reason to accept Absolute morality from his arguement. Morality has changed over human history, many things he cites were at one time acceptable.
Just b/c chances are low of a creation of life doesn't mean it doesn't happen. if the chances are in the hundreds of trillions don't forget we have spotted trillions of galaxies.
Morality doesn't require theism - simply a real basis for existence of value - The idea that objective value cannot exist without God - cannot find any argument -
thethikboy 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thethikboy well if there is no rule maker or creator or purpose or reson to liove why should people get nagry at me if say i want to go and shoplift a whole load of new clothes? What if i want some nice nike air trainers but i can not be asked to pay for them.I nick them and save money so whats the problem? why is it wrong to steal? says who? lol society? Fuck society, we all heading to the ground to be buried 6 feet right? well fuck soceity and man because life is to short.
pinball281 1 hour ago
Glory of itself? Where dis I say that? Don´t put your words in my mouth. Evolucionism is a name gave from scientists to a natural process, a toy of the nature in question. And nuclear phisicists, today, are estill lost trying to find a particle that can explain everything. Let´s wait. Have a good day.
gorlagster 4 hours ago
The biggest problem with many theists is their inability separate atheism from a kind of belief. Craig's "ah theism" retort is an example of this. The a- prefix is greek meaning 'without'. Just as asexual means without sexuality, and apolitical means without interest in politics, atheist (without theism) means without a belief in god. Not a belief that there is not god. Until they understand this theists cannot begin to understand an atheist's argument.
svenypoodles 7 hours ago
@svenypoodles Oddly enough, atheists also seem to misunderstand the meaning of atheism. They seem to think that the only meaning is the meaning they hold as true. Which is of course false. Philosophically speaking, atheism is the view or position that god does not exist. This definition can be found in pretty much any dictionary or encyclopedia of philosophy. As a philosopher, that is the definition that Dr. Craig uses.
crlsjvrm 7 hours ago
@crlsjvrm No its doesn't mean that. What you are describing is a gnostic atheist. Dictionaries have also defined the word atheist to mean "without morals", they don't define words but give common usage for the time.
Just as a dictionary may describe "theory" as a rough idea. But when you're talking about a "theory" in the context of science its meaning takes on a new role.Thus talking in the context of theism the correct def. should be used and not a bastardised colloquial definition.
BeforeTheNoose 42 minutes ago
@crlsjvrm It's worth noting that u will find very few atheists who are gnostic when it comes to the general principle of gods existence, altho you might find someone who is about a particular god. If we get rid of the concept of absolute knowledge i'd say i'm as certain as i can be that the god of the bible doesn't exist, this is largely due to the contradicting nature of many of his claimed attributes, which make his existence logically impossible (eg he gives us freewill but knows the future)
BeforeTheNoose 36 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@svenypoodles
"Until they understand this theists cannot begin to understand an atheist's argument"
Exactly. But for Craig, this quibbling over definitions is simply part of his rhetorical game. It allows him to argue with a strawman insteand of his actual opponent.
One of the great ironies is that the very term "atheist" was, for centuries, used to describe Christians - after all, they didn't believe in the deity or deities that the dominant Roman & Greek cultures believed in.
citizenghosttown 5 hours ago
Hitchens introduces a myriad of facts from years of study while Craig can only mouth the exact same inanities over & over again ..and then over & over again . . Craig at the end can barely stand up , his voice cracking terribly & almost falls to his knees getting back to his chair . Hitchens was even being really gentle with him , the poor wretch ...
Treadlightlyful 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Treadlightlyful I KNOW RIGHT! I love Hitchens' facts! Like attacking mother Theresa! Or saying he can take any moral action any theist can. Or suggesting the audience they get their cheeks swabbed to see what part of Africa they came from. Oh, my favorite was when he educated the audience on who Darwin's bulldog was, now known as Darwin's pitbull. See, I know that thanks to Hitch! The one that almost sent Craig to his knees was when Hitch talked about the near mass extinction of humans.
crlsjvrm 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Treadlightlyful The one that got Craig's voice to crackle was when Hitch told him atheism wasnt even a world view and shouldn't even need a word to describe the lack of faith! I particularly liked that one because that form of atheism doesn't try to draw near the truth,since it's not a position, its not a world view. Hitch hit the nail on the head when he said atheists can be moral without god. But yeah, Hitch was being gentle with Craig because he didn't even address any of Craig's arguments!
crlsjvrm 9 hours ago
They call it schizophrenia when you kill yourself while you are praying to yourself not to kill yourself. Jesus, son and father of Jesus, prayed to himself not to kill himself and then ignored his prayers and the prayers of his father and his son and killed himself like crazy in any event. And we have had cross dressers ever since....amzing !
gengenjedi 10 hours ago
William Lane Craig is my Hero!
Sirafrican 10 hours ago
Comment removed
Yrhp8268 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sirafrican I agree. I LOVE DR. CRAIG.
Yrhp8268 9 hours ago
@Sirafrican ? why...
blah1311 8 hours ago
pure simple energy is reason enough for everything...no external spaghetti monster is needed to help existence just be...
lestermagoo 10 hours ago
Atheists are blind to undeniable truth that the universe carries an intelligent principle which manifests itself in nature. This is a property inherent to the universe and produces intelligence. So, this principle necessarily acts at all times in all places and beings because it is part of the universe. No one may be immune to its action. To ignore or deny this evidence is like being in a pool and imagine that you are not getting wet or that no one sees you are wet. Something like that.
gorlagster 11 hours ago
@gorlagster so are you defining evolution at its glory? By the way, we don't actually get wet as we never interact with any particle. It is a matter of gravity and friction on a subatomic scale.
blah1311 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Romans 1:22-23
Though claiming to be wise, they became fools
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images that looked like mortal human beings, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.
pinball281 12 hours ago
Hitchens knows now that he was wrong - without argument - having been confronted with the Final Judgment.
thethikboy 13 hours ago
Comment removed
MrSamySara 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thethikboy Well according to your beliefs he would come to find that he was wrong in death.... however the billions of men/women/children sent to hell without ever having heard of Jesus Christ or the revelation, past and present..... they couldn't know they were wrong. In your universe, the innocent are damned for eternity.... therefore I reject your universe and your God.... fore they are contemptible.
MrSamySara 11 hours ago
@thethikboy its hard to play sarcasm on internet.. but don't worry buddy I got it... I got it.
blah1311 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
atheists have this conspiracy theory that because there so many gods they must all be false and made up by man for political gain or lack of understanding of reality.What if there are so many gods because one God does exist?.The God, the one and only ever lasting God who is eternal and the creator of time and space and all that exists within it.Maybe juts maybe the other gods of false gods and idols are rip offs to take you away for the one true God.The God if the jews christians and muslims.
pinball281 13 hours ago
The ENTIRE debate all Craig does is employing the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
Holy crap, it's disgusting.
Clearly then, Craig lost.
steviej321 14 hours ago
@steviej321
I'm glad someone else noticed
pancakepuddle 13 hours ago
"I've come unwired." --Christopher Hitchens. Wow...worse. stall. ever.
holdenc96 17 hours ago
@holdenc96 Haha, I noticed that too. Hitchens knew he was getting his butt whipped...
Yrhp8268 16 hours ago
@Yrhp8268 I actually highly respect Hitchens' intellect, but he looked so out-of-character and not his usual self...I was quite surprised. I've never seen him stall, trip over his own words, and go off on tangents like that.
holdenc96 16 hours ago
@holdenc96
stall?? worse?? hmmmm.. The tragedy is that I am the first to correct you while three others have given you a thumbs up. I think you meant worst. Does this inaccuracy illuminate your lack of education or your lack of attention to detail? Both perhaps? Hitchens was not stalling. You were defectively extrapolating. Hitchens could've written a book on correcting the fallacious arguments propagated here by Craig. He needed more time, not less. Stalling is not what he does.
pancakepuddle 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pancakepuddle He was stalling actually. Prior to him coming unwired, Craig kept pressing Hitchens on wether Hitchens thought god existed or not. Hitchens kept evading the question. Thrice Craig had to press him to answer the goddamn question. We all knew what Craig was getting at. He wanted to see if Hitchens would affirm the nonexistence of god, and then ask Hitchens what arguments he had for such affirmation. Finally when Hitchens affirmed the nonexistence of god, Craig says [continued]
crlsjvrm 14 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pancakepuddle [continuation] " Ok, so you do affirm then that God does not exist. Now, what I want to know and and do you have any justification for that?"
And since your good ol' pal Hitchens had NO justification, he "came unwired" he was a joke, and you are a joke. Hitchens could have written books correcting Craig's fallacious arguments? Please! He didn't say a single word to address any of Craig's arguments. Craig has written books on those arguments, all he did was give a brief sketch here
crlsjvrm 14 hours ago
@crlsjvrm
If you understood debate tactics and were skilled in identifying logical fallacies you would have no option but to concede my points. Craig initiated a deluge of fallacious arguments. If Hitchens addressed all of Craigs arguments he would've had no time to establish his own points. Craig was attempting to control the debate in this way. The burden of proof still lies at the feet of the faithful. Craig pulled this same scheme in his debate with Harris. Do your homework.
pancakepuddle 13 hours ago
@pancakepuddle Well, since apparently I am not skilled in identifying logical fallacies, then perhaps you can point out to me Craig's fallacies. How about it champ? You want to show me how each of his 4 arguments are fallacious? Now you say if Hitchens decided to reply to Craig's arguments he wouldn't have time for his own. Funny because Craig had time to develop his arguments, and reply to what ever garbage Hitchens said. Anyway, I am more interested in hearing the fallacies, so go for it!
crlsjvrm 13 hours ago
@crlsjvrm
Reductio ad absurdum is littered throughout Craig's pseudoscience-laden diatribe. His debate tactics were deplorable. "Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience. He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; The fact that such tricks often work is a real weakness of the debate format" -Harris. Find The God Debate on Harris's website. He outlines the issues in his blog.
pancakepuddle 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pancakepuddle Oh! I see, so you want me to go and read the biased opinion of Harris? I think I'll do just that then. Thank you. Also, thanks for pointing out the fallacies in Craig's arguments. You know, saying stuff like "redictio ad absurdum is littered throughout Craig's pseudoscience-laden diatribe" doesn't do ANYTHING to point out the reductio ad absurdum. You just asserted that his speech is littered with it, but didn't actually give an examples. You really need to try harder than this!
crlsjvrm 12 hours ago
@crlsjvrm craigs argument for why god waited so long to put humans on earth is flawed. his answer was "god has unlimited resources and unlimited time" . where does he get that conclusion? Just because his god created the universe doesnt mean it has ulimited time and unlimited resources. hes taking a major leap of faith to assume these are qualities of god. He also states that god doesn't need causation? where is the evidence for the god that has these qualities?
floorkillacris 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@floorkillacris Craig doesn't have an argument for god waiting so long. Craig was merely replying to a question raised by his opponent. You should learn the difference between the two. As to "where does he get that conclusion?" I think it is obvious. If god is eternal, then he has unlimited time. If mass and energy are conserved like our thermodynamic laws say they are, then god has unlimited resources. As for god needing causation, notice that the causation principle deals with things which
crlsjvrm 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@floorkillacris begin to exist. Being an eternal being, god does not have a beginning, therefore god does not need a cause. It is really inductive logic that is being used there, that's all. As for "where is the evidence for the god that has these qualities" again it is inductive reasoning. God created the universe, and as the cause of it, he preceded the universe therefore god lacks all of the properties observed in the universe, so he is timeless, immaterial, spaceless etc.
crlsjvrm 11 hours ago
@floorkillacris I am not religious but one could argue because he is"omnipotent" and such and such that he has abundant amount of time and resource as well. Hes god for crying out loud, they can fantasize about him which ever way they want that's the point of religion. cough* oops lost a bit of sanity there.
blah1311 8 hours ago
@blah1311 If religion wants to debate science it needs to stop making stuff up. What i was getting at is that craigs argument is flawed BECAUSE he assumes god to have infinite time ect. Lets assume god did create the universe and we are the evidence of that.. he cant then go on to assume that god is timeless and has unlimited resources. Where is the evidence for that? He cant get away with saying his god is a causeless entity with no evidence whatsoever.
floorkillacris 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@floorkillacris well why the fuck would the creator not be timeless?? You cant prove your belief and he cant prove his but guess what hawk eye, that is why they are called BELIEFS.You get me blud? Something always had to exist, maybe that something is the creator and then people will say but who created the creator.Well maybe the creator was not created because God IS the creator.The creator OF the universe, so he has explaned the questions you have.A creator created the creation.
pinball281 1 hour ago
@crlsjvrm ohh and craig talks about hitchens's presuppositions pre-determine the outcome of his findings. If god is true we should be able to demonstrate him without the need of assuming him at the start of an argument but that is EXACTLY what craig does. The reason hitchens assumes a naturlistic view is because there is no testable, demonstrable evidence for the existence of god AND the all of science including evolution of universe and life can be explained WITHOUT a god
floorkillacris 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@floorkillacris When does Craig assume god at the start of an argument before proving god exist? Can you please point that out to me?
crlsjvrm 11 hours ago
@crlsjvrm "perhaps you can point out to me Craig's fallacies."
After Hitchens addressed the fine-tuning argument, Craig claimed that the argument remained unrefuted because when we're all destroyed, christians will go to Heaven. Was the universe created and fine-tuned just for christians? Why didn't god just create heaven in the first place and fill it with christians made from the dirt on the ground?
freatork1 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freatork1 Oh hi there, nice of you to not reply to anything I said earlier. What happened there, buddy? Notice that Craig didn't say that in reply to Hitchens addressing the fine tuning argument. Hitchens says that the universe isn't fine tuned since it is heading towards destruction. Craig's reply was, well is a car not designed just because it is also bound to fail? So you can't judge the design of something just because something will eventually fail. That in no way is refuting the argument
crlsjvrm 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freatork1 and of course, that isn't showing an argument to be fallacious either. Which is quite odd since you quote me saying "perhaps you can point out to me Craig's fallacies" but never really did so yourself. How odd...
crlsjvrm 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pancakepuddle but atheists have faith to, you are master skeptics and evolution itself is based on religous assumptions apart from micro evolution wich is simply a variation.Both the thesist and the atheist have faith but the theist is open in saying this is a belief.Why do you want people to prove a belief? if you know then how can you believe?.How can there be faith and spirituality if you see the creator physically? Maybe you can not see God witth the physical senses for a good reason.
pinball281 13 hours ago
@pancakepuddle Oh my, I confused superlatives and comparatives. You wrote all that out for little ol' me? You shouldn't have!
Seriously, how petty of you. Get a life, loser.
holdenc96 14 hours ago
@holdenc96
I could retort with the same response. Bravo for resorting to ad homenim by the way. You can demonstrate your true colors magnificently all on your own. I clearly need not point anything out. I stand corrected.
pancakepuddle 13 hours ago
@pancakepuddle Are you arguing with me? ...oh...guess what? I don't care.
holdenc96 13 hours ago
@holdenc96
hahahaha, yet you cared enough to respond. you seem conflicted buddy.
pancakepuddle 12 hours ago
@holdenc96 worse observational skills. ever.
publiusdg 13 hours ago in playlist Liked videos
@holdenc96 worst*
worst spelling ever
publiusdg 13 hours ago in playlist Liked videos
The basis of all religion is the fear of death.
Brave humans (whose minds have evolved) face up to facts.
Not so brave humans (whose minds have not evolved) lie to themselves and each other, making themselves feel comfortable.
We are not special on this planet. Our fate is the same as every thing in the universe. What has a beginning has an end. Simple as that.
Even if there is a God. Hasn't it done enough already by creating life and consciousness?
But NO, we demand immortality!
Shmohawkable 18 hours ago
@Shmohawkable
Ignorant.
MrHav1k 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shmohawkable You are most likely the most arrogant person I have ever encountered on youtube.
crlsjvrm 15 hours ago
I love watching Craig squirm as his arguments get torn apart. Maybe if Craig had some evidence to back up his claims.
SuperMrAtheist 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperMrAtheist I know right! I loved it when Hitchens demolished his argument by attacking mother theresa! Oh, and when he was telling us about Darwin's bulldog too. That one destroyed Craig's arguments. Or when he suggested the audience they get their cheeks swabbed to see what part of Africa they came from. Or when he said he can be moral without god. How about when he gave his own definition of atheism? That one put Craig in his place! Completely destroyed his Kalam with that one!
crlsjvrm 15 hours ago
Craig: "Christianity is the more rational worldview." Jesus fucking Christ. I've heard it all now. What a lunatic.
Shmohawkable 18 hours ago
William is an awesome debater. If he was an atheist, he'd be unstoppable!
arjabbar409 18 hours ago
haha yeah,
GET MAD ATHEISTS, HE JUST PROVED GOD IS REAL. JESUS DIED FOR YOUR SINS. JESUS WAS REAL. REPENT
MrHav1k 18 hours ago
@MrHav1k Forgot to take your pills today?
steviej321 16 hours ago
I love how the duplicitous Craig rants on improbability and then proceeds to profess/defend faith in the infinitely absurd and improbable proposal(s) of Christianity. This man is either a liar or the personification of cognitive dissonance. What a buffoon. The morons at Biola are cheering like they're at a football game... This is classic.
pancakepuddle 19 hours ago
@pancakepuddle All Craig's ranting about objectivity is absurdly contradictory. He's not a liar. He's just not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Shmohawkable 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pancakepuddle Lol all personal attacks at Craig, yet I didn't see a single refutation to any of his arguments. Typical atheist. Keep moving.
crlsjvrm 15 hours ago
I'm young & not as intelligent as Hitchens & I've only seen him speak a couple of times. But I think I could've torn this Craig "Dr" to shreds.
It wasn't a convincing performance by Hitch especially in front of a crowd of Jesus-freaks with such a feeble minded opponent.
Didn't Hitch say he was at the bar earlier in the day? He doesn't seem well prepared to take Craig on.
Not his best.
Shmohawkable 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shmohawkable "But I think I could've torn this Craig "Dr" to shreds."
Why don't you tare down his first argument then? The Kalam cosmological argument.
crlsjvrm 15 hours ago
The stupidest thing that Craig says (paraphrasing) : "Who are we to judge that Nazism was wrong etc, without God."
It's a bit fucking obvious isn't it?
Even Godless monkeys would understand genocide.
If one group of monkeys rounded up another species of monkeys and decided to beat them to death one by one. I believe the victim monkeys would think: hold on a minute, this aint right, what are you Nazi monkey bastards doing to my friends. it's on like Donkey Kong now motherfuckers!
Shmohawkable 20 hours ago
Go to 13:00 to skip the intro.
Lleanlleawrg 20 hours ago
Is it just me or do Christian audiences always have this stupid look about them? I don't mean to be a dick & it's a superfical statement I know, but they always come across as dopey in appearance.
Craig obviously is well educated, a good speaker & has a decent vocab. Although his actual arguments are vacuous in nature.
His use of intellectual sounding words disguises his baseless assertions. The audience thinks to themselves: "He sounds smart, therefore he must be right!" That's IMO anyway.
Shmohawkable 20 hours ago
William Lane craig 1
Hitchens 0
ItalianStallone89 20 hours ago
How can there be a study of the resurrection of Jesus as Craig says?
How does one calculate the probability of a dead guy 2012 years ago moving a giant rock from his tomb & walking around for a while. Based on witness testimony.
Is this guy the best they can come up with?
His main argument is: I make an unfounded statement based on no evidence & if you don't refute that with absolute unequivocal proof then I am right.
It's up to Craig him to prove God's existence, not the other way around
Shmohawkable 21 hours ago
Craig said God revealed Jesus at an ideal time in history. Why the fuck would God do this at a time when the technology was primitive & ppl were unable to record Jesus' "miracles". Imagine Jesus walking on water & changing water to wine etc on youtube & the news: how many atheists would deny that?
For an omnipotent being, it's not a well thought out plan.
If Jesus were to be born tomorrow, lived his life, healed the sick & came back to life. Every person on the planet would be a Christian.
Shmohawkable 21 hours ago
I'm an atheist & a fan of Hitchens, but I think this was not his finest 2 hours. He didn't answer several of the arguments made by his opponent, while Craig stuck to the arguments he laid out throughout and while I think many of Craig's arguments were flawed & hardly objective, he did argue his position methodologically. Craig had obviously prepared well for the debate & Hitchens seems to have been winging it, which left Hitchens looking less credible, despite holding the most credible position.
TPQ1980 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TPQ1980
"He didn't answer several of the arguments made by his opponent"
Which arguments did you think Hitchens missed?
He didn't address Craig's Cosmological argument but I think he covered all of the others.
citizenghosttown 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@citizenghosttown "He didn't address Craig's Cosmological argument but I think he covered all of the others."
No, Hitchens actually missed every one of them. He took a few blows at the resurrection argument, but I think Craig explained the misunderstanding Hitchens had when dealing with it. He tried to reply to the moral argument, but it was clear Hitchens had no idea what the moral argument even was.
crlsjvrm 15 hours ago
It is sad to see how little can theists say about their beliefs and we can clearly see it in every one of Craig's rebuttals, it is like hearing his introduction statement over and over again, whilst Hitchens can so eloquently and brilliantly answer every one of his points and Craig refuses to pay attention to anything Hitchens says, that's what is truly depressing about religion, that for some people, it is so easy to believe in religion having so little arguments for their beliefs.
asolony 1 day ago
@asolony Xtianity is sentimental darwinism, not a bonafide religion. Christianity is not meant for your upliftment, but for your enslavement. Christians are not much different from atheists that dont practice some form of yoga or meditation. Both are meat eaters, both are superficial yet sophisticated animals. Isnt it a downright shame that your tax money goes to assist the Catholic church in its village bombing campaigns. Christians and their atheistic counterparts both suck cock.
augustmaquet 1 day ago
Do Our Values Come from God? The Evidence Says No .Moral instinct itself is rooted in the laws of nature (Physics) via the working of the brain. Morality is latent in the laws of nature. It finds expression through the process of evolution... latest physics offers many refutations of the Argument of Design . The one thing is certain that whatever the ultimate reality is , is far stranger than anything as simple as a creator that primitive men dreamed up .
Treadlightlyful 1 day ago
It's hysterical to me that WLC scoffs at the purported "lack of evidence" for multiple universes. Yes, an all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent constructor of every intricate detail of the unfathomably large universe is far, far more likely. Fucking loon.
TheGreatStonedOne 1 day ago
Comment removed
Treadlightlyful 1 day ago
There aren't many more ways to be as vague and general as the atheists trolling WLC's videos.
@Stevarious Do you have a real objection or are you just going to do drive-by comments hoping not to get challenged?
mbelma6329 1 day ago
is that the William Lane Craig that was suposed to be sooooo smart? I am not impressed at all.
naqdensjam 1 day ago
As an Atheist i am a bit dissapointed that christopher didnt respond to most of W.L.C's claims.
ArcheryWarlock 1 day ago
@ArcheryWarlock Me too. Part of it stems from the fact that Craig said absolutely nothing that approaches sense and Hitchens took it to mean it was obvious he is correct and didn't bother responding. Part of it might also have been that nothing Craig said was new so why speak it it again? Of course, I wish he would have said "one cannot prove a negative." Just outright and concisely because that was essentially the argument used over and over against him.
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
@ArcheryWarlock
"i am a bit dissapointed that christopher didnt respond to most of W.L.C's claims."
He specifically responded to Craig's 2nd argument, (fine tuning argument), his 3rd argument (the moral argument), his 4th argument (resurrection of Jesus) and his 5th argument (witness of the Holy Spirit).
True, he also spent a good deal of time promoting his book, arguing for his main thesis "God is not Great" and criticizing religion generally.
But 4 out out of 5 ain't bad.
citizenghosttown 1 day ago
"There is no good argument that Atheism is true"....I already knew after that clear misunderstanding of the burden of proof that Craig was finished...He is a smug fool.
itchygonads 1 day ago
Typical William Lane Craig: "Assertion #1, Assertion #2, Assertion #3, Assertion #4, and Assertion #5. For these reasons, God is real.":
He doesn't seem to realize that making an assertion is not the same as demonstrating a thing to be true. This put Hitchens in an odd position - he couldn't respond to the assertions because no evidence was made for them. So he ignores them - as he's said before, 'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
Stevarious 1 day ago 14
@Stevarious Does something have to be scientifically proven to be real or true? If so, you statement you just made, saying "God doesn't exist", numbers, justice, love...none of these things exist in your naturalistic worldview.
mbelma6329 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mbelma6329 According to your kindergarten ideas, the Buddhists, who have no deity, have no justice, no love etc.
ndzoko 1 day ago
@Stevarious It's called deductive logic.
mbelma6329 1 day ago
@mbelma6329
The problem is, Craig's assertions all consist of 'This is the only way it could have happened therefore it must be true.' You don't even need to 'prove' his assertions wrong, since they hinge upon there being no other viable option. All you need is another possible answer, and his claim that his answer is 'the only possible answer' is invalidated.
If god is so fragile that he can be invalidated by a thought experiment, who needs it?
Stevarious 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevarious "He doesn't seem to realize that making an assertion is not the same as demonstrating a thing to be true."
Except for he doesn't do that. For example, he gives scientific, philosophical, and mathematical reasons for thinking the universe began to exist which is premise 2 of argument 1. Premise 1 of argument 1 is the causal principle, which has been demonstrated to be real in science and metaphysics. The teleological argument he gives three reasons for the fine tuning. It could either
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
@Stevarious be due by chance, physical necessity, or design. He gives mathematical reasons for discarding chance. As for physical necessity, since the constants are independent of the laws of nature, and of each other, then there is no reason why they were necessarily that way. The 4th argument is based on historical evidence. So I don't see any argument that is not backed up by evidence of some sort.
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
@crlsjvrm chance - doesn't work because of the number of observations = 1. Right now I'm beating odds, you just choose what we're observing and I'll retroactively apply probabilities...theistic probability is all fun and games until somebody wins the lottery.
design - same as probabilities. "We exist therefore god" is the argument from fine tuning. Can't do that, using existence as evidence for god? I'm not impressed.
historical - It's written in the Bible so it's true? Not impressed.
badblueman 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badblueman If this is the best you can say I can already tell this is going to be a quick argument.
Chance doesn't work because of the number of observations is 1? Except for the fact that it isn't the amount of samples we have that we count. It is the number of values that each constant could have assumed at the inflation and expansion of our universe. For example coulomb's constant which deals with electromagnetism has a value of 8.99x10^9, but it could have been 7x10^5 or 6x10^25. So what's
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badblueman done is, you theoretically change the value of a constant and see how the new value alters the universe. You can literally theoretically change the value of a constant and see if the new value is a "life permitting" value, or a "life prohibiting" value. You then compare the ratio of life permitting and life prohibiting that that is your probability. You then say "theistic probability is all fun and games until somebody wins the lottery" which made me smile. The probability of wining
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
@badblueman the powerball jackpot is 1 in 80 000 000. The probability of the cosmological constant falling in a life permitting range has been calculated to be 1 in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. There are 25 other constants in particle physics similar to the cosmological constant which fell in their respective life permitting range.
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
@crlsjvrm You don't understand the analogy. The appeal from probability is an appeal from ignorance. You say "I cannot imagine I'm so lucky, therefore a)God made me win; b)there is a lottery conspiracy; c)I'm dreaming; d)karma..."
Your fancy numbers mean only one thing and one thing only. Homocentism : "the meaning of the value of Λ should be measured relatively to human existence"
This stance is what defines the difference in perspective between agnostic atheism and dogmatic theism.
badblueman 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badblueman Oh no, I understood the analogy. But perhaps it is you the one that doesn't fully understand the example I gave. Again, compare the two numbers I provided. One for the powerball jackpot, and the other for the cosmological constant. Keep in mind that there are at least 25 more constants in particle physics. Each of these numbers could be said to be mathematically zero. Keep in mind that when these numbers are calculated, all of the other constants are left untouched. So at the end of
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badblueman your calculations, there must be one region where all of the life permitting ranges overlap. Each life permitting range is extremely small as demonstrated, and the range in which they all must overlap is even smaller. That number is incomprehensibly small,and is virtually zero. So I think that appeal to probability is a good way to demonstrate the amount of fine tuning that was necessary in order for the universe to even exist.
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
@badblueman As for "it's written in the bible so it's true" is a bit ignorant. Notice Craig says that there is somewhat of a consensus among historians and new testament scholars about the truth of three events that took place and dealt with the life and death of Christ. So this is something that is agreed upon by experts on this topic. If you have a better objection other than "Not impressed" please feel free to share it.
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
@crlsjvrm Everything important from the Bible is true? I'm not impressed is an excellent objection. I don't see why I should put "faith" in claims made by superstitious desert dwellers 2000 years ago. People today have a knack for seeing what didn't happen and being stupid...and you/Craig want us to believe "witnessings" from then are some amazing thing?...I don't know what to make of the present day Colares UFO flap for example, but I'm to take the Bible as evidence for god? Argh.
badblueman 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badblueman I never said everything important from the bible is true. But no, "I'm not impressed" is a statement, not an objection so you'll need to try harder than that. Now you say me and Craig want us to believe "witnessings" from then are some amazing thing? Well, yes. I mean, I'm sure you've taken an ancient history course in your life. How do you believe other ancient records? For example the biographies of Alexander the great, written 400 years after his death? Lets be serious.
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crlsjvrm "He gives mathematical reasons for discarding chance" That are based on the incredibly flawed assumption that WE, specifically, were the intended result. Why assume that?
"since the constants are independent of the laws of nature" How could you or anyone possibly know this?
"and of each other" Another specious assertion. This is not evidence. This is assumption after assumption, PRESENTED as evidence for the gullible.
Stevarious 1 day ago
@crlsjvrm "The 4th argument is based on historical evidence"
There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever performed a miracle, and it wouldn't prove a thing if there was - even in the context of the bible. As Hitchens pointed out, pharaoh's sorcerers were able to use magic too. Were their gods real as well?
@mbelma6329 "Do you have a real objection" Sure! How do you respond to WLC's infamous defense of genocide? IMHO it makes him ineligible to discuss morality with the grown-ups.
Stevarious 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevarious But notice Craig doesn't claim that there is historical evidence for the miracles Jesus performed. He claims that there is historical evidence for the post mordem appearances of Jesus where people claimed to have seen him after his death, the empty tomb, and the new belief of the disciples. He says there is a consensus among new testament scholars and historians about those three events.
"How do you respond to WLC's infamous defense of genocide? "
Nice ad hominem attack. Keep it up
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
I forgot to put avoid a 1to10 scale. Sorry
larjjlion 1 day ago
Leave it to a brit to a 1 to 10 scale. I am probably about a 3 to 10. I did not realize that about MrHawkins. Ive met many people of faith that live there lives like agnostics. Its wrong to drive planes into buildings and Jesus would have condemned the pope for backing franco and hitler. And by the way i would of much rather hung out with Mr Hitchens than an asshole like jerry falwell.
larjjlion 1 day ago
Haplo R1b u106 l48 z8+ z9+ z5+, I1 AAA, J2a4b1* m92, mtdna D....
Cuah123 1 day ago
why don't creationists ever argue on the basis of 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False', youtube vid?
guwest2 1 day ago
First everyone needs to agree to what God is....is God, the being of is?
Cuah123 1 day ago
Craig quoted "you cannot access the truth of a world view by seeing whether it is good for a society or not." BUT he using this argument to prove that absolute morality supports the existence of god. He said that w/out god, there is no such thing as objective morality. Which means, he suggests that god has to be true because we need an objective morality. There is nothing in the world to suggest that an underlying morality is necessary/present or desired by the universe.
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
@littlemoretime1 Where do you live? Bc I want to break into your house, beat your stupid face in, and steal all your stuff. If God exists/not exists, there's nothing you can tell me that will convince me that your morality that says what I just did is wrong is true. My truth is just as good as your truth so I technically didnt do anything wrong.
Address please
mbelma6329 1 day ago
@mbelma6329 where do you live?"
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
The idea that the universe needs a system of morality and the only way to provide one is thru god is ludicrous, arrogant and far too human-centric. I do not deny that objectively, there is nothing wrong with me being beaten to death in terms of cosmic relevance, of course, u seem to suggest that people cannot come to an understanding of morality and live well enough without god and that is wrong.
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
@littlemoretime1 No, you mean that objective morality doesn't exist. Therefore anything including child rape, genocide, murder, stealing, are all ok according to your worldview. You cannot say that your pain and suffering are wrong under any circumstances even if you think you're innocent
mbelma6329 1 day ago
@mbelma6329 I am saying that the is no reason the universe requires objective or absolute (because god would technically provide absolute morality). Morality is merely a biological and cultural construction. To suggest that the need for a morality is evidence of god assumes the existence of humanity, and by extension, the survival or goodness of humanity, matters at all to the universe- which is most likely does not.
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
@mbelma6329 continued...Of course, just because atheists lack a god to decide what the "right" morality is does not mean we don't value human life or condone raping, murding, etc. But this is merely a function of the fact we, as humans, want to live and want others to not inflict emotional or physical pain against us. As part of our biology, people want to live and they want to not feel pain. That is universal on a basic level to all people.
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
@mbelma6329 continued again.. Part of the issue I have with this notion that god is necessary for morality assumes that everything humans are transcends the material world we live in. Why is it necessary for a god to explain why people don't want other people to murder one another? Why is it necessary that morality stems from a holy place rather than simply a primal desire to live?
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
@mbelma6329 continued a third time...A finally (for now), if it is true that god is to provide an objective or absolute morality, then why hasn't he, she, it they? It is clear by the variety of cultures and religious practices that humanity has not reached a consensus on what is right and wrong beyond what biology and society already explains. So, Occam's razor suggests that we don't need god to explain a morality by which people may live.
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
There might be a god, but a god, as defined by christians, loving, compassionate, forgiving, caring, JUST is not possible, unless you have a different set of definitions for love,justice etc. as the ones in our dictionaries. God, if he exists, is either a desinterested spectator of human misery, or worse a sadist enjoying it
ndzoko 1 day ago
@ndzoko And before the dictionaries?
mbelma6329 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mbelma6329 God does exist: he is a mass-murderer:Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !!
ndzoko 1 day ago
both sides have there heads up their asses. long live agnostiscs
larjjlion 1 day ago
@larjjlion every 'atheist' is agnostic to a degree, otherwise the argument would be settled, as they'd have proved God doesn't exist. Dawkins said he was 6 out of 7, where 7 is knowing God doesn't exist and 1 is knowing that s/he does.
guwest2 1 day ago
some one told me that scientists claim that writing apeared 5000 years ago. please help me understand what conclusion I must have from this. Either man was swinging in trees, acting like morons in caves, and loosing the appendix for over 200000 yrs and all of a sudden began to write the Illiad, the bible, build prymids,sail the seas within a period of 3000 years out of nowhere. Or out of nowhere some angel was told to go to the basement and change everyones languagesforcing themtoreinventwriting
larjjlion 1 day ago
@larjjlion There are cave paintings from much further back in human history that you could see as "language" so that "someone" wasnt really telling you the truth
ArcheryWarlock 1 day ago
How many times is Craig going to ask Hitchens to prove a negative? Should I turn this into a drinking game? Best not to, I suppose, as it is before noon.
littlemoretime1 1 day ago
Thank you for posting this. It was worth staying up late, and being tired for work! Excellent debate. The world isn't the same without Christopher. :(
RadaghastBrown 2 days ago
Why did they get Kermit the Frog to host it?
LanceConstableVimes 2 days ago
The debate cuts off at the end. I feel cheated knowing how Hitch could easily dismantle that last argument.
NoDerpingAllowed 2 days ago
fact number five: thousands of people saw Zeus turn into a swan and rape a woman. historians agree.
MadBasstid 2 days ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@MadBasstid Cite your sources.
crlsjvrm 1 day ago
How dare he say that "to the atheistic view there's nothing really wrong with raping someone". REALLY? It's wrong because it hurts people, that's my atheistic view- I don't need to be threatened or bribed by an imaginary dude, particularly yahweh, who commanded his followers to rape children, to believe that rape is wrong. facepalm.
MadBasstid 2 days ago
Doesn't his properly basic idea hinge on the notion that every person arrives at this sensing of a supernatural creator? Just like everyone senses the world around them.
littlemoretime1 2 days ago
It is amazing how human-centric Craig's points are. Every point he makes seems to hinge on the notion that life is the better outcome and means more than what would replace it in its absence. If you consider that life is one of many improbably outcomes- neither of which is preferential because life or the absence of life has no intrinsic meaning to the universe- it stops seeming so wonderfully convenient that we are here.
littlemoretime1 2 days ago
The evidence for the multiverse exits in our own existance, if I see an animal in a desert I consider that there's probably more of them.
jimmybob12 2 days ago
I'm watching craig and i'm just rubbing my dick raw waiting for hitchens to tear this guy apart
anonymousDerp 2 days ago
Hitchens is a fool.. he offers no better answers, you just like the idea of not being judged more then being.. shit, who doesn't? even christians hate it.. doesn't mean it isn't true. If there is no God and athiests really believe it, why do give a shit that we do? we have a motivation. you have none, except an insecurity that lurks inside of you - it's called conviction.. and he will be back. His bow and arrow are pointed right at.. dripping with the blood of his last victim.
koolguy7031 2 days ago
@koolguy7031 i didnt know christians could swear like that. maybe you are an agnostic like me.
larjjlion 2 days ago
@koolguy7031 Your mind-numbingly stupid question shows that it is you who is a fool. Hitches is considered one of the biggest intellectuals of our time. He doesn't offer a better answer? so the fuck what? Idiot. NO answer is better than "god did it" lol.
And because idiot religious bigots try to impose their backwards views in modern politics. You seriously know nothing. You have no motivation, we have everything. Insecurity? What a load of nonsense you speak hahaha craig got owned.
itchygonads 2 days ago
No he does not. There I saved you all some time.
illbeatsblog 2 days ago
Buried in the religious impulse is the wish to be unfree.
TheseusTex 2 days ago
There's something technical, practiced, machine-gun-like, and monotonous about Craig's tone that makes me stop listening. He quotes others (undefined "experts" or "scientists") too much and is too eager to talk loud and fast. It seems a little desperate. His logic doesn't seem self evident. But he does lay out a highly organized outline of his argument, and Hitchens doesn't seem all that interested in addressing it specifically on those terms.
TheseusTex 2 days ago
Craig just repeats himself and fails to understand the awnser.
pietzeekoe 2 days ago
what is this "biola" church that calls itself a university? I've never heard of it.
TheseusTex 2 days ago
Poor Craig, way over his head.
baldurus1 2 days ago 16
Sorry i did not put me between they after like in the first sentence it changes the whole meaning of the sentence
larjjlion 2 days ago
Agreed. They like dont believe in hell. However they more often than not dismiss the bible as all nonsense even though it may have some historical literary and moral content. The historical myths of ancient cultures if they especially contain similarities must be taken into consideration on this subject and the possibility of serious dillusion may exist amoung the scientific community if they dont
larjjlion 2 days ago
I don't get how anyone can listen to Craig and feel as if he's saying anything worthy. The guy uses no evidence for any of his claims - just theological (=pseudoscientific) theories which hold no value in science AT ALL.
You cannot philosophically prove the existence of god, you can't disprove him either obviously but that's like saying we can't disprove goblins ride unicorns on a planet 1000000 lightyears away.
joe80dmanizanerd 3 days ago
I must say i agree with Hitchens as almost always but Craig his opponent is a very good speaker, lovely debate
Angel8795 3 days ago
Craig: "so you mean atheism is A-theism or non-theism" - Yes - that is what it means, without theism. And no Atheism is not a religion - it is simply a way of life without belief in the supernatural of any kind. We take ultimate control over and responsibility of our lives. I do not behave in various ways with the goal in mind, that I get a prize of eternal life in some heavenly theme park.
sjatox 3 days ago
Also, I do not see a reason to accept Absolute morality from his arguement. Morality has changed over human history, many things he cites were at one time acceptable.
T0smusic 3 days ago
I find it strange he mocks a theory(multi-verse) without any solid evidence, considering the stance he is defending......
T0smusic 3 days ago
Just b/c chances are low of a creation of life doesn't mean it doesn't happen. if the chances are in the hundreds of trillions don't forget we have spotted trillions of galaxies.
garanzbrah 3 days ago
Christopher Hitchins is my all time favorite "Bad Guy" next to Bolo Yeung.
garanzbrah 3 days ago
R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens you will be missed.
yellowocean01 3 days ago
science is just as lost as religion
larjjlion 3 days ago