Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 1/7

[11trezor]

i like the way they toy with their words, but when push come to shove, they cant answer this simple question if what you say is true about humanity and that human dont need God to be good then by all means. i want you to release all those prisoners in jail and start teaching them of these new enlightment. lets see where it leads.

[Sinnessa]

The opening quote from Craig is expressed with a subtle generosity, and should instead perhaps be more honestly expressed as "Until I prove theism to be true, I do not have a sound foundation for morality"

[M3t4lManiac]

Goodness without god, is not just good enough, it's better. If you're commanded to do good deeds then what's good about it?

[Diachi26]

@M3t4lManiac Would anything get done in the world if nobody was commanded to do anything? If nobody feeds the poor then who will? If nobody shelters the homeless then who will? Eventually somebody has to take action. Somebody has to feel it should be done and influence others to do the same. (that goes to both atheist and Christians) So wouldn't that in of itself be good?

[M3t4lManiac]

@Diachi26 No. You are not acting on your own compassion if you're just doing what you're commanded and people don't need threats to do good deeds. Good people will always exist, religion just diminishes the value of their efforts to a command or the will of god, when their empathy is what really is to be credited.

[Fleefles]

@M3t4lManiac No one acts on compassion, just on selfishness. You do "good" for selfish reasons - to release chemicals in your brain that make you feel good. If feeding the poor or helping starving puppies made a person experience excrutiating pain or sadness, people wouldn't do it. Praising people for doing good is like praising a child for not sharing their toys.  Both are done for selfish reasons.

[6thwing]

The actual debate aside, the beginning of this video made it sound really epic... It really is one of the most interesting debates of this age, albeit a foolish one.

[Soothfish]

LMAO!

left wing atheists are probably the most IMMORAL people on Earth and yet they think the most highly of their own moral tendencies.

In theory, it should be possibly to be good without God. In reality it just doesn't happen.

[jimtrueblue99]

Is it just me or does anyone else find William Lane Craig oleaginous?

[4um360]

If the god of the Bible is the source for goodness or morality, what do we do about 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31? Keep in mind there are many other similar examples in the Bible.

[6thwing]

@4um360 Oh, no, people die in sin! God is Evil!

The problem with your argument is that it presupposes so many implicit parameters, that your logical conclusion is evidently random with only the explicit parameters of your premises presented. So use logic, what exactly are you trying to say?

[4um360]

@6thwing I do not presuppose anything. According the information in the passages I mentioned earlier, Jehovah orders the murder of entire villages, including women and children. If any other character did the same, I'm sure you would call such actions evil. What is illogical is for anyone to justify such evil. Jehovah is a mythical bully, not a source of morality.

[henryporter101]

@6thwing What exactly are you trying to say with this gibberish?All the nonsense about parameters being implicit and explicit is just a smokescreen to hide the disgusting concepts contained in the ridiculous bunch of stories called 'the bible'.I can see that you're a Craig wannabe.

[BohemianBlasphemy]

Goodness without god is better indeed, not just "good enough".

[Forkroute]

The reductionism that Craig is pushing on atheists is disgusting

[snowjunkie111]

so long as we live good lifes i really don't care if we belief in god or not this seams to me to be a pointless debate

[meangreen4321]

@snowjunkie111

Not pointless... if goodness without god means you are condemned for eternity! Of course, I say that tongue in cheek, but that's essentially what religion tells us.

[CrissJami]

"You're anti-yoomen!" lol

[FUahole69]

CHRISTIANJR4, please watch the last 4 mins of this video. I would like your opinion on this.

[Christianjr4]

Well I agree with everything he said insofar as I don't deny any of the claims he brought up (ie. Atheists being moral, scientists being Atheists etc). But none of them show that God doesn't exist or that morality can be objective without God, so it's not really relevant to the central question of the debate.

[FUahole69]

How can Craig say atheists are anti-human, and reduces humans as just another animal species! We are all born with the gift of loving each other, we dont need god to love. So how is that anti-human? To say we are reduced to animals is retarded! Just like animals we are born to love, but with our intelligence we can work together on situations or problems, I think some animals do that anyway. So how would we be screwed without a god?

[BassP86]

Dr. Craig's argument ultimately nails down to the argument that moral judgments are logically indefensible even within rationality, if it is true that God does not exist.

[FUahole69]

I dont get why Dr. Craig always brings up objective moral values! Atheists act morally for the better of man, christians act morally to please their god, who has the true morals?

[urbster1]

Actually, there are, or can be, objective moral values even in a naturalist worldview. It all depends on how morality is defined. Under divine command morality, however, a god's command of something just reduces morality to relativism, because the god could literally command any act, such as blowing up buildings for god, as a just and moral act.

[xstretcherjockeyx]

No they act on what they think is right in their own mind, its relative to the individual.

Not everyone gives a shit about bettering mankind.

[tetralophodon]

its true

[FatGermanBastard]

> But none of them show that God doesn't

> exist or that morality can be objective without

> God

That depends on whether one defends atheism or just agnosticism. My impression is that he is arguing that the argument does not serve as evidence for God. I don't see him arguing that a counter argument can be made against God based on moral philosophy.

[FAKEPAIN]

@ fatgermanbastard

theres lots of ppl who arent religious, but still have a high sense of morality.. that proves it doesnt it?!

[FatGermanBastard]

@FAKEPAIN:

This seems like an equivocation fallacy to me. The fact that people act cooperatively towards each other at best means that descriptive morality can exist without God. It has nothing to do with intrinsic morality which is what Craig is talking about.

Of course I am not defending his argument. Craig has never shown why morality from God would be intrinsic and why it is the only possible source for intrinsic morality or that intrinsic morality is at all a plausible idea.

[FAKEPAIN]

ok fair enough i understand what u mean and i agree! thanks for enlighting me with your response mate!

cheers

[dmn22]

nothing, i.e science, cant study if something has value. Value could only come from something else that has value, namely God.

Intrinsic morality is possible because no other species can reason and make moral decisions except us homo sapiens. this is in line with the idea that humans are made in God's image. Which links back to why or how we are valuable.

[FatGermanBastard]

You are saying value can only come from something else that has value.

So which value does God's value come from ?

[dmn22]

People sometimes ask if God is good then is a conforming to a moral standard. Now you ask if God has value where did he get his value from.

Another way to think of this is God simply is good. He is value. The moral code is his nature.

I think that if God didn't exist, humans could not have intrinsic value. You cant say human beings are valuable just because they're human beings since in a godless world, the difference between us and a dog would just be the structure of our dna.

[meangreen4321]

@dmn22

Why does every thing need to be defined in relation to a divine decree? The difference between us and a dog is the fact that we humans have genuine feelings, emotions, higher intelligence and awareness, responsibilities, and moral sense. There's more than one way to determine value than our DNA structure. Besides, the Bible tells us that we are pieces of dirt in Genesis, worms in Psalms, lumps of clay in Romans. How is that giving us value?

[dmn22]

If the bible is supposed to be taken literally than we are worms. But its not. You read the bible like one reads the sports paper.

I agree we are more superior than a dog. We have qualities that other animals dont have. But that just means we have evolved to a greater extent. How does that make us more valuable? What do you say about those who dont have higher intelligence or the moral sense? Are they not as valuable? On naturalism,when and how did value become instantiated in the cosmos?

[meangreen4321]

@dmn22

Hi. You make a good point, and I respect that. My original point was simply: that the Bible and Christian faith does not give us value in our humanness. It holds a paradoxical view of God first valuing us by making man in his own image, but then devaluing us because of our inherant sinfulness. We only have value if God intervenes and purifies us of all our "ungodliness". Humanists see value in people for who they are and the good they currently possess.

[6thwing]

@meangreen4321 We are made OUT of nothing... we are, all in all, nothing. The value of us isn't within us at all. The Value is humanity is that we are made in the image and likeness of God himself. We have value because God has value. Apart from God we are nothing, and will die. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

[86adamleon]

@Christianjr4

Thanks for all the wonderful video posts.

You said, 1 Year ago;

". . .none of them (atheists) show that God doesn't exist or that morality can be objective without God. . ."

A lack of belief is all that's required to be an atheist, so atheism doesn't have the burden of proof, because it does not make a claim; unless the atheist holds the additional belief, that no Gods exist; so it is theists who must give the reasons behind their beliefs.

What do you mean by Objective Morality?

[Christianjr4]

@86adamleon

Hi 86adamleon,

By the phrase "none of them", I actually meant the specific claims that were made by professor Kurtz near the end of this video. Those claims neither disprove God nor show that objective morality can exist without him. By objective morality, I mean moral values which are true independent of human opinion.

Concerning the definition of atheism and the burden of proof, I would disagree with you only on the former, but that is another discussion for another day. Regards!

[M3t4lManiac]

@Christianjr4 We don't need objective morality. The reason many societies view morality largely the same does not make it objective (and we CERTAINLY don't always agree what's moral). Did humans not have a sense of morality, the species wouldn't have survived. AND he is right, the burden of proof is on the theist so there is no "disproving god", it is not his duty to do so, it is the Christian's duty. On the subject: goodness is nothing with god for in a theistic world view all is commanded.

[Christianjr4]

@M3t4lManiac

The burden of proof is not only on the theist. The burden of proof falls on those that make knowlege claims, as 86adamleon pointed out above. Since both atheists and theists make knowledge claims about God (ie. the theist claims that God exists and the atheist claims that he doesn't) then if follows by the rules of epistemic justification theory that both parties have a burden of proof. It's the agnostic that makes no knowledge claims and therefore has no burden of proof. Regards.

[M3t4lManiac]

@Christianjr4 With the definitions you use, you are correct. But refusing to accept a belief/lack of belief is atheism and that position is not a knowledge claim, it's a rejection of a knowledge claim that has not met it's burden of proof. Claiming that there is no god would require proof, very few atheists take that position.

[DeconversionCentral]

@Christianjr4

You are making a mistake in grammar, you correct that, and you will see the epistemological justification is found only on the theist.

People can make a claim, but you are thickheaded, atheist is a derogatory term, and negative label and connotes the ABSENCE of BELIEF, not the PRESENCE of BELIEF.

Further more, no answer can be given to an unknown fact.

It is funny, how Christians think any postulated argument for God can be arbitrary attached to the Biblical god. what a joke.

[SlaughterMeister]

@Christianjr4 The atheist doesn't necessarily make a knowledge claim about God. I don't claim to know that there are no deities, and that there are no supernatural things. My position is based on the simple fact that there is absolutely no proof nor evidence whatsoever for either of those things. All I have ever encountered for evidence of supernaturalism is a reiteration of the original claim to the existence of supernatural things.

I have no reason to believe in a god, so I do not.

[theman77777777232]

Here is the refutation to 122nerdbombs' hell argument that he says was not refuted:

watch?v=TP18clbqleo

nerdbombs, tell me again that you do "not really" spend as much or more time on religion than theists.

I know why I watch these videos & post comments. But I can't for the life of me figure out why you do. I'm really starting to honestly think you live in denial, nerdbombs. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just really feel for you. I think a little part of you believes, & you can't stand it.

[emopeacekid]

Truly you are the MAN!! I read your page and I am glad to hear you have become a new xian. What brought you to accept Christ? When I accepted Christ it was like I went from watching life in Black and white to being able to see color. I found Jesus of nazareth to be the greatest and most amazing person ever to have walked the earth. Everyone loves him. Muslim claim him as a great prophet, Hindu's as an avatar, Buddhists an enlightened master, even Dawkins claims Jesus as an ally! grace to u bra

[theman77777777232]

"Truly you are the MAN!!"

: ) Thanks!

"I read your page and I am glad to hear you have become a new xian."

Thank you. Though it's been a while now.

"What brought you to accept Christ?"

Truth and evidence.

"I found Jesus of nazareth to be the greatest and most amazing person ever to have walked the earth."

Indeed. Agreed.

[emopeacekid]

122nerd,

it is kinda funny that a guy who has called me "moron" like 6 times would be mad that I repeated myself. As for your ancient arguments accusation, Celsus one of your ancient pagan predecessors brought the same slanderous BS at Christians about 1800 years ago. If anyone here has any "new" idea's it is definitely not you.

[emopeacekid]

abio and natural selection does not explain anything bra. Even Dawkins doesn't know how life first emerged. I guess my ? to you is how in the world could a single cell organism have come about simply by natural selection and processes? It is like a perfectly run city in there. I am down with evolution but I do not think Darwininsm tells the whole story, it can't. Even many die hard atheist admit that there is definitely a "what the hell?" factor in the cell.

[yottaparsec]

"Even Dawkins doesn't KNOW how life first emerged."

Neither do you. Come on dude; PEASANT LOGIC!

[emopeacekid]

yotta,

Sorry that I insulted your super logic. I should have know that you are the allknowing one. Next time I have a thought I will be sure to consult you about its rightness. See ya

[yottaparsec]

Np, almightygodcreated.

[emopeacekid]

dude, I am kidding with you....I am just kidding bro. Peace!

[emopeacekid]

122nerdbombs,

I am sorry if I hurt your feewings with that imaginary girlfriend comment. I was joking with ya since you had departed with rational discussion long ago, I figured that we should have some fun. If it makes you feel better I will tell you what you want to hear. 122nerdbombs, you are right about everything and I am sorry I ever questioned the allknowingness of your allknowingness. I beg thy forgivenessa and thank thee for gracing me with thy knowledge. 122nerd- u r the man!!!!!!!!

[emopeacekid]

122nerd, bro, did your imaginary girlfriend give you those lines? You need to put her in check!

[emopeacekid]

If you found a running car in a junkyard, what would take more faith, To believe that someone put it together or that it was put together over million of years by tornados and earthquakes and wind erosion?

[emopeacekid]

Coem on bro, I use that line because it is soooo good. anyway you statement "Humanist morality is better" I will rebuff with a quote from the great sage/philosopher/poet Jeffrey Lewbowski, "Well.....that's just like.....your opinion man."

[emopeacekid]

Ohh I see, when you strawman us it is OK but when we do it to you you scream like a little bee-ouch. dude, believe what you want but please do not ask us who do not live in your alternate universe to accept the "atheism isn't responsible for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc." line. its garbage and any Muslim, jew, xian, buddhist, hindu, taoist, etc. who has ever lived under the rule of your atheistic brethren know the truth. I wish peeps like you would just grad a shovel and start diggin to China.

[emopeacekid]

OK you believe that my great great grandpa was a rock and that the universe came into existence from nothing. Sound rational to me. Atheists say believers in God have faith when actuallt the faith required by atheism surpasses anything even the weirdest religion would demand. Also have you ever read the great Darwin? He did inspire a lot of folk like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the rest. I hope atheists get in power then folk will see their true colors which would make Bush look like a dove.

[emopeacekid]

122nerd,

OK believe what you want but if you want to say atheistic communism isn't TRUE atheism I guess that is OK if it makes you feel better but do not expect the rest of us who believe in God and know otherwise to accept your crap of denial. God killed 70,000 people in the OT? Ok Atheists have killed 150 million only in the last century. The only way folks like you can exist is as a tumor on the ass of a theistic based society. When atheists rule- the only rule is might makes right.

[emopeacekid]

Also, heaven and hell are metaphors for a reality that we cannot comprehend. We do not think God so much "sends people to hell" but rather they choose it. Many picture God as flicking unbelievers into hellfire like we do with boogies from our finger but this is not the case. I understand why many atheists look at religion and say, "Uh yeah, uh hell no!" but when you experience the reality of God's love, you can see through the horsemanure and see what it all is getting at.

[emopeacekid]

Many xian theologians do not believe that all non-xians go to hell. CS Lewis the so called "greatest xian thinker of the 20th century" (I say that to show you how mainstream this is) believed that an atheist who has truly thought it through and abandones xianity is closer to the spirit of Christ than a xian who goes to church out of habit and just believes mindlessly. An honest atheist is better than a cultural xian. Also, we believe that God is more than a "sky daddy".

[emopeacekid]

"Free-Inquiry" folks are the most unscientific, irrational & emotionally driven people that I have ever heard and read. They set up a version of Christianity that is so ridiculous that no thoughtful xian believes and then knock it down.

[Vanmeter815]

Thanks for uploading this, you have the ultimate collection of WLC videos on youtube.