@RosesTimes the full quote is "As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris." -Richard Dawkins.
Copson seems to be a bright guy - but it really smacks of cowardess and bad faith, to claim that it is impossible to refute Craig, whether due to the format of the debate or the necessity for a very comprehensive treatment in order to refute effectively. Of course, to refute the premises that Craig uses does require more time than is normally alloted to one in a debate - but remember that Craig's premises, also, have much more support behind them than he reveals in these debates.
Pretty much spot on, Craig's tactics more or less comes down to long-winded circle arguments, straw mans, and faulty logic, which is not hard to see through with some basic logic and modern physic knowledge. Breaking that down to people without that knowledge takes a lot of time though, so by the time anyone have rebuked the first point, they are out of it. In a debate among intellectuals where no one have to spend 10 min explaining that the burden of proof is on Craig, he gets shredded.
Just finished listening to this and my God, this guy is the biggest fuckin' idiot I've ever come across.
'You can't really tackle his arguments in the time allocated for debates' - bullshit, what you mean Copson is that YOU, an untrained tyro, can't deal with his arguments. I've seen plenty of atheist philosophers respond to Craig and for there to ensure a respectful, sophisticated discussion on the nuances of Craig's arguments. You simply lack the intellect to properly engage with him.
This guy is a fuckin' idiot - 'plausible to the untrained eye' - sorry, is this guy a trained philosopher or cosmologist? No you say? So what the fuck is he banging on about? What he means is: 'his arguments are philosophically rigorous, and I personally lack the training to respond to them.' Go home Copson you absolute moron.
Atheist philosophers who have responded to Craig (like Quentin Smith or Oppy) are far more respectful and cordial than this insipid creep.
The Cambridge Union Debate can be watched at: watch?v=DXB0o53FdVM
Copson seems to mess up the proceedings for everyone by offering no cogent counterarguments in the first reply from the opposition. As you'd expect from his childish radio interview, Copson has a demonstrably weak grasp of formal logic, ontology and debate formality.
In other words, an apt representative of the British Humanist Association.
I've made Copson's point many times on YouTube threadboards etc., so it's hardly "novel"! Craig sets up these debates with a format of his own choosing, and a rehearsed ambush of lies, halftruths, strawman arguments, and quotemines all delivered at a "Gish gallop", and by the time the opponent has had time to rationally unravel it for the untrained audience (mostly of Christian "Craig disciples) Craig is long gone to his next debate.
He dodges later responses to them like the plague.
@Tobytrim So are you saying that debates in front of a live audience with William lane Craig is too difficult for these well known atheist Authors? He's so good he blind sides them all before they realize it hes gone to another point? dont you think that's a silly excuse, what does that say about them? If he's arguments are a bunch of lies, strawman, shouldn't it be easier to refute by these intelligent men? The formats of the debate Dr. Craig participates in are fair and neutral.
@enemay "So are you saying that debates in front of a live audience with William lane Craig is too difficult for these well known atheist Authors?"
No, I'm saying he makes it impossible to get to the truth. And no, it is actually impossible to refute the likes of Craig in the time constraints of the debate he formats. The more intellectually honest the opponent is prepared to be the more impossible it becomes.
Craig refuses to argue with people who would handle his tactics in his own way,.
@Tobytrim I doubt Dr. Craig is unwilling to debate anyone who has some name in the issue. So your saying he's the one who comes up with rules of the debates he participates in, I thought he is only invited and the University or whatever institution comes up with the protocol? Ok so if you feel its non-productive to listen to these debates then its equally non-productive to comment about it in a Youtube box.
@enemay "I doubt Dr. Craig is unwilling to debate anyone who has some name in the issue."
Precisely right!! More to the point, he will ONLY debate people with a name. He presents his dishonest arguments in such a way that any knowledgable person will take too long to correct the dishonesty in them, for the understanding of the untrained audience. He uses techniques such as "the "Gish gallop" (usually of quote mines, and strawmen that leaves the other guy incredulous, but not the audience.
@enemay " Ok so if you feel its non-productive to listen to these debates then its equally non-productive to comment about it in a Youtube box." Ha ha! I thought you might say that. After all, and unlike Craigs opponents in his set up debate, I have time and space to decimate his dishonestly presented, piss poor, arguments.
However, I repeat my offer, as I've done many times before, AND been taken up!. Offer your favourite WLC argument, and I'll happily show you why it doesn't work.
@enemay Craig's arguments are not unbeatable but really takes time to refute it. For example to refute KCA, his opponent has to talk about Special Relativity, B-Theory of Time, how Craig uses actual and potential infinity in a very different manner and Hilbert Hotel is irrelevant and how the Big Bang is not ex-nihilo creation.
OMG “They will go and put videos online about how he thrashed them”. IS this guy serious? I cannot believe he could say that and keep a straight face. How many videos are there of Dawkins saying something and the title of the video is “Dawkins rips religion a new one” something along those lines. Whatever he is on, I want!!!
Lol, i find it funny that when it comes to evil and suffering in the world, the holocaust is not often mentioned, torture chambers are not often mentioned, or even famine or hiroshima, no, it's always the same things that are mentioned.....911 and rape. come on people! what's death and rape? compared to torture, seing your family die all around you. sheesh. and i find it even funnier that people only mention girls when it comes to rape, that's not what the statistic tell you.
I find it rather humorous, that proponents of atheism, who like to think that their arguments are logical because they are alleged to be based on science and facts. Would worry or be intimidated by Christians or others who support Dr. Craig, expressing their opinions on YouTube. Why would one worry about such tergiversation, unless their intent was also evangelism, where pride and numbers is more important than truth for truth's sake?
Crqig doesn't respond to the criticisms at all- He just argues against things that were never mentioned- i.e. no one said tat he should not present his side of the argument Craig surely knows this ...And , yet craig accuses the other guy of being disingenuous?
A wise man once told me, "If after you've presented your side of an issue, and your adversary responds with personal attacks, threats or violence, you have won the engagement." If the best these guys can do, is shoot down the messenger, and ignore addressing the issue, it really works against them. It surprises me as mature rational people, they cannot see this. They do their position little or no benefit.
From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.
@kemalcs thanks for pointing me to those two sources. i appreciate the response. in all honesty, I wouldn't be able to take you past the basics of the argument but in his own words "the B-theorist would have to give us very powerful reasons for abandoning this common sense view of time and denying our intimate experience of temporal becoming and tense... there is no good reason to deny this experience (as of a 2008 lecture)
@brzlnow Craig is supporting a Neo-Lorentzian approach in STR instead of standard Einstein/Minkowski approach..it's like supporting Neo-Lamarkian Evolution instead of Neo-Darwinian evolution. He actually wrote 2-3 books about philosophy of time (I did not read it maybe he has good reasons to oppose general consensus among physicists). But common sense is not a good objection. Our common sense will also say sun is revolving around earth or earth is flat etc. etc.
@brzlnow Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen's “Presentism and Relativity” (2003) is also a good paper. Balashow is in University of Georgia and professor of philosophy. He has also physics background. Jannsen is I think in University of Minnesota..his area is physics.
@brzlnow Craig has a debate with Shelly Kagan on YouTube..I think it's one of the rare debates that Craig lose (or at least draw). But problem about Craig's argument from morality is that his justification of existence of OM. He says in deep down, we all know it OMV exists or moral experience. I think it's a kind a jump form moral epistemology to moral ontology.
@kemalcs I was gong to say 'besides Kagan's work' because I have looked at a lot of it. Kagan also holds to OMV. There can only be one or the other right? Either its subject, and therfore, relativistic or objective? It seemed to me as if there are some problems with what Kagan puts forth. Isn't grounding objective morality in the well-being of humans arbitrary? Again, thanks for the references. I really appreciate it.
@brzlnow Kagan and Craig had a debate on that issue..you can watch on YouTube.
I don't think that OMV exists..but justifying it through moral experience is nonsense. In 300 years ago, human beings also thought that slavery is OK. Our moral values change over time, change depending on culture and economic structure.
@kemalcs yes, i saw it. Again though, why dismiss the justification of OMV based on your moral experience as nonsense? Seems as if we should only do this if given good very good reason.. same with our sense perception of the exterior world. We similarly have no good reason to deny that. As far as slavery goes, you are describing our perception of moral values evolving over time. Anyone holding to OM would afirm this. You are referring to the our subjective view of morality...
@brzlnow Personal experiences are not good justifications..I know Christianity is true, because I feel Holy Spirit. OK what about people like me (ex-Muslim agnostic) who never experienced holy spirit.
If justification of existence of OMV is our personal perception of moral values, and our perception is changing over time, then conclusion will also change over time.
@kemalcs I think the terms we are using are clouding things a bit. When you talk about the conclusions changing over time, this is the subject sense of OMV. This is our perception of the action, say rape, being wrong or right. But by objective, we are saying that rape itself is either wrong or right, independent of what we think about it. So again, to use the overused extreme, do you think there is a moral dif between raping an innocent girl and loving her? Are those morally indifferent?
@brzlnow They are morally different because in rape case, you are hurting her. It's my subjective thought but since many many people are thinking in same way, then it would be seemed as rape is wrong no matter we think.
Gospel of Matthew and Luke contains some same information that is not on Gospel of Mark. So NT scholars suggest that there should be a Q Source which both Matthew and Luke used. Yes it explains the current situation but actually there is no Q Document in reality.
@kemalcs Seems to me that you are affirming OMV.. Or do you think that if everyone thought it was ok to rape that it would be right? If everyone in the world believed that raping an innocent girl was right, would it be right?
@brzlnow Yes it would be right..because somehow all women are masochistic and they took pleasure to be raped. And in that world, we would not think that rape is wrong. We would even think that raping is good objectively.
@brzlnow everyone and little girl himself thought that it's ok (btw girl was only innocent not little)
Suppose Bin Ladin is alive and he's gonna nuke NYC in 30 minutes. And CIA has Bin Ladin's daughter. To stop Bin Ladin, it would be morally good to rape Ladin's little innocent daughter in front of Bin Ladin's eyes. Because it serve a greater good.
@kemalcs So we have established one objective moral duty. But I think we both live our lives and deeply believe that there are many more things that are objectively wrong and right. Therefore, I think its safe to say that there are also objective moral values. Because there is a difference between moral values and moral duties. Moral values deal with what is good/bad. Moral duties deal with what is right/wrong - actions that we ought/ought not do.
@brzlnow I think we will have a kind a Eupythro dilemma on here.
"Is murdering objectively bad because every mentally stable people thinks that murdering is bad or every mentally people thinks that murdering is bad because it's objectively bad"
@kemalcs That would be a type of euthyphro diemma i guess.. But just as the original was, I think this one is also a false dilemma. There is a third option. Its not one or the other as you put it. The argument from morals, as im sure you are familiar with, is
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
In your first option, morals can't be objective because the basis is people's opinion.
@brzlnow I agree with the argument..I also think that objective morality will not exist without god but I have doubts that objective moral values and duties exists. Because you and Craig says it exists because of our personal experiences. So my question is this
Does our collective subjective moral experience proves that existence of objective moral values.
@kemalcs Because the argument is valid, you have to deny one of the premises. Here, you have accepted the first and question the second. The second is an affirmation that objective moral values and duties do exist but we did establish at least 1 objective moral duty right? (not raping an innocent girl)
As for your question, I don't think that is the case. I think your own moral experience proves to you that OMV. Now we're back to where we started, but let me explain...
@brzlnow No, Craig's justification of 2nd argument is merely logical fallacy. He equals "consensus of human beings on a statement" to "mind independent truth". But if they are not identical in a possible world, then they are not identical in any possible world.
My moral value and duty experience only proves that i have moral values and duties..This does not prove that this statement is true, independent of what I or other people thought.
@brzlnow But my experience is only my experience. My personal experience is subjective.
OK, take the example of child abuse
What if I say, child abuse is objectively good in deep down we all know it's good. It's our moral duty to abuse child. Just because in deep down, we all know child abuse is true, does not make child abuse is good as a mind-independent statement. All human beings may feel that child abuse is good, but that will not make child abuse is objectively, mind independent good.
@brzlnow Appeal to emotions...Individuals may have subjective moral values and duties due to their personal subjective moral experience. I based on my morality according to consequences and utilities of the actions. This is my own personal criteria. Just because I don't believe a god, I don't have to be a moral nihilist.
Just because everyone (except catholic priests:)) feels that child abuse is evil, does not make child abuse is mind independently wrong.
@brzlnow There are two meanings of objective. One that something we all agree upon other is something independent of what we think. Craig is false equaling those two different definitions.
At time of Galileo, all people are thinking that sun is revolving around the earth. This is an objective truth because we all agreed upon it..but it's objectively false because as the legend says, it still moves.
@kemalcs Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. You are clearly confusing subjective with objective. With your example, whether or not the sun revolves around the earth is an objective fact. That means that it either is or is not revolving around the earth independently of what anyone thinks. If everyone in the world believed that the sun revolved around the earth, that would not make it so.
@brzlnow Yes, that's what I try to say .Craig shows no evidence for existence of objective moral values.
"In deep down, we all know child abuse is wrong and evil" is not equal to or leads to "Child abuse is wrong no matter who thinks what". Just because "in deep down, we all know that child abuse is wrong and evil" does not make "child abuse is wrong&evil independent of what we thought"
@kemalcs You believe that abusing a child just for the fun of it is wrong.. what if you thought that it was right? Would it be right/good? What I'm trying to say is that whether or not you think something is right/wrong or good/bad, the thing itself is either right/wrong or good/bad, independently of what you think.
The city of New York exists independently, OBJECTIVELY.. whether or not you think it exists. Everyone thinking the world is flat doesn't make it so.
@brzlnow For example, what if I say "God exists, in deep down we all know it". And if you look at the world, many people are believing some kind of a supernatural force. But this does not make existence of god is a mind-independent truth. No.
@brzlnow For me, right/good is what helps others and doesn’t hurt them...wrong/evil is what hurts people and doesn’t help them. So to answer your question..child abusing is wrong and evil. But this is a rule without rulemaker.
My main area is business. There is price-quantity law..but there is no transcendent lawmaker. It's I, you and everyone are the lawmaker.
@kemalcs I'm not appealing to emotions. 'Is it wrong to kill someone just for the fun of it?'
Either you think it is objectively wrong to do this or personally think that its wrong but if someone thinks its ok, then thats up to them. So which camp do you fall into?
@kemalcs I have God as a base and anchor point for OMV and duties. You have human well-being as your anchor point.
I am saying that the rightness or wrongness of killing someone just for the fun of it exists independently of what the basic consensus of human beings. That is, if killing someone just for the the fun of it is not objectively wrong, regardless of human opinion, then everything is relative. In that case, right/wrong and good/bad doesn't even exist.
@kemalcs That is like asking "what is your proof that the physical world exists?". The proof that the physical world exists is in our sense experience. We hear the car passing by, we see the car passing by. Now can one doubt the reality that they clearly sense? Sure, people do it. People theorize that we are brains in a chem lab. We are in the matrix! How can you prove that we are not lying in the matrix right now?
@brzlnow Through our sense experience, we sense some moral values. I have some moral experience, you have some moral experience..I completely agree with that. But how can this prove the mind-independent truth of those values.
Suppose that in entire universe, there are only plants. No animals, no human..nothing intelligent. In that case will morality exist.
@kemalcs Like I said before, we similarly have no more reason to doubt our our moral experience than to doubt our sense experience. Can you prove that the physical world exists any more than our moral experience? We have a moral apprehension of objective moral values and duties.
@brzlnow Maybe it's true...."we live in a matrix" is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypothesis and there is no reason to think that we live in matrix. So it's a meaningless statement that does not deserve to be thought about that.
@kemalcs The argument from morality is a pretty good argument. Many athiests actually agree that OMV and duties exist. (Mostly because they understand that any moral system in which they do not exist is bankrupt) But if OMV exist, in terms of our argument, then it follows that God exists (unless you want to deny the first premise)
I think you believe in OMV. I know that you think killing someone just for the fun of it is wrong - and not just in your mind, but always wrong.. objectively wrong.
@brzlnow It's actually pretty same with argument from beauty. We can easily say who cares about mind independent beauty but not for morality. Atheists agree that moral values and duties exist (Unless you are Robinson Crusoe). But see no reason to take its ontology to the heavens.
I think the deep down point is whether human is good/evil/natural in his nature. From a christian perspective, we are created sick and need to be commanded to be well
@kemalcs Where do you get your basis for morality right/wrong good/bad? Are you a naturalist? Determinist?
And I think you are misrepresenting the Christian view.. Christianity says that we are born morally corrupt with original sin, etc etc but the argument from morality is not arguing that we need to be commanded to live good moral lifes. Many atheists live what we would call good moral lives.
@brzlnow I understand and agree that there has to be a line that determines and sets what's right and what's wrong. But I can't see any reason that the line has to be drawn by God...why the consensus of human beings is not that line. I can't see a reason to think this line drawer must be super-human other than inter-human.
@kemalcs Because the consensus of human beings can change. Two apposing societies can believe different things. If Germany had won WWII then they would have determined right/wrong? I just see this as problematic because this leads to 'might makes right'. Is this your view?
@brzlnow In that case, rationality involves. Why do you think X is good because of YVZ..A is good because of BCD. We virtually do it through history. Think about gender equality. People do not wake up in the morning "From now on, man and woman should be really equal". And they do not accept as a common principle in one day.
@kemalcs Not sure where you are trying to go with that.. I have to bring it back to the main point..
You accept the first premise, but deny the second. To say that killing someone just for the fun of it is right/wrong is an objective claim. Its like saying that a car is white. The right/wrong of either of those claims is based in the things themselves. In contrast, claiming that the Fiat is your favorite brand of car is subjective. It is based on your opinion.
@brzlnow In the Nazi case..First, I think that Nazis shall also produce good arguments to kill all the Jews. If you say destroying an entire nation from an earth for nothing..is not something that even average people will find OK. But then I later think about Israelites and other tribes in OT. Well, people can find it very normal and even defend it. Actually, in DCT "might is right". Because If I ask you, why is god's foundation of our morality, you will answer because he created us.
@kemalcs If you don't see how 'killing someone just for the fun of it' is objectively right or wrong, I'm not sure what to say to you.The only other option is for you is to say that it is just a matter of opinion like which ice cream a person prefers.
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism.
@kemalcs Right, so you either hold an objective, relativistic, nihilistic, or (I would add) absolutist view of morality. Absolutist would be, for example, believing that killing is always wrong.
Again, seems to me that you want to affirm the objectivity of moral values but, as of now, you stand somewhere near relativism.
@brzlnow I am somewhere between consequentialist (which is under moral objectivisim) and conventionalism (which is under moral relativism). But since societies are interacting each other so much, I define only one society and it's the society of humanity.
I am not a moral absolutist, I am pretty sure about that.
@brzlnow I have two main objections to Argument from OMV
1) How do we know our individual moral values, coming from moral experience, are mind independent truths, not universally accepted truths (It's an objective to 2nd premise)
2) If god does not exists, only absolute moral values won't exist not objective one. (Objection to first premise)
@brzlnow However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.
@brzlnow The source or justification of a universal ethic may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the common mandates of religion
@brzlnow In the Nazi case, Nazis would show very good reasons to think that Jews were evil. And we would reached the consensus that Jews were evil people and they deserved to be killed. But since story is fake, it will have eventually have a weakness. Something won't make sensen. Then human beings will find out that Nazis made the story and be agreed upon that killing all Jews are wrong.
@brzlnow For me, "god does not exist" is a that kind of statement. After all god may exists, out of space-time without doing nothing at all (not even a deistic one). And there is no way to disprove it.
But "god exists" is a verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis. At least, I can show that there are no good arguments.
@kemalcs In the same light, I could ask you how you know that your relativistic or subjective moral values exist. You sense them. The confusion is that when you say 'killing someone just for the fun of it is wrong', you are saying that that is subjective. But unless you think that its ok for other people to do this, then it is clearly objective. Maybe we are confusing epistemology with ontology?
@brzlnow For you, an eternal wise king is the best regime, for me democracy is the best regime. I don't think that two educated, rational beings do not have a large discussion on rules or laws passed.
@brzlnow Think about the free market..everybody is buying different quantities for different prices. When you put the data to regression, you can see a line...above the line is expensive, below the line is cheap. That line is derived from individuals choices but each individual is so insignificant that their decision do not change the general line of the market.
Think the similar pattern for foundation of morality..
@kemalcs There is no more reason to deny our moral experience than there is to deny our sense experience. (we sense a world of cars, trees, people, physical objects) We have a moral apprehension of objective moral values and duties. We have no reason to distrust it, therefore should assume that they do exist.
@kemalcs You know that OMV and duties exist. You deeply believe that it would be wrong for me to murder one of your family members just for the fun of it. Not just wrong in your mind, but objectively wrong. Rape, torture, child abuse are socially unacceptable, moral abominations. Love, generostiy,.. these are good. Maybe you just don't want the conclusion to be true? Something to do with past experiences? I'm not trying to call you out on anything.. just trying to reason.
@brzlnow Lets give an example..producer of Barbie dolls also introduced some local Barbies in the different parts of the world. Asian Barbies for Japan for example. But those local barbies did not have good sales. Because due to "cultural imperialism" (if you want), children are watching Western TV's and cinemas..their understanding of beauty is become standard. So nearly every little girl in the world thinks that blonde, white, blue eyed girls are the most beautiful girls.
@brzlnow In your logic, this collective subjective preferences proves that blonde Barbies are objectively beautiful than Asians or Latin Barbies. So you are saying that just because every children prefer blonde Barbies, beauty of blonde barbies is true independent of thoughts of children.
@brzlnow So the argumentation of objective morality, I think something like that
1) If only objective moral values and duties do exist, we will personally experience them
2) We are personally experiencing objective moral values and duties.
3) Therefore objective moral values and duties exists.
Since 1st argument is false, then conclusion is false. And 2nd is also false. Since the conclusion is false, therefore argument from objective morality is false
@brzlnow But in a possible world, these may not be the same thing.
Think about Galileo case..earth is revolving around sun no matter what we think but at that time all humans think that it's false, and they thought sun is revolving around earth.
After Galileo's confession, that sun is revolving around earth statement is objectively true because everybody agreed upon it. Also it's objectively true because scientific findings.
If A is not B in any possible world, then A is not identical to B
@brzlnow Human beings define what's good and what's evil based on utility/consequences but in some cases utility/consequences are universally (or internationally) same. All mentally sane people think the raping is bad. Then it will give us the illusion that raping is bad no matter what people think.
But suppose that innocent girls are loved to be rape in a possible world. All women are masochistic. Then we would not think that rape is wrong.
@kemalcs Are you referring to the argument for God based on the existence of objective moral values - axiological? Or just the second premise, namely, arguing for OMV themselves? I'm not familiar with the Q Source Hypothesis..
@brzlnow Due to social biological evolution, all mental stable human beings may feel that murdering is bad. This does not mean that OMV exists. We may in the delusion that morality is founded on God. Personally, I am for consequential/utilitarian approach. I agree that secular morality do not have a cosmic mafia so theistic morality sound better on theory. But in practice, Divine CT is still relative.
@brzlnow DCT is based on a generic god not a specific religion, so its objective on paper but since there are lots of religion, in practice it's subjective morality. If Craig saw a Muslim suicide bomber, all he can do is "Man, you are believing in wrong religion".
Sam Harris Moral Landscape is actually a good base for utilitarian approach but Harris somehow thinks that it's objective. But it's not. I dont think that OMV can exist without god.
@kemalcs Also, in terms of the generic god thing, this is the issue that Stephen Law was raising in their recent debate. But thats why Craig attempts to develop a more complete picture of God using supplemental arguments. It seems as if the aim of the argument is to bring people to that generic "god" or creator. Once you establish that, then you can talk 'is it the god of islam, christianity, etc'.
@brzlnow No what I say is that most physicists use Einstein/Minkowski interpreation not Neo-Lorentzian. If first one is true than B Theory of Time is true, if NL is true than A Theory of time is true
@kemalcs "most physicists use Einstein/Minkowski interpreation not Neo-Lorentzian. If first one is true than B Theory of Time is true, if NL is true than A Theory of time " -you have a source for this?
@kemalcs I'm now going to go wikipedia nearly half of the words you wrote to me. And so the 'good reasons' for accepting a B-theory of time, against our common experience of it, are...? I would think that 'common sense' would be a great reason to hold the A-theory of time in the same way that I think we should affirm objective morality. It is something that we perceive or experience within ourselves. Therefore, we should have really good reasons for hold views to the contrary.
@brzlnow I dont think that common sense is a good argument. Our common sense also support many crazy things such as heavier objects fell sooner than lighter objects etc etc.
@PrinceOfPerelandra I think that's fair enough - although I'd say that Dawkins just wouldn't consider Craig to be the most sophisticated opponent. He considers bishops (Oxford, Canterbury etc) to be more sophisticated, and has debated those.
But I'd agree that I'd like to see Dawkins in conversation with Craig about this, although not in the "debate format" (this is because you can really cut to the root of the issue with a faster back-and-forth, and debating skill is less of a factor).
@PrinceOfPerelandra The difference is that science tests it's ideas. Until the ideas are tested you cannot draw any conclusion.
Democritus came up with the concept of atoms around 400 BC however but other philosophers had strong disagreements but until we made experiments which confermed the existance of atoms from the 18th century onwards it would be intellectually dishonest to say what was true one way or the other.
Part of the appeal of debates comes from the skill of the debaters, not just from the arguments offered. Don't cry because someone is a better debater than you and you can't think on your feet. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. "This is where the big boys play not where the best man wins."
I'm hardly an expert on WLC but most of the arguments I've heard from him don't argue anything more than a deistic god and are usually non-disproveable. He would be a very difficult opponent in debate but I'd be willing to give it a go.
@AMWOODco For example saying that God caused the big bang. At the moment it's impossible to know what the cause was because there is no way of testing yet. We can't prove him wrong but that doesn't automatically make him right.
@YesIamJames But you are looking for a scientific explanation for a philosophical question. Science also cannot prove that we aren't simply living in an advanced computer simulation (eg the Matrix). Instead of focusing on science, you must focus on logic and philosophy.
@AMWOODco That's exactly my point. You can make a philosophical argument for the universe being a simulation, a dream or a divine creation which simply cannot be proved or disproved. Philosophy comes up with a lot of interesting ideas (many have been proven) but ultimately it's science which will test whether an idea is true of false.
@YesIamJames That's an odd point of view, for you cannot prove it scientifically. It's called evidentialism and is is self-contradictory. Let me drive the point home by stating that science uses naturalism as an axiom, but if God exists, naturalism isn't true. Science is only a tool for understanding the current world's natural patterns, but it is not a tool for total understanding. Science cannot prove the laws of logic (it needs them), mathematics (ditto), or many metaphysical hypotheses.
What William Lane Craig does is talk A LOT of rubbish very quickly in his debates. It's always easier to talk a lot of crap quicker than it takes to refute it. Nonetheless, much of what he says is fallacious, e.g. "everything that begins to exist has a cause" -- these are arguments from intuition. Quantum physics shows this is wrong. Therefore his Kalam Cosmological Argument is also wrong. You can find out more on my blog (LukeSci dot com -- search for "Kalam").
See, I wouldn't take issue with someone who disagrees with Craig. Obviously I'd still know he's wrong, but I would at least respect him. However there are a lot of new age atheists who are not only propagating these long-refuted arguments, but they do so in an extremely haughty and arrogant way.
More to the point, your claim is false. Quantum Mechanics doesn't at all demonstrate that things that begin to exist have no cause. Virtual particles...
...which is what I'm assuming you're drawing a reference to, come from the vaccum, not from nothingness. Even at face value this argument fails. Second, the indeterminacy pricnciple associated with the Copenhagen interpretation in NO WAY says that quantum events have no causes. This is pure nonsense.
Thanks! You're right. It has been pretty much two years since I've posted anything. Now that I have a bit more time, I'll try and post something every now and then :).
Well mostly it was the fact that I lost my video editing software after I formatted my laptop (and I didn't really care to download it again). I also had school and my job to attend to. That's it. No special reason really, just my own laziness I guess :).
I can't believe ppl would criticize WLC for preparing arguments for a debate and then... present them
It's almost predictable the atheist reaction to coming sucess of the RF UK tour: ad hominem attacks, attack to the speech and even conspiracy theories about some propagada machine.
What's even more unbelievable about Andrew Copson is the fact that he is GOING TO BE debating William Lane Craig at the Cambridge Union, and in a format that, if anything, is far worse for getting an adequate opportunity to deal with and refute the arguments. Andrew Copson is basically saying that Craig would easily best him in a fair debate.
@Christianjr4 Atheists have realized that their argumentation is null, so they now prefer to attack the utility of the debates (unbelieveable!), dude, that has to be the worst and most absurd damage control ever!
I remember that in my thesis I only had 10 minutes to make the hardware presentation, obviously I had to pack all the info for that brief time, yet, atheists like Copson seem unfamiliar with the academic process of preparing a presentation.
I'm an atheist, but I think Copson was very unfair to Craig. The debate format only favours Craig because he is skilled at debating under that format. I've not seen a debate where Craig was favourably treated by the moderator, or given extra time to speak.
I DO, however think that Dawkins is justified in not debating Craig. Craig is a philosopher, Dawkins is not. They argue for different things in different ways, so Dawkins would be a strange choice for a philosophical debate.
@Slossius1983 So if Dawkins is not a philosopher why allegedly embarked to create philosophical arguments in his books? This is where intellectuals like Dr.. Craig enters in. And Dawkins does not like. This is unfair. Craig is not calling Dawkins to discuss their claims ethnology but on Dawkins's allegations on Philosophy and Metaphysics of Theism.
@RosesTimes the true christian nature revealed in it's full ugliness. Thank you for proving the point that guys point for him. :-P
winzo89 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@winzo89 What nonsense is that??? "ugliness"...are you looking at porn on line whilst making comments here???
RosesEternal 2 days ago
@RosesTimes how sophisticated and christian of you
jaekim314 2 weeks ago
@RosesTimes LOL FUNNIEST REPLY EVER. i simply gave the full quote since you didn't have enough space to type the whole thing. How is that trolling?
jaekim314 3 weeks ago
@RosesTimes the full quote is "As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris." -Richard Dawkins.
JAEKIM10 3 weeks ago
Clash of the Bullshit Merchants. They're both as deceptive and disingenuous as each other.
MisterAlexGabriel 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Copson seems to be a bright guy - but it really smacks of cowardess and bad faith, to claim that it is impossible to refute Craig, whether due to the format of the debate or the necessity for a very comprehensive treatment in order to refute effectively. Of course, to refute the premises that Craig uses does require more time than is normally alloted to one in a debate - but remember that Craig's premises, also, have much more support behind them than he reveals in these debates.
lourak 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
lourak 3 weeks ago
Pretty much spot on, Craig's tactics more or less comes down to long-winded circle arguments, straw mans, and faulty logic, which is not hard to see through with some basic logic and modern physic knowledge. Breaking that down to people without that knowledge takes a lot of time though, so by the time anyone have rebuked the first point, they are out of it. In a debate among intellectuals where no one have to spend 10 min explaining that the burden of proof is on Craig, he gets shredded.
acathode 3 weeks ago
Just finished listening to this and my God, this guy is the biggest fuckin' idiot I've ever come across.
'You can't really tackle his arguments in the time allocated for debates' - bullshit, what you mean Copson is that YOU, an untrained tyro, can't deal with his arguments. I've seen plenty of atheist philosophers respond to Craig and for there to ensure a respectful, sophisticated discussion on the nuances of Craig's arguments. You simply lack the intellect to properly engage with him.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago 7
This guy is a fuckin' idiot - 'plausible to the untrained eye' - sorry, is this guy a trained philosopher or cosmologist? No you say? So what the fuck is he banging on about? What he means is: 'his arguments are philosophically rigorous, and I personally lack the training to respond to them.' Go home Copson you absolute moron.
Atheist philosophers who have responded to Craig (like Quentin Smith or Oppy) are far more respectful and cordial than this insipid creep.
CharlesDilkes 3 weeks ago
Where can I go to listen or even watch this debate? Is that possible to do?
jgoltz37 1 month ago
Comment removed
Agrippa521 4 weeks ago
@jgoltz37
The Cambridge Union Debate can be watched at: watch?v=DXB0o53FdVM
Copson seems to mess up the proceedings for everyone by offering no cogent counterarguments in the first reply from the opposition. As you'd expect from his childish radio interview, Copson has a demonstrably weak grasp of formal logic, ontology and debate formality.
In other words, an apt representative of the British Humanist Association.
Agrippa521 4 weeks ago
what a dork
LLThenu 2 months ago
@LLThenu andrew? yes i think so as well.
butchbutch66 2 months ago
he is basically saying craig's arguments are to complex? wtf? laughable
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@agnostaxian Too complex to dispute in the format of a debate
emailpobox666 2 months ago
What a wimp
Jehstfan 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Christianjr4 2
I've made Copson's point many times on YouTube threadboards etc., so it's hardly "novel"! Craig sets up these debates with a format of his own choosing, and a rehearsed ambush of lies, halftruths, strawman arguments, and quotemines all delivered at a "Gish gallop", and by the time the opponent has had time to rationally unravel it for the untrained audience (mostly of Christian "Craig disciples) Craig is long gone to his next debate.
He dodges later responses to them like the plague.
Tobytrim 3 months ago
@Tobytrim So are you saying that debates in front of a live audience with William lane Craig is too difficult for these well known atheist Authors? He's so good he blind sides them all before they realize it hes gone to another point? dont you think that's a silly excuse, what does that say about them? If he's arguments are a bunch of lies, strawman, shouldn't it be easier to refute by these intelligent men? The formats of the debate Dr. Craig participates in are fair and neutral.
enemay 3 months ago
@enemay "So are you saying that debates in front of a live audience with William lane Craig is too difficult for these well known atheist Authors?"
No, I'm saying he makes it impossible to get to the truth. And no, it is actually impossible to refute the likes of Craig in the time constraints of the debate he formats. The more intellectually honest the opponent is prepared to be the more impossible it becomes.
Craig refuses to argue with people who would handle his tactics in his own way,.
Tobytrim 3 months ago
@Tobytrim I doubt Dr. Craig is unwilling to debate anyone who has some name in the issue. So your saying he's the one who comes up with rules of the debates he participates in, I thought he is only invited and the University or whatever institution comes up with the protocol? Ok so if you feel its non-productive to listen to these debates then its equally non-productive to comment about it in a Youtube box.
Ooh I just found this related video..
watch?v=zhu2ukFHjWY&feature=related
Sums it up.
enemay 3 months ago
@enemay "I doubt Dr. Craig is unwilling to debate anyone who has some name in the issue."
Precisely right!! More to the point, he will ONLY debate people with a name. He presents his dishonest arguments in such a way that any knowledgable person will take too long to correct the dishonesty in them, for the understanding of the untrained audience. He uses techniques such as "the "Gish gallop" (usually of quote mines, and strawmen that leaves the other guy incredulous, but not the audience.
Tobytrim 3 months ago
@enemay " Ok so if you feel its non-productive to listen to these debates then its equally non-productive to comment about it in a Youtube box." Ha ha! I thought you might say that. After all, and unlike Craigs opponents in his set up debate, I have time and space to decimate his dishonestly presented, piss poor, arguments.
However, I repeat my offer, as I've done many times before, AND been taken up!. Offer your favourite WLC argument, and I'll happily show you why it doesn't work.
Tobytrim 3 months ago
@enemay As far as I know,Craig refuses to debate with John W. Loftus. Loftus is a former student of Craig btw.
kemalcs 3 months ago
@enemay Craig's arguments are not unbeatable but really takes time to refute it. For example to refute KCA, his opponent has to talk about Special Relativity, B-Theory of Time, how Craig uses actual and potential infinity in a very different manner and Hilbert Hotel is irrelevant and how the Big Bang is not ex-nihilo creation.
kemalcs 3 months ago
@enemay " He's so good he blind sides them all before they realize it hes gone to another point?"
Not just another point. He's onto another debate before his bullshit has been unravelled for the phiosophically untrained audience.
Moreover, it is non-productive to even listen to these debates. Who wants to witness a competition in promoting dishonest propaganda?
However, if you think that Craigs ACTUAL arguments aren't poor, or can't be refuted, please present your favourite to me?
Tobytrim 3 months ago
OMG “They will go and put videos online about how he thrashed them”. IS this guy serious? I cannot believe he could say that and keep a straight face. How many videos are there of Dawkins saying something and the title of the video is “Dawkins rips religion a new one” something along those lines. Whatever he is on, I want!!!
zebrarraz 4 months ago
Lol, i find it funny that when it comes to evil and suffering in the world, the holocaust is not often mentioned, torture chambers are not often mentioned, or even famine or hiroshima, no, it's always the same things that are mentioned.....911 and rape. come on people! what's death and rape? compared to torture, seing your family die all around you. sheesh. and i find it even funnier that people only mention girls when it comes to rape, that's not what the statistic tell you.
eyeroller700 4 months ago
I find it rather humorous, that proponents of atheism, who like to think that their arguments are logical because they are alleged to be based on science and facts. Would worry or be intimidated by Christians or others who support Dr. Craig, expressing their opinions on YouTube. Why would one worry about such tergiversation, unless their intent was also evangelism, where pride and numbers is more important than truth for truth's sake?
blackeyedturtle 4 months ago
Crqig doesn't respond to the criticisms at all- He just argues against things that were never mentioned- i.e. no one said tat he should not present his side of the argument Craig surely knows this ...And , yet craig accuses the other guy of being disingenuous?
hexum7 4 months ago
A wise man once told me, "If after you've presented your side of an issue, and your adversary responds with personal attacks, threats or violence, you have won the engagement." If the best these guys can do, is shoot down the messenger, and ignore addressing the issue, it really works against them. It surprises me as mature rational people, they cannot see this. They do their position little or no benefit.
Complaintdesk 4 months ago
@Complaintdesk ya.. im sure he's a smart guy though. gave him a little promotion. i mean, i never heard of copson before this.
brzlnow 4 months ago
where can i find these in depth refutations of Craig?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow In his own words..
From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs thanks for pointing me to those two sources. i appreciate the response. in all honesty, I wouldn't be able to take you past the basics of the argument but in his own words "the B-theorist would have to give us very powerful reasons for abandoning this common sense view of time and denying our intimate experience of temporal becoming and tense... there is no good reason to deny this experience (as of a 2008 lecture)
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Craig is supporting a Neo-Lorentzian approach in STR instead of standard Einstein/Minkowski approach..it's like supporting Neo-Lamarkian Evolution instead of Neo-Darwinian evolution. He actually wrote 2-3 books about philosophy of time (I did not read it maybe he has good reasons to oppose general consensus among physicists). But common sense is not a good objection. Our common sense will also say sun is revolving around earth or earth is flat etc. etc.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow commonsenseatheism has a good mapping...
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow Yuri Balashov and Michel Janssen's “Presentism and Relativity” (2003) is also a good paper. Balashow is in University of Georgia and professor of philosophy. He has also physics background. Jannsen is I think in University of Minnesota..his area is physics.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs any good sources on the basis/grounding of objective moral values outside of God? thanks
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Craig has a debate with Shelly Kagan on YouTube..I think it's one of the rare debates that Craig lose (or at least draw). But problem about Craig's argument from morality is that his justification of existence of OM. He says in deep down, we all know it OMV exists or moral experience. I think it's a kind a jump form moral epistemology to moral ontology.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs I was gong to say 'besides Kagan's work' because I have looked at a lot of it. Kagan also holds to OMV. There can only be one or the other right? Either its subject, and therfore, relativistic or objective? It seemed to me as if there are some problems with what Kagan puts forth. Isn't grounding objective morality in the well-being of humans arbitrary? Again, thanks for the references. I really appreciate it.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Kagan and Craig had a debate on that issue..you can watch on YouTube.
I don't think that OMV exists..but justifying it through moral experience is nonsense. In 300 years ago, human beings also thought that slavery is OK. Our moral values change over time, change depending on culture and economic structure.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs yes, i saw it. Again though, why dismiss the justification of OMV based on your moral experience as nonsense? Seems as if we should only do this if given good very good reason.. same with our sense perception of the exterior world. We similarly have no good reason to deny that. As far as slavery goes, you are describing our perception of moral values evolving over time. Anyone holding to OM would afirm this. You are referring to the our subjective view of morality...
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Personal experiences are not good justifications..I know Christianity is true, because I feel Holy Spirit. OK what about people like me (ex-Muslim agnostic) who never experienced holy spirit.
If justification of existence of OMV is our personal perception of moral values, and our perception is changing over time, then conclusion will also change over time.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs I think the terms we are using are clouding things a bit. When you talk about the conclusions changing over time, this is the subject sense of OMV. This is our perception of the action, say rape, being wrong or right. But by objective, we are saying that rape itself is either wrong or right, independent of what we think about it. So again, to use the overused extreme, do you think there is a moral dif between raping an innocent girl and loving her? Are those morally indifferent?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow They are morally different because in rape case, you are hurting her. It's my subjective thought but since many many people are thinking in same way, then it would be seemed as rape is wrong no matter we think.
Gospel of Matthew and Luke contains some same information that is not on Gospel of Mark. So NT scholars suggest that there should be a Q Source which both Matthew and Luke used. Yes it explains the current situation but actually there is no Q Document in reality.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Seems to me that you are affirming OMV.. Or do you think that if everyone thought it was ok to rape that it would be right? If everyone in the world believed that raping an innocent girl was right, would it be right?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Yes it would be right..because somehow all women are masochistic and they took pleasure to be raped. And in that world, we would not think that rape is wrong. We would even think that raping is good objectively.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Really? Finish the sentence: It is ok to rape an innocent little girl when...
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow everyone and little girl himself thought that it's ok (btw girl was only innocent not little)
Suppose Bin Ladin is alive and he's gonna nuke NYC in 30 minutes. And CIA has Bin Ladin's daughter. To stop Bin Ladin, it would be morally good to rape Ladin's little innocent daughter in front of Bin Ladin's eyes. Because it serve a greater good.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Haha. My apologies - I did make her little..
But if the girl thinks its ok then its not rape right.. Rape implies that the person is forced?
So.. Finish this sentence: It is ok to rape an innocent (not little) girl against her will when...
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow If the girl do not want to be raped, then it would be wrong. It would be good only if girl is masochistic and likes to be raped.
Or even she does not want, if raping her serve a greater good (such as stopping Bin Ladin to nuke NYC), it would be OK.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs So we have established one objective moral duty. But I think we both live our lives and deeply believe that there are many more things that are objectively wrong and right. Therefore, I think its safe to say that there are also objective moral values. Because there is a difference between moral values and moral duties. Moral values deal with what is good/bad. Moral duties deal with what is right/wrong - actions that we ought/ought not do.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow I think we will have a kind a Eupythro dilemma on here.
"Is murdering objectively bad because every mentally stable people thinks that murdering is bad or every mentally people thinks that murdering is bad because it's objectively bad"
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs That would be a type of euthyphro diemma i guess.. But just as the original was, I think this one is also a false dilemma. There is a third option. Its not one or the other as you put it. The argument from morals, as im sure you are familiar with, is
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
In your first option, morals can't be objective because the basis is people's opinion.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow I agree with the argument..I also think that objective morality will not exist without god but I have doubts that objective moral values and duties exists. Because you and Craig says it exists because of our personal experiences. So my question is this
Does our collective subjective moral experience proves that existence of objective moral values.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Because the argument is valid, you have to deny one of the premises. Here, you have accepted the first and question the second. The second is an affirmation that objective moral values and duties do exist but we did establish at least 1 objective moral duty right? (not raping an innocent girl)
As for your question, I don't think that is the case. I think your own moral experience proves to you that OMV. Now we're back to where we started, but let me explain...
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow No, Craig's justification of 2nd argument is merely logical fallacy. He equals "consensus of human beings on a statement" to "mind independent truth". But if they are not identical in a possible world, then they are not identical in any possible world.
My moral value and duty experience only proves that i have moral values and duties..This does not prove that this statement is true, independent of what I or other people thought.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow But my experience is only my experience. My personal experience is subjective.
OK, take the example of child abuse
What if I say, child abuse is objectively good in deep down we all know it's good. It's our moral duty to abuse child. Just because in deep down, we all know child abuse is true, does not make child abuse is good as a mind-independent statement. All human beings may feel that child abuse is good, but that will not make child abuse is objectively, mind independent good.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs But is abusing a child and loving him morally indifferent? Is one more good or right than the other? If so, there is a standard of good.
Have you read Mere Christianity? I think Lewis does a good job of making a case for OMV and duties in the first two chapters.
Is it ok to abuse a child just for the fun of it?
brzlnow 4 months ago
Comment removed
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow Appeal to emotions...Individuals may have subjective moral values and duties due to their personal subjective moral experience. I based on my morality according to consequences and utilities of the actions. This is my own personal criteria. Just because I don't believe a god, I don't have to be a moral nihilist.
Just because everyone (except catholic priests:)) feels that child abuse is evil, does not make child abuse is mind independently wrong.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow There are two meanings of objective. One that something we all agree upon other is something independent of what we think. Craig is false equaling those two different definitions.
At time of Galileo, all people are thinking that sun is revolving around the earth. This is an objective truth because we all agreed upon it..but it's objectively false because as the legend says, it still moves.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. You are clearly confusing subjective with objective. With your example, whether or not the sun revolves around the earth is an objective fact. That means that it either is or is not revolving around the earth independently of what anyone thinks. If everyone in the world believed that the sun revolved around the earth, that would not make it so.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Yes, that's what I try to say .Craig shows no evidence for existence of objective moral values.
"In deep down, we all know child abuse is wrong and evil" is not equal to or leads to "Child abuse is wrong no matter who thinks what". Just because "in deep down, we all know that child abuse is wrong and evil" does not make "child abuse is wrong&evil independent of what we thought"
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs You believe that abusing a child just for the fun of it is wrong.. what if you thought that it was right? Would it be right/good? What I'm trying to say is that whether or not you think something is right/wrong or good/bad, the thing itself is either right/wrong or good/bad, independently of what you think.
The city of New York exists independently, OBJECTIVELY.. whether or not you think it exists. Everyone thinking the world is flat doesn't make it so.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow For example, what if I say "God exists, in deep down we all know it". And if you look at the world, many people are believing some kind of a supernatural force. But this does not make existence of god is a mind-independent truth. No.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow For me, right/good is what helps others and doesn’t hurt them...wrong/evil is what hurts people and doesn’t help them. So to answer your question..child abusing is wrong and evil. But this is a rule without rulemaker.
My main area is business. There is price-quantity law..but there is no transcendent lawmaker. It's I, you and everyone are the lawmaker.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs I'm not appealing to emotions. 'Is it wrong to kill someone just for the fun of it?'
Either you think it is objectively wrong to do this or personally think that its wrong but if someone thinks its ok, then thats up to them. So which camp do you fall into?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow I think the difference between you and I is, I put basic consensus of human beings or human rationality to the place where you put God.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs I have God as a base and anchor point for OMV and duties. You have human well-being as your anchor point.
I am saying that the rightness or wrongness of killing someone just for the fun of it exists independently of what the basic consensus of human beings. That is, if killing someone just for the the fun of it is not objectively wrong, regardless of human opinion, then everything is relative. In that case, right/wrong and good/bad doesn't even exist.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow What's your proof that OMV exists.
After that I will reply your last 2 comments..
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs That is like asking "what is your proof that the physical world exists?". The proof that the physical world exists is in our sense experience. We hear the car passing by, we see the car passing by. Now can one doubt the reality that they clearly sense? Sure, people do it. People theorize that we are brains in a chem lab. We are in the matrix! How can you prove that we are not lying in the matrix right now?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Through our sense experience, we sense some moral values. I have some moral experience, you have some moral experience..I completely agree with that. But how can this prove the mind-independent truth of those values.
Suppose that in entire universe, there are only plants. No animals, no human..nothing intelligent. In that case will morality exist.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Like I said before, we similarly have no more reason to doubt our our moral experience than to doubt our sense experience. Can you prove that the physical world exists any more than our moral experience? We have a moral apprehension of objective moral values and duties.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Maybe it's true...."we live in a matrix" is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypothesis and there is no reason to think that we live in matrix. So it's a meaningless statement that does not deserve to be thought about that.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs The argument from morality is a pretty good argument. Many athiests actually agree that OMV and duties exist. (Mostly because they understand that any moral system in which they do not exist is bankrupt) But if OMV exist, in terms of our argument, then it follows that God exists (unless you want to deny the first premise)
I think you believe in OMV. I know that you think killing someone just for the fun of it is wrong - and not just in your mind, but always wrong.. objectively wrong.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow It's actually pretty same with argument from beauty. We can easily say who cares about mind independent beauty but not for morality. Atheists agree that moral values and duties exist (Unless you are Robinson Crusoe). But see no reason to take its ontology to the heavens.
I think the deep down point is whether human is good/evil/natural in his nature. From a christian perspective, we are created sick and need to be commanded to be well
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Where do you get your basis for morality right/wrong good/bad? Are you a naturalist? Determinist?
And I think you are misrepresenting the Christian view.. Christianity says that we are born morally corrupt with original sin, etc etc but the argument from morality is not arguing that we need to be commanded to live good moral lifes. Many atheists live what we would call good moral lives.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow From a combination of my feelings, my rationality, my reasoning... you are asking about free will. Well, we have no choice but free will:)
Argument from morality, in the long run it says that. Craig is also saying that, it will eventually leads to moral nihilism.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow I understand and agree that there has to be a line that determines and sets what's right and what's wrong. But I can't see any reason that the line has to be drawn by God...why the consensus of human beings is not that line. I can't see a reason to think this line drawer must be super-human other than inter-human.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Because the consensus of human beings can change. Two apposing societies can believe different things. If Germany had won WWII then they would have determined right/wrong? I just see this as problematic because this leads to 'might makes right'. Is this your view?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow In that case, rationality involves. Why do you think X is good because of YVZ..A is good because of BCD. We virtually do it through history. Think about gender equality. People do not wake up in the morning "From now on, man and woman should be really equal". And they do not accept as a common principle in one day.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Not sure where you are trying to go with that.. I have to bring it back to the main point..
You accept the first premise, but deny the second. To say that killing someone just for the fun of it is right/wrong is an objective claim. Its like saying that a car is white. The right/wrong of either of those claims is based in the things themselves. In contrast, claiming that the Fiat is your favorite brand of car is subjective. It is based on your opinion.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow In the Nazi case..First, I think that Nazis shall also produce good arguments to kill all the Jews. If you say destroying an entire nation from an earth for nothing..is not something that even average people will find OK. But then I later think about Israelites and other tribes in OT. Well, people can find it very normal and even defend it. Actually, in DCT "might is right". Because If I ask you, why is god's foundation of our morality, you will answer because he created us.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs If you don't see how 'killing someone just for the fun of it' is objectively right or wrong, I'm not sure what to say to you.The only other option is for you is to say that it is just a matter of opinion like which ice cream a person prefers.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow From Wikipedia
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature. Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Right, so you either hold an objective, relativistic, nihilistic, or (I would add) absolutist view of morality. Absolutist would be, for example, believing that killing is always wrong.
Again, seems to me that you want to affirm the objectivity of moral values but, as of now, you stand somewhere near relativism.
brzlnow 3 months ago
@brzlnow I am somewhere between consequentialist (which is under moral objectivisim) and conventionalism (which is under moral relativism). But since societies are interacting each other so much, I define only one society and it's the society of humanity.
I am not a moral absolutist, I am pretty sure about that.
kemalcs 3 months ago
@brzlnow I have two main objections to Argument from OMV
1) How do we know our individual moral values, coming from moral experience, are mind independent truths, not universally accepted truths (It's an objective to 2nd premise)
2) If god does not exists, only absolute moral values won't exist not objective one. (Objection to first premise)
kemalcs 3 months ago
@brzlnow BTW, I may do similar objection to existence of numbers or other mathematical abstract objects.
What's the square root of -1. Is it a mind independent truth or just a human invention that we all agree upon. How do we know, which one is true?
kemalcs 3 months ago
@kemalcs Numbers exist objectively, whether or not you think they exist. "1+1=2" is an objective statement.
brzlnow 3 months ago
@brzlnow If you look at literature, there are many theories about whether numbers really exist or just human invention.
kemalcs 3 months ago
@kemalcs You believe that numbers don´t actually exist?
Would you agree that 2+2=4 is an objective truth statement?
brzlnow 3 months ago
@brzlnow However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow The source or justification of a universal ethic may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the common mandates of religion
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow In the Nazi case, Nazis would show very good reasons to think that Jews were evil. And we would reached the consensus that Jews were evil people and they deserved to be killed. But since story is fake, it will have eventually have a weakness. Something won't make sensen. Then human beings will find out that Nazis made the story and be agreed upon that killing all Jews are wrong.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow For me, "god does not exist" is a that kind of statement. After all god may exists, out of space-time without doing nothing at all (not even a deistic one). And there is no way to disprove it.
But "god exists" is a verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis. At least, I can show that there are no good arguments.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs In the same light, I could ask you how you know that your relativistic or subjective moral values exist. You sense them. The confusion is that when you say 'killing someone just for the fun of it is wrong', you are saying that that is subjective. But unless you think that its ok for other people to do this, then it is clearly objective. Maybe we are confusing epistemology with ontology?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow One may think that killing for fun is good but the victim probably will not agree with that:))
BTW, even the most psychopath murderers do not kill people for fun. They have reasons but very wicked one.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow For you, an eternal wise king is the best regime, for me democracy is the best regime. I don't think that two educated, rational beings do not have a large discussion on rules or laws passed.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow Think about the free market..everybody is buying different quantities for different prices. When you put the data to regression, you can see a line...above the line is expensive, below the line is cheap. That line is derived from individuals choices but each individual is so insignificant that their decision do not change the general line of the market.
Think the similar pattern for foundation of morality..
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs There is no more reason to deny our moral experience than there is to deny our sense experience. (we sense a world of cars, trees, people, physical objects) We have a moral apprehension of objective moral values and duties. We have no reason to distrust it, therefore should assume that they do exist.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@kemalcs You know that OMV and duties exist. You deeply believe that it would be wrong for me to murder one of your family members just for the fun of it. Not just wrong in your mind, but objectively wrong. Rape, torture, child abuse are socially unacceptable, moral abominations. Love, generostiy,.. these are good. Maybe you just don't want the conclusion to be true? Something to do with past experiences? I'm not trying to call you out on anything.. just trying to reason.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Lets give an example..producer of Barbie dolls also introduced some local Barbies in the different parts of the world. Asian Barbies for Japan for example. But those local barbies did not have good sales. Because due to "cultural imperialism" (if you want), children are watching Western TV's and cinemas..their understanding of beauty is become standard. So nearly every little girl in the world thinks that blonde, white, blue eyed girls are the most beautiful girls.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow In your logic, this collective subjective preferences proves that blonde Barbies are objectively beautiful than Asians or Latin Barbies. So you are saying that just because every children prefer blonde Barbies, beauty of blonde barbies is true independent of thoughts of children.
kemalcs 4 months ago
Comment removed
kemalcs 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brzlnow So the argumentation of objective morality, I think something like that
1) If only objective moral values and duties do exist, we will personally experience them
2) We are personally experiencing objective moral values and duties.
3) Therefore objective moral values and duties exists.
Since 1st argument is false, then conclusion is false. And 2nd is also false. Since the conclusion is false, therefore argument from objective morality is false
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow OK I find out where the Craig made mistake and why we discuss..
Objective has two meanings
First meaning is that something is true independent of people think.
Rape is wrong no matter who thinks what. That's what Craig defines as OMV
Second meaning is that something's true because every rational,sane, well informed people are agreed upon.
Rape is wrong because in deep down we all know it. That's what Craig justifies OMV.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow But in a possible world, these may not be the same thing.
Think about Galileo case..earth is revolving around sun no matter what we think but at that time all humans think that it's false, and they thought sun is revolving around earth.
After Galileo's confession, that sun is revolving around earth statement is objectively true because everybody agreed upon it. Also it's objectively true because scientific findings.
If A is not B in any possible world, then A is not identical to B
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow Human beings define what's good and what's evil based on utility/consequences but in some cases utility/consequences are universally (or internationally) same. All mentally sane people think the raping is bad. Then it will give us the illusion that raping is bad no matter what people think.
But suppose that innocent girls are loved to be rape in a possible world. All women are masochistic. Then we would not think that rape is wrong.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Right, so if everyone believed that rape was good then it would be good?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow yes
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow Actually this objective morality argument's logic is similar to Q Source Hypothesis for the Gospels.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Are you referring to the argument for God based on the existence of objective moral values - axiological? Or just the second premise, namely, arguing for OMV themselves? I'm not familiar with the Q Source Hypothesis..
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow Due to social biological evolution, all mental stable human beings may feel that murdering is bad. This does not mean that OMV exists. We may in the delusion that morality is founded on God. Personally, I am for consequential/utilitarian approach. I agree that secular morality do not have a cosmic mafia so theistic morality sound better on theory. But in practice, Divine CT is still relative.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@brzlnow DCT is based on a generic god not a specific religion, so its objective on paper but since there are lots of religion, in practice it's subjective morality. If Craig saw a Muslim suicide bomber, all he can do is "Man, you are believing in wrong religion".
Sam Harris Moral Landscape is actually a good base for utilitarian approach but Harris somehow thinks that it's objective. But it's not. I dont think that OMV can exist without god.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs Also, in terms of the generic god thing, this is the issue that Stephen Law was raising in their recent debate. But thats why Craig attempts to develop a more complete picture of God using supplemental arguments. It seems as if the aim of the argument is to bring people to that generic "god" or creator. Once you establish that, then you can talk 'is it the god of islam, christianity, etc'.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow BTW, Divine Command Theory is very old approach to morality. So you can literally find thousands paper about both for and against it.
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs is Are you saying that most people dealing with this issue hold to a B-theory of time?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow No what I say is that most physicists use Einstein/Minkowski interpreation not Neo-Lorentzian. If first one is true than B Theory of Time is true, if NL is true than A Theory of time is true
kemalcs 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kemalcs "most physicists use Einstein/Minkowski interpreation not Neo-Lorentzian. If first one is true than B Theory of Time is true, if NL is true than A Theory of time " -you have a source for this?
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow BTW infidels . org has lots of papers on those subjects (KCA, Moral Argument etc etc)
kemalcs 4 months ago
@kemalcs I'm now going to go wikipedia nearly half of the words you wrote to me. And so the 'good reasons' for accepting a B-theory of time, against our common experience of it, are...? I would think that 'common sense' would be a great reason to hold the A-theory of time in the same way that I think we should affirm objective morality. It is something that we perceive or experience within ourselves. Therefore, we should have really good reasons for hold views to the contrary.
brzlnow 4 months ago
@brzlnow I dont think that common sense is a good argument. Our common sense also support many crazy things such as heavier objects fell sooner than lighter objects etc etc.
kemalcs 4 months ago
Dawkins' article in the Guardian today is relevant to this.
Slossius1983 4 months ago
@PrinceOfPerelandra I think that's fair enough - although I'd say that Dawkins just wouldn't consider Craig to be the most sophisticated opponent. He considers bishops (Oxford, Canterbury etc) to be more sophisticated, and has debated those.
But I'd agree that I'd like to see Dawkins in conversation with Craig about this, although not in the "debate format" (this is because you can really cut to the root of the issue with a faster back-and-forth, and debating skill is less of a factor).
Slossius1983 4 months ago
@PrinceOfPerelandra The difference is that science tests it's ideas. Until the ideas are tested you cannot draw any conclusion.
Democritus came up with the concept of atoms around 400 BC however but other philosophers had strong disagreements but until we made experiments which confermed the existance of atoms from the 18th century onwards it would be intellectually dishonest to say what was true one way or the other.
YesIamJames 4 months ago
what's the matter with these so-called atheists? they will dig up all kinds of excuses to avoid WLCraig!!
madenew000 4 months ago
Dr. Craig responded in a classy stand up way
TheFaithHunter 4 months ago
Listen to that smarmy little fop! LOL There's your atheistic "objective moral values." What a disingenuous little sycophantic twit.
lexidart 4 months ago
Part of the appeal of debates comes from the skill of the debaters, not just from the arguments offered. Don't cry because someone is a better debater than you and you can't think on your feet. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. "This is where the big boys play not where the best man wins."
doritisfat 4 months ago
I'm hardly an expert on WLC but most of the arguments I've heard from him don't argue anything more than a deistic god and are usually non-disproveable. He would be a very difficult opponent in debate but I'd be willing to give it a go.
YesIamJames 4 months ago
@YesIamJames If I may, what do you mean by 'non-disprovable'?
AMWOODco 4 months ago
@AMWOODco For example saying that God caused the big bang. At the moment it's impossible to know what the cause was because there is no way of testing yet. We can't prove him wrong but that doesn't automatically make him right.
YesIamJames 4 months ago
@YesIamJames But you are looking for a scientific explanation for a philosophical question. Science also cannot prove that we aren't simply living in an advanced computer simulation (eg the Matrix). Instead of focusing on science, you must focus on logic and philosophy.
AMWOODco 4 months ago
@AMWOODco That's exactly my point. You can make a philosophical argument for the universe being a simulation, a dream or a divine creation which simply cannot be proved or disproved. Philosophy comes up with a lot of interesting ideas (many have been proven) but ultimately it's science which will test whether an idea is true of false.
YesIamJames 4 months ago
@YesIamJames That's an odd point of view, for you cannot prove it scientifically. It's called evidentialism and is is self-contradictory. Let me drive the point home by stating that science uses naturalism as an axiom, but if God exists, naturalism isn't true. Science is only a tool for understanding the current world's natural patterns, but it is not a tool for total understanding. Science cannot prove the laws of logic (it needs them), mathematics (ditto), or many metaphysical hypotheses.
AMWOODco 4 months ago
Copson...pfffft.....what a smarmy little fop.
lexidart 4 months ago
Copson is a moron. I think it's unbelievable what he said.
exposed2000 4 months ago
Excuses excuses...
empreme 4 months ago
Copson talks against time constrained debates and then will have one with Craig the 20th October.
LittleSn00py 4 months ago
What a cry baby
mrswbrock 4 months ago
What William Lane Craig does is talk A LOT of rubbish very quickly in his debates. It's always easier to talk a lot of crap quicker than it takes to refute it. Nonetheless, much of what he says is fallacious, e.g. "everything that begins to exist has a cause" -- these are arguments from intuition. Quantum physics shows this is wrong. Therefore his Kalam Cosmological Argument is also wrong. You can find out more on my blog (LukeSci dot com -- search for "Kalam").
LukeScientiae 4 months ago
"Quantum physics shows this is wrong."
See, I wouldn't take issue with someone who disagrees with Craig. Obviously I'd still know he's wrong, but I would at least respect him. However there are a lot of new age atheists who are not only propagating these long-refuted arguments, but they do so in an extremely haughty and arrogant way.
More to the point, your claim is false. Quantum Mechanics doesn't at all demonstrate that things that begin to exist have no cause. Virtual particles...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...which is what I'm assuming you're drawing a reference to, come from the vaccum, not from nothingness. Even at face value this argument fails. Second, the indeterminacy pricnciple associated with the Copenhagen interpretation in NO WAY says that quantum events have no causes. This is pure nonsense.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@LukeScientiae
53M8ElQA1Go
RetSquid 4 months ago
My God, I think it's been two years since I've seen you post anything. Good to have you back brother! :)
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
Thanks! You're right. It has been pretty much two years since I've posted anything. Now that I have a bit more time, I'll try and post something every now and then :).
Christianjr4 4 months ago
@Christianjr4
Not that it's my business, but what kep you so occupied these past 2 years?
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
Well mostly it was the fact that I lost my video editing software after I formatted my laptop (and I didn't really care to download it again). I also had school and my job to attend to. That's it. No special reason really, just my own laziness I guess :).
Christianjr4 4 months ago
@Christianjr4
Everyone should afford a little laziness :)
Hope to see more videos from you in the future.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
I'll be uploading another video in about 20 mins lol
Christianjr4 4 months ago
I can't believe ppl would criticize WLC for preparing arguments for a debate and then... present them
It's almost predictable the atheist reaction to coming sucess of the RF UK tour: ad hominem attacks, attack to the speech and even conspiracy theories about some propagada machine.
IloveYOUviruses 4 months ago 12
@IloveYOUviruses
What's even more unbelievable about Andrew Copson is the fact that he is GOING TO BE debating William Lane Craig at the Cambridge Union, and in a format that, if anything, is far worse for getting an adequate opportunity to deal with and refute the arguments. Andrew Copson is basically saying that Craig would easily best him in a fair debate.
Christianjr4 4 months ago
@Christianjr4 Atheists have realized that their argumentation is null, so they now prefer to attack the utility of the debates (unbelieveable!), dude, that has to be the worst and most absurd damage control ever!
I remember that in my thesis I only had 10 minutes to make the hardware presentation, obviously I had to pack all the info for that brief time, yet, atheists like Copson seem unfamiliar with the academic process of preparing a presentation.
Atheists excuses are pathetic.
IloveYOUviruses 4 months ago
Comment removed
MauricXe 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm an atheist, but I think Copson was very unfair to Craig. The debate format only favours Craig because he is skilled at debating under that format. I've not seen a debate where Craig was favourably treated by the moderator, or given extra time to speak.
I DO, however think that Dawkins is justified in not debating Craig. Craig is a philosopher, Dawkins is not. They argue for different things in different ways, so Dawkins would be a strange choice for a philosophical debate.
Slossius1983 4 months ago 4
Comment removed
StephenDeMille 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slossius1983 So if Dawkins is not a philosopher why allegedly embarked to create philosophical arguments in his books? This is where intellectuals like Dr.. Craig enters in. And Dawkins does not like. This is unfair. Craig is not calling Dawkins to discuss their claims ethnology but on Dawkins's allegations on Philosophy and Metaphysics of Theism.
StephenDeMille 4 months ago