Kagan says that something can have temporal moral value without having ultimate moral value. But this is a problematic position because of what it implies. With temporal moral values, one can do something morally wrong, out-wait the time in which it is wrong, and suddenly it becomes neutral or right.
According to Kagan's position, therefore, the Holocaust could be a good thing if we simply wait long enough.
@tex9591 You don't actually understand Kagan's position. You are confusing "temporal moral value" with "temporally relative moral value." Kagan's point is that our actions can matter even if their effects are temporary, not that what makes them matter is dependent on the opinions of the people in the time period that the actions happen.
You would do well to watch the introductory speeches (in the video of the full debate) to see this point.
@tex9591 Actually, Kagan never argues that our actions ever matter "beyond their temporal state." In fact, he emphatically denies that that is an important or necessary requirement for morality to be meaningful.
The fact that some action "no longer matters to anyone" does not mean it **never** mattered to anyone.
Our actions don't need *eternal* significance to *have significance.* That is his whole point. That is what he keeps saying over and over in this video.
You still don't appear to be getting the problem with that position.
To do so, you need to understand how time is juxtaposed with change in moral value. For instance, saving a dog's life might be morally good at T. But at time T+20,000 years, after everybody involved is dead and gone, we presume no net benefit exists anymore. Is the act still worthwhile?
We're not just looking at it in the present, we're looking at it from the future too, as we all tend to do as human beings.
@tex9591 Ironically, it is you who doesn't seem to be understanding my response.
The point is that we DO NOT act so that our actions will matter in every possible time (as you want to insist). Rather, we act so that our actions matter (at least) at the time they are performed.
You seem to have trouble understanding or even recognizing this point, though I've repeated it so many times.
I simply deny your premise that our actions have to matter at every point in time for them to matter.
@mavaddat When you say "we DO NOT ACT so that...", you are implying intent which is irrelevant to the problem at hand. It's not about intent, it's about the moral weight of actions.
You seem to believe that a moral action carries weight at the time it happened. I ask you on what basis you come to such a conclusion.
@tex9591 You seem to have missed my point. I am not implying intent when I write "we DO NOT ACT so that...". Rather, I am identifying that the moral element of our actions relies on the action mattering in the moment. It does not rely on being meaningful or important FOR EVER (as you continue to insist).
The reason why it carries weight at the time it happens is because the action matters to some morally-relevant conscious creature at that time — hence, the sine qua non of moral significance.
@tex9591 "With temporal moral values, one can do something morally wrong, out-wait the time in which it is wrong, and suddenly it becomes neutral or right."
@breenhill Yes, many Christians have been trying to make this point. Ironically, the opposite of what you wrote is true. I did have to edit down for time (10 minutes was the YouTube limit when I made this), but I actually cut the parts where Craig is stuttering and stumbling, seeming baffled and confused. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to quote any sentence that Craig uttered in that part that helps him make his point.
@mavaddat Well for instance when Kagan challenged Craig about moral duties after salvation since it's supposed to be free from any human works. Craig was then explaining how grace works but then *BLOOP* at 8:43. Next time just post the whole video in parts (like others do). Then NO ONE can accuse you of bad editing. If Craig really is that bad, let him show it himself without any tampering.
@mavaddat I just think for discussions like these, you have to include the whole of the discussion (in parts- like part 1, part 2, etc.) And if Craig is to respond to an objection to soteriology, does he not have to talk about soteriology and if the issue is brought up forcefully in the conversation, should not Craig's response be included? If you didn't want viewers to see his full response, don't include the objection! I wouldn't say you failed in editing but it could've been better.
@breenhill It isn't that I didn't want viewers to see his response. It's just that I had to be parsimonious with what I chose to include. His response to the criticism of salvation, while interesting, didn't seem to me to pertain to the video. I didn't aim to make this as a video about salvation, but rather, about the question of whether we need cosmic significance for our actions to be meaningful.
@mavaddat Well, if you did the best you could and included what you truly thought was important and relevant, I suppose I can't really blame you for much. But I still want to see the whole dialogue instead of (what seems to me) to be a incomplete debate.
@breenhill Oh yes, I recommend taking a look at the whole thing. I originally provided a clickable link to a video of the full debate in the beginning of this video, but unfortunately, that video was removed from YouTube. I have uploaded the full debate onto Veoh. You can find it by Googling "Kagan Craig veoh".
What would Craig say if someone would torture him? I'd guess he would find it pretty significant to get saved by someone from that pain and wouldn't give a shit that the universe is gonna be cold and dark in 10^100 years.
@xknowledgeisfreex ...according to your worldview, what would make that act "signficant?" Afterall, we're just molecules in motion and "significance" is just an abstract notion created in our brains. Humans would be just like any other organism, here only for the sole purpose of procreating. What we understand to be a "significant" act is really just a meaningless action or event.
Most people would rather die than to live under extreme pain. This shows how significant suffering is for the person who suffers. More significant than life itself.
@realtick "we're just molecules in motion and "significance" is just an abstract notion created in our brains." That doesn't make this notion any less meaningless to US.
WE put significance and meaning into our lives. If you're gonna rant about how our actions don't have any impact or effect on a solar system millions of light years away, then i'ld say that you are just stating the obvious. Which in fact is a pretty meaningless statement to begin with.
@realtick lol, somehow when i say hitch, shook, and atkins got beat you see it as they beat craig. You should really learn how to read, if you aspire to be a philosopher. Secondly, logic states that he lost those debates. Bu, hey, live in your delusion
@realtick i suggest going to drcraigvideos, they worship him there too. They also believe KCA, teleo, moral, onto, resurrection havent been refuted either. Ive seen 3 WLC beatdowns, hitchens, shook, & atkins all got beat. The rest couldve gone either way. I swear, WLC fanboys get more like dawkins fanboys daily
@atheistcommonsense "I've seen WLC beatdowns, hitchens, shook, & atkins all got beat." So you've seen the named debaters get beat; quite an admission from an athiest. Lol, I'm not even a fan of WLC, I'm of fan of philosophy and objectivity. It's clearly apparent you're not...."Jus goez aways, leeve us athiests alone wher we'are happi..."
@atheistcommonsense So before you inferred that WLC beats up on "journalists and scientists (and not true philosophers)" but now you're trying to claim Hitchens, Shook and Atkins all "beatdown" WLC. Fuzzy logic much?
@atheistcommonsense Looool, "he lost most of those..." According to whom? The athiest blog sites you frequent that recap the debates? Also, so you concede he's won a few of those debates. Does that then mean his KCA is true? Or, does it mean that his opponent couldn't adequately dismantle his argument at that time?
Ingmar Perrson – Prof. of Practical Philosophy/Research Fellow – Univ. of Oxford
Edwin Curley – Prof. of Philosophy – Univ. of Michigan
Massimo Piglucci - Chair of the Department of Philosophy at CUNY-Lehman College. Also, the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology.
@realtick oh many more, ehrman, ahmed, harris all defeated craig. Christians just cant get there w/o god. So, when someones brings an argument w/o god it automatically gets dismissed
@atheistcommonsense Nah, Craig beat Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman too. Craig vs. Kagan was a tie for me. Craig lost against Law and Bradley. Craig destroyed Hitchens, Atkins and Carrier. He vs. Millican was good, just got finished watching but Craig won that one by a lil...
@Autumn6 no ehrman gave 2-3 perfectly viable options opposing the resurrection, which craig ended the debate with a sermon. That classifies as a defeat to me. Kagan easily won, easy way to tell w/o even watching he debate is that drcraigvideos doesnt allow comments at all on that debate. Youre right about the rest.
It will be interesting to see if fellow athiests pick up on this apparent blind spot in WLC's argument. More importantly, now having time to formulate a well-reasoned response, it will be interesting to see how WLC responds to this critique in future debates where it will surely be brought up again.
Meh, but what am I thinking that folks are actually interested in the topic objectively. You'll always have this debate and comment thread to relish in, won't you?
@realtick no, not when its THEIR ARGUMENT. when craig claims morality has cosmic significance, and kagan asks him to explain and he cant, well thats sophmoric. All it becomes is an assertion, and argument refuted.
@atheistcommonsense Yeah, I know exactly how formal debates work. Apparently, you don't. It's not uncommon for a debater to be caught having to address new material and not have a prepared response or rigorous defense or answer. That's entirely different than saying he doesn't have an answer at all. Greg Bahnsen (thiest) humiliated Gordon Stein (athiest) in a debate; Stein was caught completely off-guard. Weeks later he formulated a well-reasoned response to Bahnsen.
Lol, gotta love all the athiest hacks giving virtual high-fives to eachother over this debate. Kagan apparently caught WLC in an apparent in a bind when Craig couldn't give an off-the-cuff answer to his question AT THAT MOMENT in a timed debate. Meh, but whatever puts a smile on your face...ignorance is bliss, so I've been shown.
@realtick So then what do you think is the appropriate answer to Kagan's question about why moral significance requires cosmic significance? I haven't read anything from Christians that is more intelligent than what Dr. Craig was able to reproduce here (it wasn't "off the cuff," since this is what he does for a living and he's faced this question before).
@mavaddat....Lol, I don't know, I'd have to really take the question to task and give it serious consideration. Judging from your previous responses, you would take the lack of an immediate answer as a definitive victory for your worldview. Also, love your appeal to ignorance ("I haven't read anything from Christians...") as well as your coy propping up of WLC ("...more intelligent than what Dr. Craig...") to make this more than what it really is.
@realtick you should really watch the whole debate, it was bad for WLC. This is what happens when he faces real philosophers, not journalists and scientists. If you want more proof, drcraigvideos doesnt allow any comments for this debate.
@atheistcommonsense Hmmmm, so what other "journalists" has WLC debated other than Hitchens? Poor WLC, damned if he does, damned if doesn't.....so now we're criticizing him for debating scientist philosophers. Yup, WLC is just draggin high school/community college science teachers out of the classroom to embarrass them.
I would suggest that Dr. Craig had no answer to this question because he HAS no answer. One of his common tactics is to make bald, unfounded assertions and then move on, and it's refreshing to find a fellow philosopher finally call him on it.
As I see it, this exchange underscores the deep existential insecurity that motivates Dr. Craig (and, indeed, most believers)--that unless life has overarching, "cosmic" meaning, it can have no meaning at all. It's a bit sad, really.
@ClumsyRoot Regardless, that can be said about any participant in a debate; it's part of the nature of debate. You don't have endless time to butress your points. It's his general notion that life and reality has no meaning if there is no God and consequence. Kagan questioned him on it and Craig answered. Craig didn't support his contention strongly in your eyes. What's sad is that athiests think that their lives have meaning and consequence in any sense of the word without God.
@realtick continued...It's complete hypocrisy and fuzzy logic that they utilize words and concepts that carry weight such as "meaning" or "purpose," but yet have no basis for which to ground it in. An athiest can think that their lives have purpose, meaning and consequence, but really when boiled-down, it's just an abstract notion created in our brains...
@realtick continued...If there is no god, we are just higher-level intelligent animals that have an ability to think abstractly and falsely suppose we have a greater purpose and meaning other than just procreating...
@realtick continued...So Kagan can essentially claim "...my life has meaning without needing an eternal cosmic overarching meaning..." but really he's just spouting hot-air that has no philosophical basis. What's comical is that the athiest crowd is roasting Craig for effectively saying "I don't know..." all while not realizing Kagan's contention is full of holes.
It seems you suffer from the same insecurities as Craig. It's no wonder you resort to the false comforts of religion.
Meaning and purpose are not somehow imbued from above--they are, by their nature, personal and subjective, emerging from the specific needs and desires of the individual. After all, what gives MY life meaning and purpose might not give YOUR life meaning and purpose. Honestly, why is this so hard for believers to understand and accept?
(cont.) I'm an educator. Working with children is one of the things that provides my life with purpose and meaning. My brother, on the other hand, doesn't care for kids; he finds meaning and purpose in creating art.
This idea that one must have a "philosophical basis" for the meaning in one's life is baffling to me. Personal preferences don't require external validation; I don't feel a need to "justify" my love of teaching. What I value is "grounded" in ME.
(cont.) You say that "significance" is just an abstract notion created in our brains. Of course it is! All such concepts are manifestations of our thinking processes. What else COULD they be?
The real question is, why isn't this enough for you? Why can't you accept that we are responsible for finding meaning and purpose for ourselves? We live in a vast world filled with almost endless possibilities. The potential for a rich and rewarding life is inherent.
@ClumsyRoot Does another living organism such as a blade of grass find it signficant when the gardener's lawnmower breaks down and thus spares them from the blade? No. Why? Humans only find it "significant" because we're sophisticated beings able to reason through abstract notions and come up with arbitrary terms to describe our feelings. However, that ability to describe feelings doesn't make us any different than a blade of grass in a godless universe devoid of any meaning.
(cont.) What you seem to desperately need is for our human experiences to be "validated" by something outside (and above) humans themselves. And I would ask you, "Why?" Can you not find value and significance within life itself? Can you not appreciate the richness of the human experience in its own right?
As Douglas Adams so eloquently put it, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
(cont.) Finally, this whole "molecules in motion" argument needs to be retired. It's a reductio ad absurdum of the higher (or lowest) order. By your reasoning, we shouldn't find any emotional or aesthetic significance in, say, music--after all, it's nothing more than an arrangement of wavelengths of sound.
We're at an impasse already, I'm sure. You view meaning and purpose as "handed down" from above, and I see them as emerging from the individual. So be it.
@ClumsyRoot Lol, you're absolutely right, it is reductio ad absurdum and it applies to your worldview. When boiled down, we are simply molecules in motion from your perspective, but are higher level-thinking organisms that can find stimulation in non-tangible stimuli and or aesthetic objects. You simply find that description distasteful, but it is the reality for someone of your perspective.
We're "higher level-thinking organisms that can find stimulation in non-tangible stimuli and or aesthetic objects" who are "able to reason through abstract notions and come up with arbitrary terms to describe our feelings."
Absolutely! No argument here. But it's that very "sophistication" that distinguishes us, qualitatively, from a blade of grass. Grass has no sentience or no self-awareness. We possess both, and that is the foundation of the human experience.
I love this video because WLC tends to go up against writers ,like Christopher Hitchens, or scientists, like Sam Harris or Peter Atkins, and utterly destroys them, but when he's up against an actual philosopher with the logical and argumentative chops to back up what he's saying, he crumbles.
@APaleDot Lol, I would venture to say 99% of the individuals WLC debates would consider themselves philosophers to some extent, but hey, we all know they aren't "real" philosophers though. Right?
BTW, someone better tell Daniel Dennett and A.C. Grayling they aren't philosophers.
@SorenArminius read up on the subject of morality please, Philosophers have been doing ethics without God for a couple of centuries now, the notion that only theism can provide adequate foundation for ethics is really a middle age idea.
2/2 will die in a few short years and it really will be of no significance. If two people lived on mars with no one else around and one saved the others life, they might "feel good" for a while but both will perish, and no one on earth will ever have known a thing so how can that be of any value? Without a consciousness to acknowledge an action there is no significance. Theism is the only theory that offers this. Feel good deeds on naturalism is simply hedonism.
@SorenArminius Humans are conscious of one another's actions (and their own actions), so every human's actions is at least significant to his or her own self. Why does the consciousness that perceives our actions need to be eternal for our actions to have significance?
Also, what you mean by "objectivity," and "subjectivity"? For example, would you say that the pain felt from a headache is "objective" or "subjective"? What about the headache itself? Is that "objective" in your usage?
@mavaddat 1/3 I'd first like to clarify that by significance I am thinking of something which is permanently going to matter, something that is not up to the person to deem significant. For instance, someone can say that whether the Packers win or lose the super bowl is a big deal, and it may be to those people, subjectively, but in the grand scheme (even of life) it is of no significance because it was only the people who decided to give it significance. This is subjective as opposed to an
@mavaddat 2/3 objectively valued action. The way I'm using these two terms is considering if the things that are of moral worth are determined by us, as in naturalism, or if they are determined by a transcendent consciousness, as in theism. Iff they are valuable because they are above our discretion, then to us it is objective, not a matter of personal opinion. If the thing that considers the rightness of something is not higher than our own minds, it is only subjectively given value.
@mavaddat 3/3 So to answer your question the pain of a headache would not exist if it wasn’t perceived by a mind and therefore, subjective. Depending on the type of headache, lets say low blood sugar, is objective because it is measurable as in, if you have this level of blood sugar you necessarily will get a headache. But the main point is which level of consciousness prescribes the morals.
@SorenArminius Ok, you are using the words "objective" and "subjective" in non-standard, conflated ways. I suggest taking a look at Sandra LaFave's brief essay "Thinking Critically About the 'Subjective'/'Objective' Distinction," which you can easily find on Google.
God is not required to make logically inconsistent statements "objectively" contradictory. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that our actions need to have "eternal" significance for them to be "objectively" significant.
1/2 I really think Kagan is missing the point. The point, which I'm not sure why Craig was unable to drive home, that there really is no possibility of objective morals or any sort of lasting justice on a naturalistic view. Even at the end, hypothesizing saving someone's life, the value he was referring to really is just subjective and nothing more. You saved their life and feel good for a while, yet they are still going to die, all you've done is provide a minuscule delay. They will die and you
Religious thinkers are so obsessed with eternal life - the greatest false promise ever offered. It's at the crux of their perception of reality. WHAT IF.. what if, when we die we are just gone? Penn once asked "Are you afraid of 1890 - Then why are you afraid of 2090?". I think we are truly a pathetic species, if we need an imaginary omnipresence to give life meaning. Religion BELITTLES the believer into insignificance without subservience.
It's near impossible to have any meaningful debate with the religious. I see not one bit of difference between structured religious arguments and the arguments of a schizophrenic or delusional person as neither are able to back up their nonsense with a single shred of evidence. Both will tell you that their beliefs are to be taken on faith and those beliefs were personally revealed to them or their group by the higher power and therefore immune to criticism or or the need for evidence.
@lordsong7 Atheists just usually don't challenge Craig on what he said. Kagan, however, does realize a big 'jump' in Craig's argument that others don't, as stated his words at the beginning of the video.
Yes, if you define morality as something that comes from God, it's pretty hard to get there without God. But Kagan just doesn't really accept that premise.
@94jmcorrea Nope. The Christian dude was shown that significance does exist without being on a cosmic scale, and showed that Christian theism while saying that atheism makes things seem meaningless, actually makes things meaningless itself with its "need" for cosmic significance, and thus atheism creates importance for ethics and kindness towards human beings. Then at 7:53, the theist is shown that his claim of accountability can not be reconciled with everyone who repents getting into heaven.
craig is such a child. by the end of this clip he had nothing left of his argument except an appeal to emotion. he doesn't like the idea that people who do evil things and get away with it don't have some sky judge waiting for them when they die. grow the fuck up.
I think it was really telling when Craig talked about how depressing the idea that everything will end in heat death is to him. If he hadn't lived his life thinking he'd get a heavenly reward, he wouldn't know the difference. The reality that the universe doesn't care about him is too depressing to face. That's what it comes down to.
Is raping children wrong? Why is it wrong? Why do we all typically agree it's morally wrong to rape children? What if it in a hundred years (like gay marriage for example) people are fighting for the basic human right to rape children, and based on the same reason (because they love them?) In other words, is something that obviously overwhelmingly morally wrong, eventually going to become morally acceptable if simply enough people say it's okay? Moral law is absolute.
@ndockett81 These kinds of questions expose the deep ignorance in believers about why hurtful actions are wrong. Religion literally makes you stupid.
Unlike gay marriage, rape is wrong because it involves dealing unwanted (forceful) and unnecessary (merely for self-gratification) suffering onto another person. This cannot change based on popular opinion.
Unnecessary suffering is always wrong. You'll never find a statement so absolute that is actually followed in any Judaeo-Christian religion.
@mavaddat Morally wrong is morally wrong. You see that is the problem with naturalistic moral relativism. Is it wrong because it's the opinion of many, or because it's simply wrong? By the way, thank you for being a good sport by opening up your statement with a barrage of insults. You're really doing the secular community a huge favor by showing their stripes. Why, exactly are you so angry with a God that you don't believe exists, and this non-gods allegedly deluded followers? Cont.
@ndockett81 It's a fact that religions deepen ignorance about why hurting others (and not respecting their consent) is wrong. Your question exposes an example of that. That's not an insult. That's an observation.
You're awed by the perception of a truth (the opinion of many) differing from the truth itself (what's really happening irrespective of opinion). But we don't need an invisible sky deity to ensure that our perception of what's wrong matches up with what's really hurtful. We can see it.
@mavaddat And yet our society's moral laws change like the wind. Gay marriage is wrong, not it's right. Abortion is wrong, now it's okay... who decides? Morally bankrupt politicians? In fact, you just made my point. As long society bases it's moral law off of opinions, it will always morally wrong. Truth is absolute. Without a moral law giver, moral law is useless. It will always change based on opinion. Unles your argument is somehow society basically" does the right thing...i disagree.
@ndockett81 Yes, we are often wrong until we think deeper. We were wrong about condemning gay marriage because religions had codified Bronze age bigotry into our popular consciousness. But once we thought about it (applied the principles of secular reasoning), we realized that there wasn't actually anything wrong with gay marriage.
So you see, ignorance and prejudice (which are preserved by religion) cause us to be wrong, and reflection and empathy allow us to become right.
@mavaddat Were we wrong? Give it some time, and then we'll see what such morally bankrupt laws and their effects will do to this country. It didn't work out so well for Sodom and Gomorrah, or Rome. I have eternity to work it out, can you say the same thing? Of course you can't, under naturalism you're just going to die and that's it. "The wisdom of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." My eyes are wide open sir, can you honestly say the same thing? Repent and trust Jesus.
@ndockett81 Yes, we were really wrong to condemn gay relationships. Again, we have no reason to believe that gay relationships are wrong.
Every Christian empire that has ever existed has fallen. So Christianity leads to the ruin of civilizations. Wait, and you shall see.
Every empire that has ever embraced centralized water distribution has fallen. So centralized water distribution leads to the ruin of civilizations. Wait, and you shall see.
@mavaddat cont. Are you just as angry and spiteful towards famous mass-murdering atheists such as Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini? Or do you simply find any hint of religion, make an overwhelming blanket statement that "religion made them do it" and then likely justify you're own actions by the mark of such men. Who are you to say what is good? Are you a good person? Ever lied, stolen, used God's name in vain? None are good, no not one.
@ndockett81 Ah, "Way of the Master" Christianity for dummies!
If humans can identify that the Bible is good, then humans are qualified to determine what is good independent of (prior to reading) the Bible.
On the other hand, if we aren't qualified to identify what is good without reading the Bible, then we couldn't ever identify the Bible as a good book in the first place.
So either we don't need God to tell us what's good, or we cannot identify God's commands as good in the first place.
@mavaddat Simply judge the fruit... just how is society doing now that it's all but kicked God out? America isn't exactly in the golden age. I mean, Christians are typically called narrow minded and ignorant but my eyes are wide open. Last I checked we're hopelessly in debt, we've murdered nearly 100 million babies, we're involved in 3 major wars over who knows what, and there are nearly 600,000 homeless people wandering the streets. Don't even get me started on "dad sets family on fire..."
@ndockett81 Yes, there is no doubt that countries with less religion are far better off (happier, healthier, less crime, less teenage pregnancy, better healthcare, longer lifespans, etc.) than countries that have lots of religion.
The United States is vastly more Christian than any other developed nation. The only countries that are more Christian per capita that than the United States are in far deeper states of misery.
So yes, the fruit of religion is ignorance and suffering. Proved my point
@mavaddat You just exposed yourself "vastly more Christian?" Based on what, a census of face book? "Away from me you work of lawlessness" is what Jesus said for so-called Christians throughout the ages. Many will say to me "Lord, Lord.." You see, just because many Americans check off "Christian" on a census or on face book doesn't make them so. God will separate the wheat from the chaff. I fail to see how a country that teaches bogus evolutionary science in school could be called "Christian"
@ndockett81 The more Christian a nation, the more its troubles. Indeed, the states that are most opposed to evolution in the classroom are the ones with the highest crime, highest teenage pregnancy, worst healthcare, and shortest lifespans.
On the other hand, the less religious a country, the happier, healthier they are, with less crime, less teenage pregnancy, better healthcare, longer lifespans, and so on.
So thank you again for making my point. Religion preserves and deepens ignorance.
@ndockett81 Atheism is working out great in China, actually. It's also working out great in Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, Finland, France, South Korea, and Germany.
Meanwhile, the most religious states in America (Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Georgia) have the highest crime per capita, most prisoners per capita, highest teenage pregnancy per capita, worst healthcare, and shortest lifespans.
@ndockett81 Ah, I see you are the kind of Christian who likes to play word games to avoid accepting the truth. "Turn to Christ" is a kind of religion. But you want to pretend that's not what "turn to Christ" means. How very dishonest of you.
You pretend that Americans aren't "true Christians" because of the economic ruin of the American country. Again, how very dishonest of you.
If you're a "follower of Christ," then Christ clearly made you a dishonest person. I'd rather be honest. No "Christ."
@mavaddat - I am the type of Christian that reads the Bible, specifically Mathew 7 concerning Christians, and so-called Christians. Many will say on that say "Lord Lord.." and God will say "Away from me you worker of lawlessness, I never knew you." Round back to point 1: What makes somebody a Christian? I can assure you, it's not checking it off on their face book profile, or even going to church.
@ndockett81 You aren't qualified or authorized to say who is or who is not a Christian. That you think you can say who is a Christian despite what they call themselves speaks to your enormous arrogance and conceit.
If people declare themselves to be Christian, then you have no right to say that they aren't Christian. They are trying to live according to the dogmas they consider to be from the cult leader just like you are. You are both equally Christian.
@mavaddat - Check out Mathew 7, Jesus directly contradicts what you just said. Listen your opinion is great, but I'm not going to base my beliefs off people's opinion. I need something more concrete, and I'm going with Jesus and the Bible. You don't have to agree with me, but at least learn what the Bible says Christians are to do before trying to speak with such authority.
@ndockett81 Matthew 7 never says that other Christians can judge who is qualified to be a Christian or not. It just claims that God is able to judge that. But it doesn't matter even if the Bible does say you are qualified to judge who is a Christian, because you are in fact not qualified. Your beliefs are circular and fallacious. They don't convince anyone but yourself and your fellow cult followers.
@mavaddat - You're correct, God is the only judge. Jesus is saying we can make a determination based on a person's actions. For example. If I claimed to be brave, and yet always flee from danger and never helped others, would you still think I was brave? Now, that doesn't mean I won't do something brave eventually, but until I do my actions will determine how those see me. Listen you can bash me, Jesus and Christianity until the cows come home, it doesn't make you right.
@ndockett81 I don't see that you are any more or less Christian than the 76% of Americans who claim to be Christian.
Being a part of a religion isn't about behaving any certain way. It's about trying to live up to the dogmas and values of the religion. So you can never say that a person "isn't really a Christian" from observing how they behave. You have to actually look into their brain (or into their "heart," if you prefer medieval language) to see what they actually believe.
@mavaddat That's fine, you don't know me. I am okay with you making that judgement. However if you did get to know me you would know that I take Jesus two "greatest commandments" very seriously. Love your neighbor, and love God most. However saying that you cannot judge somebodies character (once you've gotten to know them) or by their actions is ridiculous. We don't have to guess, the Bible tells what a Christian will look like. Based on that I feel comfortable identifying them.
@mavaddat - Also, funny that you say that. The Bible teaches that what's in the heart, comes out the mouth. We are all wicked at heart, none are righteous in the sight of a Holy and Perfect God. We have all sinned by breaking God's law (the 10 commandments.) What must we do to be saved from God's wrath? We must turn from our sins (Jesus said "Now go and sin no more") and we must put our faith in Jesus as a perfect savior. God bless you on your search for truth.
@ndockett81 Thank you for displaying and reminding us what arrogance, ignorance, and condescending conceit constitutes being an evangelical Christian. You are truly a clueless human being.
@mavaddat I forgive you for your insults sir. As Jesus said "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." The saving power of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
@ndockett81 Again, I didn't insult you. I made observations. You have behaved dogmatically, arrogantly and ignorantly. You have responded condescendingly and assumed a level of conceit unfathomable to me. You have displayed cluelessness on every topic you've mentioned. Not insults. Observations.
Intelligent and moral people appear to be "perishing" to those who self-impose moral and intellectual childhood on themselves, and who demand the right to be irresponsible and immature for their lives.
@mavaddat So if I called you a fat cow, that wouldn't be insulting? No bro, I'm just making observations! Why don't you go outside to the local mall and try that one out? It was nice chatting with you via youtube.com but it's time to dust off these boots and move on to the next village. Again good luck seeking truth (if that's what you're seeking) I hope you find it. Just remember, if God is real, then the evidence will lead you too Him. Cya!
@ndockett81 Calling someone a "fat cow" is usually an insult, because it is meant to hurt their feelings. If you were fat and literally a cow, that would not be an insult (not least of all because cows aren't easily insulted). But merely point out that you are overweight is not an insult.
You are literally unrepentantly arrogant, profoundly ignorant, and condescendingly conceitful.
I didn't write those things just to hurt your feelings. I wrote them as observations. That's the difference.
@ndockett81 Those places aren't as they are because of atheism, they're as they are because of social practices. And North Korea is really a theistic state, only its gods are Kim Jong-il and his dead father Kim Il-sung. That's really the crux of it, and something I notice religious folks have difficulty with. Atheism has no values. It proposes no ideas. An atheistic nation is as good or as evil as the humans running it -- much like a religious nation, but without as much hypocrisy.
@BigMikeMcBastard - But according to atheists, religion is just a social practice. Saying atheism has no values is intellectually dishonest. Choosing not to believe something is still a conscious choice. That choice shapes your moral standards, therefore shaping society. An atheistic country still has to go off some value and/or moral system. They simply don't just "exist." Stalin and Hitler are the two greatest examples of "reason" gone haywire. Reason and religion scare me, trust Christ.
@ndockett81 Not believing in something isn't a conscious choice. Every human is born an atheist, after all.
Where or morals come from is partly due to our own innate, evolved morality and the societies we've constructed. Over time our moral sense has evolved. Many things we once considered good as people we no longer do in our affluent, first-world countries. This isn't because of religion, it's simply because of how we as social animals work.
Craig looks bad because this is one of the rare occasions when the debate format allows for an immediate come back and challenge to his assertions, which are in fact fallacies (proof by repeated assertion) He would start to look bad all the time if he does many more like this
It's hilarious reading the majority of these comments. It's obvious that most haven't even actually watched the video, but instead base their opinion (not that they were actually open to anything Craig would say anyways) off of the gesticulation and bulldozing by Kagan. Congrats athiests! You can now stop your search of skimming through dozens of WLC videos looking for moments where he may look bad.
@realtick You are right that William Lane Craig does not often "look" bad, which (it has seemed to me) is the most important quality of an argument for religious people.
Craig doesn't actually present a case for why morality must be cosmically based- he simply uses different forms of words to keep asserting the same thing. This is a perverse distortion of the meaning of morality- coming from a perverse theological worldview
Yes but the truth of morality is no more connected with transcendental than it is to quantum physics so the idea of objectivity in this context is a non sequitur
@mutbutyt You missed my point. I was specifically responding to Craig's claim that morality, on atheism, could never have cosmic significance. Of course morality lacks cosmic significance - it isn't the sort of thing that CAN have cosmic significance. However, it doesn't follow that morality is just subjective, as Craig assumes. Morality is objective in the embodied sense that all humans (and other primates) share the same mechanisms for understanding morality.
@ArcadianGenesis according to what? You are assuming a universality of your own experience that for some reason, you believe ought to be shared. on what basis do you believe that your own understanding of morality should be binding on someone who does not share it?
@Sage80 According to the pressures of natural selection. Sorry, I assumed that would be implicitly understood. When I say that all primates share the same mechanism for understanding morality, I am not saying that we all share the same normative theories about how we ought to act. Rather, I am saying we all have a foundation for understanding morality that is fundamentally the same. Broadly, we all understand that good actions increase the well-being of conscious creatures.
Wow...just wow. Kagan finishes this clip in such an inspiring way that underscores the maturity of his ethics versus the paucity of his opponent's. Dr. Craig in the last second of the video turns away as if looking for the nearest exit. I wonder what he thought in that moment. Kagan's arguments are concise, perfectly rational and simple without being simplistic - very hard to find fault. Craig's theology leaves me with more questions than answers.
I like how "drcraigvideos" disabled comments for this particular debate. I wonder why? I find that whenever Craig is involved in a back-and-forth, his arguments get completely taken apart. He really thrives in a situation where he can use the standard debate format to his advantage - eg raise lots of deep problems that need a long discussion in a very short space of time, so that the argument is not debunked and he "wins".
To elaborate on Kagan's point, I'd like to say that moral truth is not objective in the transcendental sense of being a part of the structure of the universe; however, it IS objective in the embodied sense that all humans (with normally functioning brains) are adapted to thinking the same way with regard to morality.
By the way, the remark about 'getting back something in eternity' (and that not being a moral thing) didn't really arrive at Craig's end for instance, but that's because it was an unexpected or irrelevant remark I think - normally believers really don't do good just because they will get something back later; for any serious believer god has an impact *now* and not in the future (eternity is a quality after all).
I'm not really a fan of Craig but it IS of course hard to beat either Harris or Kagan or any other when they simply speak from a moral point of view without any real accountability where this comes from. They take it simply as a given, and that is sort of the evidence for it.
@SHIBBYiPANDA, unfortunately, "happiness & fitness for all" is not a sufficient basis for morality nor can it ever be. Different value systems have differing beliefs on who/ what constitutes "fit & happy". @mavaddat You're only proving my point. W/o objective moral standards morality becomes nothing more than semantics & categorization. If there is a God then there IS objective moral good; if not, then we semantically create a god, or other category, & subjectively & arbitrarily name it "good"
@ogachaley I anticipate and refute this line of argument in my debate with Creationist author, Fuz Rana. I have posted it to YouTube. You can see the video by visiting my channel page.
@mavaddat Really?? I watched the entire video and you make no dent in the argument. You simply postulate the existence of some prima facie "intuition" of dutiful responsibility from where right and wrong emerges. But this is hardly a solid basis for morality and I question your assumptions. 1: where do you presume this intuition comes from? 2: why is it only unique to humans and not all other life forms? 3: Can a moral position ever be counter-intuitive?
@mavaddat hell ya.. How'd you get into this stuff?? Were you able to conclude that there are objective moral values? Whenever I think about I can only ever conclude that there exists an objective moral value for lifeforms, but not for the entire cosmos or on a cosmic scale.. It doesn't seem to me that it might exist but I don't know how to say it.... I really need to watch this debate too I haven't watched it I just keep commenting on this page.... lol..
@mavaddat You don't refute the line of argument. You simply call it into question by labeling it "circular." You fail to see the objectivity of the "God-existence" argument. Your argument assumes the non-existence of God, then proceeds to refute any impact He might have on morality, if He were subjectively created. It's of course, clear that a subjective standard leads to subjective morality. But objective morality leads to an objective standard. And God is the only standard suffices.
@ogachaley Showing that an argument is circular is sufficient to refute it. I think it's clear that defining God's will as good and defining goodness as what God wills is circular.
Your position that God is required for goodness is simply not tenable any more. It's been agreed dead for more than 500 years among 95% of ethicists, even though the arguments against it go back to Plato.
You can just keep begging the question with your assertions, but you're only spewing rhetoric, not using reason.
@mavaddat Wrong again! What you show may be circular but what you show is not what I'm arguing. My conclusions are not circular, but inescapable. i.e if we assume X is God and there exists a standard, Y, by which we judge X, then Y is God, not X! It's thus inescapable that God is good! Your assertion about the "agreed deadness" of my position is very debatable! Plato's arguments were in the context of polytheistic gods who could not agree, not against an ethical monotheistic position.
Hadn't listened to Kagan before. Thoroughly enjoyed what he had to say.
BrooklynRagtag 1 day ago
Kagan says that something can have temporal moral value without having ultimate moral value. But this is a problematic position because of what it implies. With temporal moral values, one can do something morally wrong, out-wait the time in which it is wrong, and suddenly it becomes neutral or right.
According to Kagan's position, therefore, the Holocaust could be a good thing if we simply wait long enough.
tex9591 1 week ago
@tex9591 You don't actually understand Kagan's position. You are confusing "temporal moral value" with "temporally relative moral value." Kagan's point is that our actions can matter even if their effects are temporary, not that what makes them matter is dependent on the opinions of the people in the time period that the actions happen.
You would do well to watch the introductory speeches (in the video of the full debate) to see this point.
mavaddat 1 week ago
@mavaddat That is precisely the problem. Our actions ought to matter insofar as they have an effect, and in proportion to their effect.
But Kagan believes that they matter even beyond their temporal state. I ask why?
If someone saves a stray dog and then later in their lives both the person and the dog dies, how does that good act matter anymore?
tex9591 1 week ago
@tex9591 Actually, Kagan never argues that our actions ever matter "beyond their temporal state." In fact, he emphatically denies that that is an important or necessary requirement for morality to be meaningful.
The fact that some action "no longer matters to anyone" does not mean it **never** mattered to anyone.
Our actions don't need *eternal* significance to *have significance.* That is his whole point. That is what he keeps saying over and over in this video.
mavaddat 1 week ago
@mavaddat
You still don't appear to be getting the problem with that position.
To do so, you need to understand how time is juxtaposed with change in moral value. For instance, saving a dog's life might be morally good at T. But at time T+20,000 years, after everybody involved is dead and gone, we presume no net benefit exists anymore. Is the act still worthwhile?
We're not just looking at it in the present, we're looking at it from the future too, as we all tend to do as human beings.
tex9591 1 week ago
@tex9591 Ironically, it is you who doesn't seem to be understanding my response.
The point is that we DO NOT act so that our actions will matter in every possible time (as you want to insist). Rather, we act so that our actions matter (at least) at the time they are performed.
You seem to have trouble understanding or even recognizing this point, though I've repeated it so many times.
I simply deny your premise that our actions have to matter at every point in time for them to matter.
mavaddat 1 week ago
@mavaddat When you say "we DO NOT ACT so that...", you are implying intent which is irrelevant to the problem at hand. It's not about intent, it's about the moral weight of actions.
You seem to believe that a moral action carries weight at the time it happened. I ask you on what basis you come to such a conclusion.
tex9591 1 week ago
@tex9591 You seem to have missed my point. I am not implying intent when I write "we DO NOT ACT so that...". Rather, I am identifying that the moral element of our actions relies on the action mattering in the moment. It does not rely on being meaningful or important FOR EVER (as you continue to insist).
The reason why it carries weight at the time it happens is because the action matters to some morally-relevant conscious creature at that time — hence, the sine qua non of moral significance.
mavaddat 1 week ago
@tex9591 "With temporal moral values, one can do something morally wrong, out-wait the time in which it is wrong, and suddenly it becomes neutral or right."
Strawman.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
Bad editing. You kind of cut out Craig whenever he had something going for him..
breenhill 2 weeks ago
@breenhill Yes, many Christians have been trying to make this point. Ironically, the opposite of what you wrote is true. I did have to edit down for time (10 minutes was the YouTube limit when I made this), but I actually cut the parts where Craig is stuttering and stumbling, seeming baffled and confused. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to quote any sentence that Craig uttered in that part that helps him make his point.
mavaddat 2 weeks ago
@mavaddat Well for instance when Kagan challenged Craig about moral duties after salvation since it's supposed to be free from any human works. Craig was then explaining how grace works but then *BLOOP* at 8:43. Next time just post the whole video in parts (like others do). Then NO ONE can accuse you of bad editing. If Craig really is that bad, let him show it himself without any tampering.
breenhill 2 weeks ago
@breenhill Did you miss the part of my comment where I said I had to cut it down for time?
I have a 10 minute limit. My purpose is not to post the whole discussion.
My purpose was to highlight the discussion on cosmic moral significance and accountability, not the problems of the Christian concept of salvation.
Nothing that Craig said on the topic of this video was left out. Or at least, that was my aim. Do you think I failed?
mavaddat 2 weeks ago
@mavaddat I just think for discussions like these, you have to include the whole of the discussion (in parts- like part 1, part 2, etc.) And if Craig is to respond to an objection to soteriology, does he not have to talk about soteriology and if the issue is brought up forcefully in the conversation, should not Craig's response be included? If you didn't want viewers to see his full response, don't include the objection! I wouldn't say you failed in editing but it could've been better.
breenhill 2 weeks ago
@breenhill It isn't that I didn't want viewers to see his response. It's just that I had to be parsimonious with what I chose to include. His response to the criticism of salvation, while interesting, didn't seem to me to pertain to the video. I didn't aim to make this as a video about salvation, but rather, about the question of whether we need cosmic significance for our actions to be meaningful.
mavaddat 2 weeks ago
@mavaddat Well, if you did the best you could and included what you truly thought was important and relevant, I suppose I can't really blame you for much. But I still want to see the whole dialogue instead of (what seems to me) to be a incomplete debate.
breenhill 2 weeks ago
@breenhill Oh yes, I recommend taking a look at the whole thing. I originally provided a clickable link to a video of the full debate in the beginning of this video, but unfortunately, that video was removed from YouTube. I have uploaded the full debate onto Veoh. You can find it by Googling "Kagan Craig veoh".
mavaddat 2 weeks ago
What would Craig say if someone would torture him? I'd guess he would find it pretty significant to get saved by someone from that pain and wouldn't give a shit that the universe is gonna be cold and dark in 10^100 years.
xknowledgeisfreex 3 weeks ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Craig is a cybernetic organism. He measures his pain in orders of magnitude of the age of the universe.
mavaddat 3 weeks ago
@mavaddat
LOL!
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
@xknowledgeisfreex ...according to your worldview, what would make that act "signficant?" Afterall, we're just molecules in motion and "significance" is just an abstract notion created in our brains. Humans would be just like any other organism, here only for the sole purpose of procreating. What we understand to be a "significant" act is really just a meaningless action or event.
realtick 3 weeks ago
@realtick
Have you ever suffered from extreme pain? No?
Most people would rather die than to live under extreme pain. This shows how significant suffering is for the person who suffers. More significant than life itself.
xknowledgeisfreex 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realtick "we're just molecules in motion and "significance" is just an abstract notion created in our brains." That doesn't make this notion any less meaningless to US.
WE put significance and meaning into our lives. If you're gonna rant about how our actions don't have any impact or effect on a solar system millions of light years away, then i'ld say that you are just stating the obvious. Which in fact is a pretty meaningless statement to begin with.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@realtick lol, somehow when i say hitch, shook, and atkins got beat you see it as they beat craig. You should really learn how to read, if you aspire to be a philosopher. Secondly, logic states that he lost those debates. Bu, hey, live in your delusion
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@realtick i suggest going to drcraigvideos, they worship him there too. They also believe KCA, teleo, moral, onto, resurrection havent been refuted either. Ive seen 3 WLC beatdowns, hitchens, shook, & atkins all got beat. The rest couldve gone either way. I swear, WLC fanboys get more like dawkins fanboys daily
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense "I've seen WLC beatdowns, hitchens, shook, & atkins all got beat." So you've seen the named debaters get beat; quite an admission from an athiest. Lol, I'm not even a fan of WLC, I'm of fan of philosophy and objectivity. It's clearly apparent you're not...."Jus goez aways, leeve us athiests alone wher we'are happi..."
realtick 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense So before you inferred that WLC beats up on "journalists and scientists (and not true philosophers)" but now you're trying to claim Hitchens, Shook and Atkins all "beatdown" WLC. Fuzzy logic much?
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick he lost most of those, are that deluded? Listen you're clearly a WLC fanboy
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
Comment removed
realtick 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense Looool, "he lost most of those..." According to whom? The athiest blog sites you frequent that recap the debates? Also, so you concede he's won a few of those debates. Does that then mean his KCA is true? Or, does it mean that his opponent couldn't adequately dismantle his argument at that time?
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick "Does that then mean his KCA is true?"
No. It means he was better at debating then his opponent.
Just because you can sell your shit better then the next person doesn't mean that your shit is actually true or accurate.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
"This is what happens (to William Lane Craig) when he faces real philosophers, not journalists and scientists."
Daniel Dennett – Austin B. Fletcher Prof. of Philosophy – Tufts Univ.
A.C. Grayling – former prof. of philosophy – Univ. of London
Quentin Smith – Prof. of Philosophy – Western Michigan University
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick__continued...
Ingmar Perrson – Prof. of Practical Philosophy/Research Fellow – Univ. of Oxford
Edwin Curley – Prof. of Philosophy – Univ. of Michigan
Massimo Piglucci - Chair of the Department of Philosophy at CUNY-Lehman College. Also, the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology.
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick __...
Corey G. Washington – Asst. Prof. of Philosophy – Univ. of Maryland
Michael Tooley – Prof. of Philosophy – Univ. of Colorado
Richard Taylor – former professor of philosophy
Kai Neilsen – adjunct prof. of philosophy – Concordia Univ.
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick oh many more, ehrman, ahmed, harris all defeated craig. Christians just cant get there w/o god. So, when someones brings an argument w/o god it automatically gets dismissed
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense Nah, Craig beat Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman too. Craig vs. Kagan was a tie for me. Craig lost against Law and Bradley. Craig destroyed Hitchens, Atkins and Carrier. He vs. Millican was good, just got finished watching but Craig won that one by a lil...
Autumn6 1 month ago
@Autumn6 no ehrman gave 2-3 perfectly viable options opposing the resurrection, which craig ended the debate with a sermon. That classifies as a defeat to me. Kagan easily won, easy way to tell w/o even watching he debate is that drcraigvideos doesnt allow comments at all on that debate. Youre right about the rest.
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
Comment removed
realtick 1 month ago
It will be interesting to see if fellow athiests pick up on this apparent blind spot in WLC's argument. More importantly, now having time to formulate a well-reasoned response, it will be interesting to see how WLC responds to this critique in future debates where it will surely be brought up again.
Meh, but what am I thinking that folks are actually interested in the topic objectively. You'll always have this debate and comment thread to relish in, won't you?
realtick 1 month ago
Comment removed
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick no, not when its THEIR ARGUMENT. when craig claims morality has cosmic significance, and kagan asks him to explain and he cant, well thats sophmoric. All it becomes is an assertion, and argument refuted.
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@realtick "off-the-cuff", its his argument, he should have an answer. Do you know how debates work?
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
Comment removed
realtick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheistcommonsense Yeah, I know exactly how formal debates work. Apparently, you don't. It's not uncommon for a debater to be caught having to address new material and not have a prepared response or rigorous defense or answer. That's entirely different than saying he doesn't have an answer at all. Greg Bahnsen (thiest) humiliated Gordon Stein (athiest) in a debate; Stein was caught completely off-guard. Weeks later he formulated a well-reasoned response to Bahnsen.
realtick 1 month ago
Lol, gotta love all the athiest hacks giving virtual high-fives to eachother over this debate. Kagan apparently caught WLC in an apparent in a bind when Craig couldn't give an off-the-cuff answer to his question AT THAT MOMENT in a timed debate. Meh, but whatever puts a smile on your face...ignorance is bliss, so I've been shown.
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick So then what do you think is the appropriate answer to Kagan's question about why moral significance requires cosmic significance? I haven't read anything from Christians that is more intelligent than what Dr. Craig was able to reproduce here (it wasn't "off the cuff," since this is what he does for a living and he's faced this question before).
mavaddat 1 month ago
@mavaddat....Lol, I don't know, I'd have to really take the question to task and give it serious consideration. Judging from your previous responses, you would take the lack of an immediate answer as a definitive victory for your worldview. Also, love your appeal to ignorance ("I haven't read anything from Christians...") as well as your coy propping up of WLC ("...more intelligent than what Dr. Craig...") to make this more than what it really is.
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick you should really watch the whole debate, it was bad for WLC. This is what happens when he faces real philosophers, not journalists and scientists. If you want more proof, drcraigvideos doesnt allow any comments for this debate.
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
@atheistcommonsense Hmmmm, so what other "journalists" has WLC debated other than Hitchens? Poor WLC, damned if he does, damned if doesn't.....so now we're criticizing him for debating scientist philosophers. Yup, WLC is just draggin high school/community college science teachers out of the classroom to embarrass them.
realtick 1 month ago
@realtick
I would suggest that Dr. Craig had no answer to this question because he HAS no answer. One of his common tactics is to make bald, unfounded assertions and then move on, and it's refreshing to find a fellow philosopher finally call him on it.
As I see it, this exchange underscores the deep existential insecurity that motivates Dr. Craig (and, indeed, most believers)--that unless life has overarching, "cosmic" meaning, it can have no meaning at all. It's a bit sad, really.
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
@ClumsyRoot Regardless, that can be said about any participant in a debate; it's part of the nature of debate. You don't have endless time to butress your points. It's his general notion that life and reality has no meaning if there is no God and consequence. Kagan questioned him on it and Craig answered. Craig didn't support his contention strongly in your eyes. What's sad is that athiests think that their lives have meaning and consequence in any sense of the word without God.
realtick 3 weeks ago
@realtick continued...It's complete hypocrisy and fuzzy logic that they utilize words and concepts that carry weight such as "meaning" or "purpose," but yet have no basis for which to ground it in. An athiest can think that their lives have purpose, meaning and consequence, but really when boiled-down, it's just an abstract notion created in our brains...
realtick 3 weeks ago
@realtick continued...If there is no god, we are just higher-level intelligent animals that have an ability to think abstractly and falsely suppose we have a greater purpose and meaning other than just procreating...
realtick 3 weeks ago
@realtick continued...So Kagan can essentially claim "...my life has meaning without needing an eternal cosmic overarching meaning..." but really he's just spouting hot-air that has no philosophical basis. What's comical is that the athiest crowd is roasting Craig for effectively saying "I don't know..." all while not realizing Kagan's contention is full of holes.
realtick 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realtick
It seems you suffer from the same insecurities as Craig. It's no wonder you resort to the false comforts of religion.
Meaning and purpose are not somehow imbued from above--they are, by their nature, personal and subjective, emerging from the specific needs and desires of the individual. After all, what gives MY life meaning and purpose might not give YOUR life meaning and purpose. Honestly, why is this so hard for believers to understand and accept?
(cont.)
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realtick
(cont.) I'm an educator. Working with children is one of the things that provides my life with purpose and meaning. My brother, on the other hand, doesn't care for kids; he finds meaning and purpose in creating art.
This idea that one must have a "philosophical basis" for the meaning in one's life is baffling to me. Personal preferences don't require external validation; I don't feel a need to "justify" my love of teaching. What I value is "grounded" in ME.
(cont.)
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
@realtick
(cont.) You say that "significance" is just an abstract notion created in our brains. Of course it is! All such concepts are manifestations of our thinking processes. What else COULD they be?
The real question is, why isn't this enough for you? Why can't you accept that we are responsible for finding meaning and purpose for ourselves? We live in a vast world filled with almost endless possibilities. The potential for a rich and rewarding life is inherent.
(cont.)
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
@ClumsyRoot Does another living organism such as a blade of grass find it signficant when the gardener's lawnmower breaks down and thus spares them from the blade? No. Why? Humans only find it "significant" because we're sophisticated beings able to reason through abstract notions and come up with arbitrary terms to describe our feelings. However, that ability to describe feelings doesn't make us any different than a blade of grass in a godless universe devoid of any meaning.
realtick 3 weeks ago
@realtick
(cont.) What you seem to desperately need is for our human experiences to be "validated" by something outside (and above) humans themselves. And I would ask you, "Why?" Can you not find value and significance within life itself? Can you not appreciate the richness of the human experience in its own right?
As Douglas Adams so eloquently put it, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
@realtick
(cont.) Finally, this whole "molecules in motion" argument needs to be retired. It's a reductio ad absurdum of the higher (or lowest) order. By your reasoning, we shouldn't find any emotional or aesthetic significance in, say, music--after all, it's nothing more than an arrangement of wavelengths of sound.
We're at an impasse already, I'm sure. You view meaning and purpose as "handed down" from above, and I see them as emerging from the individual. So be it.
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
@ClumsyRoot Lol, you're absolutely right, it is reductio ad absurdum and it applies to your worldview. When boiled down, we are simply molecules in motion from your perspective, but are higher level-thinking organisms that can find stimulation in non-tangible stimuli and or aesthetic objects. You simply find that description distasteful, but it is the reality for someone of your perspective.
realtick 3 weeks ago
@realtick
We're "higher level-thinking organisms that can find stimulation in non-tangible stimuli and or aesthetic objects" who are "able to reason through abstract notions and come up with arbitrary terms to describe our feelings."
Absolutely! No argument here. But it's that very "sophistication" that distinguishes us, qualitatively, from a blade of grass. Grass has no sentience or no self-awareness. We possess both, and that is the foundation of the human experience.
(cont.)
ClumsyRoot 3 weeks ago
on the saving power of jesus comment, you cut out craig using the "no true Scotsmen" fallacy. That's the best part of the debate
atheistcommonsense 1 month ago
Comment removed
realtick 1 month ago
I love this video because WLC tends to go up against writers ,like Christopher Hitchens, or scientists, like Sam Harris or Peter Atkins, and utterly destroys them, but when he's up against an actual philosopher with the logical and argumentative chops to back up what he's saying, he crumbles.
APaleDot 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@APaleDot Lol, I would venture to say 99% of the individuals WLC debates would consider themselves philosophers to some extent, but hey, we all know they aren't "real" philosophers though. Right?
BTW, someone better tell Daniel Dennett and A.C. Grayling they aren't philosophers.
realtick 1 month ago
craig gets pwnedddd
paladin267 1 month ago
i love how Dr Craig brushes off that you can do what ever you like as long as you turn to jesus before you die lol classic
jadagod 2 months ago 5
@jadagod I think he covered all his bases with the philosophically rigorous point, "Well, I wouldn't put it like that..."
mavaddat 2 months ago 9
@mavaddat years of studying and debating and that's all he could muster as an answer to the most important part of christianity lol
jadagod 2 months ago
shouldn't the video be called, William Lane Craig gets schooled in philosophy?
94jmcorrea 2 months ago in playlist Dr Craig - Misc 3
@SorenArminius read up on the subject of morality please, Philosophers have been doing ethics without God for a couple of centuries now, the notion that only theism can provide adequate foundation for ethics is really a middle age idea.
IkbenAlphastar 2 months ago
2/2 will die in a few short years and it really will be of no significance. If two people lived on mars with no one else around and one saved the others life, they might "feel good" for a while but both will perish, and no one on earth will ever have known a thing so how can that be of any value? Without a consciousness to acknowledge an action there is no significance. Theism is the only theory that offers this. Feel good deeds on naturalism is simply hedonism.
SorenArminius 3 months ago
@SorenArminius Humans are conscious of one another's actions (and their own actions), so every human's actions is at least significant to his or her own self. Why does the consciousness that perceives our actions need to be eternal for our actions to have significance?
Also, what you mean by "objectivity," and "subjectivity"? For example, would you say that the pain felt from a headache is "objective" or "subjective"? What about the headache itself? Is that "objective" in your usage?
mavaddat 3 months ago
@mavaddat 1/3 I'd first like to clarify that by significance I am thinking of something which is permanently going to matter, something that is not up to the person to deem significant. For instance, someone can say that whether the Packers win or lose the super bowl is a big deal, and it may be to those people, subjectively, but in the grand scheme (even of life) it is of no significance because it was only the people who decided to give it significance. This is subjective as opposed to an
SorenArminius 3 months ago
@mavaddat 2/3 objectively valued action. The way I'm using these two terms is considering if the things that are of moral worth are determined by us, as in naturalism, or if they are determined by a transcendent consciousness, as in theism. Iff they are valuable because they are above our discretion, then to us it is objective, not a matter of personal opinion. If the thing that considers the rightness of something is not higher than our own minds, it is only subjectively given value.
SorenArminius 3 months ago
@mavaddat 3/3 So to answer your question the pain of a headache would not exist if it wasn’t perceived by a mind and therefore, subjective. Depending on the type of headache, lets say low blood sugar, is objective because it is measurable as in, if you have this level of blood sugar you necessarily will get a headache. But the main point is which level of consciousness prescribes the morals.
SorenArminius 3 months ago
@SorenArminius Ok, you are using the words "objective" and "subjective" in non-standard, conflated ways. I suggest taking a look at Sandra LaFave's brief essay "Thinking Critically About the 'Subjective'/'Objective' Distinction," which you can easily find on Google.
God is not required to make logically inconsistent statements "objectively" contradictory. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that our actions need to have "eternal" significance for them to be "objectively" significant.
mavaddat 3 months ago
1/2 I really think Kagan is missing the point. The point, which I'm not sure why Craig was unable to drive home, that there really is no possibility of objective morals or any sort of lasting justice on a naturalistic view. Even at the end, hypothesizing saving someone's life, the value he was referring to really is just subjective and nothing more. You saved their life and feel good for a while, yet they are still going to die, all you've done is provide a minuscule delay. They will die and you
SorenArminius 3 months ago
Wow. One of the first times I have seen Craig squirm. Kudos to Kagan
Oppositum 4 months ago 21
Religious thinkers are so obsessed with eternal life - the greatest false promise ever offered. It's at the crux of their perception of reality. WHAT IF.. what if, when we die we are just gone? Penn once asked "Are you afraid of 1890 - Then why are you afraid of 2090?". I think we are truly a pathetic species, if we need an imaginary omnipresence to give life meaning. Religion BELITTLES the believer into insignificance without subservience.
worktosser 4 months ago
It's near impossible to have any meaningful debate with the religious. I see not one bit of difference between structured religious arguments and the arguments of a schizophrenic or delusional person as neither are able to back up their nonsense with a single shred of evidence. Both will tell you that their beliefs are to be taken on faith and those beliefs were personally revealed to them or their group by the higher power and therefore immune to criticism or or the need for evidence.
250garbear 4 months ago
Kagen just fucking doesn't get it!
Other atheists far smarter have understood what Criag is saying forever. Atheists never get anything but what pleases themselves.
Kagen never even defines this "objective" "thing" he attempts to claim as a reason for morals.
Kagen can grasp all he likes, he's still out in thin air grasping straws out of thin air here.
No Kagen you've done nothing significant in your scenario if there is in fact no purpose, no meaning
Meaning from nowhere is no meaning at all!
lordsong7 5 months ago
@lordsong7 Atheists just usually don't challenge Craig on what he said. Kagan, however, does realize a big 'jump' in Craig's argument that others don't, as stated his words at the beginning of the video.
Yes, if you define morality as something that comes from God, it's pretty hard to get there without God. But Kagan just doesn't really accept that premise.
rrenvall 4 months ago
Theism OWNED :D
TheLonelyImmortal 5 months ago
@TheLonelyImmortal lol, are you kidding?
94jmcorrea 5 months ago
@94jmcorrea Nope. The Christian dude was shown that significance does exist without being on a cosmic scale, and showed that Christian theism while saying that atheism makes things seem meaningless, actually makes things meaningless itself with its "need" for cosmic significance, and thus atheism creates importance for ethics and kindness towards human beings. Then at 7:53, the theist is shown that his claim of accountability can not be reconciled with everyone who repents getting into heaven.
TheLonelyImmortal 4 months ago
@TheLonelyImmortal oh... yeah, sorry I misread your comment, I thought you had said that theism had owned atheism, not the other way around :).
94jmcorrea 4 months ago
craig is such a child. by the end of this clip he had nothing left of his argument except an appeal to emotion. he doesn't like the idea that people who do evil things and get away with it don't have some sky judge waiting for them when they die. grow the fuck up.
lordscully 5 months ago
Boy! I can't get enough of this video.
Chwuzy 5 months ago
I love to watch Craig go off-script; he invariably falters.
ClumsyRoot 5 months ago
The more appealing an idea is, the better an idea makes us feel, the more skeptical we should be. The truth has no interest in how we feel.
msuders 5 months ago
I think it was really telling when Craig talked about how depressing the idea that everything will end in heat death is to him. If he hadn't lived his life thinking he'd get a heavenly reward, he wouldn't know the difference. The reality that the universe doesn't care about him is too depressing to face. That's what it comes down to.
msuders 5 months ago 5
@msuders Yeah and he sounds like he just took a class on existentialism :D He's totally depressed and verging on atheism! You can see it :D
TheLonelyImmortal 4 months ago
Is raping children wrong? Why is it wrong? Why do we all typically agree it's morally wrong to rape children? What if it in a hundred years (like gay marriage for example) people are fighting for the basic human right to rape children, and based on the same reason (because they love them?) In other words, is something that obviously overwhelmingly morally wrong, eventually going to become morally acceptable if simply enough people say it's okay? Moral law is absolute.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 These kinds of questions expose the deep ignorance in believers about why hurtful actions are wrong. Religion literally makes you stupid.
Unlike gay marriage, rape is wrong because it involves dealing unwanted (forceful) and unnecessary (merely for self-gratification) suffering onto another person. This cannot change based on popular opinion.
Unnecessary suffering is always wrong. You'll never find a statement so absolute that is actually followed in any Judaeo-Christian religion.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat Morally wrong is morally wrong. You see that is the problem with naturalistic moral relativism. Is it wrong because it's the opinion of many, or because it's simply wrong? By the way, thank you for being a good sport by opening up your statement with a barrage of insults. You're really doing the secular community a huge favor by showing their stripes. Why, exactly are you so angry with a God that you don't believe exists, and this non-gods allegedly deluded followers? Cont.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 It's a fact that religions deepen ignorance about why hurting others (and not respecting their consent) is wrong. Your question exposes an example of that. That's not an insult. That's an observation.
You're awed by the perception of a truth (the opinion of many) differing from the truth itself (what's really happening irrespective of opinion). But we don't need an invisible sky deity to ensure that our perception of what's wrong matches up with what's really hurtful. We can see it.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat And yet our society's moral laws change like the wind. Gay marriage is wrong, not it's right. Abortion is wrong, now it's okay... who decides? Morally bankrupt politicians? In fact, you just made my point. As long society bases it's moral law off of opinions, it will always morally wrong. Truth is absolute. Without a moral law giver, moral law is useless. It will always change based on opinion. Unles your argument is somehow society basically" does the right thing...i disagree.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Yes, we are often wrong until we think deeper. We were wrong about condemning gay marriage because religions had codified Bronze age bigotry into our popular consciousness. But once we thought about it (applied the principles of secular reasoning), we realized that there wasn't actually anything wrong with gay marriage.
So you see, ignorance and prejudice (which are preserved by religion) cause us to be wrong, and reflection and empathy allow us to become right.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat Were we wrong? Give it some time, and then we'll see what such morally bankrupt laws and their effects will do to this country. It didn't work out so well for Sodom and Gomorrah, or Rome. I have eternity to work it out, can you say the same thing? Of course you can't, under naturalism you're just going to die and that's it. "The wisdom of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." My eyes are wide open sir, can you honestly say the same thing? Repent and trust Jesus.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Yes, we were really wrong to condemn gay relationships. Again, we have no reason to believe that gay relationships are wrong.
Every Christian empire that has ever existed has fallen. So Christianity leads to the ruin of civilizations. Wait, and you shall see.
Every empire that has ever embraced centralized water distribution has fallen. So centralized water distribution leads to the ruin of civilizations. Wait, and you shall see.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat cont. Are you just as angry and spiteful towards famous mass-murdering atheists such as Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini? Or do you simply find any hint of religion, make an overwhelming blanket statement that "religion made them do it" and then likely justify you're own actions by the mark of such men. Who are you to say what is good? Are you a good person? Ever lied, stolen, used God's name in vain? None are good, no not one.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Ah, "Way of the Master" Christianity for dummies!
If humans can identify that the Bible is good, then humans are qualified to determine what is good independent of (prior to reading) the Bible.
On the other hand, if we aren't qualified to identify what is good without reading the Bible, then we couldn't ever identify the Bible as a good book in the first place.
So either we don't need God to tell us what's good, or we cannot identify God's commands as good in the first place.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat Simply judge the fruit... just how is society doing now that it's all but kicked God out? America isn't exactly in the golden age. I mean, Christians are typically called narrow minded and ignorant but my eyes are wide open. Last I checked we're hopelessly in debt, we've murdered nearly 100 million babies, we're involved in 3 major wars over who knows what, and there are nearly 600,000 homeless people wandering the streets. Don't even get me started on "dad sets family on fire..."
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Yes, there is no doubt that countries with less religion are far better off (happier, healthier, less crime, less teenage pregnancy, better healthcare, longer lifespans, etc.) than countries that have lots of religion.
The United States is vastly more Christian than any other developed nation. The only countries that are more Christian per capita that than the United States are in far deeper states of misery.
So yes, the fruit of religion is ignorance and suffering. Proved my point
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat You just exposed yourself "vastly more Christian?" Based on what, a census of face book? "Away from me you work of lawlessness" is what Jesus said for so-called Christians throughout the ages. Many will say to me "Lord, Lord.." You see, just because many Americans check off "Christian" on a census or on face book doesn't make them so. God will separate the wheat from the chaff. I fail to see how a country that teaches bogus evolutionary science in school could be called "Christian"
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 The more Christian a nation, the more its troubles. Indeed, the states that are most opposed to evolution in the classroom are the ones with the highest crime, highest teenage pregnancy, worst healthcare, and shortest lifespans.
On the other hand, the less religious a country, the happier, healthier they are, with less crime, less teenage pregnancy, better healthcare, longer lifespans, and so on.
So thank you again for making my point. Religion preserves and deepens ignorance.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat I'm not conceding that America is a Christian nation, but get real dude. How is atheism working out for Russia, China, North Korea etc...?
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Atheism is working out great in China, actually. It's also working out great in Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, Finland, France, South Korea, and Germany.
Meanwhile, the most religious states in America (Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Georgia) have the highest crime per capita, most prisoners per capita, highest teenage pregnancy per capita, worst healthcare, and shortest lifespans.
Proved my point.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat That's why people should turn from both religion and atheism, and turn to Christ. Religion never saved anybody.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Ah, I see you are the kind of Christian who likes to play word games to avoid accepting the truth. "Turn to Christ" is a kind of religion. But you want to pretend that's not what "turn to Christ" means. How very dishonest of you.
You pretend that Americans aren't "true Christians" because of the economic ruin of the American country. Again, how very dishonest of you.
If you're a "follower of Christ," then Christ clearly made you a dishonest person. I'd rather be honest. No "Christ."
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat - I am the type of Christian that reads the Bible, specifically Mathew 7 concerning Christians, and so-called Christians. Many will say on that say "Lord Lord.." and God will say "Away from me you worker of lawlessness, I never knew you." Round back to point 1: What makes somebody a Christian? I can assure you, it's not checking it off on their face book profile, or even going to church.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 You aren't qualified or authorized to say who is or who is not a Christian. That you think you can say who is a Christian despite what they call themselves speaks to your enormous arrogance and conceit.
If people declare themselves to be Christian, then you have no right to say that they aren't Christian. They are trying to live according to the dogmas they consider to be from the cult leader just like you are. You are both equally Christian.
mavaddat 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mavaddat Jesus disagrees with you, and He is has the final say.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@mavaddat - Check out Mathew 7, Jesus directly contradicts what you just said. Listen your opinion is great, but I'm not going to base my beliefs off people's opinion. I need something more concrete, and I'm going with Jesus and the Bible. You don't have to agree with me, but at least learn what the Bible says Christians are to do before trying to speak with such authority.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Matthew 7 never says that other Christians can judge who is qualified to be a Christian or not. It just claims that God is able to judge that. But it doesn't matter even if the Bible does say you are qualified to judge who is a Christian, because you are in fact not qualified. Your beliefs are circular and fallacious. They don't convince anyone but yourself and your fellow cult followers.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat - You're correct, God is the only judge. Jesus is saying we can make a determination based on a person's actions. For example. If I claimed to be brave, and yet always flee from danger and never helped others, would you still think I was brave? Now, that doesn't mean I won't do something brave eventually, but until I do my actions will determine how those see me. Listen you can bash me, Jesus and Christianity until the cows come home, it doesn't make you right.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 I don't see that you are any more or less Christian than the 76% of Americans who claim to be Christian.
Being a part of a religion isn't about behaving any certain way. It's about trying to live up to the dogmas and values of the religion. So you can never say that a person "isn't really a Christian" from observing how they behave. You have to actually look into their brain (or into their "heart," if you prefer medieval language) to see what they actually believe.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat That's fine, you don't know me. I am okay with you making that judgement. However if you did get to know me you would know that I take Jesus two "greatest commandments" very seriously. Love your neighbor, and love God most. However saying that you cannot judge somebodies character (once you've gotten to know them) or by their actions is ridiculous. We don't have to guess, the Bible tells what a Christian will look like. Based on that I feel comfortable identifying them.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@mavaddat - Also, funny that you say that. The Bible teaches that what's in the heart, comes out the mouth. We are all wicked at heart, none are righteous in the sight of a Holy and Perfect God. We have all sinned by breaking God's law (the 10 commandments.) What must we do to be saved from God's wrath? We must turn from our sins (Jesus said "Now go and sin no more") and we must put our faith in Jesus as a perfect savior. God bless you on your search for truth.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Thank you for displaying and reminding us what arrogance, ignorance, and condescending conceit constitutes being an evangelical Christian. You are truly a clueless human being.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat I forgive you for your insults sir. As Jesus said "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." The saving power of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Again, I didn't insult you. I made observations. You have behaved dogmatically, arrogantly and ignorantly. You have responded condescendingly and assumed a level of conceit unfathomable to me. You have displayed cluelessness on every topic you've mentioned. Not insults. Observations.
Intelligent and moral people appear to be "perishing" to those who self-impose moral and intellectual childhood on themselves, and who demand the right to be irresponsible and immature for their lives.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@mavaddat So if I called you a fat cow, that wouldn't be insulting? No bro, I'm just making observations! Why don't you go outside to the local mall and try that one out? It was nice chatting with you via youtube.com but it's time to dust off these boots and move on to the next village. Again good luck seeking truth (if that's what you're seeking) I hope you find it. Just remember, if God is real, then the evidence will lead you too Him. Cya!
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Calling someone a "fat cow" is usually an insult, because it is meant to hurt their feelings. If you were fat and literally a cow, that would not be an insult (not least of all because cows aren't easily insulted). But merely point out that you are overweight is not an insult.
You are literally unrepentantly arrogant, profoundly ignorant, and condescendingly conceitful.
I didn't write those things just to hurt your feelings. I wrote them as observations. That's the difference.
mavaddat 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Those places aren't as they are because of atheism, they're as they are because of social practices. And North Korea is really a theistic state, only its gods are Kim Jong-il and his dead father Kim Il-sung. That's really the crux of it, and something I notice religious folks have difficulty with. Atheism has no values. It proposes no ideas. An atheistic nation is as good or as evil as the humans running it -- much like a religious nation, but without as much hypocrisy.
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago 14
@BigMikeMcBastard - But according to atheists, religion is just a social practice. Saying atheism has no values is intellectually dishonest. Choosing not to believe something is still a conscious choice. That choice shapes your moral standards, therefore shaping society. An atheistic country still has to go off some value and/or moral system. They simply don't just "exist." Stalin and Hitler are the two greatest examples of "reason" gone haywire. Reason and religion scare me, trust Christ.
ndockett81 6 months ago
@ndockett81 Not believing in something isn't a conscious choice. Every human is born an atheist, after all.
Where or morals come from is partly due to our own innate, evolved morality and the societies we've constructed. Over time our moral sense has evolved. Many things we once considered good as people we no longer do in our affluent, first-world countries. This isn't because of religion, it's simply because of how we as social animals work.
Also, Hitler was most certainly not an atheist.
BigMikeMcBastard 6 months ago
@ndockett81
hitler was not an atheist.
mcmanustony 6 months ago
Craig looks bad because this is one of the rare occasions when the debate format allows for an immediate come back and challenge to his assertions, which are in fact fallacies (proof by repeated assertion) He would start to look bad all the time if he does many more like this
mutbutyt 7 months ago
It's hilarious reading the majority of these comments. It's obvious that most haven't even actually watched the video, but instead base their opinion (not that they were actually open to anything Craig would say anyways) off of the gesticulation and bulldozing by Kagan. Congrats athiests! You can now stop your search of skimming through dozens of WLC videos looking for moments where he may look bad.
realtick 7 months ago
@realtick You are right that William Lane Craig does not often "look" bad, which (it has seemed to me) is the most important quality of an argument for religious people.
mavaddat 7 months ago
this video is 90% bearded guy jabbering & removal of full WLC responses.
Sage80 7 months ago
has anyone else noticed that just about every point craig makes in this 10+ minute video, is an "appeal to consequences" fallacy?
the notion that "that scenario would be so undesirable" does not have any effect on whether its true.
truth is unchanged by human desirability of it.
gavsmith1980 8 months ago
Craig doesn't actually present a case for why morality must be cosmically based- he simply uses different forms of words to keep asserting the same thing. This is a perverse distortion of the meaning of morality- coming from a perverse theological worldview
mutbutyt 8 months ago
@Arcadian
Yes but the truth of morality is no more connected with transcendental than it is to quantum physics so the idea of objectivity in this context is a non sequitur
mutbutyt 8 months ago
@mutbutyt You missed my point. I was specifically responding to Craig's claim that morality, on atheism, could never have cosmic significance. Of course morality lacks cosmic significance - it isn't the sort of thing that CAN have cosmic significance. However, it doesn't follow that morality is just subjective, as Craig assumes. Morality is objective in the embodied sense that all humans (and other primates) share the same mechanisms for understanding morality.
ArcadianGenesis 7 months ago
@ArcadianGenesis according to what? You are assuming a universality of your own experience that for some reason, you believe ought to be shared. on what basis do you believe that your own understanding of morality should be binding on someone who does not share it?
Sage80 7 months ago
@Sage80 According to the pressures of natural selection. Sorry, I assumed that would be implicitly understood. When I say that all primates share the same mechanism for understanding morality, I am not saying that we all share the same normative theories about how we ought to act. Rather, I am saying we all have a foundation for understanding morality that is fundamentally the same. Broadly, we all understand that good actions increase the well-being of conscious creatures.
ArcadianGenesis 7 months ago
Comment removed
RPFS2008 9 months ago
This is like a father talking to a child.
reasonformirrors 10 months ago
Wow...just wow. Kagan finishes this clip in such an inspiring way that underscores the maturity of his ethics versus the paucity of his opponent's. Dr. Craig in the last second of the video turns away as if looking for the nearest exit. I wonder what he thought in that moment. Kagan's arguments are concise, perfectly rational and simple without being simplistic - very hard to find fault. Craig's theology leaves me with more questions than answers.
camerontigris 10 months ago
I like how "drcraigvideos" disabled comments for this particular debate. I wonder why? I find that whenever Craig is involved in a back-and-forth, his arguments get completely taken apart. He really thrives in a situation where he can use the standard debate format to his advantage - eg raise lots of deep problems that need a long discussion in a very short space of time, so that the argument is not debunked and he "wins".
Slossius1983 10 months ago
To elaborate on Kagan's point, I'd like to say that moral truth is not objective in the transcendental sense of being a part of the structure of the universe; however, it IS objective in the embodied sense that all humans (with normally functioning brains) are adapted to thinking the same way with regard to morality.
ArcadianGenesis 10 months ago
@ArcadianGenesis Hear hear!
borgimplant 7 months ago
By the way, the remark about 'getting back something in eternity' (and that not being a moral thing) didn't really arrive at Craig's end for instance, but that's because it was an unexpected or irrelevant remark I think - normally believers really don't do good just because they will get something back later; for any serious believer god has an impact *now* and not in the future (eternity is a quality after all).
jcmmanuel 10 months ago
I'm not really a fan of Craig but it IS of course hard to beat either Harris or Kagan or any other when they simply speak from a moral point of view without any real accountability where this comes from. They take it simply as a given, and that is sort of the evidence for it.
jcmmanuel 10 months ago
10:13 Craig looking for the exit ;)
RPFS2008 11 months ago
Kagen fucking rules!
alexw126 11 months ago 16
@SHIBBYiPANDA, unfortunately, "happiness & fitness for all" is not a sufficient basis for morality nor can it ever be. Different value systems have differing beliefs on who/ what constitutes "fit & happy". @mavaddat You're only proving my point. W/o objective moral standards morality becomes nothing more than semantics & categorization. If there is a God then there IS objective moral good; if not, then we semantically create a god, or other category, & subjectively & arbitrarily name it "good"
ogachaley 11 months ago
@ogachaley I anticipate and refute this line of argument in my debate with Creationist author, Fuz Rana. I have posted it to YouTube. You can see the video by visiting my channel page.
mavaddat 11 months ago
@mavaddat Really?? I watched the entire video and you make no dent in the argument. You simply postulate the existence of some prima facie "intuition" of dutiful responsibility from where right and wrong emerges. But this is hardly a solid basis for morality and I question your assumptions. 1: where do you presume this intuition comes from? 2: why is it only unique to humans and not all other life forms? 3: Can a moral position ever be counter-intuitive?
ogachaley 11 months ago
@mavaddat hell ya.. How'd you get into this stuff?? Were you able to conclude that there are objective moral values? Whenever I think about I can only ever conclude that there exists an objective moral value for lifeforms, but not for the entire cosmos or on a cosmic scale.. It doesn't seem to me that it might exist but I don't know how to say it.... I really need to watch this debate too I haven't watched it I just keep commenting on this page.... lol..
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@mavaddat You don't refute the line of argument. You simply call it into question by labeling it "circular." You fail to see the objectivity of the "God-existence" argument. Your argument assumes the non-existence of God, then proceeds to refute any impact He might have on morality, if He were subjectively created. It's of course, clear that a subjective standard leads to subjective morality. But objective morality leads to an objective standard. And God is the only standard suffices.
ogachaley 11 months ago
@ogachaley Showing that an argument is circular is sufficient to refute it. I think it's clear that defining God's will as good and defining goodness as what God wills is circular.
Your position that God is required for goodness is simply not tenable any more. It's been agreed dead for more than 500 years among 95% of ethicists, even though the arguments against it go back to Plato.
You can just keep begging the question with your assertions, but you're only spewing rhetoric, not using reason.
mavaddat 11 months ago
@mavaddat Wrong again! What you show may be circular but what you show is not what I'm arguing. My conclusions are not circular, but inescapable. i.e if we assume X is God and there exists a standard, Y, by which we judge X, then Y is God, not X! It's thus inescapable that God is good! Your assertion about the "agreed deadness" of my position is very debatable! Plato's arguments were in the context of polytheistic gods who could not agree, not against an ethical monotheistic position.
ogachaley 11 months ago