Atkins did better than most people give him credit for. At least he managed to cut to the core of WLC's fallacy: all his arguments require a metaphysical leap while simpler explanations cannot be ruled out. 1. The universe appears to be designed so there must be a supernatural designer 2. There are reports of a supernatural event so it must be supernatural 3. I feel God from within so there must be... etc. Atkins 'science can explain everything'-argument is shaky at best though
I love how Craig brings up rape as his example of an objective moral wrong that isn't objectively wrong on atheism. It's hilarious that he does this, because it may be that there is objective morality on atheism, and that it makes rape objectively wrong. However, on Christianity, rape is not objectively wrong, at least not by a divine commandment. The Bible is oddly silent on this (as well as on slavery and child abuse, for that matter).
Its easy to write paragraphs upon paragraphs (as shown below) but the point never sticks. I believe (with a logical string that goes through all my points) that people learn from the very beginning (however it happened) that its better to live with friendly people, than cut throat people. Civilization eventually advanced and put up tribal rules for each village to help keep the people feeling happy and safe. Religions of the past, even some now, make rape acceptable.
Man, Atkins don't stand a chance, the reason why Craig refutes them everytime is because he gives all the positive facts about the existence of God...while the so called atheists focus on the negative, yet never proved their point. Again, Murderfied...go ahead, Craig.
He covers a lot and i'm only 4 minutes in. He mentions that morals although can exist without god, are not objective. They are not obvious. He tries to make the point about rape being unacceptable, but not immoral to atheists. As an Atheist I believe its important to have a consensus to agree what is the basis for right and wrong, to teach the newer generations. Gods book is not required for this. Most people already know the basics of right and wrong from common sense.
@trom2004 Dr.Craig's point is that if you create such moral basis for new generation, it would have no basis in itself, because without objective morality, there is no reason to say that what the older generation think is right is what indeed is right. In other words, without objective morality, you may list that "rape is wrong", but your younger generation may say "rape is right", and you would have no reason to say they are wrong, because subjectively that's what they believe in.
@Mani3e If I had a book from 2000 years ago telling me that rape was good. I would not believe my family who would tell me that its true. This is part of being an Atheist. It must make sense in order for me to believe. On the other hand religious types believe in the book no matter how horrible the text is.
@trom2004 Seperate but similar note: Rape is clearly not acceptable, even if your raised to accept it. Its like being raised to punch other people outright instead of talking. Your clearly going to not have a good life. Some people are a little smarter than listening to nonsense and repeating it.
@trom2004 yes, rape is clearly unacceptable. But on what basis do we say this? to us, it is clear that terrorism and 9/11 were unacceptable. But to Osama, it is clearly acceptable. Just as in law system, to prove the defendant wrong we can't simply say "but it is clear that what he was doing was wrong". We have to have a basis, namely a "standard", such as the law, that is objective and that we can appeal to build grounds for saying that things such as rape is unacceptable.
@trom2004 the Christian, or believer of any other God, might not be able to prove that his book is "right". However he has reasons to believe that certain things are inherently wrong, because he believe the law is written on his heart. To the naturalist, however, right and wrong is nothing more than illusion created by electric signals in our brain, because if nature is all there is, such thing as an objective, or "higher", moral standard is extant.
And so that is the Way of the Universe...through the law of Polarity which gives us the contrast of extremes and thus the inbetweens.
And isn't that the main theme of the Universe..."The Extremes"...far left and right, good vs bad...
And so that is our battle...But ask yourself, is the Universe an organism? and if so, does it want us to progress or recede, create or destroy, continue or discontinue...etc?
morality exist because one thinks about the thought, feelings and emotions that another goes through when for example being raped. and they imagine themselves having the exact same experience. and they come to the conclusion that it is not something that one would want to experience. thus they refrain from doing such acts which are considered to be "morally wrong". thus proving that god does not necessarily need to be the reason for the moral choices.. makes sense?
Craig sure favors the appeal to authority fallacy. Objective (in the strictest philosophical meaning) morality exists is an assumption. He said, "deep down inside, we all know it"; quite an audacious remark, and he had nothing else to substantiate the premise. I won't even humor the resurrection or experiential claims. Now, what could be evidence for or against an asserted transcendent anything? Keeping in mind absence of evidence for natural causes of anything will be arguments from ignorance.
@DrEvolutionQuest Objective morality does not exist. The term is non-sensical. Even if everyone in the world agreed on the same rules of behaviour it wouldn't make morality objective. Even if god decreed something it wouldn't make it objective. There is no discovery that can be made that can make objective morality a logical possibility.
@TatsujinSan Well I happily disagree. I adhere to moral realism. You can look up some fantastic articles that do a great job describing how atheism does not entail subjective, relative morality. A good place to start is Michael Martin's "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape".
@DrEvolutionQuest Moral realism? Of course morality is real. It exists as subjective interpretations of how one ought to behave. It just doesn't have an objective standard.
I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to behave a certain way. I just acknowledge that it is ultimately my subjective opinion of what is right and wrong and that ultimately nothing TRULY matters except to us.
@DrEvolutionQuest "Michael Martin's "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape" - I read it author have interesting understanding of what objective is and has a lot of redhearings and generalisations. So I have a question - after reading it can you name one argument why atheistic morality is or can be objective?
@girtkaz Because certain ethical frameworks like Ideal Observer Theory don't need a God in order to be objective. Even christian philosopher's such as Richard Swinburne agree that Objective morality can exist without God. Swinburne even argued that certain moral truths are necessary truths. They exist wholly independent of God.
@DrEvolutionQuest That is claim not evidence. Evidence is needed to support your claim. Just becouse good christian philosopher said so does not make it evidence. Can you discribe how objective morality is necessary truth?
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
@Onesideofyams You know a lot of books may give people warm feelings in their heart, but it doesn't make them true. The real question here is how you know that it's the god of the bible apart from other gods? because a buddhist, hindu, or muslim may all apply that same "proof". It's emotional pleading not proof.
I kind of have to question the bible's "perfect word", when it's pages are filled with absurdities, extreme violence, and scientific impossibilities.
@Onesideofyams "God reveals himself in many degrees". I have a problem with that statement, simply because how subjective it is. If the faith test is actually fair, God must make it objective to everyone, not just a believer. After all, a lot of people lose faith in Christ for a reason greater than arrogance. I was a Christian for 20 years and God never did such a thing for me. Believe as you will. There is no awareness in a Godless death. So if you are wrong, you'll never know anyway...
3. If objective morality is based on biblical laws, then why is god not subject to his immoral acts? How come people don't have the right to decide what is right and wrong? Why is god not subject to his own moral code? Morality constantly changes depending on certain variables, both biological and societal.
4. Jesus as opposed to the other legendary gods, corrupted and mistranslated gospels, don't have the originals, and the bible is wrong cosmologically and geologically.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@MannyXj1 yes but you forgot the fact that the atheist must think that any "intellectual designer" was behind. whatever you call this designer the proposition is not false if you say "intellectual designer and the atheist has to be against this concept.
@TheJackPicasso You are very correct. And I am against this concept. But that doesn't matter. Craig is an evangelist Christian, and nothing about his proposition proves the Christian God (or any God for that matter) actually exists. If Craig will deny Zeus's existence (which he would) he must prove why it is false. Nothing about his statement proves the Christian God exists anymore than another God, so it is false.
@TheJackPicasso In fact, any statement that presupposes a belief in what is attempting to be proven is false! When attempting to prove the existence of something one must start with a negative position and work their way up to the positive, not the other way around. If they don't do that it's circular reasoning and special pleading.
@MannyXj1 Unfortunnately ther is not any fact that could prove the Bible real or divine. It contains scientific errors, and has been infiltrated. Right now, I am reading the Qur'An I know it seems bizarre but It's wonderful I didn't know, did you read it? Or what do you think about the scientific facts in the Qur'An?
@TheJackPicasso The Qur'an is a little more convincing, but none the less fallacious. I've read the Bible and the Qur'an to entirety. It seems the Qur'an constantly mixes up how long it took God to create the earth. 7: 54 says six days but 41: 9 says 2 days. 23: 14 also speaks about man being created from clotted blood, and 31: 29 suggests the sun rotates around the earth. 15: 19 also speaks about earth being spread flat like carpet, which is obviously incorrect. I can list many more if you like
@MannyXj1 Ty for the reply but I think you are making a little mistake; in7:54, it says (heaven and earth in 6 days) and in 41:9 it says (only earth). Then, the heaven took 4 days to be created. In 31:29, it only says, "He has subjected the sun, and the moon (to His Law), each running its course for a term appointed"; In 23:14, I have this which is interesting : youtube.com/watch?v=RmRy9Wa4I5w . Finally, 15:19, it says that "We spread the earth" which doesn't mean it's flat becaus it says ...
@MannyXj1 ... in arabic, i don't know arabic but it seems to mean "an egg of an ostrich. I heard the things you have mentionned but I allways come to the conclusion that everyything has an answer with this book. I am jhust looking for answers in my life and the Coran is some kind of miraculous because the facts you mentionned can be refuted and It says that we were created from water(see the link) also it says that the earth is expanding.. Don't you think? What do I have to think, I'm lost. :)
@TheJackPicasso Do not trust any religion for answers about the universe, I assure you that you will not find what you are looking for. Trust science and observation for answers, because nothing else will suffice. I was a Christian for 15 years and I have a minor in theology. I only want truth, and I've yet to see a religion that offers answers to what I consider the best possible truth. Please don't buy into it no matter how comforting it seems, it is false and I know this better than anyone.
@MannyXj1 You've just misunderstood the argument. This argument was only set forth to prove the EXISTENCE of God, not WHO God is personally. You can insert whatever supposed deity you like, Zeus, Athena, Ares, etc., but it is irrelevant to the argument.
@patrckhh20 No, you misunderstand. 1. If God Does not exist, objective moral values are impossible. This is to say, that if there is no God then it is impossible. 2. Objective Values do exist. This is evidenced by his belief in HIS God from which OBJECTIVE morality is derived from. 3. Therefore God exists. Specifically, his God. If he were just an objective viewer on this, it would be different. He's not, he believes in God and therefore must before asserting objective morality, prove his God.
@MannyXj1 Zeus is not claimed to be the origin of moral values as Zeus was not a perfect representation of moral values; Zeus very often engaged in immoral acts (i.e. rape), but got away with it because he was the "king" of the gods and no one could challenge his authority without being smitten. The monotheistic/Judeo-Christian God is indeed claimed to be the origin of moral values since God is portrayed to be perfect and to be a perfect representation of each and every moral value.
@rooney0423 Zeus was just an example. I"m basically saying that just because Craig says that objective morals values exist, doesn't prove God exist. Not to mention objective moral values are absolutely meaningless to anyone who isn't human. Which means they too could be manufactured by the human mind...
@rooney0423 You say, "...God is portrayed to be perfect and to be a perfect representation of each and every moral value." Are all God's actions moral? If so, then is extermination a moral act? (See - Numbers 31:1-18)
@rooney0423 So you believe slavery, making a woman marry her rapist, killing a woman if she is not a virgin on her wedding night (and -she- needs to prove she was, not the other way around!), extermination, killing homosexuals, killing people who work on the Sabbath, killing children for making fun of an old man's bald head, human sacrifice (Jepthah), subjugation of women, et cetera are perfect morality?
@rooney0423 "Zeus is not claimed to be the origin of moral values as Zeus was not a perfect representation of moral values; Zeus very often engaged in immoral acts"
The character named the God of Abraham (of The Bible) engaged in immoral acts and teachings. He killed every Egyptian's first born son, told people to stone people to death if they suspected they were witches, ordered the Isrealites to slaughter entire towns and keep the virgins ect.
@rooney0423 This God you refer to who is portrayed to be perfect is the Yahweh of the BIble, correct? This is the one who supposedly ordered the ethnic cleansing of the Amalekites? Who by tradition ordered the rape of women captured by his tribe? The description in the Bible is closer to Saddam Hussein on his worst day than to a "perfect representation of moral values".
Craig says the universe must be due to intelligent design. So what if we are in are a computer simulation that beings in a greater reality are designing? There is no way you can prove in such a simulation that premise false. This idea is the same with God, so how can you empirically and objectively prove God exists within the universe? In the absence of evidence a positive belief is not warranted...
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL I appreciate that you were sharing what you feel are the truths of the teachings. I wasn't offended. Again, I have a few things to say in reply but I don't like having to split it into 3 or 4 comments. message forthcoming. (i'll be pretty brief.)
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL If I understand you properly, I disagree. That's why it matters. :) You took the trouble to reply at length to my remarks so allow me to do the same for you.
O_O I think if I distill that I can actually find a great deal to agree with. lol. You say I am "delusional and making assumptions" when I say there are problems with some christians. First- I did not make that statement. I am paraphrasing statements made by others. I would say personally that there are problems with many who *claim* to be Christians. The rest will be too lengthy so I will further my remarks via PM.
a. cyclic universe is perfectly fits with the contemporary understanding of astronomy and astrophysics.
b. there are many other theories that can be applied to explain the so called "tuning" for example the multi-universe theory.
c. If god doesn't exist that doesn't mean that we have no purpose or morals, many of the values and morals in the bible are originated in earlier cultures.
we can make own path in life and choose our purpose.
@FearedBliss well stated, glad to know this, and watch Dr. Craig vs Christopher Hitchens. It is well spoken although I feel Dr. Craig wins again! Also, consider watching Ravi Zacharias he does justice to apologetics on many levels of explanation.
@loosfoos you can scream the truth and it isn't stronger, whisper it and it isn't any weaker, bury it in lies and it isn't any less true! William wins! Atheists form committees to try and find ways to win... And can't. Why? I know the reason. I'll let you consider it.
@Huttate1 not only have you inserted your own ordering to one statement, you inserted a misrepresentation of another. Lies? That's the best you can do is shove lies in front of people?
The universe is not fine tuned. It is as it is. Were it different and a different form of intelligent life arose, then that life form might think of it as fine tuned. Logical fallacy #1.
If god exists then moral values are not objective. If they are objective then they do not require a god. Logical fallacy #2.
and god commanded the hebrews to rape on countless occassions - where were his objective morals then?
there is no historical evidence of jesus as christ - this is a pure lie.
When it comes to fine-tuning, there's also a fun analogy by Douglas Adams:
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? "
We're like that puddle, waking up in a universe that fits us so well!
And yes, the god from the Bible is an immoral bastard.
@nlicj09 Its not just self conviction its tangible evidence based in reality, if you choose to seek God out sincerely... not as you put it on some kind of mystical experience based on vain imaginations
But for that you'd already have to believe in that god, and that belief would make you susceptible to all kinds of cognitive distortions. In short: you have no way of objectively determining whether something is a revelation of god or a hallucination. My bet is on the latter, unless anybody provides objective evidence for the existence of this god.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I am not a part of this conversation, & indeed have not read any other comment in this conversation between you two, but I must argue that your belief that a person must already believe in a particular god in order to sincerely seek that god out is inherently false. Sincerely seeking something out does not require a prior belief in such a thing. You can be neutral in regards to the existence or nonexistence of a thing, & still seek it out to determine whether or not it exists
I really appreciate the bit about objective moral values. I've seen and heard many atheists in debates take the criticism of there being no foundation for objective moral values in the atheistic philosophy to mean that 'all atheists are immoral or unfeeling, or bad without God' which of course is not what the critique is saying at all. The real argument is that EVERYONE (atheist or theist) recognizes moral frameworks and codes, which points to some sort of objective source for morality to start.
omg finally a REAL thiest. This is what real belief in god is. i hate christianity but god is my all and my love and this man speaks the exact same thoughts that lead me to that understanding.
@musicoutsidethebox I agree with you on the merit of many of Mr Craig's arguments, but would caution against a blanket statement like "I hate Christianity." I am no part of Christendom but a study of and following of Jesus' actual words reveals nothing untoward or harmful to humanity, quite the opposite indeed. I'm sure you've heard quotes from such men as Ghandi, saying in effect that the problem is with "Christians" as opposed to Christianity itself.
@upliftzippy I agree it wasn't mentioned in the old testament but I think you have to fill in and devise a great deal to even find it in the new testament! Remember I don't belong to any denomination of christendom so I don't take the existence of a fiery place of eternal torment to which all unrepentant sinners go for granted, which is why I asked for some sort of demonstration.
@ShawDAMAN Ghandi really proves Lane Craig's comments on morality. Ghandi lived many contradictions in his life (read his story) one of which was sex. He had several sex partners at the same time. True story.
Things just exist without any reason, by disbalance and idiotic corespondance, and by chance and nonsense and already existing mater are on earth: mater, living organisms and artifical things like thoughts, wish, which is dependent from living organism brain... There is no god at all, because all is prooven to exist by alredy existing thing that existed in other form, and from nonsense
@philosophizer149 I am sorry if this looks like cruel statemant this was not my intention and I would first love god to exist,, but in whole universe everything points that there is no god,no purpose, anything else than disblanse, stupidity of existance and nothingness. Everything exist by chance and everything is Chaos, stupidity and nonsense.
wasnt created by accident (stupid corespondance energy and mater without any reason), mater and energy would float or something.
2. Dawkins once said that god might exist in other universe. He was deluded, nothing cant be further from the truth. God doesnt exist in any universe because eternity is for always, but it still goes so it is not eternal.
3. There is nothing strange in existance and our natural bodies and artifical and apstract thoughts.
This illuminating truth from my understanding and my atheistic mind will turn many of you who read in atheists.
1. Mater and energy always existed and always exist and will exist. It is irrelevant if big bang created universe, because universe is created from eternal mater and energy which cant be destroyed, by disbalance natural, unnatural, realy its irelevant, if universe
If you believe that matter and energy are eternal and so powerful, then you are really just using different semantics to talk about a god. However: 1) everything that exists has a beginning and a cause; 2) The Universe began to exist; 3) Therefore the universe had a cause. Now, matter and energy are all things found within our universe, and thus, since the universe itself had a beginning and a cause, could not have existed before the cause of the universe: matter & NRG ar not eternal
@juanarruti If he does, so called intellectuals start to downgrading him. So, if he talks about "religious" God he is not as tall as the debate requires, but if he talks about "abstract designer" God he is not so religious then. When is he good enough then? Surely I have no doubt of his faith. This is the kind of believers that atheists can't beat
@walkerlucas Deism cannot be falsified, Deists do not believe in an anthropogenic god. Theists DO. It's one thing to say something fine tuned the universe (hence order) and another thing to say the fine tuner doesn't want you to wear a cotton shirt with a silk tie or eat lobster!
"Theism and Deism can coincide perfectly harmoniously"-oh how the first commandment begs to differ. Retard.
@OASISriffs Wow...where to begin? Ok, "...an anthropogenic god" means that said god was created by people. Theists do NOT believe this. Deism maintain that "something" (God) created and "fine tuned the universe," correct? Theists believe this too! If you are going to pull obscure references from the bible, at least take care to research the circumstances to which the given passage refers. Also, don't confuse tradition attributed to any particular denomination as Biblical.
@walkerlucas IS the debate we are having. First commandment: "thou shalt have no other gods before me", Deists don't believe in Yahweh therefore "Theism and Deism can coincide perfectly harmoniously" is plain false (if it is the Christian theism you were referring to), and I'm sure Jesus would approve of your childish name calling at the end of every sentence. My main point; there is NO evidence for a human-like god who approves/disproves of what creatures of this one species act/think !
@OASISriffs Theists and Deists both believe that there is one all powerful god. Capisce? We were exchanging rude rhetoric at the end of each comment. I'm quite sure that God doesn't approve of my calling you a dumb ass. That was all me. I didn't want to interrupt our flow. Dr. spent an hour presenting evidence for God while Dr. Atkins squirmed and mumbled his way incoherently to his painful, embarrassing end of this debate. Are we still calling names or have we stopped?
@walkerlucas Deists don't specify a GOD, they leave that part vague and general for the most part, let alone specifically Yahweh, ask any deist if their deity has this name and have these opinions and impregnated a "virgin" and had a offspring specifically resembling this one particular species on this one particular planet in this solar system and galaxy just so he could be killed for what the yet unborn have done. Deist do not specify Yahweh f.bible astheir finetuner therefore violate 1st comm
@OASISriffs Just because all deists aren't necessarily Christian doesn't mean that deism can't be used to defend theism...for all of the reasons I've already stated. We are arguing in circles and it's no longer fun. Goodbye.
im an atheist and ill stay away from the name calling. I respect William Craig's intelligence, I do disagree that to not believe in a god makes you have to prove one doesnt exists. This is what we call the unknown, noone knows but to accept something without any evidence to the contrary is not really a good idea. His debates of the "objective moral values" means nothing if you break it down. Maybe his morality theory when looked from the other end of universe mean nothing like or small world.
@Willtur Personally I don't think that Dr. Craig is all that exceptionally intelligent. The only thing he really has going for him is he is a good speaker and knows how to twist words in just the right way. Much of what he's saying is complete bunk with no connections to science. However, it is deceptively easy to get sucked into what he's saying. He'd be a good salesman. Or conman ;)
How do you debate with a creationist about morality when they cannot see past their own belief just for a second. Just long enough to see where the other side is coming from? It goes both ways too. It is a conversation that just goes in circles when that can't be done. Morality is a choice. It developed as other traits did during evolution and we continue to evolve.
Jesus is unusual. But He is resurrected from the dead and available in as the divine life giving Spirit, the Holy Spirit until His physical return. You should seize the time to ask this available Lord Jesus into your innermost heart. Christ is trustworthy. This is God united with man in a mingled way to bring sinners to salvation and have God live in them too.
LMAO everyone Atheist or Theist or whatever will know the truth one day, let them attack us, we don't really care, if they want to show such disrespect!
not sure that "good reasons" do the trick. particularly because the word good needs to be qualified. actually the category "good" requires the existence of both a categorizing method and a categorizing method giver/cause/proponent. Its hard enough for "reasons" to survive outside any categorizing method, much less "good reasons" outside moral categories. Morality (a set of good reasons) can't be assumed without a moral law giver. not even the truthfulness of statements survives without it.
Fuck - Craig sounds good until he tries to back-up the resurrection of a figure for which written history has not a trace of. He goes too far: He should stick to the first principle stuff. Jesus is NOT documented: We have documentation of the Buddha, Mohamed, Mani, all sorts of prophets - we have nothing hard on the Christ, so keep schtum on that, if you want to be taken seriously against a hard-nosed sceptic, that is.
As for the Buddha, Karen Armstrong is fairly confident in her book that he was an historical figure. Perhaps he wasn't, I may have spoken too soon.
The point about the Christ, though, is that if there was this miracle worker living in the east, why did none of his contemporaries write about him? And where is the census data? (That's why Joseph and Mary were riding from Galilee to Bethlehem, after all.)
I don't know why so many atheists attack Craig for his "eloquent language" because he apparently uses that more than substance to explain his reasoning.
I would disagree,.... it's quite necessary because the points he's trying to make, such as moral or physiological arguments are pushed deeper and deeper by modern science and philosophy.
Anyone who studies on the college level would understand.
For the laymen it seems like a load of smoke and mirrors, but think twice.
@AdemaLevel ya well doctor craig does suck. objective morality? really? that's your argument craig? he's arguing that morality is subjective to god that somehow makes it objective for us.. But he's ignoring that that simple fact ruins the fact that it is objective.. If god is choosing it then it is subjective..
@SHIBBYiPANDA "he's arguing that morality is subjective to god that somehow makes it objective for us"
Bingo, drives me crazy. He'll run around in circles of apologetics until he has what is subjective absolutism instead of objectivism, and that's only if he's otherwise proven God's existence using other means that really are just the same apologetics hanging by a thread. He's still provided no satisfactory answer to the Euthyphro dilemma.
@ChaseKittens YA it drives me nuts man. I wish I could see all his thoughts like written out on a piece of paper to understand if he's just purposefully being deceiving or honestly believes that somehow.. Did u watch his debate about morality and god with shelly kagan?? The debate was extremely focused and Craig got his ass handed to him in a paper bag... Btw does Craigs face not look extremely constipated ALL THE TIME.. It's like his brain is in serious pain forcing out all the bullshit it does
@SHIBBYiPANDA 1.) God gave to law to prove to you that sin's nature prevents you from doing His will. 2.) Man's enjoyment and God's expression are the reasons for God's Spirit to come into man. 3.) If He didn't exist His Spirit could not indwell man. Christ was a man united and mingled with God. That is what God wants for His glory and man's eternal enjoyment. Why are you here ?
@SHIBBYiPANDA 1. God gave to law to prove to you that sin's nature prevents you from doing His will. Before that the only rule was be careful not to eat a Satanic fruit of independence from God. 2. Man's enjoyment and God's expression are the reasons for God's Spirit to come into man through new birth. 3. If He didn't exist His Spirit could not indwell man. Christ was a man united and mingled with God. That is what God wants for His glory and man's eternal enjoyment. Why are you here ?
@Ear4Beauty what are you talking about? Please make an thoughtful response.. You only have a certain amount to time before you die.. Let's use it wisely..
@Ear4Beauty I don't believe what you wrote and I don't think there is any reason to believe it.. I really don't know what I'm supposed to say back to you??
and I said "who cares" to the question of "why are you here?"... I seriously don't think there is a reason that I'm here.. Why should I care whether or not there is a reason I'm here?? I'm fine if there is and I'm fine if there isn't.. If God REALLY wanted me to be doing something though He could just tell me and I'd get right on it..
@AdemaLevel Do you honestly see any difference between the most hardcore atheists and the nuts of the right wing?, they are just the same, just with another name.
@AdemaLevel Agnosticism is only the statement that existence or non existence of a deity is ultimately unknowable. You realize that you either need to be a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic. In a sense, there are NO absolute atheistic people as they are 'most' likely to believe the lack of the existence of god. So in that sense, all atheists are also agnostic people.
@AdemaLevel I'm an Agnostic Atheist (You can't just be agnostic, and you can't just be atheist. They actually are 2 different scales that intertwine), I have to admit, William Lane Craig knows what he is talking about. Going to continue watching more ;D
He knows what he is saying? He lies... and the bullshit he spews is swallowed by people. He goes and states that "New Testament scholars agree about the Resurection of Jesus", this is just a lie, its completely false. There is little evidence for the existance OF Jesus, and none for his Resurection.
@123duffbeerrules There are some things that he says that he says that I agree with, other things I cannot prove nor disprove. Ultimately Philosophy, Religion, and Science are based on Faith. Pick your perception.
@123duffbeerrules I went to give you a thumbs DOWN and missed.I say this with all due respect. Please to answer a question. Why would you spew such a word in such away, that hate permeates from it, in a religious thread? JUST ONE WORD SAID IN ONE WAY. Seems that hate or at the very least anger controls your thoughts and reactions. Why not say,"....and those lies he spews are swallowed by people.?" or even "the nonsense he spews bla bla bla. There are many better choices to choose from.
@AdemaLevel I used to be an atheist, then an agnostic, and finally found faith again. Atheists have an unreasonable dismissal of God. Agnostics are very reasonable, and for that reason make great judges, but their seeming worship of rationalism is completely indecisive and lacks spirituality, which can be found in atheism and theism.
Lol im learning so much thank you
KoBred1 4 days ago
1:57 Atkins is wondering what the fuck he got himself into
CVLFMG 1 week ago
Atkins did better than most people give him credit for. At least he managed to cut to the core of WLC's fallacy: all his arguments require a metaphysical leap while simpler explanations cannot be ruled out. 1. The universe appears to be designed so there must be a supernatural designer 2. There are reports of a supernatural event so it must be supernatural 3. I feel God from within so there must be... etc. Atkins 'science can explain everything'-argument is shaky at best though
OSTube1 1 week ago
I love how Craig brings up rape as his example of an objective moral wrong that isn't objectively wrong on atheism. It's hilarious that he does this, because it may be that there is objective morality on atheism, and that it makes rape objectively wrong. However, on Christianity, rape is not objectively wrong, at least not by a divine commandment. The Bible is oddly silent on this (as well as on slavery and child abuse, for that matter).
ralph489 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you were to castrate David Lee Roth you would then end up with William Lane Craig.
MrBeautifulba1 2 weeks ago
Its easy to write paragraphs upon paragraphs (as shown below) but the point never sticks. I believe (with a logical string that goes through all my points) that people learn from the very beginning (however it happened) that its better to live with friendly people, than cut throat people. Civilization eventually advanced and put up tribal rules for each village to help keep the people feeling happy and safe. Religions of the past, even some now, make rape acceptable.
trom2004 4 weeks ago
Man, Atkins don't stand a chance, the reason why Craig refutes them everytime is because he gives all the positive facts about the existence of God...while the so called atheists focus on the negative, yet never proved their point. Again, Murderfied...go ahead, Craig.
Purity03 1 month ago
He covers a lot and i'm only 4 minutes in. He mentions that morals although can exist without god, are not objective. They are not obvious. He tries to make the point about rape being unacceptable, but not immoral to atheists. As an Atheist I believe its important to have a consensus to agree what is the basis for right and wrong, to teach the newer generations. Gods book is not required for this. Most people already know the basics of right and wrong from common sense.
trom2004 1 month ago
@trom2004 Dr.Craig's point is that if you create such moral basis for new generation, it would have no basis in itself, because without objective morality, there is no reason to say that what the older generation think is right is what indeed is right. In other words, without objective morality, you may list that "rape is wrong", but your younger generation may say "rape is right", and you would have no reason to say they are wrong, because subjectively that's what they believe in.
Mani3e 1 month ago
@Mani3e If I had a book from 2000 years ago telling me that rape was good. I would not believe my family who would tell me that its true. This is part of being an Atheist. It must make sense in order for me to believe. On the other hand religious types believe in the book no matter how horrible the text is.
trom2004 1 month ago
@trom2004 Seperate but similar note: Rape is clearly not acceptable, even if your raised to accept it. Its like being raised to punch other people outright instead of talking. Your clearly going to not have a good life. Some people are a little smarter than listening to nonsense and repeating it.
trom2004 1 month ago
@trom2004 yes, rape is clearly unacceptable. But on what basis do we say this? to us, it is clear that terrorism and 9/11 were unacceptable. But to Osama, it is clearly acceptable. Just as in law system, to prove the defendant wrong we can't simply say "but it is clear that what he was doing was wrong". We have to have a basis, namely a "standard", such as the law, that is objective and that we can appeal to build grounds for saying that things such as rape is unacceptable.
Mani3e 1 month ago
@trom2004 the Christian, or believer of any other God, might not be able to prove that his book is "right". However he has reasons to believe that certain things are inherently wrong, because he believe the law is written on his heart. To the naturalist, however, right and wrong is nothing more than illusion created by electric signals in our brain, because if nature is all there is, such thing as an objective, or "higher", moral standard is extant.
Mani3e 1 month ago
@Mani3e i meant not extant
Mani3e 1 month ago
@Mani3e You make a great point...
And so that is the Way of the Universe...through the law of Polarity which gives us the contrast of extremes and thus the inbetweens.
And isn't that the main theme of the Universe..."The Extremes"...far left and right, good vs bad...
And so that is our battle...But ask yourself, is the Universe an organism? and if so, does it want us to progress or recede, create or destroy, continue or discontinue...etc?
I feel the Universe creating order from chaos
JahElJah 1 month ago
morality exist because one thinks about the thought, feelings and emotions that another goes through when for example being raped. and they imagine themselves having the exact same experience. and they come to the conclusion that it is not something that one would want to experience. thus they refrain from doing such acts which are considered to be "morally wrong". thus proving that god does not necessarily need to be the reason for the moral choices.. makes sense?
rottenmisfit 2 months ago
Craig looks better with a beard.
giorgiv18 3 months ago 11
@giorgiv18 Most do :p
isOneRight 1 month ago
Craig sure favors the appeal to authority fallacy. Objective (in the strictest philosophical meaning) morality exists is an assumption. He said, "deep down inside, we all know it"; quite an audacious remark, and he had nothing else to substantiate the premise. I won't even humor the resurrection or experiential claims. Now, what could be evidence for or against an asserted transcendent anything? Keeping in mind absence of evidence for natural causes of anything will be arguments from ignorance.
urcorrect 3 months ago
Was WLC in that movie, "Cruising"?
fdasherv 3 months ago
the beard craig has is the true reason atkins lost, atkins was scared shitless at the sight of it and then therefore lost his mind.
Falcondick69 3 months ago
William Craig's logic is so abominable that he should be embarrassed by what comes out of his mouth.
The following is not a logical argument:
1. If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (Fail. Even if god DOES exist that doesn't make morality objective)
2. Objective values do exist (Baseless assertion)
3. Therefore god exists (Conclusion drawn from false premises)
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
@TatsujinSan I take issue with premise one. Objective morality is perfectly compatable with atheism.
DrEvolutionQuest 4 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Objective morality does not exist. The term is non-sensical. Even if everyone in the world agreed on the same rules of behaviour it wouldn't make morality objective. Even if god decreed something it wouldn't make it objective. There is no discovery that can be made that can make objective morality a logical possibility.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
@TatsujinSan Well I happily disagree. I adhere to moral realism. You can look up some fantastic articles that do a great job describing how atheism does not entail subjective, relative morality. A good place to start is Michael Martin's "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape".
DrEvolutionQuest 4 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Moral realism? Of course morality is real. It exists as subjective interpretations of how one ought to behave. It just doesn't have an objective standard.
I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to behave a certain way. I just acknowledge that it is ultimately my subjective opinion of what is right and wrong and that ultimately nothing TRULY matters except to us.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest "Michael Martin's "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape" - I read it author have interesting understanding of what objective is and has a lot of redhearings and generalisations. So I have a question - after reading it can you name one argument why atheistic morality is or can be objective?
girtkaz 3 months ago
@girtkaz Because certain ethical frameworks like Ideal Observer Theory don't need a God in order to be objective. Even christian philosopher's such as Richard Swinburne agree that Objective morality can exist without God. Swinburne even argued that certain moral truths are necessary truths. They exist wholly independent of God.
DrEvolutionQuest 3 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest That is claim not evidence. Evidence is needed to support your claim. Just becouse good christian philosopher said so does not make it evidence. Can you discribe how objective morality is necessary truth?
girtkaz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
If he's going to appeal to authority and attempt to lend credence to the idea that the numbers are too astonishing to be a natural occurrence by pointing out scientists that feel this way, he should then compare it to the number of scientists in the same field that don't feel that way.
Just point to the exact numbers that can't POSSIBLY be a natural occurrence and justify your position with actual arguments.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
Using the bible to prove the existence of Jesus is like using a comic book to prove the existence of Batman. I am not impressed.
Also, how come Craig seems to be aware of some Absolute Moral Truth I have never found ? Is he on a direct line to philosophical truth ?
PrincepsNemesis 4 months ago
@Onesideofyams
"The bible is written by men, yes I think it may have been mistranslated. However I think it's perfect."
It's so interesting to see such blatant cognitive dissonance in action. It's like watching a train wreck of the human mind.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@Onesideofyams You know a lot of books may give people warm feelings in their heart, but it doesn't make them true. The real question here is how you know that it's the god of the bible apart from other gods? because a buddhist, hindu, or muslim may all apply that same "proof". It's emotional pleading not proof.
I kind of have to question the bible's "perfect word", when it's pages are filled with absurdities, extreme violence, and scientific impossibilities.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
@Onesideofyams "God reveals himself in many degrees". I have a problem with that statement, simply because how subjective it is. If the faith test is actually fair, God must make it objective to everyone, not just a believer. After all, a lot of people lose faith in Christ for a reason greater than arrogance. I was a Christian for 20 years and God never did such a thing for me. Believe as you will. There is no awareness in a Godless death. So if you are wrong, you'll never know anyway...
MannyXj1 5 months ago
Comment removed
MannyXj1 5 months ago
3. If objective morality is based on biblical laws, then why is god not subject to his immoral acts? How come people don't have the right to decide what is right and wrong? Why is god not subject to his own moral code? Morality constantly changes depending on certain variables, both biological and societal.
4. Jesus as opposed to the other legendary gods, corrupted and mistranslated gospels, don't have the originals, and the bible is wrong cosmologically and geologically.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Obvious circular reasoning is obvious
Craig states, "Premise 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective values do exist. 3. Therefore God exists.
My turn:
Premise 1. If Zeus does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective values do exist. 3. Therefore Zeus exists.
If you replace Craig's proposition within any supposedly non-existent noun or God they will also exist? No. Therefore his proposition is false.
MannyXj1 5 months ago
@MannyXj1 yes but you forgot the fact that the atheist must think that any "intellectual designer" was behind. whatever you call this designer the proposition is not false if you say "intellectual designer and the atheist has to be against this concept.
TheJackPicasso 5 months ago
@TheJackPicasso You are very correct. And I am against this concept. But that doesn't matter. Craig is an evangelist Christian, and nothing about his proposition proves the Christian God (or any God for that matter) actually exists. If Craig will deny Zeus's existence (which he would) he must prove why it is false. Nothing about his statement proves the Christian God exists anymore than another God, so it is false.
MannyXj1 5 months ago
@TheJackPicasso In fact, any statement that presupposes a belief in what is attempting to be proven is false! When attempting to prove the existence of something one must start with a negative position and work their way up to the positive, not the other way around. If they don't do that it's circular reasoning and special pleading.
MannyXj1 5 months ago
@MannyXj1 Unfortunnately ther is not any fact that could prove the Bible real or divine. It contains scientific errors, and has been infiltrated. Right now, I am reading the Qur'An I know it seems bizarre but It's wonderful I didn't know, did you read it? Or what do you think about the scientific facts in the Qur'An?
TheJackPicasso 5 months ago
@TheJackPicasso The Qur'an is a little more convincing, but none the less fallacious. I've read the Bible and the Qur'an to entirety. It seems the Qur'an constantly mixes up how long it took God to create the earth. 7: 54 says six days but 41: 9 says 2 days. 23: 14 also speaks about man being created from clotted blood, and 31: 29 suggests the sun rotates around the earth. 15: 19 also speaks about earth being spread flat like carpet, which is obviously incorrect. I can list many more if you like
MannyXj1 5 months ago
@MannyXj1 Ty for the reply but I think you are making a little mistake; in7:54, it says (heaven and earth in 6 days) and in 41:9 it says (only earth). Then, the heaven took 4 days to be created. In 31:29, it only says, "He has subjected the sun, and the moon (to His Law), each running its course for a term appointed"; In 23:14, I have this which is interesting : youtube.com/watch?v=RmRy9Wa4I5w . Finally, 15:19, it says that "We spread the earth" which doesn't mean it's flat becaus it says ...
TheJackPicasso 5 months ago
@MannyXj1 ... in arabic, i don't know arabic but it seems to mean "an egg of an ostrich. I heard the things you have mentionned but I allways come to the conclusion that everyything has an answer with this book. I am jhust looking for answers in my life and the Coran is some kind of miraculous because the facts you mentionned can be refuted and It says that we were created from water(see the link) also it says that the earth is expanding.. Don't you think? What do I have to think, I'm lost. :)
TheJackPicasso 5 months ago
@TheJackPicasso Do not trust any religion for answers about the universe, I assure you that you will not find what you are looking for. Trust science and observation for answers, because nothing else will suffice. I was a Christian for 15 years and I have a minor in theology. I only want truth, and I've yet to see a religion that offers answers to what I consider the best possible truth. Please don't buy into it no matter how comforting it seems, it is false and I know this better than anyone.
MannyXj1 5 months ago
@MannyXj1 You've just misunderstood the argument. This argument was only set forth to prove the EXISTENCE of God, not WHO God is personally. You can insert whatever supposed deity you like, Zeus, Athena, Ares, etc., but it is irrelevant to the argument.
patrckhh20 2 months ago
@patrckhh20 No, you misunderstand. 1. If God Does not exist, objective moral values are impossible. This is to say, that if there is no God then it is impossible. 2. Objective Values do exist. This is evidenced by his belief in HIS God from which OBJECTIVE morality is derived from. 3. Therefore God exists. Specifically, his God. If he were just an objective viewer on this, it would be different. He's not, he believes in God and therefore must before asserting objective morality, prove his God.
SocialDissimulation 1 month ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins
@MannyXj1 Zeus is not claimed to be the origin of moral values as Zeus was not a perfect representation of moral values; Zeus very often engaged in immoral acts (i.e. rape), but got away with it because he was the "king" of the gods and no one could challenge his authority without being smitten. The monotheistic/Judeo-Christian God is indeed claimed to be the origin of moral values since God is portrayed to be perfect and to be a perfect representation of each and every moral value.
rooney0423 1 month ago
@rooney0423 Zeus was just an example. I"m basically saying that just because Craig says that objective morals values exist, doesn't prove God exist. Not to mention objective moral values are absolutely meaningless to anyone who isn't human. Which means they too could be manufactured by the human mind...
MannyXj1 1 month ago
@rooney0423 You say, "...God is portrayed to be perfect and to be a perfect representation of each and every moral value." Are all God's actions moral? If so, then is extermination a moral act? (See - Numbers 31:1-18)
daleshankins 1 month ago
@rooney0423 So you believe slavery, making a woman marry her rapist, killing a woman if she is not a virgin on her wedding night (and -she- needs to prove she was, not the other way around!), extermination, killing homosexuals, killing people who work on the Sabbath, killing children for making fun of an old man's bald head, human sacrifice (Jepthah), subjugation of women, et cetera are perfect morality?
Sweet.
Schwazoom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rooney0423 "Zeus is not claimed to be the origin of moral values as Zeus was not a perfect representation of moral values; Zeus very often engaged in immoral acts"
The character named the God of Abraham (of The Bible) engaged in immoral acts and teachings. He killed every Egyptian's first born son, told people to stone people to death if they suspected they were witches, ordered the Isrealites to slaughter entire towns and keep the virgins ect.
God according to The Bible is immoral. You fail.
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
@rooney0423 This God you refer to who is portrayed to be perfect is the Yahweh of the BIble, correct? This is the one who supposedly ordered the ethnic cleansing of the Amalekites? Who by tradition ordered the rape of women captured by his tribe? The description in the Bible is closer to Saddam Hussein on his worst day than to a "perfect representation of moral values".
ralph489 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MannyXj1 5 months ago
Comment removed
MannyXj1 5 months ago
Craig says the universe must be due to intelligent design. So what if we are in are a computer simulation that beings in a greater reality are designing? There is no way you can prove in such a simulation that premise false. This idea is the same with God, so how can you empirically and objectively prove God exists within the universe? In the absence of evidence a positive belief is not warranted...
MannyXj1 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL I appreciate that you were sharing what you feel are the truths of the teachings. I wasn't offended. Again, I have a few things to say in reply but I don't like having to split it into 3 or 4 comments. message forthcoming. (i'll be pretty brief.)
ShawDAMAN 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL If I understand you properly, I disagree. That's why it matters. :) You took the trouble to reply at length to my remarks so allow me to do the same for you.
ShawDAMAN 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL
O_O I think if I distill that I can actually find a great deal to agree with. lol. You say I am "delusional and making assumptions" when I say there are problems with some christians. First- I did not make that statement. I am paraphrasing statements made by others. I would say personally that there are problems with many who *claim* to be Christians. The rest will be too lengthy so I will further my remarks via PM.
ShawDAMAN 5 months ago
I love Peter Akin's face at 1:56...
He is like "Man... I am getting whoop..."
LiveForGreatness 6 months ago
a. cyclic universe is perfectly fits with the contemporary understanding of astronomy and astrophysics.
b. there are many other theories that can be applied to explain the so called "tuning" for example the multi-universe theory.
c. If god doesn't exist that doesn't mean that we have no purpose or morals, many of the values and morals in the bible are originated in earlier cultures.
we can make own path in life and choose our purpose.
killian3001 6 months ago
@FearedBliss well stated, glad to know this, and watch Dr. Craig vs Christopher Hitchens. It is well spoken although I feel Dr. Craig wins again! Also, consider watching Ravi Zacharias he does justice to apologetics on many levels of explanation.
sin247365 6 months ago
@loosfoos you can scream the truth and it isn't stronger, whisper it and it isn't any weaker, bury it in lies and it isn't any less true! William wins! Atheists form committees to try and find ways to win... And can't. Why? I know the reason. I'll let you consider it.
sin247365 6 months ago
@Huttate1 not only have you inserted your own ordering to one statement, you inserted a misrepresentation of another. Lies? That's the best you can do is shove lies in front of people?
sin247365 6 months ago
@sin247365 Oh, I missed your rant. Could you clarify on where I have lied, and perhaps add your corrections so that everyone can enjoy.
Huttate1 6 months ago
The universe is not fine tuned. It is as it is. Were it different and a different form of intelligent life arose, then that life form might think of it as fine tuned. Logical fallacy #1.
If god exists then moral values are not objective. If they are objective then they do not require a god. Logical fallacy #2.
and god commanded the hebrews to rape on countless occassions - where were his objective morals then?
there is no historical evidence of jesus as christ - this is a pure lie.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
When it comes to fine-tuning, there's also a fun analogy by Douglas Adams:
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? "
We're like that puddle, waking up in a universe that fits us so well!
And yes, the god from the Bible is an immoral bastard.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
If your sincerley seeking God he will make himself known to you... Thats so true
nlicj09 6 months ago
@nlicj09 yep, self-conviction does wonders. if you believe strongly enough in anything you can somewhat feel as if it is real.
loosfoos 6 months ago
@nlicj09 Its not just self conviction its tangible evidence based in reality, if you choose to seek God out sincerely... not as you put it on some kind of mystical experience based on vain imaginations
nlicj09 6 months ago
@nlicj09
" if you choose to seek God out sincerely"
But for that you'd already have to believe in that god, and that belief would make you susceptible to all kinds of cognitive distortions. In short: you have no way of objectively determining whether something is a revelation of god or a hallucination. My bet is on the latter, unless anybody provides objective evidence for the existence of this god.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I am not a part of this conversation, & indeed have not read any other comment in this conversation between you two, but I must argue that your belief that a person must already believe in a particular god in order to sincerely seek that god out is inherently false. Sincerely seeking something out does not require a prior belief in such a thing. You can be neutral in regards to the existence or nonexistence of a thing, & still seek it out to determine whether or not it exists
theantihero420 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theantihero420
"I must argue that your belief that a person must already believe in a particular god in order to sincerely seek that god out is inherently false. "
Then I am sure you have absolutely no problem to sincerely seek out Krishna.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
watch the arrivals!
pinball281 6 months ago
This is the exact same speach he gives in his debate with Michael Shermer. He doesn't ever 'grow', does he?
SezSays 7 months ago
@SezSays speech* uuuughhhhh lol
SezSays 7 months ago
God or no God, I can say with certainty that Dr. Craig sure is handsome.
FKinTheCoffee 7 months ago
I really appreciate the bit about objective moral values. I've seen and heard many atheists in debates take the criticism of there being no foundation for objective moral values in the atheistic philosophy to mean that 'all atheists are immoral or unfeeling, or bad without God' which of course is not what the critique is saying at all. The real argument is that EVERYONE (atheist or theist) recognizes moral frameworks and codes, which points to some sort of objective source for morality to start.
Grambo4 7 months ago
omg finally a REAL thiest. This is what real belief in god is. i hate christianity but god is my all and my love and this man speaks the exact same thoughts that lead me to that understanding.
musicoutsidethebox 7 months ago
@musicoutsidethebox I agree with you on the merit of many of Mr Craig's arguments, but would caution against a blanket statement like "I hate Christianity." I am no part of Christendom but a study of and following of Jesus' actual words reveals nothing untoward or harmful to humanity, quite the opposite indeed. I'm sure you've heard quotes from such men as Ghandi, saying in effect that the problem is with "Christians" as opposed to Christianity itself.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago 13
@ShawDAMAN Jesus also promoted the fear of hell, which can be harmful.
upliftzippy 6 months ago
@upliftzippy Debatable. You'll have to show me where Jesus promoted fear of hell.
ShawDAMAN 6 months ago
@ShawDAMAN The whole concept of hell and the inferno wasn't mentioned in the Old testament and first taught by Jesus methinks
upliftzippy 6 months ago
@upliftzippy I agree it wasn't mentioned in the old testament but I think you have to fill in and devise a great deal to even find it in the new testament! Remember I don't belong to any denomination of christendom so I don't take the existence of a fiery place of eternal torment to which all unrepentant sinners go for granted, which is why I asked for some sort of demonstration.
ShawDAMAN 6 months ago
@upliftzippy I think it comes down to something originally devised by religious leaders to keep the flock in line
(and filling their coffers) and hinges upon the stretching and misinterpretation of just a few texts.
ShawDAMAN 6 months ago
@ShawDAMAN I think the fiery hell image is more Christian than any other practised religion, but yeah I completely agree :)
upliftzippy 6 months ago
@upliftzippy and I agree with you.
ShawDAMAN 6 months ago
@ShawDAMAN I thinkthat is the main point about modern Cristianity : They speak about Jesus yet they do not seems to understand his teachings
SASSJMSCBC 6 months ago
@ShawDAMAN Ghandi really proves Lane Craig's comments on morality. Ghandi lived many contradictions in his life (read his story) one of which was sex. He had several sex partners at the same time. True story.
polidic 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4
@musicoutsidethebox Oh, this makes me curious, what belief system do you belong to then?
philosophizer149 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 the belief system called my mind.
musicoutsidethebox 7 months ago
Things just exist without any reason, by disbalance and idiotic corespondance, and by chance and nonsense and already existing mater are on earth: mater, living organisms and artifical things like thoughts, wish, which is dependent from living organism brain... There is no god at all, because all is prooven to exist by alredy existing thing that existed in other form, and from nonsense
zigifrojd 7 months ago
@zigifrojd Wait so Are you seriously suggesting the universe is irrational?
philosophizer149 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 Universe is extremlly irrational and stupid, universe is purposeless.
zigifrojd 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 I am sorry if this looks like cruel statemant this was not my intention and I would first love god to exist,, but in whole universe everything points that there is no god,no purpose, anything else than disblanse, stupidity of existance and nothingness. Everything exist by chance and everything is Chaos, stupidity and nonsense.
zigifrojd 7 months ago
wasnt created by accident (stupid corespondance energy and mater without any reason), mater and energy would float or something.
2. Dawkins once said that god might exist in other universe. He was deluded, nothing cant be further from the truth. God doesnt exist in any universe because eternity is for always, but it still goes so it is not eternal.
3. There is nothing strange in existance and our natural bodies and artifical and apstract thoughts.
zigifrojd 7 months ago
This illuminating truth from my understanding and my atheistic mind will turn many of you who read in atheists.
1. Mater and energy always existed and always exist and will exist. It is irrelevant if big bang created universe, because universe is created from eternal mater and energy which cant be destroyed, by disbalance natural, unnatural, realy its irelevant, if universe
zigifrojd 7 months ago
@zigifrojd
If you believe that matter and energy are eternal and so powerful, then you are really just using different semantics to talk about a god. However: 1) everything that exists has a beginning and a cause; 2) The Universe began to exist; 3) Therefore the universe had a cause. Now, matter and energy are all things found within our universe, and thus, since the universe itself had a beginning and a cause, could not have existed before the cause of the universe: matter & NRG ar not eternal
Grambo4 7 months ago
@Skeletonwitharaygun Thats a common misconception. I actually am a very reasonable person and that's what led me to completely believing in Christ.
CloverfieldMonster95 8 months ago 7
dr william is amazing, he dumps on everyone. i love him!!
british123able 8 months ago
Its funny how he does not defend a religious god, just a abstract designer. GO ATKINS!
juanarruti 8 months ago
@juanarruti step by step dude
paulthehanna 8 months ago
@juanarruti If he does, so called intellectuals start to downgrading him. So, if he talks about "religious" God he is not as tall as the debate requires, but if he talks about "abstract designer" God he is not so religious then. When is he good enough then? Surely I have no doubt of his faith. This is the kind of believers that atheists can't beat
danielustarez 8 months ago
poor Peter Atkins...
GabrielGroverMan 8 months ago 15
"AND DEEP DOWN WE ALL KNOW IT" great logic....
twoface4 8 months ago
LOL trying to reinforce THEISTIC claims with DEISTIC arguments.
Rape is ABSOLUTE wrong? try telling that to the Kanenites, too bad god told them to rape first...
OASISriffs 9 months ago
@OASISriffs Theism and Deism can coincide perfectly harmoniously, idiot.
walkerlucas 8 months ago
@walkerlucas Deism cannot be falsified, Deists do not believe in an anthropogenic god. Theists DO. It's one thing to say something fine tuned the universe (hence order) and another thing to say the fine tuner doesn't want you to wear a cotton shirt with a silk tie or eat lobster!
"Theism and Deism can coincide perfectly harmoniously"-oh how the first commandment begs to differ. Retard.
OASISriffs 8 months ago
@OASISriffs Wow...where to begin? Ok, "...an anthropogenic god" means that said god was created by people. Theists do NOT believe this. Deism maintain that "something" (God) created and "fine tuned the universe," correct? Theists believe this too! If you are going to pull obscure references from the bible, at least take care to research the circumstances to which the given passage refers. Also, don't confuse tradition attributed to any particular denomination as Biblical.
walkerlucas 8 months ago
@OASISriffs Finally, I don't really get how the first Commandment contradicts any of this. Dumb ass.
walkerlucas 8 months ago
@walkerlucas IS the debate we are having. First commandment: "thou shalt have no other gods before me", Deists don't believe in Yahweh therefore "Theism and Deism can coincide perfectly harmoniously" is plain false (if it is the Christian theism you were referring to), and I'm sure Jesus would approve of your childish name calling at the end of every sentence. My main point; there is NO evidence for a human-like god who approves/disproves of what creatures of this one species act/think !
OASISriffs 8 months ago
@OASISriffs Theists and Deists both believe that there is one all powerful god. Capisce? We were exchanging rude rhetoric at the end of each comment. I'm quite sure that God doesn't approve of my calling you a dumb ass. That was all me. I didn't want to interrupt our flow. Dr. spent an hour presenting evidence for God while Dr. Atkins squirmed and mumbled his way incoherently to his painful, embarrassing end of this debate. Are we still calling names or have we stopped?
walkerlucas 8 months ago
@walkerlucas *Dr. Craig
walkerlucas 8 months ago
@walkerlucas Deists don't specify a GOD, they leave that part vague and general for the most part, let alone specifically Yahweh, ask any deist if their deity has this name and have these opinions and impregnated a "virgin" and had a offspring specifically resembling this one particular species on this one particular planet in this solar system and galaxy just so he could be killed for what the yet unborn have done. Deist do not specify Yahweh f.bible astheir finetuner therefore violate 1st comm
OASISriffs 8 months ago
@OASISriffs Just because all deists aren't necessarily Christian doesn't mean that deism can't be used to defend theism...for all of the reasons I've already stated. We are arguing in circles and it's no longer fun. Goodbye.
walkerlucas 8 months ago
great job Doc
patolento 9 months ago
im an atheist and ill stay away from the name calling. I respect William Craig's intelligence, I do disagree that to not believe in a god makes you have to prove one doesnt exists. This is what we call the unknown, noone knows but to accept something without any evidence to the contrary is not really a good idea. His debates of the "objective moral values" means nothing if you break it down. Maybe his morality theory when looked from the other end of universe mean nothing like or small world.
Willtur 10 months ago
@Willtur Personally I don't think that Dr. Craig is all that exceptionally intelligent. The only thing he really has going for him is he is a good speaker and knows how to twist words in just the right way. Much of what he's saying is complete bunk with no connections to science. However, it is deceptively easy to get sucked into what he's saying. He'd be a good salesman. Or conman ;)
shldflght 10 months ago
jesus Christ created the universe.
Hueydocks 10 months ago
How do you debate with a creationist about morality when they cannot see past their own belief just for a second. Just long enough to see where the other side is coming from? It goes both ways too. It is a conversation that just goes in circles when that can't be done. Morality is a choice. It developed as other traits did during evolution and we continue to evolve.
123Larra 11 months ago
I am sorry for the flippant remark.
Jesus is unusual. But He is resurrected from the dead and available in as the divine life giving Spirit, the Holy Spirit until His physical return. You should seize the time to ask this available Lord Jesus into your innermost heart. Christ is trustworthy. This is God united with man in a mingled way to bring sinners to salvation and have God live in them too.
Ear4Beauty 11 months ago
LMAO everyone Atheist or Theist or whatever will know the truth one day, let them attack us, we don't really care, if they want to show such disrespect!
jqt213 11 months ago
not sure that "good reasons" do the trick. particularly because the word good needs to be qualified. actually the category "good" requires the existence of both a categorizing method and a categorizing method giver/cause/proponent. Its hard enough for "reasons" to survive outside any categorizing method, much less "good reasons" outside moral categories. Morality (a set of good reasons) can't be assumed without a moral law giver. not even the truthfulness of statements survives without it.
thehonduranjazzman 1 year ago
THUMB UP CHASEKITTENS COMMENT.. LETS GET SOME REASON IN HERE!!!!!
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
he conveniently left out killing which sems to be ok if god told u to do it
zidwar 1 year ago
@zidwar
But the killing does not prove anything
jamel11234 1 year ago
@jamel11234 craig is a cherry picker of words, he uses big words and phrases to twist his way through his nonsense.
zidwar 1 year ago
1-"Natural law, chance or design" -false dichotomy.
2-Then he says witout backing ot up that fine tunning it's not due to either natural law or chance.
3-Morality IS objective.
4-Whatever Jesus claimed doesn't prove god.
5-Ther bible alone is not enough evidence (if it si evidence) to prove conclusively, as Craig affirms, the truth of the resurrection.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
subtitulos en español plz!!!!where???
JOKERCKS 1 year ago
william lane craig is such a knob lol geesh!
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
Fuck - Craig sounds good until he tries to back-up the resurrection of a figure for which written history has not a trace of. He goes too far: He should stick to the first principle stuff. Jesus is NOT documented: We have documentation of the Buddha, Mohamed, Mani, all sorts of prophets - we have nothing hard on the Christ, so keep schtum on that, if you want to be taken seriously against a hard-nosed sceptic, that is.
5147848amp 1 year ago
@5147848amp really what sources do have for the great history of buddah mani please tell im intrested
1020flaka 1 year ago
@1020flaka
Check out: the Cologne Mani-Codex
As for the Buddha, Karen Armstrong is fairly confident in her book that he was an historical figure. Perhaps he wasn't, I may have spoken too soon.
The point about the Christ, though, is that if there was this miracle worker living in the east, why did none of his contemporaries write about him? And where is the census data? (That's why Joseph and Mary were riding from Galilee to Bethlehem, after all.)
5147848amp 1 year ago
Peter Atkins looks...stressed lol
NauticaSplit 1 year ago
I would like to see a mormon get smased by William in a debate i never see mormons debating atheists or big christian debaters.
wachnathan 1 year ago
I don't know why so many atheists attack Craig for his "eloquent language" because he apparently uses that more than substance to explain his reasoning.
I would disagree,.... it's quite necessary because the points he's trying to make, such as moral or physiological arguments are pushed deeper and deeper by modern science and philosophy.
Anyone who studies on the college level would understand.
For the laymen it seems like a load of smoke and mirrors, but think twice.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
Funny how atheists come here, instead of ''reasoning'' they just bash anything that goes against them. I laugh, and I'm an agnostic.
AdemaLevel 1 year ago 59
@AdemaLevel ya well doctor craig does suck. objective morality? really? that's your argument craig? he's arguing that morality is subjective to god that somehow makes it objective for us.. But he's ignoring that that simple fact ruins the fact that it is objective.. If god is choosing it then it is subjective..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago 2
@SHIBBYiPANDA try watching the whole thing mate. before judging by one part.
its like saying religion is evil and blablabla
without looking at state atheism.
AdemaLevel 1 year ago
@AdemaLevel ya i will dont worry..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA "he's arguing that morality is subjective to god that somehow makes it objective for us"
Bingo, drives me crazy. He'll run around in circles of apologetics until he has what is subjective absolutism instead of objectivism, and that's only if he's otherwise proven God's existence using other means that really are just the same apologetics hanging by a thread. He's still provided no satisfactory answer to the Euthyphro dilemma.
ChaseKittens 1 year ago
@ChaseKittens YA it drives me nuts man. I wish I could see all his thoughts like written out on a piece of paper to understand if he's just purposefully being deceiving or honestly believes that somehow.. Did u watch his debate about morality and god with shelly kagan?? The debate was extremely focused and Craig got his ass handed to him in a paper bag... Btw does Craigs face not look extremely constipated ALL THE TIME.. It's like his brain is in serious pain forcing out all the bullshit it does
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@ChaseKittens In my opinion you can beat Craigs argument in 30 seconds by asking the following simple questions;
- Does God tell you to do what we wants you to do for good reasons? (Yes)
- Are any part of God's motives to just simply boss you around or are there literally good reasons for everything He asks? (good reasons)
- Are those reasons good enough that they would still exist even if He didn't exist?? (yes)
with a little argument and discussion i'm pretty sure that wins
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA 1.) God gave to law to prove to you that sin's nature prevents you from doing His will. 2.) Man's enjoyment and God's expression are the reasons for God's Spirit to come into man. 3.) If He didn't exist His Spirit could not indwell man. Christ was a man united and mingled with God. That is what God wants for His glory and man's eternal enjoyment. Why are you here ?
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA 1. God gave to law to prove to you that sin's nature prevents you from doing His will. Before that the only rule was be careful not to eat a Satanic fruit of independence from God. 2. Man's enjoyment and God's expression are the reasons for God's Spirit to come into man through new birth. 3. If He didn't exist His Spirit could not indwell man. Christ was a man united and mingled with God. That is what God wants for His glory and man's eternal enjoyment. Why are you here ?
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty r u asking me?? Who cares?? Why should I believe any of that??
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA You posed three questions but you really don't care. There's such comfort in apathy.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty what are you talking about? Please make an thoughtful response.. You only have a certain amount to time before you die.. Let's use it wisely..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty I don't believe what you wrote and I don't think there is any reason to believe it.. I really don't know what I'm supposed to say back to you??
and I said "who cares" to the question of "why are you here?"... I seriously don't think there is a reason that I'm here.. Why should I care whether or not there is a reason I'm here?? I'm fine if there is and I'm fine if there isn't.. If God REALLY wanted me to be doing something though He could just tell me and I'd get right on it..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@AdemaLevel Do you honestly see any difference between the most hardcore atheists and the nuts of the right wing?, they are just the same, just with another name.
adrianggarcia 1 year ago
@AdemaLevel Keep searching man. We christians love you!
luke2thab 1 year ago
@AdemaLevel Agnosticism is only the statement that existence or non existence of a deity is ultimately unknowable. You realize that you either need to be a theistic agnostic or an atheistic agnostic. In a sense, there are NO absolute atheistic people as they are 'most' likely to believe the lack of the existence of god. So in that sense, all atheists are also agnostic people.
TejasM14 11 months ago
@AdemaLevel If you notice these things about atheists, why are you still an agnostic?
TheHoggopogo 11 months ago
@AdemaLevel I'm an Agnostic Atheist (You can't just be agnostic, and you can't just be atheist. They actually are 2 different scales that intertwine), I have to admit, William Lane Craig knows what he is talking about. Going to continue watching more ;D
FearedBliss 10 months ago
@FearedBliss
He knows what he is saying? He lies... and the bullshit he spews is swallowed by people. He goes and states that "New Testament scholars agree about the Resurection of Jesus", this is just a lie, its completely false. There is little evidence for the existance OF Jesus, and none for his Resurection.
123duffbeerrules 9 months ago
@123duffbeerrules There are some things that he says that he says that I agree with, other things I cannot prove nor disprove. Ultimately Philosophy, Religion, and Science are based on Faith. Pick your perception.
FearedBliss 9 months ago
@123duffbeerrules I went to give you a thumbs DOWN and missed.I say this with all due respect. Please to answer a question. Why would you spew such a word in such away, that hate permeates from it, in a religious thread? JUST ONE WORD SAID IN ONE WAY. Seems that hate or at the very least anger controls your thoughts and reactions. Why not say,"....and those lies he spews are swallowed by people.?" or even "the nonsense he spews bla bla bla. There are many better choices to choose from.
IdontLikeEBAYeither 9 months ago
@AdemaLevel I used to be an atheist, then an agnostic, and finally found faith again. Atheists have an unreasonable dismissal of God. Agnostics are very reasonable, and for that reason make great judges, but their seeming worship of rationalism is completely indecisive and lacks spirituality, which can be found in atheism and theism.
atheniandp 9 months ago
@AdemaLevel why is he talking about objective moral values....alll morality is subjective....
twoface4 8 months ago
@twoface4 To what or whom is morality subjective, exactly?
walkerlucas 8 months ago
@AdemaLevel It's always like that. I love how they hate.
Dodo251 8 months ago
@AdemaLevel
There's no reasoning with Christians.
Skeletonwitharaygun 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AdemaLevel god loves you. :)
XxStopherLixX 6 months ago
Comment removed
IoannesBellator 6 months ago