Every single debate Craig has been in, he has always struck me as someone who avoids answering questions and claims that others avoid answering his purely because he does not find the answers satisfying.
Curious that a force "outside of time" would be so trenchant in the primitive Jewish zeitgeist. Commanding murder for working on Sunday, since he apparently sat in a hammock all pooped out on the first Sunday, making it appear you think you're a harder worker than him, is worthy only of laughter. The assumption that I haven't thought about the origin of the universe lends no credence to your baseless suppositions. Wisdom is realizing how much you don't know.
I will grant that the Universe does exist; however, God is not a particularly useful explanation for why things exist, telling us nothing useful.
Unlike facts discovered through the scientific method, one can’t make verifiable predictions based of a belief in God. Furthermore, humans have had over 10,000 different gods. How could this be with only one true god?
The origin of the universe is a big question. God as the answer simply creates more questions. What is the origin for this god?
@DEricKesler You say god is not a useful explanation for why the universe exists, if you can posit a more reasonable reason why the universe exists id like to hear it, just because you dont like it shouldn't make you closed minded but a follower of truth.
If there is 1 key hole and 100 keys this doesn't give you the right to disregard all 100 keys as incapable of opening the lock, by testing each key (looking at the evidence for its credibility) you may come to know the truth.
@tublet13 I don’t have an explanation for why the universe exists. I don’t need one. Pointing out a gap in human knowledge is not evidence for the existence of a divinity. It is merely a gap.
All I am doing is rejecting the theistic explanation because they have failed to meet the burden of proof.
You assume that I don’t like the narrative that an entity created the universe to fulfill a cosmic objective. I like the story; however, what I like or dislike doesn't change reality.
Craig is so deadly boring to listen to, that I enjoy playing snake while he blathers illogically .(press pause, then start.. then the up & right arrows simultaneously)
Moreover, the moron also claims to have knowledge of OBJECTIVE moral truths.... How does he know that he has knowledge of objective moral truths? That is why objective morality is such an indefensible position. There are moral truths that could be called "objective" in the sense that every human who has ever lived (vast majority minus insane people) has believed them. But he goes much further than this notion, he almost elevates himself to a god like status.... Thats religion for you i guess.
The moron uses the ontological argument as if it has any merit at all. In philosophy classes at university the students and faculty used this argument as a good example of BULL SHIT reasoning. Furthermore, the teleological and cosmological arguments were destroyed by Hume... Basically, we cannot infer any kind of god from the wretched, unpredictable, evil, brutish world around us.... Let alone a good god. Moreover, we do see matter interacting with matter and everything is "naturally produced".
1. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then God exists." It could be Amaterasu omi Kami, it could have an infinite number of explanations. He's using shooting gallery logic, picking a particular type of being for the sole reason of its sociological entrenchment in his culture. "Fine tuning." Assuming that because things are a certain way, they must be so, and only a sentient being could be responsible. The retinence of the appendix is enough to dispel this hackneyed error.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays 1st cause sets the base for what kind of reason the universe would exist, powerful, outside of time, etc it could not have a large amount of explanations because what we know about the big bang leads us to this for example: Due to time beginning at the big bang, anything that relies on time can NOT operate b4 the big bang so we know..its not a human being. I think you should look at these arguments and follow their logical conclusions, you have not thought hard about them.
The best we can likely do is understand the physical processes behind the expansion from singularity into our still expanding universe. Imputing anthropomorphic "intent" behind it is little different from similarly primitive ideas found in earlier shamanistic and animist cultures. Craig is using mythology in the sense that his Christianity comes from childhood indoctrination of myths. His "logic" is working backward from that premise, and it shows, painfully. I'll refute a couple of points.
1) To say God is the best answer for why everything exists, in stead of nothing (as if those are the only two choices) shows how simple your ability to think is.
2) You can't say the reason for the existence of the universe is God, because you can't prove that; how about the expansion/compression of energy---again, not God?
3) Science doesn't say the Universe came from nothing---that's a lie.
4) The idea of chance existence scares you, yet 95% of everything that ever lived, is now dead.
Watch this whole debate. In the middle and the end it's just one Hitchslap after another. It's really 5 on one because the moderator is clearly religious also. They all get destroyed by reason, this is epic.
Jesus would be mortified that these dodgy car salesmen were his only representatives, he probably would have said fuck this and gone for a few whiskeys with hitch
God existing would have nothing to do with Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or any of the other twenty major religions that exist within our population all over the world. The odds that god exists are exceedingly bad. The odds that a Christian god exists, one that governs the universe, are exceedingly worse than bad. Same goes for any other religion that human beings practice as truth.
Craig is so far from Theism it's almost humorous. He has yet to transcend 'deism' and- so far as i've seen from him- has offered nothing new in the game, but rather, ads some misleading philosophical math to the ages old attempts. Craig's angle is that, unlike most apologists, he is a philosopher- which is usually akin to the non-belief side.
Craig offers the best ever arguments (or "evidence" as he would call it) for the possible existence of THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
The ontological argument impresses no-one but someone taking high-school philosophy. "I hereby declare that God would be more perfect if he could create the cosmos while not existing, since God is most perfect of all beings, he therefore doesn't exist."
We need more than arguments that sound convincing nowadays william, go look for some real evidence!
sigh... yeah, the guy makes his own rules. note how he declares these philosophical constants so that he can fortify reason around them- but no one rebuts his definitions. ex: he continuously refers to logical precepts as "evidence." i was picturing Hitch starting his opening by reciting the definition of "evidence" from a dictionary- but no such luck. X may or may not equal N, therefore = JESUS. (???????????????)
"god is the best explanation why something exists and not nothing".... yeah... right...
because something can exist within nothing...
Christians just don't see that not even god could pop out of nothing. Anyone, telling me that empty space is more unlikely to pop into existance, than a concious, all knowing, all powerful beeing, is a moron.
Gotta love Lane Craig's argumentation; "If the universe has an explanation....that explanation is God." He might as well say, "If Shaft is a bad mutha, I like lasagna. If I like lasagna, you can smack my ass and call me Sally. If you can slap my ass and call me Sally, five Romanian circus freaks will fly in a chocolate bana space ship to mars. Therefore, the Christian God exists."
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Nice try, but ridicule is not an argument. If you have another plausible explanation for the ENTIRE NATURAL REALM that isn't, by definition, SUPERNATURAL, by all means present it. The aim of the second premise of the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency (the one you're ridiculing) is to show a logically equivalent statement to one that atheists typically accept, namely that if atheism is true (There is no God) then the universe has no explanation. Its just a blunt fact.
@tynytian That challenge presupposes the necessity or existence of an explanation for the universe, as well as current human ability to propose an adequate one. Neither I, you, nor Hellenistic fairytales can do so without the same non-sequiturs Wiliam Lane Craig uses. To explain the universe via Iron Age mythology is equal parts stupidity and hubris. All we can do is use the scientific method to slowly advance our limited understanding of things, or be the pawns of power seeking charlatans.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Soooo, you're response is that there doesn't need to be an explanation for the universe, that it just exists? Or are you saying we just don't know and will probably never know? I can't tell from your vague response. Craig's not using mythology, but science and logic. You're free to disagree, but don't attack strawmen and think you've said something profound. What he uses is called a logical argument. Why not try refuting it's logic rather than it's source?
@tynytian "Objective morality." Animals kill one another without compunction. The "objective" morality is a power grab to claim the moral high ground and and claim to be speaking for God. Our morality should be in constant discussion and progression. Otherwise, we would follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy to the letter and murder disobedient children and those who work on Sunday. "God's possibility proves God exists." Unicorns are technically possible, yet only a dolt would believe in them.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays You can be a nihilist if you want, but I agree with the rest of mankind when I say that there is something objectively wrong about the evils of the world. I have no reason to doubt my perception of moral values. I refuse to see moral behavior as a "power grab".
Whenever the mosaic law commands caapital punishment, it always involved a trial beforehand. The only crime that REQUIRED stoning was murder.
@tynytian That's a silly step from Leviticus to nihilism. I, too, can say the same things you do are wrong, it's just a matter of having to discuss why, rather than "it doesn't matter what we think." We don't follow most of the "objective" morality in the Bible because we subjectively see it's idiotic and primitive, hence "Cafetaria Christianity." Trials only mean a Sunday worker or disobedient child would be stoned to death after eyewitnesses prove their behavior, which hardly makes it moral.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Wow, I almost followed you off on a red herring! I have a feeling you don't want to understand the Mosaic law, so I'm just gonna drop it since you won't be convinced anyway. True Christians do not practice "cafeteria Christianity". We understand the biblical law, as you clearly don't, and we know that most of the old testament laws no longer apply since there is no theocracy anymore. Why don't you justify your nihilism? Why is the bible wrong when wrong doesn't exist to you?
@tynytian I understand Mosaic law. It doesn't say "Do this...unless a theocracy stops existing." I explained I am not a nihilist, your refuted notion that to not share your belief is to belief in nothing at all is a mark of extreme doltishness. We each have a right to live life without being harmed by others, this does not exist in the animal world but something we have agreed on as a society yet do not always follow. "God exists because we have to have a maximal being." Baseless sophistry.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays You do not understand it, or else you would understand the intent behind the laws and not just a superficial reading of them.
You say we each have a right to live life without being harmed, but what gives us this right? Without God, how can you say we have these intangible rights to life and happiness? And I'm sruprised you still don't understand the Ontological argument. It doesn't just assert that there must be a maximal being, it proves it with modal logic.
@tynytian As I just explained, societal consensus and common sense. If we can agree that harming people is wrong, only a slave would think that insufficient without conjuring a fiction to command it. You ask what "gives us" these rights. As can be seen in the Civil Rights struggle, rights are not given but demanded, earned, and kept. Adhering to "objective" morality makes one potential fodder for wrongdoing if convinced by others that have declared personal revelation.
@tynytian I do understand the intent behind the Mosaic laws. They were made up by patriarchal figures in the Levant to bring order to primitive societies. Hammurabi's code did the same thing without the myths and lies, sanctioning of slavery and genocide, long before. They make a piss poor structure for organizing a modern society, hence why you carp about context and metaphor in order to obscure what the barbaric text directly states and commands.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays If morality is just subjective, then what right do any of us have to impose our morality when someone steals from us, or assaults us, or murders us? How do rights even exist given nihilism?
@JiangZiyaTabooDays As for unicorns, I don't believe because all ancient accounts of it's appearance describe a rhinoceras, which to this day has the word unicorn in its scientific name.
@tynytian Your belief in unicorns is irrelevant, the example was used to explicate the nonsense of WLC's point that "God's possibility" proves his existence. The mere possibility of anything is not self-evidence of said thing; he should be embarrassed to make a living positing such buffoonery.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Now you've switched from the Contingency Argument to the Moral Argument to the Ontological Argument. What, did you give up on the first two? The Ontological argument is actually a sound argument, if you go by Plantinga's version. It's not just the possibility of God, but the necessity of His nature as a maximally great being that proves God's existence.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Study old testament law, they were designed for the jews as a nation at that time as they were chosen by god, one of the laws is dont keep mold in your house, do you think jews knew what bacteria was back then? Your example with animals is a clear example of the difference between humans and animals which should lead you to think were different, on a christian view objective morals are not known by the bible but by them being embedded in our conscience from god.
@TheHitman640509 -- So matter is God -- Something eternal would be the explanation of God, hence the greatest conceivable being, but you say matter is eternal. Anyone that believes in the Big bang without a creator is illogical, and cannot apply this logic in any other part of Life. People need to stop reading stupid feeling statements by Dawkins, and Hitchens and actually look at the evidence. Just veiw Hitchens debate, he refused to even give his final speech, that's embarrassing.
William Craig pretty much destroyed everything HItchens could possibly say in just those 4 min, and after watching the debate even though Hitchens knew he would be using these same arguments he still was unable to even address them. Once again the Atheist is left believing that everything came from nothing as if we popped into being out of thin air which would literally be worse than magic. Materialism is worse than magic as William Craig has said.
LOL! "Everything in the universe has an explanation for its existence." Care to explain where God came from? Ohh.. God is OUTSIDE the universe. She is not only everywhere in the universe, but also outside the universe and can not be falsified or tested in any way? Nonsense.
@controllerbrain WL Craig isn't naive. He's a class act charlatan. He makes his living off the credulous.
Frankly I do enjoy seeing him do his little tricks, as I enjoy watching any magician-trickster. That said, if he were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out. I'm glad I never spent a cent to watch him, since he is the worst kind of trickster, one that does it out of malice.
William Lane Craig really gets on my nerves. He thinks he is smarter than everybody else, when in actual fact his qualifications are in theology and metaphysics ; two of the most useless fields imagineable.
@automaticSOM no, but you said Willaim Craig thinks he's so smart, but he only has theolgy and metaphysics to back him up...so Hitchens only has Philosophy, yet he acts just as arrogant as any of them...so your point in actual fact is directed at Hitchens also
@automaticSOM Seen it already, don't know what McGrath has to do with this, you started by attacking Dr.Craigs intelligence...now you've moved the subject completely...i think you just don't like Dr.Craig because he makes a fool outta most atheists
@automaticSOM lol ok, yea i know what you mean..but just like i said Hitchens acts as arrogant as the rest of them...they are all as bad as eachother in that respect
Lol. This is one of the most fatuous topics I have ever discussed. Maybe we should be argueing about their ideas and arguements. Which side are you on? If any.
@automaticSOM lol argueing would be a waste of time for both of us...i'm not on anyones side, creating barriers is why the world is in the mess it is today...we all need to work together regardless of beliefs
@automaticSOM You have to know every religious person on the planet to make a statement like that...this whole atheist vs theist debate has been created to keep the mind focused on matters of no real significance...
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm..."
@automaticSOM YouTube didn't post my reply...i'll start again..
You would have to know every religious person on the planet to make a statement like that plausible...this whole 'Atheist vs Theist' debate is nothing more than a deception to keep our minds off the truly important things in life...
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm..."
@automaticSOM YouTube didn't post my reply...i'll start again..
You would have to know every religious person on the planet to make a statement like that plausible...this whole 'Atheist vs Theist' debate is nothing more than a deception to keep our minds off the truly important things in life...
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm..."
I love how Hitchens puts in eye drops while that guy on his right-hand side is yammering on about some sort of backwards, illogical nonsense. Shows how much credibility he gives to the guy.
Most are Deist arguments on the Christian side, not theist or even specifically Christian. It's quite a large jump from Deism to Christianity. The claims that there are first hand witness accounts of Jesus resurrection are simply false. The authors of the 4 gospels of the Bible are unknown, even to top theologians, and are all written in the third person. The Bible itself was put together by early church leaders in the 4th century, by means of a comittee. Hardly a book to live one's life by.
@dsessom even if there were eye witnesses that doesnt mean it was true. If four people said they seen an alien, would we believe that aliens are on earth. I 100 people said they seen the actually Flying spaghetti monster move a mountain and then move it back without any evidence, would we believe them. Its a stupid argument on its face. These christians cant see how stupid these arguments are.
@dsessom This. Even if we assumed that there was a deity of some sort in the universe, theists would still have all their work ahead of them in explaining why it's their God that exists (which is especially difficult if their God is supposedly all-loving), and why their God cares about faith, sexuality or morals.
@dsessom Any evidence for these claims, or are they just a hallow assertions? We have no reason to believe the Gospels to be written my anyone but the people after whom they were named. Of course they were written in the third person, as they are of the genre of biography. Also, the council of Nicea is common knowledge, so don't think that you've said something profound. As for Deism->Christianity, that's what the resurrection and moral arguments are for.
There is plenty of evidence for the claims sir. Do some self research into the origins of the four gospels and you can verify that what I stated is true. If you choose to live your life by the Bible, that is your right and there's nothing wrong with that. However, I've studied theology and world history long enough to see that all religions throughout the ages have been based in mythology, and Christianity is no different. Is that profound enough for you sir?
@dsessom I HAVE done the research, and I've seen no one ever claiming the Gospel authors to be unknown. This is the first time I've ever heard that one thrown out. What I've found in my research is that Christianity is based on historical records, biblical and extrabiblical. Why don't you simply give me a link or something, so that I can look into YOUR research and see how credible it is.
The guy on the left needs to go study basic logic. ".......... therefore god exists". Great job, you did it, you proved god. No mind has ever been able to do it until your brilliant speach. What an idiot.
It doesn't matter if he started with " I think kind of, um, very humbly....". Poor logic is poor logic. His sequence of events was poorly constructed and it was painful having to listen to all his assumptions. And anyone who supports the bible and believes it to be the word of god can't claim that they are in possession of logic or know how to use it. If you are capable of logical thought you wouldn't believe in the bible.
No, I don't think all christians think everything is true. I do think that if you doubt some parts of it then you have no business in using it as a life guide. If you are deciding what is true and moral then you don't need it. Obviously that person is capable of using innate judgment and is assigning meaning to the bible. If you personally need to decide what is real then you can never reliably use it to pass judgments on people or use it to guide yourself.
Well, either it is the word of a god or it isn't. Why can't people just accept that the bible was written by men with varying philosophies that were largely biased towards the times that they lived in. I think the argument has to start with the veracity of the bible, which has been amalgamated by the catholic church in it's origins. How do we know there are important parts that aren't missing or have been copied or mistranslated? We don't.
@hobgoblinlkjfdsa You're right! As soon as you leave the bible up to interpretation then how can it be the word of god... its not its the word of whoever defines it. Religion is not real.
imagine a giant puzzle. You know, the kind with 2000 pieces. The pieces are US. When you put them together you have the face/personality of "God". And everything else is bullshit.
Well, perhaps. Refutation is to prove false or erroneous, by argument. Debunk is to expose or ridicule the falseness of a claim/argument. The website I mentioned does both; to Craig's silly arguments and many other arguments theists have put forward through the years.
The speaker that talks after Hitchens *literally* uses *every* argument for god that have already been debunked. For example, they are all on wiki . ironchariots . o r g, all with extensive refutations.
Dude just watch what you slip off your tongue. Or i'm gonna F'ing torture the troll spirits out off you. You are on edge of blasphemy with that *quoted above*.
These christian people only give assumptions...not real facts. Ik can also say that the universe began with a god and godess having sex...but this doesn't make it true. 8-)
@DeliciousRipon Yeah. It's an idiotic argument. William Lane Craig isn't really a thinker...he's just good at memorizing and spouting out arguments for God's existence, most of which have been disproved for centuries. Mind you it would take some time to track down and refute all of them so it works well in a debate where you have limited time to respond.
And why that is such a defeating argument is: There is more evidence for some of those you listed than God! IE: I've seen Bugs Bunny, and Superman! Christianity is completely man made, sorry friends. The inspired word of God is actually the inspired word of deluded tyrannical men. (They knew it was bullshit, though; it's a shame all those after them fell for it...worst april fool's joke ever.)
@DeliciousRipon That is craig's argument that I hear all the time, and Christian tell me that it is a good one. Just because atheism cant prove god does not exist does not mean that he does exist. I is the highest stupidity to think that way.
the flying spaghetti monster has not been proven not to exist, therefore he does.
Hitchens is so ignorant, limited, and earth bound. If it weren't for his wit, he wouldn't have any supporters. Luckily he can toss a funny or two out once and while and retain his dopey comedy central educated audience.
It's sad to me that people can listen to Hitchens and still go believing in God. Do these people just shut off their brains when he talks or did they not have one in the first place? fucking self centered morons
I try to listen to these panels in their entirety I really do but I just cant listen to that much BS. As soon as they get into the same old arguments I have to Fast-forward, but for some reason I can listen to Hitchens make similar arguments over and over again. It has to be the fact that Hitchens so eloquently poses his arguments, never quite the same way each time, and each time seemingly more convincingly than before. Id trade at least one leg to be as powerful a debater as Hitchens.
I know what you mean...what a pretentious asshole! Rarely have I encountered a person so utterly full of himself, while being completely deluded into thinking he's saying things that haven't already been said and completely refuted. Peace be with.
Not really, but being a christian you probably would be inclined to say that. Even so, considering that they usually do better in debate than their christian counterparts they can afford to be. Whereas Craig's arguments don't stand up to even casual scrutiny and he seems to be proud of them. Even so, it's intensely hypocritical for you, a christian, to talk about arrogance when you think a supreme being is not only on your side but cares for you personally. Pot calling the kettle black.
Right, it's arrogant for me to think I'm right about metaphysical issues like God but of course it's not arrogant for atheists to think they are right and that religious people are wrong. Stop being a hypocrite. Both of us think we are right and the other is wrong so don't pretend that we are the only arrogant ones here.
And FYI, all of Craig's arguments, not Hitchens, are in discussion today among professional philosophers. And out of all of them Craig's Kalam is receiving the most attention.
Yes but i don't believe my position based on faith, christians do (or if not they have been keeping any evidence they have very secret). Yes and they're all handily laughed out by science. The Kalam argument proposes a first cause, fair enough. It then makes the wild non sequitur that it is not a something, but a someone, and not just any someone, but a someone taken straight from Judean mythology. By the way it isn't "his" argument, he took it from Islamic philosophy.
Craig's defense of the argument, and his renaming it "Kalam" is original to him. It's his defense of the argument which has received more attention than any other argument for God's existence in professional journals today.
And so what if it's faith based. That doesn't necessarily make you arrogant. Lots of Christians believe based on faith and they are very humble and not arrogant. Besides many atheists will believe in things not based on evidence anyway.
Every single debate Craig has been in, he has always struck me as someone who avoids answering questions and claims that others avoid answering his purely because he does not find the answers satisfying.
jackflash341 1 month ago
What the fuck is William Craig talking about? Christian philosophers are oxymorons.
McLarenF1God 1 month ago
Craig is a well spoken professional ignoramus.
Resenbrink 1 month ago
William Lame Craig...
BjornH65 2 months ago
lol Craig is so full of shit
spamllpitdept 2 months ago
Thumbs up if you keep fast forwarding though all the other speakers opening statements in order to hear Chris Hitchens own them
brianMcc25 2 months ago 8
Craig! Shut up! Now!
jagara1 3 months ago
Curious that a force "outside of time" would be so trenchant in the primitive Jewish zeitgeist. Commanding murder for working on Sunday, since he apparently sat in a hammock all pooped out on the first Sunday, making it appear you think you're a harder worker than him, is worthy only of laughter. The assumption that I haven't thought about the origin of the universe lends no credence to your baseless suppositions. Wisdom is realizing how much you don't know.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, hopokuk.
writersblock26 6 months ago
WLC still can't control that verbal diarrhea I see.
Lawlessuk 7 months ago
causation breaks down at the Big Bang, with time entwined with the three cartesian spacial coordinates
"first cause is god' seems like "I'm too lazy to figure out the Universe"...
religion stumps human and societal growth
TAz69x 8 months ago 4
I will grant that the Universe does exist; however, God is not a particularly useful explanation for why things exist, telling us nothing useful.
Unlike facts discovered through the scientific method, one can’t make verifiable predictions based of a belief in God. Furthermore, humans have had over 10,000 different gods. How could this be with only one true god?
The origin of the universe is a big question. God as the answer simply creates more questions. What is the origin for this god?
DEricKesler 8 months ago
@DEricKesler You say god is not a useful explanation for why the universe exists, if you can posit a more reasonable reason why the universe exists id like to hear it, just because you dont like it shouldn't make you closed minded but a follower of truth.
If there is 1 key hole and 100 keys this doesn't give you the right to disregard all 100 keys as incapable of opening the lock, by testing each key (looking at the evidence for its credibility) you may come to know the truth.
tublet13 5 months ago
@tublet13 I don’t have an explanation for why the universe exists. I don’t need one. Pointing out a gap in human knowledge is not evidence for the existence of a divinity. It is merely a gap.
All I am doing is rejecting the theistic explanation because they have failed to meet the burden of proof.
You assume that I don’t like the narrative that an entity created the universe to fulfill a cosmic objective. I like the story; however, what I like or dislike doesn't change reality.
DEricKesler 5 months ago
This WHOLE discussion is ridiculous and embarrassing.
mouthyweasel 8 months ago
Craig is so deadly boring to listen to, that I enjoy playing snake while he blathers illogically .(press pause, then start.. then the up & right arrows simultaneously)
mouthyweasel 8 months ago
Moreover, the moron also claims to have knowledge of OBJECTIVE moral truths.... How does he know that he has knowledge of objective moral truths? That is why objective morality is such an indefensible position. There are moral truths that could be called "objective" in the sense that every human who has ever lived (vast majority minus insane people) has believed them. But he goes much further than this notion, he almost elevates himself to a god like status.... Thats religion for you i guess.
tempemonkey2323 9 months ago
Comment removed
tempemonkey2323 9 months ago
The moron uses the ontological argument as if it has any merit at all. In philosophy classes at university the students and faculty used this argument as a good example of BULL SHIT reasoning. Furthermore, the teleological and cosmological arguments were destroyed by Hume... Basically, we cannot infer any kind of god from the wretched, unpredictable, evil, brutish world around us.... Let alone a good god. Moreover, we do see matter interacting with matter and everything is "naturally produced".
tempemonkey2323 9 months ago
the fact that we exists proves god? what the fuck kind of argument is that? fuckin a
KCkoolaidking 9 months ago
Craig is ridiculous....very misleading and a skilled double talker
Cousinsjay 10 months ago 8
1. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then God exists." It could be Amaterasu omi Kami, it could have an infinite number of explanations. He's using shooting gallery logic, picking a particular type of being for the sole reason of its sociological entrenchment in his culture. "Fine tuning." Assuming that because things are a certain way, they must be so, and only a sentient being could be responsible. The retinence of the appendix is enough to dispel this hackneyed error.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays 1st cause sets the base for what kind of reason the universe would exist, powerful, outside of time, etc it could not have a large amount of explanations because what we know about the big bang leads us to this for example: Due to time beginning at the big bang, anything that relies on time can NOT operate b4 the big bang so we know..its not a human being. I think you should look at these arguments and follow their logical conclusions, you have not thought hard about them.
tublet13 5 months ago
The best we can likely do is understand the physical processes behind the expansion from singularity into our still expanding universe. Imputing anthropomorphic "intent" behind it is little different from similarly primitive ideas found in earlier shamanistic and animist cultures. Craig is using mythology in the sense that his Christianity comes from childhood indoctrination of myths. His "logic" is working backward from that premise, and it shows, painfully. I'll refute a couple of points.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
5) "morals" predate God---if they didn't, on some level, we wouldn't be here.
Its the same reason why all the Predators don't kill ALL the prey; there is a natural balance, you know what you can do; when; how; why and so on.
Primitive man lived well with one another: No concept of ownership or property or God.
willdrake1 10 months ago
1) To say God is the best answer for why everything exists, in stead of nothing (as if those are the only two choices) shows how simple your ability to think is.
2) You can't say the reason for the existence of the universe is God, because you can't prove that; how about the expansion/compression of energy---again, not God?
3) Science doesn't say the Universe came from nothing---that's a lie.
4) The idea of chance existence scares you, yet 95% of everything that ever lived, is now dead.
willdrake1 10 months ago
Wow, Hitchins is playing a hockey game with four players in the penalty box.
johneamer 10 months ago
Evil Kenevil couldn't make some of the leaps that Craig does.
cpqarray 10 months ago
Watch this whole debate. In the middle and the end it's just one Hitchslap after another. It's really 5 on one because the moderator is clearly religious also. They all get destroyed by reason, this is epic.
rongenaw 11 months ago
Jesus would be mortified that these dodgy car salesmen were his only representatives, he probably would have said fuck this and gone for a few whiskeys with hitch
vincentmack37 1 year ago
William Lane Craig's strategy for debating - End every sentence with "therefor god exists"
mrchrstpher 1 year ago
Wow... I woudl think a professor of philosophy wouldn't make outrageous logical leaps like 'It is possible that God exists, hence he must'
Gnoo 1 year ago
@Gnoo You seem to be unfamiliar with the Ontological argument. It isn't so big a leap as you seem to think.
tynytian 10 months ago
did craig actually say that at about 6:35
LegalDuck 1 year ago
God existing would have nothing to do with Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or any of the other twenty major religions that exist within our population all over the world. The odds that god exists are exceedingly bad. The odds that a Christian god exists, one that governs the universe, are exceedingly worse than bad. Same goes for any other religion that human beings practice as truth.
McLarenF1God 1 year ago
Lane is an idiot: the universe exists, therefore god exists; that isn't evidence, that's conjecture without proof
bhaalthus 1 year ago
0:36 mise en scène - literally means "putting in the scene", in case you didnt know =)
bhaalthus 1 year ago
Craig is so far from Theism it's almost humorous. He has yet to transcend 'deism' and- so far as i've seen from him- has offered nothing new in the game, but rather, ads some misleading philosophical math to the ages old attempts. Craig's angle is that, unlike most apologists, he is a philosopher- which is usually akin to the non-belief side.
Craig offers the best ever arguments (or "evidence" as he would call it) for the possible existence of THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
belodeau 1 year ago
The ontological argument impresses no-one but someone taking high-school philosophy. "I hereby declare that God would be more perfect if he could create the cosmos while not existing, since God is most perfect of all beings, he therefore doesn't exist."
We need more than arguments that sound convincing nowadays william, go look for some real evidence!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
hitchens is so arrogant...i LOVE it!
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
Ok, random question, @ 9:30 is Hitchens putting eye drops in or nose drops?
magicpony9 1 year ago
Don't even think about it! Hahaha Hitchens cracks me up.
OhManTFE 1 year ago
Hitchens is kill lisen to Him
oct579 1 year ago
8:04....what the hell.....does anyone follow WLC's logic there? If it's possible that God exists, he does???? = /
LambadLambadLambda 1 year ago
@LambadLambadLambda
sigh... yeah, the guy makes his own rules. note how he declares these philosophical constants so that he can fortify reason around them- but no one rebuts his definitions. ex: he continuously refers to logical precepts as "evidence." i was picturing Hitch starting his opening by reciting the definition of "evidence" from a dictionary- but no such luck. X may or may not equal N, therefore = JESUS. (???????????????)
belodeau 1 year ago
"god is the best explanation why something exists and not nothing".... yeah... right...
because something can exist within nothing...
Christians just don't see that not even god could pop out of nothing. Anyone, telling me that empty space is more unlikely to pop into existance, than a concious, all knowing, all powerful beeing, is a moron.
liquidminds 1 year ago
Because there is no evidence that any of those other things exist...DeliciousRipon!
markmrm 1 year ago
Gotta love Lane Craig's argumentation; "If the universe has an explanation....that explanation is God." He might as well say, "If Shaft is a bad mutha, I like lasagna. If I like lasagna, you can smack my ass and call me Sally. If you can slap my ass and call me Sally, five Romanian circus freaks will fly in a chocolate bana space ship to mars. Therefore, the Christian God exists."
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago 44
@JiangZiyaTabooDays
Exactly! lol! That's about how much sense he makes.
LambadLambadLambda 1 year ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Nice try, but ridicule is not an argument. If you have another plausible explanation for the ENTIRE NATURAL REALM that isn't, by definition, SUPERNATURAL, by all means present it. The aim of the second premise of the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency (the one you're ridiculing) is to show a logically equivalent statement to one that atheists typically accept, namely that if atheism is true (There is no God) then the universe has no explanation. Its just a blunt fact.
tynytian 10 months ago
@tynytian That challenge presupposes the necessity or existence of an explanation for the universe, as well as current human ability to propose an adequate one. Neither I, you, nor Hellenistic fairytales can do so without the same non-sequiturs Wiliam Lane Craig uses. To explain the universe via Iron Age mythology is equal parts stupidity and hubris. All we can do is use the scientific method to slowly advance our limited understanding of things, or be the pawns of power seeking charlatans.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Soooo, you're response is that there doesn't need to be an explanation for the universe, that it just exists? Or are you saying we just don't know and will probably never know? I can't tell from your vague response. Craig's not using mythology, but science and logic. You're free to disagree, but don't attack strawmen and think you've said something profound. What he uses is called a logical argument. Why not try refuting it's logic rather than it's source?
tynytian 10 months ago
@tynytian "Objective morality." Animals kill one another without compunction. The "objective" morality is a power grab to claim the moral high ground and and claim to be speaking for God. Our morality should be in constant discussion and progression. Otherwise, we would follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy to the letter and murder disobedient children and those who work on Sunday. "God's possibility proves God exists." Unicorns are technically possible, yet only a dolt would believe in them.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays You can be a nihilist if you want, but I agree with the rest of mankind when I say that there is something objectively wrong about the evils of the world. I have no reason to doubt my perception of moral values. I refuse to see moral behavior as a "power grab".
Whenever the mosaic law commands caapital punishment, it always involved a trial beforehand. The only crime that REQUIRED stoning was murder.
tynytian 10 months ago
@tynytian That's a silly step from Leviticus to nihilism. I, too, can say the same things you do are wrong, it's just a matter of having to discuss why, rather than "it doesn't matter what we think." We don't follow most of the "objective" morality in the Bible because we subjectively see it's idiotic and primitive, hence "Cafetaria Christianity." Trials only mean a Sunday worker or disobedient child would be stoned to death after eyewitnesses prove their behavior, which hardly makes it moral.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Wow, I almost followed you off on a red herring! I have a feeling you don't want to understand the Mosaic law, so I'm just gonna drop it since you won't be convinced anyway. True Christians do not practice "cafeteria Christianity". We understand the biblical law, as you clearly don't, and we know that most of the old testament laws no longer apply since there is no theocracy anymore. Why don't you justify your nihilism? Why is the bible wrong when wrong doesn't exist to you?
tynytian 10 months ago
@tynytian I understand Mosaic law. It doesn't say "Do this...unless a theocracy stops existing." I explained I am not a nihilist, your refuted notion that to not share your belief is to belief in nothing at all is a mark of extreme doltishness. We each have a right to live life without being harmed by others, this does not exist in the animal world but something we have agreed on as a society yet do not always follow. "God exists because we have to have a maximal being." Baseless sophistry.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays You do not understand it, or else you would understand the intent behind the laws and not just a superficial reading of them.
You say we each have a right to live life without being harmed, but what gives us this right? Without God, how can you say we have these intangible rights to life and happiness? And I'm sruprised you still don't understand the Ontological argument. It doesn't just assert that there must be a maximal being, it proves it with modal logic.
tynytian 10 months ago
@tynytian As I just explained, societal consensus and common sense. If we can agree that harming people is wrong, only a slave would think that insufficient without conjuring a fiction to command it. You ask what "gives us" these rights. As can be seen in the Civil Rights struggle, rights are not given but demanded, earned, and kept. Adhering to "objective" morality makes one potential fodder for wrongdoing if convinced by others that have declared personal revelation.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@tynytian I do understand the intent behind the Mosaic laws. They were made up by patriarchal figures in the Levant to bring order to primitive societies. Hammurabi's code did the same thing without the myths and lies, sanctioning of slavery and genocide, long before. They make a piss poor structure for organizing a modern society, hence why you carp about context and metaphor in order to obscure what the barbaric text directly states and commands.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays If morality is just subjective, then what right do any of us have to impose our morality when someone steals from us, or assaults us, or murders us? How do rights even exist given nihilism?
tynytian 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays As for unicorns, I don't believe because all ancient accounts of it's appearance describe a rhinoceras, which to this day has the word unicorn in its scientific name.
tynytian 10 months ago
@tynytian Your belief in unicorns is irrelevant, the example was used to explicate the nonsense of WLC's point that "God's possibility" proves his existence. The mere possibility of anything is not self-evidence of said thing; he should be embarrassed to make a living positing such buffoonery.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Now you've switched from the Contingency Argument to the Moral Argument to the Ontological Argument. What, did you give up on the first two? The Ontological argument is actually a sound argument, if you go by Plantinga's version. It's not just the possibility of God, but the necessity of His nature as a maximally great being that proves God's existence.
tynytian 10 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Study old testament law, they were designed for the jews as a nation at that time as they were chosen by god, one of the laws is dont keep mold in your house, do you think jews knew what bacteria was back then? Your example with animals is a clear example of the difference between humans and animals which should lead you to think were different, on a christian view objective morals are not known by the bible but by them being embedded in our conscience from god.
tublet13 5 months ago
You sir! Are the cause of great laughter and joy i my house. Thanks for your outragous comment, I lol'ed.
Hoekell 9 months ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays brilliant!!!!!!!!
lordrazr 6 months ago
@TheHitman640509 -- So matter is God -- Something eternal would be the explanation of God, hence the greatest conceivable being, but you say matter is eternal. Anyone that believes in the Big bang without a creator is illogical, and cannot apply this logic in any other part of Life. People need to stop reading stupid feeling statements by Dawkins, and Hitchens and actually look at the evidence. Just veiw Hitchens debate, he refused to even give his final speech, that's embarrassing.
ReyMatthew 1 year ago
William Craig pretty much destroyed everything HItchens could possibly say in just those 4 min, and after watching the debate even though Hitchens knew he would be using these same arguments he still was unable to even address them. Once again the Atheist is left believing that everything came from nothing as if we popped into being out of thin air which would literally be worse than magic. Materialism is worse than magic as William Craig has said.
ReyMatthew 1 year ago
LOL! "Everything in the universe has an explanation for its existence." Care to explain where God came from? Ohh.. God is OUTSIDE the universe. She is not only everywhere in the universe, but also outside the universe and can not be falsified or tested in any way? Nonsense.
TheSilverDragon 1 year ago
I want to punch William Lane Craig in the face. His argument is basically "god exists therefore god exists"
wilsopup 1 year ago
@wilsopup William Lane Craig cracks me up. He's as entertaining as Hitchens but in a naive way.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
@controllerbrain WL Craig isn't naive. He's a class act charlatan. He makes his living off the credulous.
Frankly I do enjoy seeing him do his little tricks, as I enjoy watching any magician-trickster. That said, if he were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out. I'm glad I never spent a cent to watch him, since he is the worst kind of trickster, one that does it out of malice.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt i might even be the one putting him on fire.
logoth80 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to punch William Lane Craig in the face. His argument is basically "god exists therefore god exists"
wilsopup 1 year ago
I want to punch William Lane Craig in the face. His argument is basically god exists therefore god exists
wilsopup 1 year ago
" God is possible to exist, therefore he exists" - What the fuck? Did he hit his head or something?
sunshinei3D 1 year ago 13
@sunshinei3D An all to compassionate assessment of his delusion, Sunshinei3D.
prop719 6 months ago
@sunshinei3D Unicorns maaaaan.
slipknotjake 6 months ago
William Lane Craig really gets on my nerves. He thinks he is smarter than everybody else, when in actual fact his qualifications are in theology and metaphysics ; two of the most useless fields imagineable.
automaticSOM 1 year ago
@automaticSOM What qualifications does Hithens have?
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs
Philosophy - but the point is that Hitchens doesnt resort to saying that his opponent lacks credentials when he is losing a debate.
automaticSOM 1 year ago
@automaticSOM no, but you said Willaim Craig thinks he's so smart, but he only has theolgy and metaphysics to back him up...so Hitchens only has Philosophy, yet he acts just as arrogant as any of them...so your point in actual fact is directed at Hitchens also
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs
Hitchens acts arrogant does he? Listen to the post debate(Hitchens vs Mc Grath) discussion and you will see my point about McGrath.
automaticSOM 1 year ago
@automaticSOM Seen it already, don't know what McGrath has to do with this, you started by attacking Dr.Craigs intelligence...now you've moved the subject completely...i think you just don't like Dr.Craig because he makes a fool outta most atheists
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs
I beg your pardon, I meant Dr Craig. I got him mixed up with Alaister McGrath.
automaticSOM 1 year ago
@automaticSOM lol ok, yea i know what you mean..but just like i said Hitchens acts as arrogant as the rest of them...they are all as bad as eachother in that respect
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs
Lol. This is one of the most fatuous topics I have ever discussed. Maybe we should be argueing about their ideas and arguements. Which side are you on? If any.
automaticSOM 1 year ago
@automaticSOM lol argueing would be a waste of time for both of us...i'm not on anyones side, creating barriers is why the world is in the mess it is today...we all need to work together regardless of beliefs
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs
True as that may be, religious people don't seem content to leave us secularists out of their religion.
automaticSOM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@automaticSOM You have to know every religious person on the planet to make a statement like that...this whole atheist vs theist debate has been created to keep the mind focused on matters of no real significance...
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm..."
Albert Pike
bigspliffs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@automaticSOM YouTube didn't post my reply...i'll start again..
You would have to know every religious person on the planet to make a statement like that plausible...this whole 'Atheist vs Theist' debate is nothing more than a deception to keep our minds off the truly important things in life...
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm..."
Albert Pike
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@automaticSOM YouTube didn't post my reply...i'll start again..
You would have to know every religious person on the planet to make a statement like that plausible...this whole 'Atheist vs Theist' debate is nothing more than a deception to keep our minds off the truly important things in life...
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm..."
Albert Pike
bigspliffs 1 year ago
The last guy claims that God must exist because it is possible that God exists. By that logic wouldn't he have to say that ALL gods exist?
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
I love how Hitchens puts in eye drops while that guy on his right-hand side is yammering on about some sort of backwards, illogical nonsense. Shows how much credibility he gives to the guy.
dustingrey 1 year ago
Wow, now I know what Hitchens means when he calls Christian drivel "white noise".
chansetwo 1 year ago
Most are Deist arguments on the Christian side, not theist or even specifically Christian. It's quite a large jump from Deism to Christianity. The claims that there are first hand witness accounts of Jesus resurrection are simply false. The authors of the 4 gospels of the Bible are unknown, even to top theologians, and are all written in the third person. The Bible itself was put together by early church leaders in the 4th century, by means of a comittee. Hardly a book to live one's life by.
dsessom 2 years ago 15
@dsessom even if there were eye witnesses that doesnt mean it was true. If four people said they seen an alien, would we believe that aliens are on earth. I 100 people said they seen the actually Flying spaghetti monster move a mountain and then move it back without any evidence, would we believe them. Its a stupid argument on its face. These christians cant see how stupid these arguments are.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan
Raaaamen.
drche420 1 year ago
@dsessom This. Even if we assumed that there was a deity of some sort in the universe, theists would still have all their work ahead of them in explaining why it's their God that exists (which is especially difficult if their God is supposedly all-loving), and why their God cares about faith, sexuality or morals.
GiantSandles 11 months ago
@dsessom Any evidence for these claims, or are they just a hallow assertions? We have no reason to believe the Gospels to be written my anyone but the people after whom they were named. Of course they were written in the third person, as they are of the genre of biography. Also, the council of Nicea is common knowledge, so don't think that you've said something profound. As for Deism->Christianity, that's what the resurrection and moral arguments are for.
tynytian 10 months ago
@tynytian
There is plenty of evidence for the claims sir. Do some self research into the origins of the four gospels and you can verify that what I stated is true. If you choose to live your life by the Bible, that is your right and there's nothing wrong with that. However, I've studied theology and world history long enough to see that all religions throughout the ages have been based in mythology, and Christianity is no different. Is that profound enough for you sir?
dsessom 10 months ago
@dsessom I HAVE done the research, and I've seen no one ever claiming the Gospel authors to be unknown. This is the first time I've ever heard that one thrown out. What I've found in my research is that Christianity is based on historical records, biblical and extrabiblical. Why don't you simply give me a link or something, so that I can look into YOUR research and see how credible it is.
tynytian 10 months ago
Why does the universe exist?
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
because allah wills it so LMFAO xD
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Because Odin wills it.
wowamonn 2 years ago
why is the wrong question
honkyxadonis 1 year ago
Religion separates the intelligent from the ignorant. Religion separates the brave from the cowards.
Those who want to live forever off the murder of another individual's torture are the most wicked of people.
pbrlimit 2 years ago
The guy on the left needs to go study basic logic. ".......... therefore god exists". Great job, you did it, you proved god. No mind has ever been able to do it until your brilliant speach. What an idiot.
trekgeek1 2 years ago 3
He says "My argument is...". He didn't claim to prove anything.
There are no proofs in metaphysics.
I would argue that you, sir, do not know shit about Logic.
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if he started with " I think kind of, um, very humbly....". Poor logic is poor logic. His sequence of events was poorly constructed and it was painful having to listen to all his assumptions. And anyone who supports the bible and believes it to be the word of god can't claim that they are in possession of logic or know how to use it. If you are capable of logical thought you wouldn't believe in the bible.
trekgeek1 2 years ago 2
It must be your assumption that all Christians believe that all information in the bible is true.
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
No, I don't think all christians think everything is true. I do think that if you doubt some parts of it then you have no business in using it as a life guide. If you are deciding what is true and moral then you don't need it. Obviously that person is capable of using innate judgment and is assigning meaning to the bible. If you personally need to decide what is real then you can never reliably use it to pass judgments on people or use it to guide yourself.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 dude, that was a really good answer. i'm going to use that shit
irishninja37 2 years ago
Well, either it is the word of a god or it isn't. Why can't people just accept that the bible was written by men with varying philosophies that were largely biased towards the times that they lived in. I think the argument has to start with the veracity of the bible, which has been amalgamated by the catholic church in it's origins. How do we know there are important parts that aren't missing or have been copied or mistranslated? We don't.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
If a christian must believe that the bible is 100% literally true, then by that definition not even the pope is a christian.
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
@hobgoblinlkjfdsa You're right! As soon as you leave the bible up to interpretation then how can it be the word of god... its not its the word of whoever defines it. Religion is not real.
Nova5454 2 years ago
if religion is not real, then what are you arguing against?
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
Dogmatic belief in something that has no foundation in reality.
Nova5454 2 years ago
because idiots like you believe it is
as long as priests, mullahs, and ministers keep claiming authority they do not have, others will have to keep pointing it out
jkun17 2 years ago 2
Hitchens wins.
Vomitonthecross 2 years ago
imagine a giant puzzle. You know, the kind with 2000 pieces. The pieces are US. When you put them together you have the face/personality of "God". And everything else is bullshit.
josephortizgarcia 2 years ago
Well, perhaps. Refutation is to prove false or erroneous, by argument. Debunk is to expose or ridicule the falseness of a claim/argument. The website I mentioned does both; to Craig's silly arguments and many other arguments theists have put forward through the years.
wrongwayup 2 years ago
Yes, I realised it was him after I posted.
wrongwayup 2 years ago
The speaker that talks after Hitchens *literally* uses *every* argument for god that have already been debunked. For example, they are all on wiki . ironchariots . o r g, all with extensive refutations.
MAJOR FAIL.
wrongwayup 2 years ago
If God exists outside of space and time, now where could that possibly be...?
coppens 2 years ago
"It's possible fairies exists"
Dude just watch what you slip off your tongue. Or i'm gonna F'ing torture the troll spirits out off you. You are on edge of blasphemy with that *quoted above*.
Afairyists should be punished.
TaleThatWasntRight 2 years ago
These christian people only give assumptions...not real facts. Ik can also say that the universe began with a god and godess having sex...but this doesn't make it true. 8-)
AlienAtheist 2 years ago
Ok, so since it's possible God exists, then you can't dismiss it. Well then why are people ignoring these possibilities:
It's possible that Santa exists
It's possible Superman exists
It's possible unicorns exists
It's possible fairies exists
it's possible a flying spaghetti monster exists
It's possible vampires exists
it's possible werewolves exists
It's possible Bugs Bunny exists
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT EVERY SUPERNATURAL THING EVER CONCEIVED EXISTS
DeliciousRipon 2 years ago 29
@DeliciousRipon Yeah. It's an idiotic argument. William Lane Craig isn't really a thinker...he's just good at memorizing and spouting out arguments for God's existence, most of which have been disproved for centuries. Mind you it would take some time to track down and refute all of them so it works well in a debate where you have limited time to respond.
andy16666 1 year ago
@andy16666 okay then go and debate him talk is cheap
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeliciousRipon
And why that is such a defeating argument is: There is more evidence for some of those you listed than God! IE: I've seen Bugs Bunny, and Superman! Christianity is completely man made, sorry friends. The inspired word of God is actually the inspired word of deluded tyrannical men. (They knew it was bullshit, though; it's a shame all those after them fell for it...worst april fool's joke ever.)
Territomauvais 1 year ago
@DeliciousRipon That is craig's argument that I hear all the time, and Christian tell me that it is a good one. Just because atheism cant prove god does not exist does not mean that he does exist. I is the highest stupidity to think that way.
the flying spaghetti monster has not been proven not to exist, therefore he does.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@DeliciousRipon Many religions, many gods. All can't be right, but all can be false.
controllerbrain 1 year ago 2
@DeliciousRipon Don't look now, but you're committing a category fallacy.
orunmila 1 year ago
@orunmila
Category fallacy is a meaningless way to dismiss his claims. Hence why I reassert that christians are idiots.
newfagscanttrif0rce 1 year ago
@DeliciousRipon don't forget leprechauns and swamp thing
DevrorveD 1 year ago
good video up until 5:38. after that it was fucking shithouse.
ijustwannawatchshite 2 years ago 2
But God isn't a morally perfect being, even if we grant his existence.
moiphx2 2 years ago
Hitchens should just say
"i don't know what created the universe, but just because it is an unknown i am not going to give credit to the nearest deity."
Zeabot91 2 years ago 4
Fat man waddling past at 6:49 sums up the fool on Hitchen's right.
WolfmanJoeHunter 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is so ignorant, limited, and earth bound. If it weren't for his wit, he wouldn't have any supporters. Luckily he can toss a funny or two out once and while and retain his dopey comedy central educated audience.
observer75 2 years ago
Oh yep good one.
Cotdail 2 years ago 2
Then you and hitchens are one in the same, except for the wit, of course.
SodomyOfYourSavior 2 years ago
I'm going to call a spade a spade; christians are idiots.
newfagscanttrif0rce 2 years ago 23
@newfagscanttrif0rce
All??
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@bigspliffs
Yes, each and everyone of them with no exceptions.
newfagscanttrif0rce 1 year ago
@newfagscanttrif0rce ...interesting, have you any proof to back up this bold statement?
bigspliffs 1 year ago
@newfagscanttrif0rce Up your butt with a coconut.
orunmila 1 year ago
@newfagscanttrif0rce
Yes you so right
oct579 1 year ago
It's sad to me that people can listen to Hitchens and still go believing in God. Do these people just shut off their brains when he talks or did they not have one in the first place? fucking self centered morons
enors412 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You should learn what the issues are before you go making judgments about people you don't know anything about.
There is no reason to give credit to objects for our existence.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
'There is no reason to give credit to objects for our existence.'
See what I mean?
sk8progression 2 years ago
And you're side stepping the original issue. So I'll try and steer you back in the right direction.
If you can prove, without logical fallacies, that the universe was created, you'd prove that there was a creator.
sk8progression 2 years ago
Ok, at least it wasn't just me, the guy after Hitchens (Bill Craig), needs to look up the definition for a sound arguement.
tat20001 2 years ago
The guy after Hitchens.... ??WTF??
Animeabe 2 years ago
I try to listen to these panels in their entirety I really do but I just cant listen to that much BS. As soon as they get into the same old arguments I have to Fast-forward, but for some reason I can listen to Hitchens make similar arguments over and over again. It has to be the fact that Hitchens so eloquently poses his arguments, never quite the same way each time, and each time seemingly more convincingly than before. Id trade at least one leg to be as powerful a debater as Hitchens.
wilmracer 2 years ago 3
I loathe William Lane Craig so much.
Scofield0085 2 years ago 6
I know what you mean...what a pretentious asshole! Rarely have I encountered a person so utterly full of himself, while being completely deluded into thinking he's saying things that haven't already been said and completely refuted. Peace be with.
MasterOhSo 2 years ago
Yeah, not so much because he's a christian, but because he's smug when he doesn't have any right to be.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 2 years ago
Oh please, like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and so many of your ilk aren't smug. The New Atheists are almost by definition smug and arrogant.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Not really, but being a christian you probably would be inclined to say that. Even so, considering that they usually do better in debate than their christian counterparts they can afford to be. Whereas Craig's arguments don't stand up to even casual scrutiny and he seems to be proud of them. Even so, it's intensely hypocritical for you, a christian, to talk about arrogance when you think a supreme being is not only on your side but cares for you personally. Pot calling the kettle black.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 2 years ago
Right, it's arrogant for me to think I'm right about metaphysical issues like God but of course it's not arrogant for atheists to think they are right and that religious people are wrong. Stop being a hypocrite. Both of us think we are right and the other is wrong so don't pretend that we are the only arrogant ones here.
And FYI, all of Craig's arguments, not Hitchens, are in discussion today among professional philosophers. And out of all of them Craig's Kalam is receiving the most attention.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Yes but i don't believe my position based on faith, christians do (or if not they have been keeping any evidence they have very secret). Yes and they're all handily laughed out by science. The Kalam argument proposes a first cause, fair enough. It then makes the wild non sequitur that it is not a something, but a someone, and not just any someone, but a someone taken straight from Judean mythology. By the way it isn't "his" argument, he took it from Islamic philosophy.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 2 years ago
Craig's defense of the argument, and his renaming it "Kalam" is original to him. It's his defense of the argument which has received more attention than any other argument for God's existence in professional journals today.
And so what if it's faith based. That doesn't necessarily make you arrogant. Lots of Christians believe based on faith and they are very humble and not arrogant. Besides many atheists will believe in things not based on evidence anyway.
Christianjr4 2 years ago