I really enjoyed this vid... i'm a christian but hitchens is very dear to me...i can really se how he's searching for answers and is open minded, i pray for him to know God personally...
@factoreight I agree, the few folks or supporters of Christopher that I have talked with debate in the same manner in which he does "opinions and assumptions based on generalizations" and quite sadly those folks also believe that is an appropriate logic in which to believe something as truth.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
@is1337Correct Although, I'm glad your thinking, language really becomes the barrier here and how we conceptualize God...there are literally volumes written supporting and debunking the Rock example....in the end you have to choose...but its not so easy as your example above...
If your claim was right you would have stated how it was debunked, but you didn't, instead you evaded and came of with gibberish and trying to portray yourself as something you clearly are not.
The choice is simple, look at the non-existent evidence for god and choose to reject it or live a life in ignorance.
@is1337Correct The question is mostly likely meaningless. Do you need me to spoon feed you the explanations or will you save yourself the embarrassment of 101 paradoxical questions and do some research on your own? You really should study these before you post them because the most brilliant of minds in history have already given us some pretty sound logical explanations. Unless you think your smarter than St. Thomas Aquinas, Einstein or other brilliant minds.
WLC is so good at putting up strawmen then knocking them down. He does it so confidently that christians actually believe that the arguments he is destroying are what atheists actually say, when in reality, for the most part, he is arguing with himself.
P.T. Barnum would have been impressed by his Flim-Flam.
Atheism cannot be true or false. An atheist simply is. Why do Christian apologist continue to beat that dead horse? Everyone who has ever lived is born an atheist. It's not a belief system. It's not even system. It just so happens that people who are atheists are more likely to accept reality.
@McLarenF1God Here's proof again that your correlations are irrational, as you make an absurd blanketed statement that atheists are more likely to accept reality. What evidence do you have that supports this comment? Your logic is so warped that when you argue your point you show with your own writings that your lacking skills in understanding philosophical reasoning.
@McLarenF1God Atheism (if defined as the denial of God's existence) can be true or false, because a denial of a claim can be true or false. If the statement 'Donkeys exist' is false, then the statement 'Donkeys don't exist' is true.
Atheism is certainly not defined as the denial of God's existence. That would imply that God is pre-existing and one must deny this fact in order to qualify as an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in supernatural claims that are without evidence. You and every other theist are all atheists in respect to Thor, Odin, and Santa in the same way that I am. You quite literally meet the same definition as an atheist in these respects.
@McLarenF1God By 'the denial of God's existence' I meant 'the denial of the claim that God exists'. But if you don't want to define it that way, that's cool with me. By your definition, atheism still can be true or false because the claim that 'nothing that is supernatural exists' can be true or it can be false. Atheism is the belief in no gods at all, so a theist cannot be an atheist in respect to some gods. A Christian theist is a monotheist in respect to other gods, not an atheist.
Atheism is the rejection of a claim. It is not denial, nor is it a belief. Your definition is wrong. If you reject a claim you are an atheist to that claim, but, oh dear, you theists are afraid of that label and come up with new definitions to self-assure yourself...
William Lane Craig's overconfidence is almost palpable. Just repulsive. Until you have peer reviewed, physical evidence for Jesus, kindly shut the fuck up and start defending the actual text with something concrete. Just because it's from the Christian perspective doesn't suddenly make something true.
In what world is theism ever the most probable view? It's the least likely view you can have! There's absolutely zero evidence to support this dogmatic theory.
@McLarenF1God In this world. How do you conclude its the least likely view you can have? just because you think it is does not support any argument for your statement. The Doc just gave you evidence whether you believe it or not is your right but it is still valid evidence so your absolute zero evidence comment does not make sense....
@DougsDreamDotCom "The doc" did not provide any evidence for a god. Craig's argument works equally well if he were talking about gnomes or gremlins. Fill in the blank with whatever you want, his argument is not evidence.
@McLarenF1God Craig's argument doesn't work "equally well" with Gnomes. Do we have evidence of Gnomes existing or any reason to believe they exist? Now on the other hand, we have evidence based on an entire universe that does exist (whether you agree or not that God created it does not matter to me) but it is evidence and somehow it came to be. Just because you can't comprehend his arguments is not a reason to dismiss them or try to create irrational correlations using Gnomes.
I do not agree that Craig destroyed Hitchens, or the opposite for that matter. Craig does show more fluency in his arguments, but bear in mind that he's on home turf. Craig does a great job at defending deism, but as soon as he makes the transition to theism Hitchens accurately shoots him down. If the Egyptians could perform miracles then Jesus miracles are not proof of divinity. If Jesus was resurrected from the dead, that does not prove his doctrines right. On the other hand...(continues)
@Corellian (Part 2) ...Hitchens is unable to refute deism, something that Craig expertly defends philosophically. There could well be a god, or gods. But that is also Hitchens point, that atheism cannot and should not prove that there isn't a prime mover, but that the scientific evidence shows that the universe seem to function without that assumption, and that even if god/s DO exist, there is nothing to prove that they are even aware, let alone caring of our existence, thoughts and deeds.
@Corellian "as soon as he makes the transition to theism Hitchens shoots him down" Er, where did that happen? As I certainly missed it!
All Craig's arguments made the case for theism (e.g Kalam argument gives you a single, all-powerful, timeless/spaceless supernatural being, fine-tuning then shows an intelligent designer who created the Universe for conscious life, objective moral values show an all-good God, the historical evidence for ressurection shows He revealed himself in Jesus)
Did you miss it? Craigs strongest arguments, and the very ones you mention, are about deism not theism. The arguments for the existence of a timeless being does not (as Hitchens points out) in any way prove that there is one and not several god/s, or that the god/s in question cannot make commands we could understand as evil, and most importantly, that the god/s in question are not the hindu gods, or Allah. Nothing says that a divinity necessarily is Christian.
And I repeat from my earlier post "If the Egyptians also could perform miracles (something Craig acknowledges) then Jesus miracles are not proof of divinity. If Jesus was resurrected from the dead, that does not prove his doctrines right.".
@BronyEditor Using swear words?...there's gentle Jesus, meek and mild again. Additionally, I wouldn't wander around calling people "retarded" whilst believing in nonsensical notions like the 'Burning Bush', resurrections and (my personal favourite, because it's so fun to ridicule) the concept that we're given free-will by the celestial dictatorship. It seems of any, or all, of us, YOU’RE the retarded one.
@BronyEditor Great reply. I did not say that Craig "just" defended deism, but that his strongest arguments are in that area. Even the argument for the resurrection of Jesus (which in and of itself is not evidence of any sort) does not prove that his doctrines are true, as Hitchens points out. That being said, I do not think that Hitchens performed well in this debate.
@BronyEditor Craig gives solid arguments, the problem is that most people cant understand the evidence or because they don't agree with it they conclude it as false. Whether its correct or not is not the point as Craig said Christopher did not give any arguments to prove God does not exist. Based on his argument I think its clear to make the assumption that Craig presented the most plausible conclusion that God does exist from this debate.
I'm a professional philosopher. It baffles me how anyone can agree with Hitchen's arguments here since Craig, point for point, shoots them clear out of the sky. The immaculate fine tuning of the initial conditions of the cosmos? Hitchens provides a semi-sound answer that Craig quickly demolishes. The objectivity of moral structure? Hitchens actually AGREES with Craig and throws the ball into the basket for Craig, sparing him the work. Is anybody actually listening? Craig destroyed Hitchens.
@Imperativism Your right, But you need to understand the fanaticism of Hitchens fans:they cant bear to see their idol's arguments exposed for the intellectually-shallow nonsense they are
So they invent a parallell reality in which Hitchens actually won this debate.
The problem is, even if you put the volume on mute during Craigs speeches and only watch Hitchens,you'd see Hitch drop every one of his arguments over the course of the debate (as they were all successfuly refuted)
@relarerfhjk I also notice that some of those that support Christopher also argue in the same manner, "Opinions based on assumptions and generalizations to support their position"...
@Imperativism it blows my mind also how they think Hitchens won...I don't get it either, almost like their minds are not in engaged in the dialog but are hanging on the words of the Hitchen's to conclude their beliefs....I also see some real issues with Hitchens...he is angry at this world and thus concludes that God cant exist because he believes this place is a real shit hole...he only focuses on the negative of religions and the church and not once the good that has come from it
@terminat1 There lies another problem with that though, if you take the idea of Genesis and the fall of grace as the reason for suffering in the world then you set yourself up to be asked why God would even create the fruit of knowledge and the serpent knowing what would take place. He forbade Adam and Eve from taking the fruit but one has to ask the obvious question, why even create the fruit or the serpent knowing it could be their ONLY downfall from Eden?
@UnionGarside God gave Adam and Eve a free choice. He knew that they'd sin, since He is omniscient, but His knowing ahead of time didn't 'force' them to sin.
The wages of sin is death...(Romans 6:23). As a result of disobeying God, man became dead (separated from God).
This is the only way to understand death and suffering if you're a Christian. Otherwise, why would God, Who called His Creation 'very good,' include within it suffering? That doesn't add up.
Evil and suffering is explained quite clearly by the Bible. It's the result of man's rebellion, as is death. However, if you don't trust the Genesis account, as Dr. Craig sadly does not, then you have to come up with philosophical reasons why a good God would allow evil and suffering for apparently no reason.
If you trust Genesis as true history, then evil and suffering, and the general wickedness of mankind, is easily explainable.
I'm sorry, Dr. Craig, but the Bible will not allow for evolution or millions of years of animal death prior to man arriving on the scene. The Bible clearly teaches that death came as a result of man's sin, not prior to it. And Christ Himself validates that the account of Adam and Eve is literal (Matthew 19:4-5).
So, you either have to trust the scientists, or God. Unfortunately, Dr. Craig doesn't realize that the scientific evidence actually supports a young earth and is against evolution.
You are absolutely correct! Up until the part of scientific evidence supporting a young earth, and being against evolution. This is one of my main beefs with WLC, he acts like Christianity can go wherever the evidence leads. No! certain things must be so and not so, in order for it to be true. Though we differ, I respect YECs for standing by the biblical account of events. If one takes the Bible like a grain of salt...why be a Christian?
@EdwardScissorHead Yes, exactly. The Bible is most certainly against evolution, and Dr. Craig sadly doesn't have a problem with the two coexisting. The Bible plainly teaches that death came as a result of man's sin, not millions of years prior to people arriving on the scene.
Of course, we differ on evolution and the age of the earth.
15:45 ROFL! He doesn't even understand what is flawed about the cosmological argument! If there has to be a creator, then the creator HAS to have a creator! And THAT creator HAS to have a creator! And on into infinity, which he himself explains is impossible! He is using it to support the assertion that the universe HAD to have been created and therefore HAD to have a creator. Utter contradictory nonsense.
17:52 - 18:00 The Big Bang Theory can take us back to Planck Time, a time in which nearly all the matter in the known universe was tightly packed together in such a way that we cannot make sense of what was happening before this. Did I mention ALL THE MATTER IN OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE? That's not exactly "nothing", never mind that I know of not a single atheist who makes the claim he says we do, though in fairness I guess there may be a few.
16:28 A better assertion might be "If the Universe never began to exist, we wouldn't be here talking about it!". Lol... Just thought that was funny...
15:09 "Atheists have tried for centuries to disprove the existence of God". THAT IS A BOLD FACED LIE. No one can DIS-prove the existence of God and a man as educated as Dr Craig knows that. He is intentionally misleading the crowd, which is his prerogative in the context of the debate, but no less dishonest than saying that we have tried for centuries to dis-prove unicorns or leprechauns.
Wow! I love Hitchens, but he got stomped on this one. He failed to tear down any of the points Dr. Craig brought to the table, and failed to replace Craig's points with better points of his own. I have read many comments saying Craig is an idiot, with accusations of poor logic and twisted thinking. If you are going to fling insults and make accusations, the least you can do is provide examples and be specific. Otherwise your comments are useless.
@elfred1980 Let me spell this out for the impared: Take the two contentions No good arguments in favor of atheism/several good reasons in favor of Theism. Dr. Craig laid simple, concise points of argument that favor theism. logical falacies, circular reasoning or ad hominem. Hitchens failed to tear down any of the arguments in place or and also failed to replace them with better ones. The truth is clear as always: Atheism can smell rotten eggs but cannot lay any good ones.
@strengthonor14:29, not 1 minute into the debate and Craig has already exhibited that he doesn't even understand what Atheism is. How can a rejection of a claim be true or false? He misrepresents atheism as a world view and the he says, he is going to use that as HALF of his argument! Also, the goal is not to make your opponent try and pick apart your points, it is to answer the question posed by the debate, another diversionary tactic that Dr Craig uses consistently in debates.
@theZoen69 Not sure you grasp the concept as a whole. I say I have reasons to believe in God. You say you have reasons that you don't. Give your reasons, I give mine, and we will see which one demonstrates itself to be OBJECTIVELY true. Dr. Craig gave plenty of reasons why he finds theism to be more coherent then atheism. Hitchens failed to give any reasons why he does not believe. The idea is to give better reasons for yours than I have for mine. Its hardly a tactic.
@strengthonor I'm 5 minutes into the debate (yes I've watched the whole thing in the past) and I've already identified several problems with Dr Craigs flawed logic. Yes, I have provided examples. Yes, I have been specific.
Dr. Craig has an amazing way with words, but he speaks like a politician. just keep talking and eventually people will tune you out and only hear a few pieces that they agree with and the rest will be gibberish. his answer to the Africa question was a perfect example. all he needed to say was "i dont know, god knows more than i do" but instead took 5 min of talking in circles. i think thats why people feel he won the debate, his words were colorful where hitchens is trying to just prove points.
Of all of his debates, this may be Christopher's best; the entire crowd, or at least the vast majority, is wailing and revelling in their Christian apologetics during the time when the first speaker is running thru his 'Who's who' of the home turf rabble. Hitch then proceeds to own THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY(!) during the debate. Christopher may be gone, be he’s immortal in the works he left behind.
@MattSingh1 "Hitchens then proceeds to own THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY"
I have to conclude you were watching a different debate....even Hitchens friends, and the blog CommonSenseAtheism immediately said he got destroyed in this debate.
Watch Hitchens first speech through to his last, and you will see he had dropped all his arguments by the end of the debate (from his argument against fine-tuning to his objection to the Kalam Argument) after Craig demolished each one of them:
@relarerfhjk (1) "I have to conclude you were watching a different debate..." Your conclusion, of course sir, is wrong; we did, in fact, watch the same debate.(2) "even Hitchens friends, and the blog CommonSenseAtheism immediately said he got destroyed in this debate" I, in fact, do not need or require anyone's approval, sanction or agreement to think anything, unlike many theists. If what you say is true, it has no bearing on my view that Hitchens floored every theistic argument (cont)...
@MattSingh1 "it has no bearing on my view" your "view" is easily disproved by going over the debate.
Every objection Hitch raised got shredded.
e.g he said the Universe might come from "pre-existing material" until Craig explained space and time itself began to exist with the Big Bang: Hitch said the Universe cant be designed as its headed for heat-death,Craig explained the fact something has finite duration doesnt mean it wasnt designed. Etc etc every argument got ripped apart.
@MattSingh1 "it has no bearing on my view" your "view" is easily disproved by going over the debate.
Every objection Hitch raised got shredded.
e.g he said the Universe might come from "pre-existing material" until Craig explained space and time itself began to exist with the Big Bang: Hitch said the Universe cant be designed as its headed for heat-death,Craig explained the fact something has finite duration doesnt mean it wasnt designed. Etc etc every argument got ripped apart.
@relarerfhjk (cont)...(3) “Watch Hitchens first speech through to his last, and you will see he had dropped all his arguments by the end of the debate (from his argument against fine-tuning to his objection to the Kalam Argument) after Craig demolished each one of them” So, because Christopher used multiple frames of different arguments to beat Lane-Craig...he lost the debate? You’ll have to explain the grammar of that thought furthermore to avoid intellectual nullity.
@MattSingh1 Hitchens didnt use "multiple frames of different arguments" what he did was offer an attempted argument and as soon as Craig demonstrated why it was fallacious, he retreated from the argument and completely dropped it.
He did this on everything from the cosmological beginning to fine-tuning (his only response to fine-tuning was that there could be a multiverse and he didnt respond when Craig showed why the multiverse is incompatible with what we observe)
@BronyEditor Pah. What total piffle. Try using some factual evidence next time, and if I you don't want to be treated like a fool, don't act like one.
@BronyEditor I agree with them that this was Hitchen's best debate....this is the best he can do against someone 10X his caliber. Hitchen's was either pretty brave or absolutely ignorant to think he can debate the Doc. Many academic atheist will not debate the Doc because the know they cant argue against this guy with their rhetoric...the Doc is rock solid
@DougsDreamDotCom craig is a straight fool. his words may mesmerize the average christard in the south who married his like-yolked half sister. "yee haw ! that there man is on of them doctor folks who believes in GoD! all he says must be true and i automatically agree with him!!" what a disgusting place the world is becoming...
@stryperjm Give me an example of evidence, "Craig is a straight fool" and please think about your answer and give it some time and thought, because what you wrote really shows that you may be lacking the experience and comprehension to understand Craig's works. I'm not being mean to you or putting you down, because I really would like you to give me an educated response. It's honestly kind of fun to talk with others and debate why we believe what we believe.
@MattSingh1 Yes I agree with you Christopher proceeds to own the university with not one proof of an supporting argument to prove God does not exist. Chris just kept attacking our human short comings and the failure of Men and Women in Religion to prove God does not exist..All Chris really proved is that we are not perfect. I agree with you though that's the best Chris could do he is outmatched here by the Doc
@DougsDreamDotCom *Christopher...he promised his mother he would be called that. Also, it's his name. (1). "Chris just kept attacking our human short comings and the failure of Men and Women in Religion to prove God does not exist." You commit the same error, probably purposely, that Craig did; you misrepresent the anti-theist position-the position of us anti-theists isn't that we say with 100% certainty that there is no God, but rather there isn't any credible evidence to prove it. Nice try.
@MattSingh1 The doc gave you evidence, and yes it is considered evidence and credible backed by sold arguments weather you agree with it or not. Christopher, gave us nothing but his journalist perspective of the world based on his views...In many circumstances he tried to prove his perspectives or rational for his beliefs by pointing out the faults of others but never once (NOT) once pointed out one good thing the church or any religion has done...
@DougsDreamDotCom why would a person who is debating against the existence of god talk about the good the church has done? Thats not his job, thats his opponents job.
@MattSingh1 that is not correct. atheist is defined directly as anti God or no God. The view that you are promoting is a view of agnosticism - no sufficient evidence to know that a God exists. Atheism is by definition a polarity of Theism. Theists say there is a God. Atheist being the polarity must therefore say there is no God definitively.
@MattSingh1 There are many positions of the ant-theist and your position is just one of many positions that the anti-theist has accepted for the basis of their belief. I will not accept an absurd general answer that "us" which can be assumed your meaning "all" anti-theists have the same position of beliefs. Hitchen's also, made these absurd general statements (some with no evidence but his personal vendettas) to support his positions which is what my point was and still is.
@DougsDreamDotCom Yet more whining and whimpering from the Christian Apologetic fans. If you don't want to be treated like a fool, don't talk to people as though they're stupid.
"I will not accept an absurd general answer..." I couldn't care less what you accept. Face it, Hitch owned THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY, both on the point of fact as well as popularism (proving he, Hitchens, can do popularism too).
William lane creg is a wind bag that loves to hear himself talk , and hitchens wiped the floor with him , and if you can see that you must be blind or just plain stupid .
'how shall we practice love' Christopher hitchins would not have posed the question like this if he had not come from a Christian soaked culture. That is what religion has given us, if millenia ago, man had not had an 'experience of GOD' to found his moral framework we well be framing moral questions, in terms of: 'what is the best way to torture those who I hate' that is what religion has given to us; socities that obstencibly, are athiest; have soaked themselves and the world in blood!
I've listened to the whole of Christopher hitchins, speech, and he has not made any argument to prove his world view, his is a series of tiny incoherrant arguments, when will he actualy demonstrate that their is no god... and the sequencial positions that flow from that fact such as a relativistic universe, one that is subject to randomness without a guiding hand!
When Atheism denies the existence of god, it in so doing makes claims about the nature of the universe: i.e: that their is no moral order, that the universe has no creator, nor is it subject to his will... it follows that saying their is no god is like saying that life is what you make it, it evolved, morality is subjective to us, however, none of this is ever proven by the athiest - they make their arguments entirely by a denial of a reality never proving their own worldview.
This debate makes you exercise your self control, as you can't answer Craig stupid points directly, but only shout at the screen how stupid this self-proclaimed doctor is.
As a past "combative non-believer" who has come to faith in Christ, I understand almost all of the arguments made by Hitchens, as I have used many of them myself. The most telling statement by Hitchens is when he admits that he would be rather depressed to find that the God of the Bible is true. He doesn't want to know, and that is a similar characteristic with all non-believers, myself included. Understand, God has answers for you when you're ready. Thanks for the video. :)
The fact is, Theists have failed to meet their burden of proof though armed with ancient texts and personal experiences. Atheists however armed with Scientific knowledge and secular education very adequately debunk any and all claims regarding the existence of any particular god. We have met our objective with arguments which theists are unable to overcome and will continue to do so. Thumbs up to Christopher Hitchens and all who are Atheists.
Mr. Craig with his many self evident contradictions won the debate for Christopher. Christopher would have won the debate had he sat in the audience and uttered not a word. Its a sucky way to win for Christopher but nonetheless he won this one with no effort at all.
Craig contradicts himself profusely. (infinity does not exist! God has unlimited time and resources. basic beliefs about reality can't be proved yet experience with respect to a perceived god is evidence of the reality for that god. God is outside of time and space,,,,that would make him undetectable. Yet believers such as Craig claim they detect him.) Believers are dishonest in that they are unable to distinguish between what can be believed and what can be known.
@butchbutch66 You offer a very convenient answer for an Atheist. Christianity rejects the belief in atheism and its claims, so are we also acquitted from answering the questions and challenges put forth by Atheism? Hitchens, by the very fact of participating in this debate, is not in agreement with you. I wish there were more Atheist that would have the guts to speak up, like Hitchens, and stay engaged in the pursuit of truth for the benefit of all mankind.
Wait a minute, Mr. Craig is telling me that I have no objective morality! I'm an atheist! Who knows WHAT evils I'm capable of committing. I'm glad I found that bible! Otherwise, I'd be having sex with an animal right now!
@fedner31 Look again ... Craig is saying that there is no foundation for objective moral values on the Atheist world view, not that you don't have any. To say that an Atheist has no moral values would seem to exempt this person for being held accountable for them. I bet we share common values and you sound like a likeable and humorous person. Not only this, but you may very well have moral strengths in areas were I fail to. The question is: What's the source or origin of them.
Mr. Craig is a highly intelligent and skilled speaker, but his answer regarding the falsehood of other religions is a major weakness. He offers that Christian theism is based on truth, while that of other religions is false. I have many Hindu neighbors, many of whom live happy, successful lives. It seems their gods take good care of them. I have no reason to believe any human claim about God or the gods.
@fedner31 As a Christian I agree with you. I do not know why he does not address this in a more head-on manner. I believe that ALL people, down to the individual person, is offered the same salvation as any Christian, and may accept or reject this offer. I'm off point in saying this, but I have friends who are Atheist who seem to genuinely desire to know the truth, and Christians who hide behind their religion without convictions or such desires. Good catch on the point you've made
I've no idea who Mr. Craig is, but…twisted logic, delusional assertions, colossal double-think… It's enough to make an atheist exclaim "Jesus Christ!"
@JoeStunner If you really dont have "any idea" who Professor William Lane Craig is with 2 PhDs then you are indeed rather ignorant. You claim Dr Craig uses "twisted logic, double-think, delsional assertions" , well as a philosopher myself I would like you to give me one example of any of these claims you make. Craig is logical and articulate. This is why he spanked hitchens. But I will wait for you to give me one example of your assertions.
I am quite delighted to be ignorant of who and what "Professor" Craig is, but frankly can't be bothered to get into some sort of faux-debate, especially with a "philosopher" of your high-standing (though I would recommend you take a few punctuation classes).
As for examples of what I meant, I suggest you watch the whole 147 minutes again; and if you still believe Hitchens was "spanked", counselling might be an option.
@JoeStunner " I am quite delighted to be ignorant " I believe you, and I agree, you are indeed ignorant. Not being "bothered" as you say is indicative of a rather boring and pathetic human being, so congratulations. Now I asked you for ONE, just one, example of your claims, but as expected, you cant give one. And I have not only watched this debate but I was there at Biola and I can assure you, even atheist groups admitted that Craig spaned hitchens like a naughty child.
@JoeStunner Again I will wait for just one example of you claims about Professor Craig's arguments. If you can't, you are a blowhard, if you won't, you are afraid that you will be exposed for being a moron. But as said, I will wait for an example.
@JoeStunner haha, I knew you could not come up with one single argument that supports your rants that Professor Craig made "delusional assertions" and all the other rubbish you said. You are an air bag my friend, rather pathetic really. If you cant put your money where your mouth is, try and remain silent and not expose your lack of comprehension to the world.
Atheists and evolutionists as a whole are just not capable or intelligent enough to be able to think properly. Judging the comments all over YouTube its appauling to see the mass idiocies that exist in this delusion that they claim exists amongst Christians! What THEY affirm is FAR MORE stupid that anything on earth! The mathematical probabilites are absurd against all they believe yet they hold onto it for dear life and call others stupid in the interim? Arrogant idiots believe this lie.
Interesting debate. The real tragedy though is that Christianity as commonly taught bears little resemblance to what Jesus actually taught. Many contend for the existence of God and even the reality of Jesus Christ yet refuse to obey him.
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
all sides of this debate miss the point. but at his outset hitchens says he cannot prove the negative. and says we can go ahead and choose to believe what we wish. however none of this discussion has any bearing on anything. it is about the disprovability of the unprovable. people do exist and it does matter how we treat each other, and nothing else matters more.
You can find "authoritative" support for ANY position--note how Craig supports his "arguments" almost solely by quoting this fellow and that. His attitude is, "This is what I think, and here's a quote from someone which supports it"--a maneuver that's SUPPOSED to lift his argument from speculation to speculation supported by authority. However, only a fool would fail to realize that the vast majority of the quotes he offers are themselves pure speculation. The probability of evolution...LOL!
I am a major WLC fan...but I dislove how he uses "burden of proof" to escape logical quandaries admittedly present in Christianity. Both sides in this argument demand certainty of proof from the other. Hitchens presupposes naturalism, WLC presupposes the metaphysical. I'm sad that WLC didn't start by logically (rather than exclusively historically) proving the supernatural. The cosmological argument addresses it, I suppose...and, hey, at least he dropped that confounding ontological argument.
@wcr4 The cosmological argument may be a suitable defense, but Hitchens greatest argument is not that there is no god, but rather that all of the world's religions are man-made. His reasons and explanations as to why are very, very hard jabs.
@wcr4 The cosmological argument may be a suitable defense, but Hitchens greatest argument is not that there is no god, but rather that all of the world's religions are man-made. His reasons and explanations as to why are very, very hard jabs.
@wcr4 The cosmological argument may be a suitable defense, but Hitchens greatest argument is not that there is no god, but rather that all of the world's religions are man-made. His reasons and explanations as to why are very, very hard jabs.
Very funny. I would say it seems that way if and only if Craig drags them into theological discussion. In which case one will have to know about the Bible. That's where I come in. Too bad I'm not a well known author like Harris or Hitchens. His arguments are frail and fallacious and given the opportunity, I would easily hand him his behind on a silver platter. No sweat. :)
@wcr4 When a person says that they believe in something that is on its face, thoroughly absurd and substantiated by zero evidence, it should come as no surprise when he/she displays shame. One might think that belief in the supernatural doesn't meet the definition above. This however, cannot be the case. This very person, including you and I, feels precisely this way about every other belief system that there has ever been. Each of those unique ideologies proclaims truth and share equal proof.
Does anyone else find it curious how Craig spends ten minutes explaining how a theoretically infinite universe is impossible because infinity itself is impossible, then in his next breath he says that the universe was created by an infinite God, and later on asserts that after we die we go on to live infinitely. This is a rather astounding conflict in his reasoning. Infinity is either possible or it isn't. He can't have it both ways.
Hitchen's looks so grateful for the questions on sex. He was just beat down so badly (gave up his time?No kidding!!) now he can use his only strength....entertainment.
Say there is a god...what if you worship the wrong one? :D
OhTheInSanity151 19 hours ago
I really enjoyed this vid... i'm a christian but hitchens is very dear to me...i can really se how he's searching for answers and is open minded, i pray for him to know God personally...
VDavid33 21 hours ago
So Hitchens says 'I can't be expected to argue with your retrospective evidentialism, Craig then says evolution is proof of gods design. Sigh.
CheekyVimto08 2 days ago
How can you prove what is basically assumed through a tangilble representation of what is intangible? That is my question.
Thekdylan 2 days ago
Craig is a brilliant man. We'll study his philosophical works for many many years. One of the greatest thinkers of our time. Just brilliant.
factoreight 4 days ago
@factoreight I agree, the few folks or supporters of Christopher that I have talked with debate in the same manner in which he does "opinions and assumptions based on generalizations" and quite sadly those folks also believe that is an appropriate logic in which to believe something as truth.
DougsDreamDotCom 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 4 days ago
craig should be a politician cos he talks absolut shite
twilight8181 5 days ago
Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
Yes of course. And he did it in the past. In the beginning, the universe was just a huge rock, and there was nothing to lift it from.
Caracrist 6 days ago
@Caracrist
Your logic is heavily flawed. All powerful means you can do EVERYTHING.
Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
1. If he could then he is not all powerful because he couldn't lift it.
2. If he couldn't then he is not all powerful because he couldn't create it.
- Either way god is not all powerful.
Where do you get that the universe have been a "huge rock" in the past? The Big Bang theory states no such things...
is1337Correct 5 days ago
@is1337Correct Although, I'm glad your thinking, language really becomes the barrier here and how we conceptualize God...there are literally volumes written supporting and debunking the Rock example....in the end you have to choose...but its not so easy as your example above...
DougsDreamDotCom 2 days ago
@DougsDreamDotCom
If your claim was right you would have stated how it was debunked, but you didn't, instead you evaded and came of with gibberish and trying to portray yourself as something you clearly are not.
The choice is simple, look at the non-existent evidence for god and choose to reject it or live a life in ignorance.
is1337Correct 12 hours ago
@is1337Correct The question is mostly likely meaningless. Do you need me to spoon feed you the explanations or will you save yourself the embarrassment of 101 paradoxical questions and do some research on your own? You really should study these before you post them because the most brilliant of minds in history have already given us some pretty sound logical explanations. Unless you think your smarter than St. Thomas Aquinas, Einstein or other brilliant minds.
DougsDreamDotCom 24 minutes ago
WLC is quite the Master Debater. Might even call him a Cunning Linguist.
psburningman 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WLC's strategy is "baffle with bullshit" . Uses lots of $20 college words hoping to intimidate. Used car salesmen with a big vocabulary
psburningman 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
UGGGGGgggghhhhh. Is there anything worse than these long introductions? You may want to hear yourselves speak, dudes, but I sure don't.
Duffyside 1 week ago
Comment removed
Duffyside 1 week ago
2:14:26 typical undergrad question
ramatirthadasa 1 week ago
If theism is true we wouldn't be having a debate. We'd just be dealing with it.
SkyFortStudios 1 week ago
lol 1:03:32 guy is sleeping
Jayfoxpox 1 week ago
WLC is so good at putting up strawmen then knocking them down. He does it so confidently that christians actually believe that the arguments he is destroying are what atheists actually say, when in reality, for the most part, he is arguing with himself.
P.T. Barnum would have been impressed by his Flim-Flam.
Genechanger 2 weeks ago
Atheism cannot be true or false. An atheist simply is. Why do Christian apologist continue to beat that dead horse? Everyone who has ever lived is born an atheist. It's not a belief system. It's not even system. It just so happens that people who are atheists are more likely to accept reality.
McLarenF1God 1 month ago 6
@McLarenF1God Here's proof again that your correlations are irrational, as you make an absurd blanketed statement that atheists are more likely to accept reality. What evidence do you have that supports this comment? Your logic is so warped that when you argue your point you show with your own writings that your lacking skills in understanding philosophical reasoning.
DougsDreamDotCom 2 weeks ago
@McLarenF1God Atheism (if defined as the denial of God's existence) can be true or false, because a denial of a claim can be true or false. If the statement 'Donkeys exist' is false, then the statement 'Donkeys don't exist' is true.
bloodisbleach 2 days ago
@bloodisbleach
Atheism is certainly not defined as the denial of God's existence. That would imply that God is pre-existing and one must deny this fact in order to qualify as an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in supernatural claims that are without evidence. You and every other theist are all atheists in respect to Thor, Odin, and Santa in the same way that I am. You quite literally meet the same definition as an atheist in these respects.
McLarenF1God 2 days ago
@McLarenF1God By 'the denial of God's existence' I meant 'the denial of the claim that God exists'. But if you don't want to define it that way, that's cool with me. By your definition, atheism still can be true or false because the claim that 'nothing that is supernatural exists' can be true or it can be false. Atheism is the belief in no gods at all, so a theist cannot be an atheist in respect to some gods. A Christian theist is a monotheist in respect to other gods, not an atheist.
bloodisbleach 1 day ago
@bloodisbleach
Atheism is the rejection of a claim. It is not denial, nor is it a belief. Your definition is wrong. If you reject a claim you are an atheist to that claim, but, oh dear, you theists are afraid of that label and come up with new definitions to self-assure yourself...
is1337Correct 12 hours ago
William Lane Craig's overconfidence is almost palpable. Just repulsive. Until you have peer reviewed, physical evidence for Jesus, kindly shut the fuck up and start defending the actual text with something concrete. Just because it's from the Christian perspective doesn't suddenly make something true.
McLarenF1God 1 month ago
In what world is theism ever the most probable view? It's the least likely view you can have! There's absolutely zero evidence to support this dogmatic theory.
McLarenF1God 1 month ago 7
@McLarenF1God In this world. How do you conclude its the least likely view you can have? just because you think it is does not support any argument for your statement. The Doc just gave you evidence whether you believe it or not is your right but it is still valid evidence so your absolute zero evidence comment does not make sense....
DougsDreamDotCom 1 month ago
@DougsDreamDotCom "The doc" did not provide any evidence for a god. Craig's argument works equally well if he were talking about gnomes or gremlins. Fill in the blank with whatever you want, his argument is not evidence.
McLarenF1God 4 weeks ago
@McLarenF1God Craig's argument doesn't work "equally well" with Gnomes. Do we have evidence of Gnomes existing or any reason to believe they exist? Now on the other hand, we have evidence based on an entire universe that does exist (whether you agree or not that God created it does not matter to me) but it is evidence and somehow it came to be. Just because you can't comprehend his arguments is not a reason to dismiss them or try to create irrational correlations using Gnomes.
DougsDreamDotCom 2 weeks ago
@McLarenF1God gave me a penis and a brain,but he didnt give me enough blood for both to work simultaniously
ramatirthadasa 1 week ago
Hitchens KO the Lane donkey.
luisyauco74 1 month ago
It's always funny to see how religion tries to 'fit' itself into science...very good debate Mr. Hitchens, kudos to you ;]
wonszlol 1 month ago
buya!
sanmorris 1 month ago
I have a Phd in Truthology from Christian Tech University.
AutoBahnForever 1 month ago
I do not agree that Craig destroyed Hitchens, or the opposite for that matter. Craig does show more fluency in his arguments, but bear in mind that he's on home turf. Craig does a great job at defending deism, but as soon as he makes the transition to theism Hitchens accurately shoots him down. If the Egyptians could perform miracles then Jesus miracles are not proof of divinity. If Jesus was resurrected from the dead, that does not prove his doctrines right. On the other hand...(continues)
Corellian 1 month ago
@Corellian (Part 2) ...Hitchens is unable to refute deism, something that Craig expertly defends philosophically. There could well be a god, or gods. But that is also Hitchens point, that atheism cannot and should not prove that there isn't a prime mover, but that the scientific evidence shows that the universe seem to function without that assumption, and that even if god/s DO exist, there is nothing to prove that they are even aware, let alone caring of our existence, thoughts and deeds.
Corellian 1 month ago
@Corellian "as soon as he makes the transition to theism Hitchens shoots him down" Er, where did that happen? As I certainly missed it!
All Craig's arguments made the case for theism (e.g Kalam argument gives you a single, all-powerful, timeless/spaceless supernatural being, fine-tuning then shows an intelligent designer who created the Universe for conscious life, objective moral values show an all-good God, the historical evidence for ressurection shows He revealed himself in Jesus)
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
Comment removed
Corellian 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did you miss it? Craigs strongest arguments, and the very ones you mention, are about deism not theism. The arguments for the existence of a timeless being does not (as Hitchens points out) in any way prove that there is one and not several god/s, or that the god/s in question cannot make commands we could understand as evil, and most importantly, that the god/s in question are not the hindu gods, or Allah. Nothing says that a divinity necessarily is Christian.
Corellian 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And I repeat from my earlier post "If the Egyptians also could perform miracles (something Craig acknowledges) then Jesus miracles are not proof of divinity. If Jesus was resurrected from the dead, that does not prove his doctrines right.".
Corellian 1 month ago
@Corellian Ha gave an argument for the resurrection of Jesus. So he's not just "defending deism". I swear, you atheists are so fucking retarded.
BronyEditor 1 month ago
@BronyEditor Using swear words?...there's gentle Jesus, meek and mild again. Additionally, I wouldn't wander around calling people "retarded" whilst believing in nonsensical notions like the 'Burning Bush', resurrections and (my personal favourite, because it's so fun to ridicule) the concept that we're given free-will by the celestial dictatorship. It seems of any, or all, of us, YOU’RE the retarded one.
MattSingh1 1 month ago
@BronyEditor Great reply. I did not say that Craig "just" defended deism, but that his strongest arguments are in that area. Even the argument for the resurrection of Jesus (which in and of itself is not evidence of any sort) does not prove that his doctrines are true, as Hitchens points out. That being said, I do not think that Hitchens performed well in this debate.
Corellian 1 month ago
@BronyEditor Craig gives solid arguments, the problem is that most people cant understand the evidence or because they don't agree with it they conclude it as false. Whether its correct or not is not the point as Craig said Christopher did not give any arguments to prove God does not exist. Based on his argument I think its clear to make the assumption that Craig presented the most plausible conclusion that God does exist from this debate.
DougsDreamDotCom 1 month ago
I'm a professional philosopher. It baffles me how anyone can agree with Hitchen's arguments here since Craig, point for point, shoots them clear out of the sky. The immaculate fine tuning of the initial conditions of the cosmos? Hitchens provides a semi-sound answer that Craig quickly demolishes. The objectivity of moral structure? Hitchens actually AGREES with Craig and throws the ball into the basket for Craig, sparing him the work. Is anybody actually listening? Craig destroyed Hitchens.
Imperativism 1 month ago
Well, I WAS going to major in philosophy...
theZoen69 1 month ago
@Imperativism Your right, But you need to understand the fanaticism of Hitchens fans:they cant bear to see their idol's arguments exposed for the intellectually-shallow nonsense they are
So they invent a parallell reality in which Hitchens actually won this debate.
The problem is, even if you put the volume on mute during Craigs speeches and only watch Hitchens,you'd see Hitch drop every one of his arguments over the course of the debate (as they were all successfuly refuted)
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk I also notice that some of those that support Christopher also argue in the same manner, "Opinions based on assumptions and generalizations to support their position"...
DougsDreamDotCom 2 days ago
@Imperativism it blows my mind also how they think Hitchens won...I don't get it either, almost like their minds are not in engaged in the dialog but are hanging on the words of the Hitchen's to conclude their beliefs....I also see some real issues with Hitchens...he is angry at this world and thus concludes that God cant exist because he believes this place is a real shit hole...he only focuses on the negative of religions and the church and not once the good that has come from it
DougsDreamDotCom 1 month ago
CH is the voice of reason always
Sconezeta 1 month ago
@terminat1 There lies another problem with that though, if you take the idea of Genesis and the fall of grace as the reason for suffering in the world then you set yourself up to be asked why God would even create the fruit of knowledge and the serpent knowing what would take place. He forbade Adam and Eve from taking the fruit but one has to ask the obvious question, why even create the fruit or the serpent knowing it could be their ONLY downfall from Eden?
UnionGarside 1 month ago
@UnionGarside God gave Adam and Eve a free choice. He knew that they'd sin, since He is omniscient, but His knowing ahead of time didn't 'force' them to sin.
The wages of sin is death...(Romans 6:23). As a result of disobeying God, man became dead (separated from God).
This is the only way to understand death and suffering if you're a Christian. Otherwise, why would God, Who called His Creation 'very good,' include within it suffering? That doesn't add up.
terminat1 1 month ago
Comment removed
camcintosh1 1 month ago
Criag is a sophist
cushnut81 1 month ago
They're both right.
01110110010110110101 1 month ago
Evil and suffering is explained quite clearly by the Bible. It's the result of man's rebellion, as is death. However, if you don't trust the Genesis account, as Dr. Craig sadly does not, then you have to come up with philosophical reasons why a good God would allow evil and suffering for apparently no reason.
If you trust Genesis as true history, then evil and suffering, and the general wickedness of mankind, is easily explainable.
terminat1 1 month ago
I'm sorry, Dr. Craig, but the Bible will not allow for evolution or millions of years of animal death prior to man arriving on the scene. The Bible clearly teaches that death came as a result of man's sin, not prior to it. And Christ Himself validates that the account of Adam and Eve is literal (Matthew 19:4-5).
So, you either have to trust the scientists, or God. Unfortunately, Dr. Craig doesn't realize that the scientific evidence actually supports a young earth and is against evolution.
terminat1 1 month ago
@terminat1
You are absolutely correct! Up until the part of scientific evidence supporting a young earth, and being against evolution. This is one of my main beefs with WLC, he acts like Christianity can go wherever the evidence leads. No! certain things must be so and not so, in order for it to be true. Though we differ, I respect YECs for standing by the biblical account of events. If one takes the Bible like a grain of salt...why be a Christian?
EdwardScissorHead 1 month ago
@EdwardScissorHead Yes, exactly. The Bible is most certainly against evolution, and Dr. Craig sadly doesn't have a problem with the two coexisting. The Bible plainly teaches that death came as a result of man's sin, not millions of years prior to people arriving on the scene.
Of course, we differ on evolution and the age of the earth.
terminat1 1 month ago
this video affirms my agnosticism.
s3nru 1 month ago
WLC is obsessed with proving a negative, even after Hitchens corrects him.
ThetaTiger 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
15:45 ROFL! He doesn't even understand what is flawed about the cosmological argument! If there has to be a creator, then the creator HAS to have a creator! And THAT creator HAS to have a creator! And on into infinity, which he himself explains is impossible! He is using it to support the assertion that the universe HAD to have been created and therefore HAD to have a creator. Utter contradictory nonsense.
theZoen69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
17:52 - 18:00 The Big Bang Theory can take us back to Planck Time, a time in which nearly all the matter in the known universe was tightly packed together in such a way that we cannot make sense of what was happening before this. Did I mention ALL THE MATTER IN OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE? That's not exactly "nothing", never mind that I know of not a single atheist who makes the claim he says we do, though in fairness I guess there may be a few.
theZoen69 1 month ago
Comment removed
theZoen69 1 month ago
16:48 "This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind and not something that exists in reality". Hmm, that seems familiar, not sure why... ;-)
theZoen69 1 month ago
16:28 A better assertion might be "If the Universe never began to exist, we wouldn't be here talking about it!". Lol... Just thought that was funny...
theZoen69 1 month ago
Comment removed
theZoen69 1 month ago
15:09 "Atheists have tried for centuries to disprove the existence of God". THAT IS A BOLD FACED LIE. No one can DIS-prove the existence of God and a man as educated as Dr Craig knows that. He is intentionally misleading the crowd, which is his prerogative in the context of the debate, but no less dishonest than saying that we have tried for centuries to dis-prove unicorns or leprechauns.
theZoen69 1 month ago
Wow! I love Hitchens, but he got stomped on this one. He failed to tear down any of the points Dr. Craig brought to the table, and failed to replace Craig's points with better points of his own. I have read many comments saying Craig is an idiot, with accusations of poor logic and twisted thinking. If you are going to fling insults and make accusations, the least you can do is provide examples and be specific. Otherwise your comments are useless.
strengthonor 1 month ago
@strengthonor Wait, you make a claimg that Hitchens got stomped, without proof.
elfred1980 1 month ago
@elfred1980 Let me spell this out for the impared: Take the two contentions No good arguments in favor of atheism/several good reasons in favor of Theism. Dr. Craig laid simple, concise points of argument that favor theism. logical falacies, circular reasoning or ad hominem. Hitchens failed to tear down any of the arguments in place or and also failed to replace them with better ones. The truth is clear as always: Atheism can smell rotten eggs but cannot lay any good ones.
strengthonor 1 month ago
@strengthonor 14:29, not 1 minute into the debate and Craig has already exhibited that he doesn't even understand what Atheism is. How can a rejection of a claim be true or false? He misrepresents atheism as a world view and the he says, he is going to use that as HALF of his argument! Also, the goal is not to make your opponent try and pick apart your points, it is to answer the question posed by the debate, another diversionary tactic that Dr Craig uses consistently in debates.
theZoen69 1 month ago
@theZoen69 Not sure you grasp the concept as a whole. I say I have reasons to believe in God. You say you have reasons that you don't. Give your reasons, I give mine, and we will see which one demonstrates itself to be OBJECTIVELY true. Dr. Craig gave plenty of reasons why he finds theism to be more coherent then atheism. Hitchens failed to give any reasons why he does not believe. The idea is to give better reasons for yours than I have for mine. Its hardly a tactic.
strengthonor 1 month ago
@strengthonor I'm 5 minutes into the debate (yes I've watched the whole thing in the past) and I've already identified several problems with Dr Craigs flawed logic. Yes, I have provided examples. Yes, I have been specific.
theZoen69 1 month ago
damn hicks. glad i'm not in that college.
redarrowhead2 1 month ago
WLC doesn't understand atheism. It is impossible to 'disprove' God, just as it's impossible to disprove leprechauns. He is so full of crap.
MrJohndl 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Craig has an amazing way with words, but he speaks like a politician. just keep talking and eventually people will tune you out and only hear a few pieces that they agree with and the rest will be gibberish. his answer to the Africa question was a perfect example. all he needed to say was "i dont know, god knows more than i do" but instead took 5 min of talking in circles. i think thats why people feel he won the debate, his words were colorful where hitchens is trying to just prove points.
deathtoll34 1 month ago
Comment removed
deathtoll34 1 month ago
Of all of his debates, this may be Christopher's best; the entire crowd, or at least the vast majority, is wailing and revelling in their Christian apologetics during the time when the first speaker is running thru his 'Who's who' of the home turf rabble. Hitch then proceeds to own THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY(!) during the debate. Christopher may be gone, be he’s immortal in the works he left behind.
MattSingh1 1 month ago 16
@MattSingh1 "Hitchens then proceeds to own THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY"
I have to conclude you were watching a different debate....even Hitchens friends, and the blog CommonSenseAtheism immediately said he got destroyed in this debate.
Watch Hitchens first speech through to his last, and you will see he had dropped all his arguments by the end of the debate (from his argument against fine-tuning to his objection to the Kalam Argument) after Craig demolished each one of them:
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk (1) "I have to conclude you were watching a different debate..." Your conclusion, of course sir, is wrong; we did, in fact, watch the same debate.(2) "even Hitchens friends, and the blog CommonSenseAtheism immediately said he got destroyed in this debate" I, in fact, do not need or require anyone's approval, sanction or agreement to think anything, unlike many theists. If what you say is true, it has no bearing on my view that Hitchens floored every theistic argument (cont)...
MattSingh1 1 month ago
@MattSingh1 "it has no bearing on my view" your "view" is easily disproved by going over the debate.
Every objection Hitch raised got shredded.
e.g he said the Universe might come from "pre-existing material" until Craig explained space and time itself began to exist with the Big Bang: Hitch said the Universe cant be designed as its headed for heat-death,Craig explained the fact something has finite duration doesnt mean it wasnt designed. Etc etc every argument got ripped apart.
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MattSingh1 "it has no bearing on my view" your "view" is easily disproved by going over the debate.
Every objection Hitch raised got shredded.
e.g he said the Universe might come from "pre-existing material" until Craig explained space and time itself began to exist with the Big Bang: Hitch said the Universe cant be designed as its headed for heat-death,Craig explained the fact something has finite duration doesnt mean it wasnt designed. Etc etc every argument got ripped apart.
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk (cont)...(3) “Watch Hitchens first speech through to his last, and you will see he had dropped all his arguments by the end of the debate (from his argument against fine-tuning to his objection to the Kalam Argument) after Craig demolished each one of them” So, because Christopher used multiple frames of different arguments to beat Lane-Craig...he lost the debate? You’ll have to explain the grammar of that thought furthermore to avoid intellectual nullity.
MattSingh1 1 month ago
@MattSingh1 Hitchens didnt use "multiple frames of different arguments" what he did was offer an attempted argument and as soon as Craig demonstrated why it was fallacious, he retreated from the argument and completely dropped it.
He did this on everything from the cosmological beginning to fine-tuning (his only response to fine-tuning was that there could be a multiverse and he didnt respond when Craig showed why the multiverse is incompatible with what we observe)
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@MattSingh1 Bull-fucking-shit. This was Hitchens WORST debate. He fucking lost to Craig. Get the fuck over it atheists.
BronyEditor 1 month ago
@BronyEditor Pah. What total piffle. Try using some factual evidence next time, and if I you don't want to be treated like a fool, don't act like one.
MattSingh1 1 month ago
@BronyEditor I agree with them that this was Hitchen's best debate....this is the best he can do against someone 10X his caliber. Hitchen's was either pretty brave or absolutely ignorant to think he can debate the Doc. Many academic atheist will not debate the Doc because the know they cant argue against this guy with their rhetoric...the Doc is rock solid
DougsDreamDotCom 1 month ago
@DougsDreamDotCom craig is a straight fool. his words may mesmerize the average christard in the south who married his like-yolked half sister. "yee haw ! that there man is on of them doctor folks who believes in GoD! all he says must be true and i automatically agree with him!!" what a disgusting place the world is becoming...
stryperjm 3 weeks ago
@stryperjm Give me an example of evidence, "Craig is a straight fool" and please think about your answer and give it some time and thought, because what you wrote really shows that you may be lacking the experience and comprehension to understand Craig's works. I'm not being mean to you or putting you down, because I really would like you to give me an educated response. It's honestly kind of fun to talk with others and debate why we believe what we believe.
DougsDreamDotCom 2 weeks ago
@MattSingh1 Yes I agree with you Christopher proceeds to own the university with not one proof of an supporting argument to prove God does not exist. Chris just kept attacking our human short comings and the failure of Men and Women in Religion to prove God does not exist..All Chris really proved is that we are not perfect. I agree with you though that's the best Chris could do he is outmatched here by the Doc
DougsDreamDotCom 1 month ago
@DougsDreamDotCom *Christopher...he promised his mother he would be called that. Also, it's his name. (1). "Chris just kept attacking our human short comings and the failure of Men and Women in Religion to prove God does not exist." You commit the same error, probably purposely, that Craig did; you misrepresent the anti-theist position-the position of us anti-theists isn't that we say with 100% certainty that there is no God, but rather there isn't any credible evidence to prove it. Nice try.
MattSingh1 1 month ago
@MattSingh1 The doc gave you evidence, and yes it is considered evidence and credible backed by sold arguments weather you agree with it or not. Christopher, gave us nothing but his journalist perspective of the world based on his views...In many circumstances he tried to prove his perspectives or rational for his beliefs by pointing out the faults of others but never once (NOT) once pointed out one good thing the church or any religion has done...
DougsDreamDotCom 1 month ago
@DougsDreamDotCom why would a person who is debating against the existence of god talk about the good the church has done? Thats not his job, thats his opponents job.
Gamer9678 1 month ago
@MattSingh1 that is not correct. atheist is defined directly as anti God or no God. The view that you are promoting is a view of agnosticism - no sufficient evidence to know that a God exists. Atheism is by definition a polarity of Theism. Theists say there is a God. Atheist being the polarity must therefore say there is no God definitively.
brennyde 3 weeks ago
@brennyde I suggest you look into the difference between a-theist, and anti-atheist.
MattSingh1 3 weeks ago
@brennyde srry mate the other's are right, atheist, means, without a theistic view, so to say.
BlackMoridin 3 weeks ago
@MattSingh1 There are many positions of the ant-theist and your position is just one of many positions that the anti-theist has accepted for the basis of their belief. I will not accept an absurd general answer that "us" which can be assumed your meaning "all" anti-theists have the same position of beliefs. Hitchen's also, made these absurd general statements (some with no evidence but his personal vendettas) to support his positions which is what my point was and still is.
DougsDreamDotCom 2 weeks ago
@DougsDreamDotCom Yet more whining and whimpering from the Christian Apologetic fans. If you don't want to be treated like a fool, don't talk to people as though they're stupid.
"I will not accept an absurd general answer..." I couldn't care less what you accept. Face it, Hitch owned THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY, both on the point of fact as well as popularism (proving he, Hitchens, can do popularism too).
MattSingh1 2 weeks ago
@MattSingh1 not right
imraaaro765 2 weeks ago
Creg never answers any question , hahaha , he just shoots out rubbish , WHAT FAKER..
adlerbr12 1 month ago
Any one that thinks creg won this debate Is a supersttious idiot,HITCHENS won every point in the entire debate.
adlerbr12 1 month ago
At 1:24.40 William lane greg lost the entire debate , HE AS HITCHSLAPPED.
adlerbr12 1 month ago
William lane creg is a moron ,hahaha he thinks he can trap hitch with his aaaaah theism bullshit what a child, what a scared little faker.
adlerbr12 1 month ago
William lame creg say he knows god personally hahahaqa , i think he may need medication .
adlerbr12 1 month ago
William lane creg is a wind bag that loves to hear himself talk , and hitchens wiped the floor with him , and if you can see that you must be blind or just plain stupid .
adlerbr12 1 month ago
'how shall we practice love' Christopher hitchins would not have posed the question like this if he had not come from a Christian soaked culture. That is what religion has given us, if millenia ago, man had not had an 'experience of GOD' to found his moral framework we well be framing moral questions, in terms of: 'what is the best way to torture those who I hate' that is what religion has given to us; socities that obstencibly, are athiest; have soaked themselves and the world in blood!
suminvictus 1 month ago
I've listened to the whole of Christopher hitchins, speech, and he has not made any argument to prove his world view, his is a series of tiny incoherrant arguments, when will he actualy demonstrate that their is no god... and the sequencial positions that flow from that fact such as a relativistic universe, one that is subject to randomness without a guiding hand!
suminvictus 1 month ago
When Atheism denies the existence of god, it in so doing makes claims about the nature of the universe: i.e: that their is no moral order, that the universe has no creator, nor is it subject to his will... it follows that saying their is no god is like saying that life is what you make it, it evolved, morality is subjective to us, however, none of this is ever proven by the athiest - they make their arguments entirely by a denial of a reality never proving their own worldview.
suminvictus 1 month ago
This debate makes you exercise your self control, as you can't answer Craig stupid points directly, but only shout at the screen how stupid this self-proclaimed doctor is.
MrBTie 1 month ago
As a past "combative non-believer" who has come to faith in Christ, I understand almost all of the arguments made by Hitchens, as I have used many of them myself. The most telling statement by Hitchens is when he admits that he would be rather depressed to find that the God of the Bible is true. He doesn't want to know, and that is a similar characteristic with all non-believers, myself included. Understand, God has answers for you when you're ready. Thanks for the video. :)
codenamecommando 1 month ago
The fact is, Theists have failed to meet their burden of proof though armed with ancient texts and personal experiences. Atheists however armed with Scientific knowledge and secular education very adequately debunk any and all claims regarding the existence of any particular god. We have met our objective with arguments which theists are unable to overcome and will continue to do so. Thumbs up to Christopher Hitchens and all who are Atheists.
Crazy80563 2 months ago
Mr. Craig with his many self evident contradictions won the debate for Christopher. Christopher would have won the debate had he sat in the audience and uttered not a word. Its a sucky way to win for Christopher but nonetheless he won this one with no effort at all.
Crazy80563 2 months ago
I get my morality from Reason not God!
Crazy80563 2 months ago
Craig contradicts himself profusely. (infinity does not exist! God has unlimited time and resources. basic beliefs about reality can't be proved yet experience with respect to a perceived god is evidence of the reality for that god. God is outside of time and space,,,,that would make him undetectable. Yet believers such as Craig claim they detect him.) Believers are dishonest in that they are unable to distinguish between what can be believed and what can be known.
Crazy80563 2 months ago
@Hofsteder BEcause God is outside space an time...duh...
MrUrosSrb 2 months ago
@butchbutch66 You offer a very convenient answer for an Atheist. Christianity rejects the belief in atheism and its claims, so are we also acquitted from answering the questions and challenges put forth by Atheism? Hitchens, by the very fact of participating in this debate, is not in agreement with you. I wish there were more Atheist that would have the guts to speak up, like Hitchens, and stay engaged in the pursuit of truth for the benefit of all mankind.
johnvndnbrk 2 months ago
Rest in peace Hitch. We love you, I only thought it worthy to say this on the video I first heard about you.
MrChaos424242 2 months ago
Craig is a very energetic speaker, but the professor that taught him argumentation should be fired.
Ilicium 2 months ago
Wait a minute, Mr. Craig is telling me that I have no objective morality! I'm an atheist! Who knows WHAT evils I'm capable of committing. I'm glad I found that bible! Otherwise, I'd be having sex with an animal right now!
fedner31 2 months ago
@fedner31 Look again ... Craig is saying that there is no foundation for objective moral values on the Atheist world view, not that you don't have any. To say that an Atheist has no moral values would seem to exempt this person for being held accountable for them. I bet we share common values and you sound like a likeable and humorous person. Not only this, but you may very well have moral strengths in areas were I fail to. The question is: What's the source or origin of them.
johnvndnbrk 2 months ago
Mr. Craig is a highly intelligent and skilled speaker, but his answer regarding the falsehood of other religions is a major weakness. He offers that Christian theism is based on truth, while that of other religions is false. I have many Hindu neighbors, many of whom live happy, successful lives. It seems their gods take good care of them. I have no reason to believe any human claim about God or the gods.
fedner31 2 months ago
@fedner31 As a Christian I agree with you. I do not know why he does not address this in a more head-on manner. I believe that ALL people, down to the individual person, is offered the same salvation as any Christian, and may accept or reject this offer. I'm off point in saying this, but I have friends who are Atheist who seem to genuinely desire to know the truth, and Christians who hide behind their religion without convictions or such desires. Good catch on the point you've made
johnvndnbrk 2 months ago
strawman after strawman
crankycactus 2 months ago
Hitch was a brilliant and loquacious atheist.
ctriamimgons 2 months ago
I've no idea who Mr. Craig is, but…twisted logic, delusional assertions, colossal double-think… It's enough to make an atheist exclaim "Jesus Christ!"
JoeStunner 2 months ago 10
@JoeStunner LOL....!
fedner31 2 months ago
@JoeStunner If you really dont have "any idea" who Professor William Lane Craig is with 2 PhDs then you are indeed rather ignorant. You claim Dr Craig uses "twisted logic, double-think, delsional assertions" , well as a philosopher myself I would like you to give me one example of any of these claims you make. Craig is logical and articulate. This is why he spanked hitchens. But I will wait for you to give me one example of your assertions.
Kai84719 1 month ago
@Kai84719
I am quite delighted to be ignorant of who and what "Professor" Craig is, but frankly can't be bothered to get into some sort of faux-debate, especially with a "philosopher" of your high-standing (though I would recommend you take a few punctuation classes).
As for examples of what I meant, I suggest you watch the whole 147 minutes again; and if you still believe Hitchens was "spanked", counselling might be an option.
JoeStunner 1 month ago
@JoeStunner " I am quite delighted to be ignorant " I believe you, and I agree, you are indeed ignorant. Not being "bothered" as you say is indicative of a rather boring and pathetic human being, so congratulations. Now I asked you for ONE, just one, example of your claims, but as expected, you cant give one. And I have not only watched this debate but I was there at Biola and I can assure you, even atheist groups admitted that Craig spaned hitchens like a naughty child.
Kai84719 1 month ago
@JoeStunner Again I will wait for just one example of you claims about Professor Craig's arguments. If you can't, you are a blowhard, if you won't, you are afraid that you will be exposed for being a moron. But as said, I will wait for an example.
Kai84719 1 month ago
@JoeStunner Stay ignorant then. What you "think" is inconsequential.
PureAirSolutions 1 month ago
@JoeStunner haha, I knew you could not come up with one single argument that supports your rants that Professor Craig made "delusional assertions" and all the other rubbish you said. You are an air bag my friend, rather pathetic really. If you cant put your money where your mouth is, try and remain silent and not expose your lack of comprehension to the world.
Kai84719 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists and evolutionists as a whole are just not capable or intelligent enough to be able to think properly. Judging the comments all over YouTube its appauling to see the mass idiocies that exist in this delusion that they claim exists amongst Christians! What THEY affirm is FAR MORE stupid that anything on earth! The mathematical probabilites are absurd against all they believe yet they hold onto it for dear life and call others stupid in the interim? Arrogant idiots believe this lie.
PureAirSolutions 1 month ago
@JoeStunner If his logic is twisted, then why haven't the atheists refuted it?
terminat1 1 month ago
HAHA its funny how people were yawning
dragonshoot32 2 months ago
Interesting debate. The real tragedy though is that Christianity as commonly taught bears little resemblance to what Jesus actually taught. Many contend for the existence of God and even the reality of Jesus Christ yet refuse to obey him.
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Skinski7 2 months ago
all sides of this debate miss the point. but at his outset hitchens says he cannot prove the negative. and says we can go ahead and choose to believe what we wish. however none of this discussion has any bearing on anything. it is about the disprovability of the unprovable. people do exist and it does matter how we treat each other, and nothing else matters more.
isafakir 2 months ago
Hehe "Erect"
TheSeriousHumor 2 months ago
Who did Kane and Able have sex with to create their offspring?
meltorme6 2 months ago
@meltorme6 cane and able were two of many.
isafakir 2 months ago
@meltorme6 mommy
dec0y8 2 months ago
@meltorme6 Each other and their mother.
Crazy80563 2 months ago
You can find "authoritative" support for ANY position--note how Craig supports his "arguments" almost solely by quoting this fellow and that. His attitude is, "This is what I think, and here's a quote from someone which supports it"--a maneuver that's SUPPOSED to lift his argument from speculation to speculation supported by authority. However, only a fool would fail to realize that the vast majority of the quotes he offers are themselves pure speculation. The probability of evolution...LOL!
DSchrute010 2 months ago
I am a major WLC fan...but I dislove how he uses "burden of proof" to escape logical quandaries admittedly present in Christianity. Both sides in this argument demand certainty of proof from the other. Hitchens presupposes naturalism, WLC presupposes the metaphysical. I'm sad that WLC didn't start by logically (rather than exclusively historically) proving the supernatural. The cosmological argument addresses it, I suppose...and, hey, at least he dropped that confounding ontological argument.
wcr4 2 months ago
@wcr4 The cosmological argument may be a suitable defense, but Hitchens greatest argument is not that there is no god, but rather that all of the world's religions are man-made. His reasons and explanations as to why are very, very hard jabs.
McLarenF1God 2 months ago
@wcr4 The cosmological argument may be a suitable defense, but Hitchens greatest argument is not that there is no god, but rather that all of the world's religions are man-made. His reasons and explanations as to why are very, very hard jabs.
McLarenF1God 2 months ago
@wcr4 The cosmological argument may be a suitable defense, but Hitchens greatest argument is not that there is no god, but rather that all of the world's religions are man-made. His reasons and explanations as to why are very, very hard jabs.
McLarenF1God 2 months ago
Very funny. I would say it seems that way if and only if Craig drags them into theological discussion. In which case one will have to know about the Bible. That's where I come in. Too bad I'm not a well known author like Harris or Hitchens. His arguments are frail and fallacious and given the opportunity, I would easily hand him his behind on a silver platter. No sweat. :)
TheAdvaitist 2 months ago
@TheAdvaitist sure sure, keyboard commando.
butchbutch66 2 months ago
Craig repeats the same old arguments...
TheAdvaitist 2 months ago 4
@TheAdvaitist It's because his opponents can't refute them.
butchbutch66 2 months ago
Even Craig can't hide the embarrassment he exhibits after Htichens asks him specific and direct questions about his biblical beliefs.
McLarenF1God 2 months ago 16
@McLarenF1God What does that indicate?
wcr4 2 months ago
@wcr4 When a person says that they believe in something that is on its face, thoroughly absurd and substantiated by zero evidence, it should come as no surprise when he/she displays shame. One might think that belief in the supernatural doesn't meet the definition above. This however, cannot be the case. This very person, including you and I, feels precisely this way about every other belief system that there has ever been. Each of those unique ideologies proclaims truth and share equal proof.
McLarenF1God 2 months ago
@McLarenF1God I notice that of most believers. It's hard for them to repeat their beliefs or write them down without feeling silly.
Whoknowsuknow 2 months ago
Does anyone else find it curious how Craig spends ten minutes explaining how a theoretically infinite universe is impossible because infinity itself is impossible, then in his next breath he says that the universe was created by an infinite God, and later on asserts that after we die we go on to live infinitely. This is a rather astounding conflict in his reasoning. Infinity is either possible or it isn't. He can't have it both ways.
1955RodHot 2 months ago
@1955RodHot Sure he can. He's a Christian!
shonpistoll 2 months ago
@1955RodHot Spot-on man, spot-on!
DoubterApe 2 months ago
Hitchen's looks so grateful for the questions on sex. He was just beat down so badly (gave up his time?No kidding!!) now he can use his only strength....entertainment.
rb1950ful 3 months ago
Comment removed
rb1950ful 3 months ago