Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 3/7

[jonathancooper1988]

@Slaughtermeister I think wlc point is why should we care about helping each other without a God, doesn't have to be the Christian God if that how you want it but a higher power, then good and bad doesn't really exist, why is helping another person Good what if I feel like killing them instead, there is no objective moral law so it really all about what we prefer doing, when you kill God you kill or reasons for being good, people can still be good but they have no real reason

[libertatus]

The 'soundman' that night was completely deaf to all the FEEDBACK!!

[SlaughterMeister]

I find it interesting that Craig calls helping a fellow human being an empty and meaningless gesture, unless God is up in Heaven calling down praise.

And I'd really like someone to explain to me how it is that God (a subject) is capable of defining objective morality. If he didn't define it, and is merely part of his character by default, why should he be worshipped for it?

[m1chae15]

Margaret Sanger? You've got to be joking. Eugenics, racism and the misnomer also known as Planned Parenthood. Take that Himmler.

[DeandresPerez1991]

I agree wlc made this argument very popular, but by no means is this "his argument".

[M3t4lManiac]

William Lane Craig displays perfectly in his opening statement that he has completely missed the point of Kurtz or he opens with a strawman. To be good without the rules of the Christian god as it is posited in the bible (a lot of stuff is not even considered) is the same as being good without the Christian god, too bad WLC, you already lost.

[6thwing]

Does anyone ever fix the guys mic?

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

I like how Craig automatically assumes the "god he is describing to be the christian one. Where the entire argument for morals won't go past deism.

[M3t4lManiac]

@HonestTechnoAtheist He's an idiot, a complete tool.

[lukeism2]

i am almost in shock when he said there is nothing wrong with rape in an atheistic worldview... wow, speechless... i have no speech

[lukeism2]

@sbgrox11 what about the bible quote where he sicks bears on 42 children for calling a guy baldy?... you really think this is a good thing?, what if somebody did this?.. if this god is the highest concievable being in your mind... i can think of a better one.

[worldbiases]

WLCraig says the debate is not about Goodness without belief in God, but goodness without God. He says the debate is rather Goodness without the existence of God & argues that Kurtz has 2 prove God doesnt exist 2 win the debate. Craig says "Without God" = God doesnt exist. It wasnt 4 him to define that. It can mean: Without God = God exists but I am without him bcos I don't blieve in him.

[Abracadabra208]

"Why don't we go hog wild and talk about which worldview offers objective beauty, or objective taste in interior decoration?" Craig and Kurtz are talking about objective morality. Taste in food or interior decoration are not moral issues. Subjectivity has its place in things and objectivity is the realm in which others things rest. Morality belongs in the latter category.

[lukeism2]

haha gods loving nature, to everyone who has read the bible... how could you morally say this is true!

[meangreen4321]

WLC says, "evil and wrong will be punished..."

Yeah, by scapegoating and vicarious sacrifice. The offender may never be punished as long as he/she accepts the innocent substitute. On the other hand, evil is poorly defined as any peron who rejects God or the vicarious sacrifice.

[Lightmane321]

@meangreen4321 Agreed. That's the problem I too have with the bible. I debate this with christians all the time. I don't find 'perfect moral character' in the bible. I wish I did.

[Lightmane321]

While I'm a christian and basically agree with Craig, his statement that 'Gods' moral nature is expressed to us in the form of divine commands' would be a great argument, if ALL of God's commands in the bible were moral.

They're not.

God commanded women to be stoned to death, babies to be murdered. He ordered people to have spears run through them.

If God's commands in the bible were always moral, we probably wouldn't even be having this debate.

[Lightmane321]

outside of that, Craig stated his arguments brilliantly. Kurtz is the by-product of 21st. Century Schizoid Philosophy... prophetic words from King Crimson, if I do say so myself

[meangreen4321]

@Lightmane321

WLC says, "God own nature is the standard by which all moral actions are measured".

That's the problem! If we use God's actions as the standard our society would be chaos!

[Forkroute]

lol...he makes atheism as if something is not eternally meaningful...then it ain't meaningful!

our lives are temporary here and earth is, but still we have meaning even if it is temporary.

[awesomewelles90]

The point is objectivity not finite nature.

[simplic10]

What the divil is objective meaning though? It seems like theists just invented the term to be able to say "our meaning is better than yours."

Why don't we go hog wild and talk about which worldview offers objective beauty, or objective taste in interior decoration?

[army103]

Craig seems to be under the impression that condescending laughter adds weight to his arguments.

[Christianjr4]

Maybe I missed something, but where exactly does Craig laugh condescendingly?

[army103]

Perhaps condescending chuckles and acting like he was holding back laughter at the atheistic arguments would be a more accurate description. The message: I think atheistic arguments are laughable, therefore they are invalid.

[Christianjr4]

I still don't see what you mean. Where exactly did he chuckle like that, and even if he did, why assume he's doing it in the way that you describe? I think you're just excessively nitpicking if you ask me. If you compare the overall tone of each speaker you'd have to agree that Craig comes across as far more respectful than Kurtz does.

[army103]

He was fairly restrained in this clip, holding it in until about 7:03 (I stand corrected again; the fake chuckle was regarding his own strawman argument), but it's an irritating habit he displays repeatedly in all of the 20+ of his debates I've seen. Kurtz may not be an angel, but I can't say that Craig was more respectful. I'm sorry, but his arrogant attitude & pompous tone are like nails on a chalkboard to me. You have simply fallen victim to Craig's used-car-salesman's charm, if you ask me.

[Christianjr4]

I really don't think you have a point at all. I mean common, you're actually criticizing Craig for that tiny chuckle at 7:03? I think you're just grabbing on to whatever you can in order to criticize the man. Perhaps you're confusing confidence with arrogance. Dr. Craig speaks with confidence and clarity but confidence doesn't necessarily mean someone is arrogant. If you compare Craig to the likes of Kurtz, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, Craig comes across as far less arrogant.

[army103]

Hardly. Craig is the top apologist out there precisely because of his insufferable arrogance. It is only due of his ability to out-arrogance his opponents that he has ever been said to have won a debate. It certainly isn't due to the content of his material. Call it confidence if you like - either way it is undeserved.

As I said, those little chuckles frequent parts of EVERY speech he gives & EVERY debate he participates in. They are rude, juvenile, and unbefitting a man with a PhD.

[Christianjr4]

Those chuckles do not frequent his debates, and even if they did, they are inconsequential. You're complaint is equivalent to someone complaining about how Dawkins smiles at certain moments in his debates.

I must say I'm frequently amazed at some of the childish criticisms Craig get's from atheists. Is this honestly the best you can do? Instead of attacking his arguments and focusing on them (which is where the criticism should be) all you can do is complain about a little chuckle?

[Christianjr4]

Oh and Craig is precisely a top apologist and philosopher because of his material, not his rhetorical abilities. Take a look at his bio and you'll see that he became famous for his work on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

[army103]

I'd happily point out why his pet Kalam argument and others are terribly flawed and vacuous, but we haven't been discussing his arguments. We were discussing his presentation style. I pointed out that he incessantly uses tired rhetorical devices like mocking strawmen to fool many Christians (ie. yourself) into believing there is some substance to his arguments. You then tried to defend his actions by pointing out that others are just as bad, but that doesn't excuse him.

[army103]

Finally you resorted to personally insulting atheists (and presumably, me). You have clearly learned a lot from Craig.

You're now welcome to the last word; my point has been made.

[Christianjr4]

Where did I insult you? I did no such thing. For all the talk on Craig's supposed arrogance you sure do make a lot of condescending rhetorical remarks. You're being very hypocritical.

[Christianjr4]

Oh please......as if I base my beliefs on his rhetorical devices. If that were so, then I'd also be an atheist since many atheists (like Dawkins, Hitchens etc) use tons of rhetoric when they speak. And I didn't say others are just as bad. I said Craig is BETTER than most of the others whom I'm guessing you won't equally criticize since you're being a hypocrite and obviously are only interested in picking on the theist.

[Christianjr4]

And I don't care what you think of his Kalam. The point of me bringing it up was to show you that he became academically famous because of it, not because of his "rhetorical devices". In other words, his argument received attention from professional philosophers precisely because of it's substance. If it didn't have some substance than his argument would have been ignored by them

Sorry, but I do actually believe his arguments based on their merits, despite how hard that may be for you to accept

[MrMohjong]

@Christianjr4 The Kalam isn't original to Craig its a old Islamic argument dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali, although Craig did polish it up and add some Continent,

[Christianjr4]

@MrMohjong

The basic form of the argument isn't original to Craig certainly, but his published defense of the argument in 1979 was. It was that defense of his that brought the argument into prominence today. In fact, all of the discussion today among philosophers concerning the Kalam always goes back to his work (not Al-Kindi or al-Ghazali's etc) on it so for all practical purposes, it's his argument. Indeed, he coined the name of the argument himself (ie. the "Kalam Cosmological Argument").

[MrMohjong]

@Christianjr4 I don't disagree with you that he made the argument popular today but I don't see how a defense of the argument makes it his argument

[Deliratio]

Those 3 answers seems incomplete. Where was platonism?

[ihateneocons]

bass, do you pinch strangers?

[BassP86]

Well let me ask you a question in response to this: why WOULD or WOULD you NOT pinch a stranger? Is doing such an action wrong and if so, why is it?

[ihateneocons]

i wanted your answer first but so be it.

i would not pinch a stranger because it inflicts unncessary pain upon a stranger.

doesnt matter how much i like pinching, i dont pinch people who dont want to be because it violates their private space.

causing intentional harm to innocent people is wrong.

but god doesnt tell you NOt to pinch people in the bible. why doesnt it happen then?

God does permit the massacring of tribes who worship other gods, but he's against consensual homosexuality.

tsk tsk

[BassP86]

"things arent wrong because someone tells you.

theyre wrong because of their impact on others." - Ah, but isn't that the RESULT of one's carrying out the action, and NOT the framework for WHY they believe inflicting pain is wrong?

I think you're arguing in a circle. You've assumed that the nature of WHY X is wrong is self-explanatory within the consequences of X. Therefore you use the results of from X as your foundation for why you believe X is wrong, but that only begs the question.

[ihateneocons]

and i keep seeing thumbs down on my comments. itd be a bit more courageous to engage in discussion then give me -1. dont you think?

im not here to be popular, im here to discuss and hopefully refute.

[ihateneocons]

(CONT) then those people would never have gotten that far.

im sure you know kant's maxim.

don't do what can't be universalized, meaning dont kill because if everyone killed, society would be unbearable.

NOT because God says so, but because its common sense.

and once you surrender all moral consideration to a holy book, peoples interpretations for you will get you to do awful things. religion ends the discussion.

humanism says, "but what does it do for mankind?" not "does it offend god?"

[BassP86]

"im sure you know kant's maxim." - I'm very familiar with it. Let's not forget however that Kant was a churchman as well. His logic ultimately begs the question however. It logically assumes that a world in chaos is morally inferior to the contrary. Why? The point that Dr. Craig is making is this: unless there is an objective point of reference for morality, then moral judgments are logically indefensible, even within rationality.

[ihateneocons]

i dont believe that you need an objective thing like god to define morality.

first we dont know what god wants of us.

i feel all of his commandments have been about 50% useful, 50% barbaric.

maybe god doesnt care about morality.

we assume theres a god and then that he cares about us.

does god care about art, too? and music, and architecture? surely there can be no such thing as beauty or goodness without an objective reference point, right?

nonsense.

all moral systems are not equal either.

[BassP86]

"i feel all of his commandments have been about 50% useful, 50% barbaric." - Ah, so you're saying that even if moral standards defined by humans are not objective, that doesn't make God's moral law objective either, because of what seems to you are alleged contradictions in God's moral standards? (i.e. OT laws contradict NT laws)

[ihateneocons]

yes god does have contradictory morals.

even if there is a god, doesnt mean he cares about our morals.

if he does, how do you verify whose set is right?

im assuming ur not a muslim.

why not?

arent allahs rules good enough?

things arent wrong because someone tells you.

theyre wrong because of their impact on others.

very simply.

[BassP86]

"im assuming ur not a muslim." - You

[BassP86]

Whoops! Cut myself off early.

"im assuming ur not a muslim." - You're correct. The reason is Islam denies the historical fact that Jesus died on the cross. The Qu'ran is the ONLY source where you will ever find that claim. Also Islam has this notion that the Qu'ran is a self-evident miracle, yet it was written in Arabic. They tell you that unless you know the language, you cannot perceive the miracle. But if it is self-evident, you should perceive it in ANY language. This is beside the point.

[BassP86]

Let me give you this illustration: Many years ago, I debated an atheist who claimed that God's morality seems to be contradictory. The OT laws contradicted the NT laws. He asked me, " The law is GIVEN by God, is it not?" I said, "Ah, but if a Christian says, you should love your neighbor as yourself but think African-Americans are not equal, would be a hypocrite, would he not?" Do you know what He said to me? He said, " Yes, I guess so, but I still don't see your point." (cont.)

[BassP86]

(cont.) I said, "Alright sir, let me put it a different way. How are you able to conclude that all the laws stated both in the OT and the NT were directly given by God, if you just admitted that Christians can be hypocrites?" He said, "Are you saying that many of the laws performed by people in the Bible were fabrications and misunderstandings of the initial law that God gave?" I said, "There you go." (cont.)

[BassP86]

I said, "It is illogical to say that just because the Bible says X means that God commanded if the Bible also says that the human heart is desperately WICKED." Many of those religious individuals wanted to take the Law of God into their OWN hands so that they could disguise God's law as their own. That is one of the reasons as to why Jesus came to earth. He allegedly went against many of the Pharisees' teachings at the time, saying that what they were teaching was not entirely God's law. (cont.)

[BassP86]

However, keep in mind that Jesus made it VERY clear that He did not come to destroy the law. He came to ESTABLISH it, in a world that had so grossly fabricated it. Ex: Jesus saw people who were about to stone a woman who committed adultery. He stopped them by saying, "Why do you condemn this woman? Are you not guilty of sin yourself?" No one answered, so He turned to the woman and said, "Neither do I condemn you." (cont.)

[simplic10]

I never really got that story. Generally speaking, I'm anti-stoning, but I don't see why being a sinner oneself precludes punishing another sinner.

You can go free, Mr Manson. After all, I once stole a candy bar. Who am I to judge?

(Pardon the sarcasm. It's a family heirloom.)

[BassP86]

John 3:16-17 states that, Jesus did not come here to condemn the world, but offer the world eternal life. I think that if Jesus never clarified what the Word of God was really saying, God would have been denied by the entire world by this century, because of unmerited contradiction within His law.

[ihateneocons]

but the catch here in theism is that when he says christians are good, its NOT because it relieves suffering. it's, as a theist, all because god says so. in other words, if god didnt say murder was wrong, they would do it. thats scary.

humanism says morality is related to what humans consider good and bad (in pain and suffering) not because a god commands it.

[BassP86]

So are you arguing that God's morality is ultimately just as arbitrary as human morality, simply because He chose which morals would be best and thus commands mankind to abide by them?

[ihateneocons]

well since i dont believe in god thats one thing...

im really saying man chose morals.

why would god say NEVER EAT PIG?

but in hinduism, the cow is sacred...

and in hindu, gods resemble elephants, but not native american gods.

why? man makes god in their image.

for christians, god is a man, islam puts restrictions on women, judaism starts the fear of homosexuality.

its so clear that man made god and his rules.

they picked "dont murder or steal etc." because if those things did run rampant...

[BassP86]

"why would god say NEVER EAT PIG?" - That's a great question. I think the logical question to ask in response to this is: did people have the technology at that time to make medicine that would treat diseases?

"its so clear that man made god and his rules." - That's the genetic fallacy believe it or not. You're saying that a belief is false because of how it originated. Even if it were true that religion were man-made, that doesn't prove the beliefs to be false. Bertrand Russell admitted this.

[ihateneocons]

in reverse order, I admit it doesnt prove anything either. but it raises suspicion. hindu deities look like elephants, egyptian gods look like animals they saw, native americans, etc...

i know its not proof. but how would you prove that krishna and isis arent gods?

no people back then didnt have technologies to treat diseases. in gods infinite wisdom he should have told them how to treat them instead of saying NEVER eat ham, pork, etc..

we can treat them now, but the commandment doesnt go away

[BassP86]

"but how would you prove that krishna and isis arent gods?" - That's actually easy. Hinduism at it's core, violates the law of noncontradiction. Now a Hindu may say that that is not a good objection, because Hindus do not worry about contradiction, they accept it. It's simply the way they think, so I should just accept it too. In other words, they say that I cannot use the EITHER-OR system of logic, but use the BOTH-AND. But that is saying that I must EITHER use the BOTH-AND OR nothing at all.

[BassP86]

(cont.) So basically, Hinduism uses the law of noncontradiction with which to debunk it, which shows that that pantheistic religion is systematically contradictory. Also Krishna was said to have been an influence on Christian origins. However, Krishna was not born of a virgin because he had seven siblings born before him, and no evidence was found for his "resurrection". (cont.)

[BassP86]

"the commandment doesnt go away " - Actually it does because God knew fully that because man did not have that means of treating diseases in such foods. The law was made for our protection, since we could not treat such diseases at that time. That law is not meant to be kept forever, especially since the day of judgment will arrive and the laws will no longer have to be kept in place since everyone will be in the place that suits their hearts. No condemnation to you, that is. ;)

[Philos2006]

Nobody needs a god to be good. The Boudhists have no god, yet they are the most peaceful religious group on earth.

[Andraste77]

I've watched several debates with Craig now and I can totally see his strategy. He always gets up there in his first statement and says what his opponent MUST do. Whether or not the opponent agrees or not is irrelevant to Craig, or to the debate as a whole. Then later one he smugly says the opponent did not do what he says he was supposed to. It's a clever tactic, and it disguises the fact that his position is indefensible. Frankly, without this tactic, he'd be laughed off the stage.

[Christianjr4]

"He always gets up there in his first statement and says what his opponent MUST do"

Yes, he does this. And the question is, is there anything wrong with pointing this out? I see nothing wrong with it. If his opponent doesn't have to do what Craig says he has to do then it is up to the him to refute that point (or you), not Craig. It's as simple as that. If you don't agree with your opponent, then you SAY SO. Yet your comment suggests Craig's strategy forces him to do what he wants. It doesn't.

[Andraste77]

Sorry, I see it as a tactic to make the audience expect an argument they're not going to see.

It's like a judge telling a jury to "Disregard" something they've just heard. Will they bollocks.

[Christianjr4]

Well, again, I see nothing wrong with it, provided that Craig states accurately and truthfully what his opponent needs to do in the debate. As far as I can tell, he's right on the money, and it has the advantage of pointing out in advance to the audience the proper direction of the debate.

"It's like a judge telling a jury to "Disregard" something they've just heard. Will they bollocks. "

No, it's more like a judge telling a jury which is good evidence and which is not/irrelevant.

[Andraste77]

And again I disagree. It's telling his opponent what his own arguments should be. Then when the opponent takes a different tack, he can go "gotcha," because he didn't allow himself to have his arguments dictated to him by Craig.

And do you think juries really "disregard" anything they've heard? If you think that is even possible, you're very naive. I've been on a jury - you can't 'unhear' something you've heard.

[Christianjr4]

Again, I'll repeat, it is up to THE OPPONENT to object or refute Craig's point about what he/she ought to prove if they disagree. If Dr. Kurtz doesn't feel he has to disprove Nihilism in this debate, then he just has to say so and explain why. It's as simple as that. This is the whole purpose of debate (ie. disproving what your opponent says). So your comment holds no water

As for the jury, they don't disregard everything, but if they're smart, they'll ignore bad evidence or irrelevant material

[Andraste77]

IT'S NOT UP TO CRAIG TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEIR ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE!

I'm done. Have a nice day.

[Christianjr4]

Hello Andraste....he's NOT telling people what their arguments have to be. He's telling them what their objective is in the debate.

Here, let me make it simple for you since you're having such a difficult time grasping the concept. Imagine two debaters enter into a debate on abortion and the pro-abortion debater says to the other debater "you need to prove abortion is wrong". "OH NO" says the pro-life debater. "How dare you tell me what I'm supposed to do in this debate". Cont...

[Christianjr4]

...Of course he's supposed to do that in the debate, and it would by silly for him or anyone else to complain about this point. And yet, that's exactly what you're doing. You're making an issue out of nothing. This is what I hate about certain people. They're clearly so biased and bent against the other side that they'll bring up the most trivial and stupid points to nitpick against. I'm glad you're done. If you do decide to come back, how about focusing on the arguments themselves? Peace

[FUahole69]

Listen to 3:20 where he says we have objective moral values because god is all loving wich supplies the standard with all actions are measured. So that would mean we need love to measure actions. How do you explain the love that animals have, or children that are not exposed to god? Dont they have love, so if it's a fact that we are born with love then why do we need god to judge actions?

[SandyColeen]

What C-SPAN debate is he referring to in the beginning of the video?

[meestellebunde]

Yeah I want to know this too!

[Christianjr4]

LOL I know. Luckily it wasn't too bad. But you do notice it a lot more when the volume is turned up. Kurtz's mic was real bad too at one point.

[emopeacekid]

The punks gave Craig a mic that has feedback. I wonder if that was intentional?

[DavidWhitestone]

If it wasn't intentional, the fact that it wasn't corrected certainly is, unless the entire forum was run by buffoons, which is entirely possible.