0:59 "But you're presupposing that theism is true." WLC: "Oh no not at all." What an idiot. He is presupposing that God exists, which is why he makes absurd statements like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," says that he hasn't heard any good arguments against the existence of God (when in fact the burden of extraordinary proof is upon his shoulders for such an extraordinary claim), and says that his faith would remain unshaken even if all of his arguments were destroyed.
Sorry you're simply misunderstanding the argument. WLC repeatedly says that he's not accusing Atheists of being morally bankrupt however by positing that we're nothing more than products of a genetically predetermined process of natural selection then what is the basis for an objective morality? If 'survival of the fittest' got us here in the first place we'd be taking a big risk by creating a system of morals incongruous with that model. So his is a highly compelling argument not a poor one.
@stevalianarbone Though I'm atheist, I quite like William Lane Craig. He points out the logical fallacies my fellow atheists sometimes commit, and always stays on topic.
@DrEvolutionQuest I agree! It takes courage for him to stand up and speak out so boldly about what he believes. Though I felt at the end when they were sitting down for informal chat, he was losing it a bit, even to the point of insulating Wolpert but maybe not intentionally so. Wolper took it very well though he’s a great character to have over looked it. Many thanks!
@stevalianarbone... come on you have GOT to be kidding! WLC losing it a bit? Resorting to insulting? What about Wolpert calling Agnostics cowards and that intended the comment to be perojative, then asserting that WLC is too frightened to admit that he doesn't know why the universe exists, on top of making numerous references to WLC arguments being nonsense. When does WLC go anywhere near as to address Wolpert in such a disparaging manner? You are watching this without bias aren't you?
@happysappy21 I know there is plenty of proof to show God exists by simply looking what a wonderful world he created: until man insists on destroying it to make “progress”. God therefore can be clearly seen in creation. And as you say WLC didn’t directly insult Lewis Wolpert. But he was saying that those without belief have no moral standing: and compares them to the lowest of mankind, therefore indirectly insulting all unbelievers. This makes for poor argument.
@stevalianarbone He doesn't say that those without belief cannot be moral, he argues that they do not have JUSTIFICATION for their belief in morality. The two are entirely different. He has made it repeatedly clear that the argument is NOT about whether (1) atheists can be moral, (2) recognize morality without belief in God, nor (3) whether one can formulate a system of ethics without reference to God. The question is one about ontology, not epistemology.
@CarlosMarti123 He didn't seem to explain it as clearly as you do. Many thanks. My friend Mavis Nicholson recently met Wolpert and told me to look him up. I did web search and saw he was on You Tube; William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert, so I watched them all one evening. Both were pleasant and interesting to listen to. I sent Mavis reply afterwards she said dear Steve yours is a very intelligent response and very acute too re Wolpert...
@DrEvolutionQuest exactly why i'm watching this, sorta boring in the long run to only hear retarded theist, at least good to hear arguments that can stump me for a few seconds. but i think is see wolpert's points, but he's not a good at discussing at all.
@johhnycarlos The theist mind is filled with invisible skydaddies, ghosts, djinnies, talking snakes, flying horses, walking trees, water changing into wine, a man living in a whale, dead people walking in the streets, souls, a life after death and a never ending Disney park in the sky.
@Spirifiume LOL. Damn...well since you put it like that. What ill feelings do you have towards Disney Land? Voltaire said it best " The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability."
@johhnycarlos: Heinlein said "A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion -any religion- is that a believer, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. On may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both."
@Spirifiume I sure as shit can have my cake and eat it too. Evidence for the existence of God: the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Anthropic Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Contigency Argument, the Ontological and Metaphysical Argument. There all of which are theologically neutral. You would like I can PM you and we can discuss symantics. I enjoy symantics.
@johhnycarlos: Do these "arguments" prove irrefutable in a scientific manner (peer reviewed, repeatable) that christ is god ? Or is it just playing with words, like Craig does ?
@Spirifiume That would be up for you to decide, not me. My battle with religion has been a rocky one for sure. So I am 99% faith and 1% evidence. That 1% though I believe is bullet proof. I have yet to have an atheist crack it. And I do not bullshit and play on words. Just good old logic and reason. FYI to science itself doesnt prove irrefutable in a scientific manner. It is permiated with assumptions that cannot be explained for or away. Physical constants they call them. Math, aesthitics also.
Wolpert makes the unsubstantiated claim that Craig's argument is circular and says: "I think that argument is totally false." Then he looks at the audience and laughs. Immediately, Craig replies, "Then what you need to do, professor Wolpert, is to identify the false premise in the argument, because the logic is valid, the conclusion follows from the premises." In his reply, Craig emphasizes the word "professor" implying that Wolpert should drop the act and start dialoguing rationally. Haha :)
Circular, Craig, circular: you suppose that a naturalistic world would entail we behaved as irrational inferior animals. You assume that those things that differentiate us from other animals come from God. The sophistry never ends, does it?
"On the socio-biological point of view altruism is just the selfish gene". Absurd, and strawman (is not about survival of the fittest in Nazi sense). A mother does not sacrifice for nothing or for herself but for empathy and love, both pretty biochemical stuff.
The mother sacrifices herself in order to pass on her genes, including the "selfish" one. Unless you can prove that she would do the same action, with the chance of sacrificing her own child in the bargain, it is selfish.
I want somebody to explain to me How can a mind not be physical or material? The mind is the brain at work. Can anybody explain how the mind is not material?
You're not presupposing that god exists?? Really, Bill? then why do you say your faith is predicated on the witness of the holy spirit, that warm feeling you get when you pray, that you automatically atribute to God? you are presupposing that god exists. Dont be a hypocrit.
If I was an atheist I am certain I would not want Wolpert speaking for what I believe, Craig gives a great presentation and Wolpert sits back and gives lame responses and can't even keep in step with the flow of the conversation. He comes across sounding foolish.
Why is Wolpert (Like almost every other atheist) so disrespectful towards Craig. Craig never interrupts Wolpert, never touches the guy in a derogatory manner, and never says things like "by a god?! come on" And thats even considering that Wolpert clearly lost this debate.
The debate ended when Craig stuck his foot in his mouth. His arguments are meaningless, they DON"T SUPPORT ANYTHING, they are nothing but CONCEPTUAL postulation to deduce from and with NO supporting facts to FORM a HYPOTHESIS so WE can TEST. Craig needs to at the very least produce a hypothesis to test.
Craig is philosophizing, that's all, and he has the audacity to claim such as a factual argument. People should not respect such preposterous actions.
Wolpert is a bit goofy, indeed I might say the same for myself. I'd rather be a bit goofy, than hold naive and ignorant religious views.
Philosophizing can open up new thought pathways for inquiry, but ontological arguments themselves are not evidence.
Craig also misrepresents many facets of science he wants to anchor his arguments too, and it is very disturbing to hear him speak and see people attach themselves to such incoherencies. Craig only causes confusion.
It doesn't matter what I believe - nor do I care what your brain managed to conjure in your second comment.
"His arguments are meaningless." Assertion with no meat.
"They are nothing but conceptual postulations to deduce from and with no supporting facts to form a hypothesis so that we can test" A big pretentious assertion, with not meat.
"Craig is philosophizing, that's all." Yeah, that's what debates on the topic of God usually are, philosophizing.
No, what you believe does matter, not only to those around you, but also clearly indicated by your commenting in the first place, OBVIOUSLY. You are dodging perhaps?
Kind of you to not care about the second comment., yet reply again about the first comment.
Your assertion is that my assertions are false, yes?
So please, have some integrity and expose your arbitrary position by answering the questions. There is quite a bit of meat, I think you just don't have the teeth for it.
You asked me a list of questions, which I do not care to answer - because it doesn't matter what I believe. You assert a number of things about Craig's argumentation without actually backing it up or pointing to something in the video to support your assertions.
If we are not to care what you think, then you shouldn't have commented.
MEAT..EAT UP!
Craig's assertion that the big bang is caused by a deity.
Craig's assertion that hypothetical propositions are evidence of any kind.
Craig's assertion that a conceptual abstract definition (god) can be arbitrary attached to non-testable postulation, that he conceives one can be deduce from.
He supports the TOP DOWN METHOD.
HE ASSERTS ALL IS MEANINGLESS AND NOT REAL UNLESS GOD DEEMED IT SO!
Craig does not ASSERT that the big bang is caused by a deity; he DEDUCES that the big bang was caused by a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, thinking and causal being.
Craig didn't provide any hypothetical propositions as evidence.
"Craig's assertion that a conceptual..." That is just unintelligible mumbo-jumbo
You are lost. and yet you are also hiding. Remember that integrity I was talking about. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, and we will all see the truth.
No, Craig certainly asserts, nor matter if the reason for the assertions is by philosophical deductions, LET'S NOT FORGET his deductions are usually based on a false premise.
The definition of god is abstract and when he makes his ASSERTIONS about a god, and a "FIRST BEGINNING" he is making a fallacy of misplaced concreteness (Reification)
@aveyowyns He indeed deduces that the big bang is caused by a deity. His deduction, however, is based on assumptions.
For example: he says 'everything has to have a cause, except for a timeless immaterial being.'. With this statement he asserts that a timeless immaterial being exists, which considering we've never observed one, is pure speculation. Thus here is your hypothetical proposition.
Talking to Wolpert may be the equvalent to talking to a brick wall, but dang it if he doesn't have a sense of humor. Craig should be commended for tolerating this.
It's unbelievable how so many illiterate Christians can pop up under these videos and seriously say that Wolpert got ripped apart. Have they no understanding whatsoever of what's going on? 9/12, towards the end, was particularly delightful.
@RetSquid He didn't redefine them. The atheist says "I don't believe there are any gods", the agnostic says "I don't know what to believe" and the ignostic says "What do you mean by god?/what the hell is a god?".
No, an Atheist says "There are NO gods", An Agnostic says, "I don't know if there is a God". An Ignostic says, "I don't know what 'god' means." Wolpert wasn't using any of those terms as they are defined, therefore he had to make up his own definitions.
@RetSquid Atheism stands for "no gods" but doesn't require you to claim that a god's existance can be proven wrong. As an atheist you can't go further than saying "I don't believe there are any gods". To go any further than that would force you to prove a negative, rather than dismiss the premise that there is a god. Agnostics can't make up their minds and ignostics just wants to play difficult.
If you claim to be an atheist you have to believe that there are NO gods, not prove there is no God. An atheist has to believe that the statement "there is a god" is false.
@RetSquid "No, an Atheist says "There are NO gods""
You, I am 100% convinced, have not read a full work of a single atheist.What unites Dawkins, Hume, Russell, Grayling, and others is that "X is a claim that has never been substantiated"
Their philo views are such that given the nature of the claim and the fact it produces no evidence, they do not accept it. Ever wonder why atheists use Russell's teapot analogy? Or why we don't believe Pluto produces light? THERE'S NO FACKING EVIDENCE.
I don't need to read their "evidience", I can read a dictionary, that is where the definition of 'atheist" is found. Go watch some of WLC's other videos, there are many arguments for the existence of God.
@RetSquid Then you are swallowing the definition of a man who straw man's it. As for the dictionary, some dictionary's say that definition, some say the one that those WHO ACTUALLY ARGUE FOR IT USE. You can't even spell evidence, and I never said you have to read their evidence. I said if you are going to argue against their position, don't set up a straw man. WLC's logic is so backwards on this, in his debate against Hitchens, Hitchens had to repeat this point to him 3 times.
@RetSquid Are you paying attention? There is a view which certain people throughout history defended. This view, that is defended by them, is *this view* <--- they call it atheism, and it is THERE view. So if you are going to argue against *this* view, you have to argue against, THIS VIEW. What is so complicated about that? This view says "x has no evidence, and if it has none, it shouldnt be believed" just as there is no evidence pluto gives light.
I don't care if THEIR view is over THERE or over HERE. There is evidence that Pluto does not emit light, but there is evidence that Pluto reflects light. If you get in a philosophical debate, you use the definitions of that school of thought, not your own.
When you get into a debate, you defend a point of view. Wolpert is defending a view that Craig is not attacking. Wolpert says A, but then Craig says "Wolpert just argued for B".
This point of view is the one that you, Craig, and every other fucktard can't even understand straight, let alone argue against it.
@RetSquid@RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
@RetSquid@RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
@RetSquid@RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
@RetSquid@RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
@RetSquid@RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
@RetSquid@RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
@RetSquid Did you pay attention to Wolpert or not? Craig says "its a knowledge claim" he says "NO I DONT SAY I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD, I SAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" <this is what atheists assert
The main issue isn't the title, the main issue is the claim. ALL atheist writers say what Wolpert said there. That is the core of the issue, and Craig is engaging in word games when he says we say we KNOW there is no god (we don't) and then says "fine but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
@RetSquid "Wolpert is saying that we don't know if there is a god, due to lack of evidence...Agnosticism." He never said this
"Wolpert just argues that he doesn't like WLC's arguments...without disproving any of the underlying propositions." I thought you wanted to focus on our discussion? The meaning of the term atheism. This has nothing to do with our discussion.
Atheism is the state of being without theistic beliefs.
^This is the first line of the Wikiquote page on "Atheism". The thing about this definition is that it is consistent with the below remarks and quotes by atheists. And if you had actually listened to Wolpert, you'd know this was his stance too.
If you want to carry on thinking you can win atheist debates with that pathetic one-liner which caricatures a whole group of thinkers throughout history, go for it.
@RetSquid Are you retarded? I didn't quote Wiki, dumbass. You are the one who says "why bother reading their claims, I can avoid all that work by reading one sentence, which by the way isn't the uniform dictionary definition".
Also I didn't "Quote" wiki, I said here is a dictionary definition that is CONSISTENT with the atheist thinkers. Next time you try a childish argument like "you have conceded", consider yourself not worth my time.
@RetSquid "I see that you have conceded by quoting Wiki."
It gave you a definition, a dictionary definition, consistent with the authors and thinkers on the page. I'm sorry that reading is not something you like doing.
@RetSquid Do you understand that having no good evidence for a positive claim is in itself a good reason to not accept that claim? Tell me how one can be agnostic about unicorns on Pluto? And you do realize the definition of god comes into this, right? You do realize that if you make god unfalsifiable and then say "hey look you can't disprove it", you aren't making a strong case.
WLC puts forth many arguments for the existence of God. All of them are based on good evidence....unless you start from the position that it is impossible for God to exist.......which is the definition of an Atheist.
At this point in time we can't know if there are unicorns on Pluto....Agnostic.
@RetSquid Unicorns on Pluto are highly* improbable.
It comes down to weighing the evidence. On balance, is it justified to believe in WLC's god? I'd say no, and I say that as a student who is studying the early history of Christianity. Ebionites, Adoptionists, Gnostics, all had different views. If one knows the history of the religion, and the history of manuscripts, Christianity becomes one hell of an unlikely religion. Using your terms, even if I prove this, I wouldn't be an atheist.
This discusion has nothting to do with Christianity, it is a generic argument for God in general. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the statement "there is a god" is false.
@RetSquid I thought we wanted to be philosophical about this? The definition of god has everything to do with it. Your phrase about "generic argument for God in general" can only be said by someone who knows not of the multiplicity of gods that have occurred in history.
And this is also relevant because it poses a problem to one who defines atheism the way you insist. Under your definition, one would practically have to be all-knowing, refuting every god that has EVER been believed in.
I don't define atheism that way, the dictionary does. If you think that there is even a possibility that there is a god, you are not an atheist, you are agnostic.
@RetSquid You're missing the point. Think back to when Mormons didn't exist. 19th century, they come and grow in numbers. How are you going to define them if not by what they advocate?
And the point stands that history and if you want to fuss about it, etymology too, favors defining it as "lack of belief in deities"
Atheists advocate that there is no god, that is what the name means. If you believe that there is even the slightest possibility that God exists, you are not an atheist. I guess that there are just a lot of confused 'atheists' out there.
It is not just a lack of belief, it is a belief of lack.
@RetSquid And here I was hoping you'd be serious about this. If you're just going to repeat what you said and not address anything, there is no point to this. I've given you reasons, you don't address them. You said "atheists advocate there is no god" - okay, which ones? When? Where? This is why I said if a new group comes around, how do you define if NOT by what they actually claim?
Did anyone else see the paper in the back ground fly off the table? It was 6 minutes and 18 or so seconds into this video...I'm an atheist, however, nothing else was blowing around on the table....just strange...lol
Did anyone spot Wolpert’s either stupidity or dishonesty? In Part 9 at 6:40 he said regarding Martin Rees’s as an Agnostic, “that’s good... at least he’s saying he doesn’t know”. Whereas in this video he defines the Agnostic position at 2:30 as “I’m clueless as to whether god exists or not, and I’m a coward to try and make up my mind”. If there are any atheists here who feel reassured of their position due to Wolpert’s arguments, they really need to be a little more critical in their thinking.
@happysappy21 Right, so if the agnostic is someone who hasn't made up his mind then an atheist has; there is no God. For which he should provide arguments. The strongest arguments for atheism seems to be that as an atheist pendle between atheism and agnosticism and hypocrite a little now and then to dribble away anyone who questions atheism.
He says at 1:56 "I did not say God does not exist". Alright then he's not an atheist.
did anyone notice at 1:01 Wolpert says "well I'm giving arguments..." and then stops mid sentence knowing that he's about to walk into another lamppost
I'm sorry Dr Wolpert, you won't like this, but you're an embarrassment to Atheism. At least do Prof Craig and the audience the courtesy of addressing the issue or meeting the arguments. leaving aside the objective 'truth' of the issue (which neither side can know), Wolpert made no cogent arguments or his own - leaving Craig to make his arguments for him. Wolpert comes across as arrogant, dismissive, rude and intellectually sloppy. Just embarrassing.
you cannot prove the non existence of something that does not exist nor the existence of something that doesn't exist - the lack of proof of the non existence of god is proof of the non existence of good
@SuperRichie999 "you cannot prove the non existence of something that does not exist"
Of course you can, this is logical gibberish.
There is no planet between Earth and Mars.
We can prove this planets non-existence because A) We are in a position to see evidence of it's existence if it did exist, and B) We have a lack of evidence of it's existence.
Lewis gets served up like a school boy.....What type of knowledge has he got that he is accredited with his titles when he knows jack all about anything and condems others for having speculation when his strongest arguement is I don't know....
Mr walpole if you don't know then there is no harm in believeing that maybe just maybe God might be true.
I think william provided some good points that the so called intelligent walpole just kept ignoring and refused to aknowledge.
@Spetsop There was an article in the independant a few weeks ago with scientists declaring they have indesputable evidence and found human fossils that date back to 1.8 millions years ago.
So life is more than mankind is a lot older than 100 000 years old. like you thought
Wolpert is not taking the discussion seriously at all. That's why he is messing about in abandon, freely contradicting himself and not minding. Can be funny but it's also a bit annoying...
Wolpert is not taking the discussion seriously at all. That's why he is messing about in abandon, freely contradicting himself and not minding. Can be funny but it's also a bit annoying.
@7TJBarba - Indeed, Craig is well practiced at hiding behind it ... He looks very foolish to someone who understands philosophical arguments ... He had a hard enough time with Wolpert's common sense ... It's amazing how fast he loses that creepy smirk around Sternger , Shook , & the common man's true avenger, Hitchens ...
Firstly, no physical of evidence of God would only support that God didn't exist if you should see physical evidence of God because God isn't a physical being we wouldn't expect to see it. Secondly with regards to fine tuning the fact that matter could even form is so improbable using numbers wouldn't even give us a true conception of it. Then for the laws of nature to allow for intelligent life to evolve anywhere is just as inconceivable because we don't see life as common does nothing to the
How do you know it's so "improbable for the matter to form"... have you seen otherwise? The chances of the universe being here in exactly the way that we see it are 1 to 1... i.e. 100%! Why? Because it is here! It happened and that's all that matters... once something happened, the probability of it happening becomes 100%!
@Spetsop We know it's improbable because if the weak force or strong force were any different the atom would collapse or if gravity were different the universe would have collapsed back onto itself these are just a few. You're analogy is also fallacious for example let's say you had a million white balls and one black ball and someone picked one ball any ball being picked is equally unlikely but the odds of the black ball being picked are even smaller in the same way any universe is just as
IF this was different, IF that was different... what IF there was Gold under the rainbow? IF things were different, then thing WOULD have been different, and we WOULD have been living/experiencing a different universe. But we are in THIS one! Yes, some things are highly improbable, like lottery, 1 in 3,000,000, but people still win!
Once an event HAS happened the probability of it happening becomes irrelevant unless you want that event to happen again!
How could "not seeing life as common" do nothing to the 'fine tuning' argument! IF something is fine tuned then it's EFFICIENT in doing exactly that for which it was fine tuned! Otherwise, what's the point of calling it 'fine tuned'?
@Spetsop unlikely but the range of life permitting universes is vanishingly small compared to the number of non life permitting universes. Also, the largeness of the universe is needed because while expanding stars formed which produced the carbon that then allowed for life to proliferate on this planet and also just because we haven't directly observed other life by no means implies there is none we've barely looked at anything even in our own galaxy much less the rest of the universe
Exactly, all you just did is describe how science thinks life originated on Earth... without God's interventions! Nothing of this "the universe was created in 6 days and all the creatures were made in the form we see now"! It took time, it took space. And sure, I agree, I do think that life could have originated in other parts of the universe, but we all know that it's very hostile to life! At least none of the living organisms on this planet could survive out there without techno.
@Spetsop powerful. God is simply the first cause. Any action that God performed would start the causal sequence that is currently is at this point in time. As soon as God caused something a sequence of events started. So it's not as if God is exempt from an infinite regress of events because there was no events causally prior to God so therefore any effect or cause must draw it origin back to the first cause which is God.
THE only way you can go around this paradox of having infinity without violating the things you have talked about is to place God outside our known universe. But by doing so you are effectively isolating God from the rest of the things that are observable and detectable! Then how would a prayer work? How would God be able to do everything people claim he is doing for them if he is isolated from them?
@Spetsop Also i said Time couldn't be infinite. Ill give a simple illustration if i start counting to infinity i would never actually reach infinity. Similarly by adding successive additions of events i would never actually reach an infinite number of effects
Where does Craig draw his morals from? Deuteronomy? Leviticus? Is hunting witches, stoning adulterers, beating slaves, and genocide morality we should live by today? Of course not...
The moderator made a terrible point about the doctors: "If one doctor claims to know and the other doesn't, I'll get treated by the doctor who claims to know". Erm yes....but what if that doctor got it wrong and treats you for the wrong problem!????
WOLPERT IS AN ABSOLUTE EPIC FAAAIIIILLLL, athiests stick to the arguments from evil and other semi-coherent reasoning and let the scientists continue to validate the conclusion that God must exist.
And that's compared to Craig who claims that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... therefor God exists"? By that "logic" ANYTHING you can think of exists!
@Spetsop His point was that not only do naturalists need to be able to contend with the theistic arguments but they most also present a positive case for their naturalism.
Why would a naturalist need to present a positive case for their naturalism? Reality is all around you every time in any place, supernatural is not! How CAN you present a case that disproves the existence of something? It's a default view... the burden of proof lies on the person who is claiming that something exists. The idea of God is much more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one. The "scientific" evidence he presented for God can be debunked fairly easily.
@Spetsop well you won't find physical evidence of God so the lack of physical evidence is meaningless we can only look after after effects like fine tuning, finite universe etc. I would agree if their was no good argument for God then the naturalist wouldn't need a positive case, but because there are good arguments for a theistic perspective the naturalist needs to put forth some type of positive case for their position.
I agree with you on the 'baby' point. But the fact of 'not finding physical evidence of God' should already point toward conclusion that such a being does not exist. The only reason people are still looking for God is because of preconceived ideas and the need to explain things that are complex to understand (at least in the earlier times). Do you still continue to look for Santa? Even though as a kid you had more evidence for the existence of Santa than for God.
Fine tuning is a poor argument. Considering the vastness of the universe and the hazardous environment to life in the majority of its space, it's far from being fine tuned for life. We've been searching for decades for ET life and no luck yet, so far just our planet, out of billions upon billions of other places. It's like saying that fish are fine tuned to fly when only one specie of it can glide out of water for a short distance. If anything life has adapted to its environment.
And as the universe being finite, that's a theory still. We simply don't know exactly how it all got here. Philosophy has it's theories, so does science. For all we know the universe can be fluctuating, coming in and out of existence... or it's a closed loop of dimensions, bound to repeat itself over and over again (sort of like history repeats itself deal).
@Spetsop fine tuning argument. Lastly, it's logically impossible for their to be an infinite regress of events in time and when that is combined with the Bord Guth Vilenkin theorem and the rest of modern cosmological findings everything points to a finite universe and nothing points to anything like an eternal universe and on oscillating model of the universe does nothing to refute the fact of a finite beginning
An infinity is a concept, and it seems to apply fairly well when talking about God, but falls short when talking about the universe? Energy is not physical, but it creates things with physical property. God is talked about as being outside our time and our universe and, as you said non physical. So far we have God and energy being non physical. But one we can observe directly and in an objective way (energy), whil
No! That was Lewis' strongest argument.......... No! Well that settles it for me, guess I'll stop reading my Bible now.
Grinthor86 3 weeks ago
This was a pretty entertaining debate. At least Lewis was funny
DanYoungMusic 1 month ago
WLC shows his intellectual superiority in this section, yet he does it with humbleness. Wolvort is out of his depth but I do like his candidness.
TheRandshaw 2 months ago
WTF, the paper all of a sudden falling off the table at minute 6:30 =O
fidefreestyle 2 months ago
at 9:46 William Lane Craig has his gone ready to fire hahaha
cdprojects101 2 months ago
2:00 Yeah, you lose. You don't know the definitions of the words you're arguing against.
bobmuffins 2 months ago
0:59 "But you're presupposing that theism is true." WLC: "Oh no not at all." What an idiot. He is presupposing that God exists, which is why he makes absurd statements like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," says that he hasn't heard any good arguments against the existence of God (when in fact the burden of extraordinary proof is upon his shoulders for such an extraordinary claim), and says that his faith would remain unshaken even if all of his arguments were destroyed.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
from 5 mins or so and forth wolpert is cluless and simply blows off the questions.
loan987654321 3 months ago
Sorry you're simply misunderstanding the argument. WLC repeatedly says that he's not accusing Atheists of being morally bankrupt however by positing that we're nothing more than products of a genetically predetermined process of natural selection then what is the basis for an objective morality? If 'survival of the fittest' got us here in the first place we'd be taking a big risk by creating a system of morals incongruous with that model. So his is a highly compelling argument not a poor one.
happysappy21 3 months ago
6.30 a ghost in the room
chrish12345 3 months ago
@chrish12345 proof of god : P
Falcondick69 3 months ago
7:38 - 7:40 LOL! I love how craig says "Are you serious?!" to wolpert. XD
DrEvolutionQuest 3 months ago
Who wants to be altruistic
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God says you are gods
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
One must have abstract to be creative
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
Though I'm Christian I quiet like Lewis Wolpert. He is honest fellow
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
@stevalianarbone Though I'm atheist, I quite like William Lane Craig. He points out the logical fallacies my fellow atheists sometimes commit, and always stays on topic.
DrEvolutionQuest 3 months ago 13
@DrEvolutionQuest I agree! It takes courage for him to stand up and speak out so boldly about what he believes. Though I felt at the end when they were sitting down for informal chat, he was losing it a bit, even to the point of insulating Wolpert but maybe not intentionally so. Wolper took it very well though he’s a great character to have over looked it. Many thanks!
stevalianarbone 3 months ago
@stevalianarbone... come on you have GOT to be kidding! WLC losing it a bit? Resorting to insulting? What about Wolpert calling Agnostics cowards and that intended the comment to be perojative, then asserting that WLC is too frightened to admit that he doesn't know why the universe exists, on top of making numerous references to WLC arguments being nonsense. When does WLC go anywhere near as to address Wolpert in such a disparaging manner? You are watching this without bias aren't you?
happysappy21 3 months ago
@happysappy21 I know there is plenty of proof to show God exists by simply looking what a wonderful world he created: until man insists on destroying it to make “progress”. God therefore can be clearly seen in creation. And as you say WLC didn’t directly insult Lewis Wolpert. But he was saying that those without belief have no moral standing: and compares them to the lowest of mankind, therefore indirectly insulting all unbelievers. This makes for poor argument.
stevalianarbone 3 months ago
@stevalianarbone He doesn't say that those without belief cannot be moral, he argues that they do not have JUSTIFICATION for their belief in morality. The two are entirely different. He has made it repeatedly clear that the argument is NOT about whether (1) atheists can be moral, (2) recognize morality without belief in God, nor (3) whether one can formulate a system of ethics without reference to God. The question is one about ontology, not epistemology.
CarlosMarti123 3 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 He didn't seem to explain it as clearly as you do. Many thanks. My friend Mavis Nicholson recently met Wolpert and told me to look him up. I did web search and saw he was on You Tube; William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert, so I watched them all one evening. Both were pleasant and interesting to listen to. I sent Mavis reply afterwards she said dear Steve yours is a very intelligent response and very acute too re Wolpert...
stevalianarbone 3 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest Its nice to see logic and not vitriol in this kind of discussion. He has an amazing knack of staying on topic as you say.
amercury7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrEvolutionQuest still no proof of god
Metal1998 2 months ago
@DrEvolutionQuest exactly why i'm watching this, sorta boring in the long run to only hear retarded theist, at least good to hear arguments that can stump me for a few seconds. but i think is see wolpert's points, but he's not a good at discussing at all.
Devoti 1 month ago
@DrEvolutionQuest One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others. ~Moliere
Nietzschean1000 1 week ago
In a moment of confusion the way they carrying on.They will be swaping sides.
stevalianarbone 4 months ago
Wolpert doesn't possess the intellectual acuity to engage in this argument.
Sempi10 4 months ago
Wolpert maybe be the dumbest person I have ever witnessed. Atheism - a logical vacuum.
johhnycarlos 4 months ago
@johhnycarlos The theist mind is filled with invisible skydaddies, ghosts, djinnies, talking snakes, flying horses, walking trees, water changing into wine, a man living in a whale, dead people walking in the streets, souls, a life after death and a never ending Disney park in the sky.
I prefer the vacuum.
Spirifiume 4 months ago
@Spirifiume LOL. Damn...well since you put it like that. What ill feelings do you have towards Disney Land? Voltaire said it best " The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability."
johhnycarlos 4 months ago
@johhnycarlos: Heinlein said "A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion -any religion- is that a believer, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. On may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both."
Spirifiume 4 months ago
@Spirifiume I sure as shit can have my cake and eat it too. Evidence for the existence of God: the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Anthropic Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Contigency Argument, the Ontological and Metaphysical Argument. There all of which are theologically neutral. You would like I can PM you and we can discuss symantics. I enjoy symantics.
johhnycarlos 4 months ago
@johhnycarlos: Do these "arguments" prove irrefutable in a scientific manner (peer reviewed, repeatable) that christ is god ? Or is it just playing with words, like Craig does ?
Spirifiume 4 months ago
@Spirifiume That would be up for you to decide, not me. My battle with religion has been a rocky one for sure. So I am 99% faith and 1% evidence. That 1% though I believe is bullet proof. I have yet to have an atheist crack it. And I do not bullshit and play on words. Just good old logic and reason. FYI to science itself doesnt prove irrefutable in a scientific manner. It is permiated with assumptions that cannot be explained for or away. Physical constants they call them. Math, aesthitics also.
johhnycarlos 4 months ago
Someone not believing in God's existence is compaltiblewith God's existence!
kevinvalsonjacob 4 months ago
Wolpert owned.
angularkid 5 months ago
Angry atheist comments lol!
WSSIIWarlordII 5 months ago 4
Poor Lewis.
1r34kh4v0k 5 months ago
Wolpert makes the unsubstantiated claim that Craig's argument is circular and says: "I think that argument is totally false." Then he looks at the audience and laughs. Immediately, Craig replies, "Then what you need to do, professor Wolpert, is to identify the false premise in the argument, because the logic is valid, the conclusion follows from the premises." In his reply, Craig emphasizes the word "professor" implying that Wolpert should drop the act and start dialoguing rationally. Haha :)
djuatdelta123 6 months ago
Circular, Craig, circular: you suppose that a naturalistic world would entail we behaved as irrational inferior animals. You assume that those things that differentiate us from other animals come from God. The sophistry never ends, does it?
sirdelrio 6 months ago
"On the socio-biological point of view altruism is just the selfish gene". Absurd, and strawman (is not about survival of the fittest in Nazi sense). A mother does not sacrifice for nothing or for herself but for empathy and love, both pretty biochemical stuff.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@sirdelrio
The mother sacrifices herself in order to pass on her genes, including the "selfish" one. Unless you can prove that she would do the same action, with the chance of sacrificing her own child in the bargain, it is selfish.
RetSquid 6 months ago
I want somebody to explain to me How can a mind not be physical or material? The mind is the brain at work. Can anybody explain how the mind is not material?
sirdelrio 6 months ago
You're not presupposing that god exists?? Really, Bill? then why do you say your faith is predicated on the witness of the holy spirit, that warm feeling you get when you pray, that you automatically atribute to God? you are presupposing that god exists. Dont be a hypocrit.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@sirdelrio
His arguments don't presuppose God. By the time you get to prayer, you believe that God does exist.
RetSquid 6 months ago
If I was an atheist I am certain I would not want Wolpert speaking for what I believe, Craig gives a great presentation and Wolpert sits back and gives lame responses and can't even keep in step with the flow of the conversation. He comes across sounding foolish.
danplyler 6 months ago
@danplyler totally agree
signofthehammer 6 months ago
It must be mentally draining talking to Wolpert. He goes on and on about irrelevant issues and never admits that he's talking foolishness..
Soul4JC 6 months ago
"It's circular-ish." Hahaha. These kinds of interchanges are so much more entertaining than debates like this usually are. This is great.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
Why is Wolpert (Like almost every other atheist) so disrespectful towards Craig. Craig never interrupts Wolpert, never touches the guy in a derogatory manner, and never says things like "by a god?! come on" And thats even considering that Wolpert clearly lost this debate.
REDRAGON12345 7 months ago
What is all this talk of Wolpert losing?
The debate ended when Craig stuck his foot in his mouth. His arguments are meaningless, they DON"T SUPPORT ANYTHING, they are nothing but CONCEPTUAL postulation to deduce from and with NO supporting facts to FORM a HYPOTHESIS so WE can TEST. Craig needs to at the very least produce a hypothesis to test.
Craig is philosophizing, that's all, and he has the audacity to claim such as a factual argument. People should not respect such preposterous actions.
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
@DeconversionCentral
Thanks for giving the rest of us a chance to realize that there are more goof heads who think like Wolpert.
aveyowyns 7 months ago
@aveyowyns
LOL. Goof heads.
Wolpert is a bit goofy, indeed I might say the same for myself. I'd rather be a bit goofy, than hold naive and ignorant religious views.
Philosophizing can open up new thought pathways for inquiry, but ontological arguments themselves are not evidence.
Craig also misrepresents many facets of science he wants to anchor his arguments too, and it is very disturbing to hear him speak and see people attach themselves to such incoherencies. Craig only causes confusion.
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
@DeconversionCentral
assertions, assertions without any actual meat...
aveyowyns 7 months ago
@aveyowyns
If your hungry you should go eat, I am not going to feed you.
Yeah you cry "assertions" when it suits you. Are not assertions Craig's specialties?
Do you believe Craig represents science coherently and appropriately?
Do you believe a hypothetical proposition (alone) is evidence of more then a conceptual idea?
Do you believe, an ABSTRACT definition (god) is self-evident to any degree? and HOW?
I would like to know if your minor in philosophy taught you about integrity?
Really?
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
@DeconversionCentral
It doesn't matter what I believe - nor do I care what your brain managed to conjure in your second comment.
"His arguments are meaningless." Assertion with no meat.
"They are nothing but conceptual postulations to deduce from and with no supporting facts to form a hypothesis so that we can test" A big pretentious assertion, with not meat.
"Craig is philosophizing, that's all." Yeah, that's what debates on the topic of God usually are, philosophizing.
aveyowyns 7 months ago
@aveyowyns
No, what you believe does matter, not only to those around you, but also clearly indicated by your commenting in the first place, OBVIOUSLY. You are dodging perhaps?
Kind of you to not care about the second comment., yet reply again about the first comment.
Your assertion is that my assertions are false, yes?
So please, have some integrity and expose your arbitrary position by answering the questions. There is quite a bit of meat, I think you just don't have the teeth for it.
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
@DeconversionCentral
You asked me a list of questions, which I do not care to answer - because it doesn't matter what I believe. You assert a number of things about Craig's argumentation without actually backing it up or pointing to something in the video to support your assertions.
aveyowyns 7 months ago
@aveyowyns
If we are not to care what you think, then you shouldn't have commented.
MEAT..EAT UP!
Craig's assertion that the big bang is caused by a deity.
Craig's assertion that hypothetical propositions are evidence of any kind.
Craig's assertion that a conceptual abstract definition (god) can be arbitrary attached to non-testable postulation, that he conceives one can be deduce from.
He supports the TOP DOWN METHOD.
HE ASSERTS ALL IS MEANINGLESS AND NOT REAL UNLESS GOD DEEMED IT SO!
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
@DeconversionCentral
Craig does not ASSERT that the big bang is caused by a deity; he DEDUCES that the big bang was caused by a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, thinking and causal being.
Craig didn't provide any hypothetical propositions as evidence.
"Craig's assertion that a conceptual..." That is just unintelligible mumbo-jumbo
No, Craig works from the bottom up.
...like I said, unsupported assertions.
aveyowyns 7 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
You are lost. and yet you are also hiding. Remember that integrity I was talking about. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, and we will all see the truth.
No, Craig certainly asserts, nor matter if the reason for the assertions is by philosophical deductions, LET'S NOT FORGET his deductions are usually based on a false premise.
The definition of god is abstract and when he makes his ASSERTIONS about a god, and a "FIRST BEGINNING" he is making a fallacy of misplaced concreteness (Reification)
DeconversionCentral 7 months ago
@aveyowyns He indeed deduces that the big bang is caused by a deity. His deduction, however, is based on assumptions.
For example: he says 'everything has to have a cause, except for a timeless immaterial being.'. With this statement he asserts that a timeless immaterial being exists, which considering we've never observed one, is pure speculation. Thus here is your hypothetical proposition.
gaboonviper1000 7 months ago
Talking to Wolpert may be the equvalent to talking to a brick wall, but dang it if he doesn't have a sense of humor. Craig should be commended for tolerating this.
Bigjon145 7 months ago
The least you could say about Wolpert is that his sense of humor is outstanding!
wisemanandfool 8 months ago
Atheism= Lack of belief in GOD because of lack of physical evidence with respect to our dimensions.
Anosticism= Lack of idea about whether a GOD exists or not.
Deism= Lack of belief in religion but belief in a GOD without claiming to know his nature.
Theism= Belief in a particularity of GOD.
For example- Christians believe GOD has a gender(He).
He has a particular son Jesus.
Sakib241 8 months ago
It's unbelievable how so many illiterate Christians can pop up under these videos and seriously say that Wolpert got ripped apart. Have they no understanding whatsoever of what's going on? 9/12, towards the end, was particularly delightful.
MareIngenii 8 months ago
@MareIngenii
Wolpert has to redefine Agnostic and Atheist to fit his own claims.
RetSquid 8 months ago 9
@RetSquid He didn't redefine them. The atheist says "I don't believe there are any gods", the agnostic says "I don't know what to believe" and the ignostic says "What do you mean by god?/what the hell is a god?".
TheHmmhmm 6 months ago
@TheHmmhmm
No, an Atheist says "There are NO gods", An Agnostic says, "I don't know if there is a God". An Ignostic says, "I don't know what 'god' means." Wolpert wasn't using any of those terms as they are defined, therefore he had to make up his own definitions.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid Atheism stands for "no gods" but doesn't require you to claim that a god's existance can be proven wrong. As an atheist you can't go further than saying "I don't believe there are any gods". To go any further than that would force you to prove a negative, rather than dismiss the premise that there is a god. Agnostics can't make up their minds and ignostics just wants to play difficult.
TheHmmhmm 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHmmhmm
If you claim to be an atheist you have to believe that there are NO gods, not prove there is no God. An atheist has to believe that the statement "there is a god" is false.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid "No, an Atheist says "There are NO gods""
You, I am 100% convinced, have not read a full work of a single atheist.What unites Dawkins, Hume, Russell, Grayling, and others is that "X is a claim that has never been substantiated"
Their philo views are such that given the nature of the claim and the fact it produces no evidence, they do not accept it. Ever wonder why atheists use Russell's teapot analogy? Or why we don't believe Pluto produces light? THERE'S NO FACKING EVIDENCE.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
I don't need to read their "evidience", I can read a dictionary, that is where the definition of 'atheist" is found. Go watch some of WLC's other videos, there are many arguments for the existence of God.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid Then you are swallowing the definition of a man who straw man's it. As for the dictionary, some dictionary's say that definition, some say the one that those WHO ACTUALLY ARGUE FOR IT USE. You can't even spell evidence, and I never said you have to read their evidence. I said if you are going to argue against their position, don't set up a straw man. WLC's logic is so backwards on this, in his debate against Hitchens, Hitchens had to repeat this point to him 3 times.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
There is no strawman argument. This is a philosophical debate, the definition comes from the philosophical dictionary used by those debaters.
BTW, you spelled "strawman" wrong...it's one word. :)
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid Are you paying attention? There is a view which certain people throughout history defended. This view, that is defended by them, is *this view* <--- they call it atheism, and it is THERE view. So if you are going to argue against *this* view, you have to argue against, THIS VIEW. What is so complicated about that? This view says "x has no evidence, and if it has none, it shouldnt be believed" just as there is no evidence pluto gives light.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
I don't care if THEIR view is over THERE or over HERE. There is evidence that Pluto does not emit light, but there is evidence that Pluto reflects light. If you get in a philosophical debate, you use the definitions of that school of thought, not your own.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid
When you get into a debate, you defend a point of view. Wolpert is defending a view that Craig is not attacking. Wolpert says A, but then Craig says "Wolpert just argued for B".
This point of view is the one that you, Craig, and every other fucktard can't even understand straight, let alone argue against it.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
That's because Wolpert can't support his arguments with the terms he uses.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid And how does that amount to atheists defending the proposition "We KNOW there is no god" for centuries? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
Because he calls himself an atheist (there is NO god) when he is actually agnostic (I don't think there is a god).
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid @RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
AR333 5 months ago
@RetSquid @RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
AR333 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid @RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
AR333 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid @RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
AR333 5 months ago
@RetSquid @RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
AR333 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid @RetSquid That didn't answer my question at all. How does what you said previously mean that atheists have been arguing for the claim "we know there is no god"? It doesn't. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T. You know how I know that? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORKS.
Besides the larger point isn't the definition anyways, the larger point is the question : is there evidence. If the answer is no, and WLC practically borders on that, (BTW I read his book too) the debate is over.
AR333 5 months ago
@RetSquid Did you pay attention to Wolpert or not? Craig says "its a knowledge claim" he says "NO I DONT SAY I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD, I SAY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" <this is what atheists assert
The main issue isn't the title, the main issue is the claim. ALL atheist writers say what Wolpert said there. That is the core of the issue, and Craig is engaging in word games when he says we say we KNOW there is no god (we don't) and then says "fine but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
Wolpert is saying that we don't know if there is a god, due to lack of evidence...Agnosticism.
Wolpert just argues that he doesn't like WLC's arguments...without disproving any of the underlying propositions.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid "Wolpert is saying that we don't know if there is a god, due to lack of evidence...Agnosticism." He never said this
"Wolpert just argues that he doesn't like WLC's arguments...without disproving any of the underlying propositions." I thought you wanted to focus on our discussion? The meaning of the term atheism. This has nothing to do with our discussion.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
If you want to focus on the definition of atheism, fine.
Atheism is the belief that the statement "there is a god" is false.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid
Atheism is the state of being without theistic beliefs.
^This is the first line of the Wikiquote page on "Atheism". The thing about this definition is that it is consistent with the below remarks and quotes by atheists. And if you had actually listened to Wolpert, you'd know this was his stance too.
If you want to carry on thinking you can win atheist debates with that pathetic one-liner which caricatures a whole group of thinkers throughout history, go for it.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
I see that you have conceded by quoting Wiki.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid Are you retarded? I didn't quote Wiki, dumbass. You are the one who says "why bother reading their claims, I can avoid all that work by reading one sentence, which by the way isn't the uniform dictionary definition".
Also I didn't "Quote" wiki, I said here is a dictionary definition that is CONSISTENT with the atheist thinkers. Next time you try a childish argument like "you have conceded", consider yourself not worth my time.
AR333 5 months ago
@RetSquid "I see that you have conceded by quoting Wiki."
It gave you a definition, a dictionary definition, consistent with the authors and thinkers on the page. I'm sorry that reading is not something you like doing.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
Maybe if you read the definition from the dictionary used for philosophical debates, you would have the correct definition.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid Do you understand that having no good evidence for a positive claim is in itself a good reason to not accept that claim? Tell me how one can be agnostic about unicorns on Pluto? And you do realize the definition of god comes into this, right? You do realize that if you make god unfalsifiable and then say "hey look you can't disprove it", you aren't making a strong case.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
WLC puts forth many arguments for the existence of God. All of them are based on good evidence....unless you start from the position that it is impossible for God to exist.......which is the definition of an Atheist.
At this point in time we can't know if there are unicorns on Pluto....Agnostic.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid Unicorns on Pluto are highly* improbable.
It comes down to weighing the evidence. On balance, is it justified to believe in WLC's god? I'd say no, and I say that as a student who is studying the early history of Christianity. Ebionites, Adoptionists, Gnostics, all had different views. If one knows the history of the religion, and the history of manuscripts, Christianity becomes one hell of an unlikely religion. Using your terms, even if I prove this, I wouldn't be an atheist.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
This discusion has nothting to do with Christianity, it is a generic argument for God in general. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the statement "there is a god" is false.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid I thought we wanted to be philosophical about this? The definition of god has everything to do with it. Your phrase about "generic argument for God in general" can only be said by someone who knows not of the multiplicity of gods that have occurred in history.
And this is also relevant because it poses a problem to one who defines atheism the way you insist. Under your definition, one would practically have to be all-knowing, refuting every god that has EVER been believed in.
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
Yes, exactly, atheism is the belief that there has never been and never will be a god.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid So now it goes on to the future? Yeah, alright there buddy. Tell me this, what reasons do you have for defining atheism that way?
Suppose there was a term for the polar opposite of the theism. Let's just call it X. Has X been defended or argued for by thinkers throughout time? No
Etymologically, atheist means "without" like agnostic means "without"
The only reason I can see for u is that you'd like to portray atheists on the same level of certainty as theists, which they are not
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
I don't define atheism that way, the dictionary does. If you think that there is even a possibility that there is a god, you are not an atheist, you are agnostic.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid You're missing the point. Think back to when Mormons didn't exist. 19th century, they come and grow in numbers. How are you going to define them if not by what they advocate?
And the point stands that history and if you want to fuss about it, etymology too, favors defining it as "lack of belief in deities"
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
Atheists advocate that there is no god, that is what the name means. If you believe that there is even the slightest possibility that God exists, you are not an atheist. I guess that there are just a lot of confused 'atheists' out there.
It is not just a lack of belief, it is a belief of lack.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid And here I was hoping you'd be serious about this. If you're just going to repeat what you said and not address anything, there is no point to this. I've given you reasons, you don't address them. You said "atheists advocate there is no god" - okay, which ones? When? Where? This is why I said if a new group comes around, how do you define if NOT by what they actually claim?
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
I am serious, you need to rethink what you are. All atheists say that there is no god. If you don't say that you are not an atheist.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@RetSquid "I am serious". You said atheists say they know there is no god, and even added "and that there never was or never will be"
Give a brief list of atheists who've argued this?
And tell me if you don't define a group by what they claim, how do you identify them?
AR333 5 months ago
@AR333
Atheists say there is no god....if there is no god now, there never will be a god, and there never has been a god, god is eternal.
When atheists get philosophers to change the definition in their dictionary, then we can talk about atheists who believe there may be a god.
RetSquid 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid Answer the questions:
You said atheists say they know there is no god, and even added "and that there never was or never will be"
Give a brief list of atheists who've argued this?
And tell me if you don't define a group by what they claim, how do you identify them?
AR333 5 months ago
Comment removed
OpusChopin 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wolpert is like a fumbling old grandad who's just walked out of the pub and onto the stage by mistake.
Birdieupon 9 months ago
Wolpert is like a fumbling old grandad who's just walked out of the pub and onto the stage by mistake.
Birdieupon 9 months ago
This is embarassing, I just cant watch this anymore. Poor old Wolpert got ripped apart, I just feel sorry for him.
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
There's a pimple on my thingy... I need a doctor.
Zimnyification 9 months ago
Bill gets embarrassed all the time...he's one of the dumbest people i've ever seen debate.
burnhardship 9 months ago
"I know of no evidence of Elephants, that means they don't exist."
comeonfolks 10 months ago
@comeonfolks Straw man much? Try harder.
AR333 9 months ago
Wolper is so stubborn and freaking funny!!!!!!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
6:31
jaimesthesaint 10 months ago
Dr. Wolpert is a comical old fuddy duddy.
I'd hate to go to him for advice in arguing philosophy or theology, but I'd bet he'd make a killer poker buddy.
djs259 10 months ago
Did anyone else see the paper in the back ground fly off the table? It was 6 minutes and 18 or so seconds into this video...I'm an atheist, however, nothing else was blowing around on the table....just strange...lol
Godologist 11 months ago
Did anyone spot Wolpert’s either stupidity or dishonesty? In Part 9 at 6:40 he said regarding Martin Rees’s as an Agnostic, “that’s good... at least he’s saying he doesn’t know”. Whereas in this video he defines the Agnostic position at 2:30 as “I’m clueless as to whether god exists or not, and I’m a coward to try and make up my mind”. If there are any atheists here who feel reassured of their position due to Wolpert’s arguments, they really need to be a little more critical in their thinking.
happysappy21 11 months ago
@happysappy21 Right, so if the agnostic is someone who hasn't made up his mind then an atheist has; there is no God. For which he should provide arguments. The strongest arguments for atheism seems to be that as an atheist pendle between atheism and agnosticism and hypocrite a little now and then to dribble away anyone who questions atheism.
He says at 1:56 "I did not say God does not exist". Alright then he's not an atheist.
poisionarrowclean 11 months ago
Lewis Wolpert: Noooo!
poisionarrowclean 11 months ago
did anyone notice at 1:01 Wolpert says "well I'm giving arguments..." and then stops mid sentence knowing that he's about to walk into another lamppost
happysappy21 11 months ago
Wolpert has a stupid reason for giving up his faith.He claims because his prayers weren't answered.God won't answer a prayer that is based on greed.
TheStigmadeign 11 months ago
First class commedy :))
Jacob011 1 year ago
I'm sorry Dr Wolpert, you won't like this, but you're an embarrassment to Atheism. At least do Prof Craig and the audience the courtesy of addressing the issue or meeting the arguments. leaving aside the objective 'truth' of the issue (which neither side can know), Wolpert made no cogent arguments or his own - leaving Craig to make his arguments for him. Wolpert comes across as arrogant, dismissive, rude and intellectually sloppy. Just embarrassing.
BL1GHTY 1 year ago
Who is the debate moderator in this, he's awesome?
DigitalDecadence 1 year ago
@DigitalDecadence John Humphrys
111Wacky 1 year ago
you cannot prove the non existence of something that does not exist nor the existence of something that doesn't exist - the lack of proof of the non existence of god is proof of the non existence of good
SuperRichie999 1 year ago
@SuperRichie999 "you cannot prove the non existence of something that does not exist"
Of course you can, this is logical gibberish.
There is no planet between Earth and Mars.
We can prove this planets non-existence because A) We are in a position to see evidence of it's existence if it did exist, and B) We have a lack of evidence of it's existence.
DigitalDecadence 1 year ago
Lewis gets served up like a school boy.....What type of knowledge has he got that he is accredited with his titles when he knows jack all about anything and condems others for having speculation when his strongest arguement is I don't know....
Mr walpole if you don't know then there is no harm in believeing that maybe just maybe God might be true.
I think william provided some good points that the so called intelligent walpole just kept ignoring and refused to aknowledge.
TheJohnskinner 1 year ago
@Spetsop There was an article in the independant a few weeks ago with scientists declaring they have indesputable evidence and found human fossils that date back to 1.8 millions years ago.
So life is more than mankind is a lot older than 100 000 years old. like you thought
TheJohnskinner 1 year ago
Wolpert just didn't come to engage in any serious intellectual debate.
stephenblackman2003a 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wolpert is not taking the discussion seriously at all. That's why he is messing about in abandon, freely contradicting himself and not minding. Can be funny but it's also a bit annoying...
stephenblackman2003a 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wolpert is not taking the discussion seriously at all. That's why he is messing about in abandon, freely contradicting himself and not minding. Can be funny but it's also a bit annoying.
stephenblackman2003a 1 year ago
It is as if Bill is teaching them both philosophy
7TJBarba 1 year ago 36
@7TJBarba - Indeed, Craig is well practiced at hiding behind it ... He looks very foolish to someone who understands philosophical arguments ... He had a hard enough time with Wolpert's common sense ... It's amazing how fast he loses that creepy smirk around Sternger , Shook , & the common man's true avenger, Hitchens ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
Firstly, no physical of evidence of God would only support that God didn't exist if you should see physical evidence of God because God isn't a physical being we wouldn't expect to see it. Secondly with regards to fine tuning the fact that matter could even form is so improbable using numbers wouldn't even give us a true conception of it. Then for the laws of nature to allow for intelligent life to evolve anywhere is just as inconceivable because we don't see life as common does nothing to the
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb
How do you know it's so "improbable for the matter to form"... have you seen otherwise? The chances of the universe being here in exactly the way that we see it are 1 to 1... i.e. 100%! Why? Because it is here! It happened and that's all that matters... once something happened, the probability of it happening becomes 100%!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop We know it's improbable because if the weak force or strong force were any different the atom would collapse or if gravity were different the universe would have collapsed back onto itself these are just a few. You're analogy is also fallacious for example let's say you had a million white balls and one black ball and someone picked one ball any ball being picked is equally unlikely but the odds of the black ball being picked are even smaller in the same way any universe is just as
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb
IF this was different, IF that was different... what IF there was Gold under the rainbow? IF things were different, then thing WOULD have been different, and we WOULD have been living/experiencing a different universe. But we are in THIS one! Yes, some things are highly improbable, like lottery, 1 in 3,000,000, but people still win!
Once an event HAS happened the probability of it happening becomes irrelevant unless you want that event to happen again!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@the1qb
How could "not seeing life as common" do nothing to the 'fine tuning' argument! IF something is fine tuned then it's EFFICIENT in doing exactly that for which it was fine tuned! Otherwise, what's the point of calling it 'fine tuned'?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop unlikely but the range of life permitting universes is vanishingly small compared to the number of non life permitting universes. Also, the largeness of the universe is needed because while expanding stars formed which produced the carbon that then allowed for life to proliferate on this planet and also just because we haven't directly observed other life by no means implies there is none we've barely looked at anything even in our own galaxy much less the rest of the universe
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb
Exactly, all you just did is describe how science thinks life originated on Earth... without God's interventions! Nothing of this "the universe was created in 6 days and all the creatures were made in the form we see now"! It took time, it took space. And sure, I agree, I do think that life could have originated in other parts of the universe, but we all know that it's very hostile to life! At least none of the living organisms on this planet could survive out there without techno.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop powerful. God is simply the first cause. Any action that God performed would start the causal sequence that is currently is at this point in time. As soon as God caused something a sequence of events started. So it's not as if God is exempt from an infinite regress of events because there was no events causally prior to God so therefore any effect or cause must draw it origin back to the first cause which is God.
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb
THE only way you can go around this paradox of having infinity without violating the things you have talked about is to place God outside our known universe. But by doing so you are effectively isolating God from the rest of the things that are observable and detectable! Then how would a prayer work? How would God be able to do everything people claim he is doing for them if he is isolated from them?
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop Also i said Time couldn't be infinite. Ill give a simple illustration if i start counting to infinity i would never actually reach infinity. Similarly by adding successive additions of events i would never actually reach an infinite number of effects
the1qb 1 year ago
Where does Craig draw his morals from? Deuteronomy? Leviticus? Is hunting witches, stoning adulterers, beating slaves, and genocide morality we should live by today? Of course not...
setmedic 1 year ago
Wolpert: no, no!, NO!! LOL
Igorgitirana 1 year ago
The moderator made a terrible point about the doctors: "If one doctor claims to know and the other doesn't, I'll get treated by the doctor who claims to know". Erm yes....but what if that doctor got it wrong and treats you for the wrong problem!????
matthewjhaywood 1 year ago
"Without God there isn't any absolute standard of right and wrong". So the things in the Bible about rape, genocide, and incest are "right"?
kuntakentae 1 year ago
What happend to Wolpert during this discussion? One word: Horrible.
Pettos91 1 year ago
WOLPERT IS AN ABSOLUTE EPIC FAAAIIIILLLL, athiests stick to the arguments from evil and other semi-coherent reasoning and let the scientists continue to validate the conclusion that God must exist.
efeey 1 year ago
Arguing with Wolpert is like arguing with a wall he has no clue about logic at all
the1qb 1 year ago 34
@the1qb
And that's compared to Craig who claims that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... therefor God exists"? By that "logic" ANYTHING you can think of exists!
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop His point was that not only do naturalists need to be able to contend with the theistic arguments but they most also present a positive case for their naturalism.
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb
Why would a naturalist need to present a positive case for their naturalism? Reality is all around you every time in any place, supernatural is not! How CAN you present a case that disproves the existence of something? It's a default view... the burden of proof lies on the person who is claiming that something exists. The idea of God is much more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one. The "scientific" evidence he presented for God can be debunked fairly easily.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop well you won't find physical evidence of God so the lack of physical evidence is meaningless we can only look after after effects like fine tuning, finite universe etc. I would agree if their was no good argument for God then the naturalist wouldn't need a positive case, but because there are good arguments for a theistic perspective the naturalist needs to put forth some type of positive case for their position.
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb
I agree with you on the 'baby' point. But the fact of 'not finding physical evidence of God' should already point toward conclusion that such a being does not exist. The only reason people are still looking for God is because of preconceived ideas and the need to explain things that are complex to understand (at least in the earlier times). Do you still continue to look for Santa? Even though as a kid you had more evidence for the existence of Santa than for God.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@the1qb
Fine tuning is a poor argument. Considering the vastness of the universe and the hazardous environment to life in the majority of its space, it's far from being fine tuned for life. We've been searching for decades for ET life and no luck yet, so far just our planet, out of billions upon billions of other places. It's like saying that fish are fine tuned to fly when only one specie of it can glide out of water for a short distance. If anything life has adapted to its environment.
Spetsop 1 year ago
@the1qb
And as the universe being finite, that's a theory still. We simply don't know exactly how it all got here. Philosophy has it's theories, so does science. For all we know the universe can be fluctuating, coming in and out of existence... or it's a closed loop of dimensions, bound to repeat itself over and over again (sort of like history repeats itself deal).
Spetsop 1 year ago
@Spetsop fine tuning argument. Lastly, it's logically impossible for their to be an infinite regress of events in time and when that is combined with the Bord Guth Vilenkin theorem and the rest of modern cosmological findings everything points to a finite universe and nothing points to anything like an eternal universe and on oscillating model of the universe does nothing to refute the fact of a finite beginning
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb
An infinity is a concept, and it seems to apply fairly well when talking about God, but falls short when talking about the universe? Energy is not physical, but it creates things with physical property. God is talked about as being outside our time and our universe and, as you said non physical. So far we have God and energy being non physical. But one we can observe directly and in an objective way (energy), whil