William Lane Craig vs Ronald De Sousa 13/16 (York University)

[ofinterest2007]

Dr. Craig, please remember that you have said that we cannot paint your god in human terms. You simply can't hold such an entity to human terms. So PLEASE stop painting him as just some loving father that has been SO wronged by his own rebellious creations. That is painting him in human terms.

I noticed this hyprocrisy in your debate with Sinnot-Armstrong. Your contradict yourself sir.

[Nocturnalux]

Another of his blatant contradictions is how immensity/eternity are not possibilities in actual terms but merely ideas and yet God is eternal and without end. Thus, by his own reasoning, God is a mere idea. He refutes himself. And more he does this in every single debate

[jbiemans77]

Question about Adam and Eve:

If we assume that God knows all.

Then it follows that God knew, well in advance that Adan and Eve would eat of the tree and that the snake would tempt them to do so.

It then follows that God must have wanted Adam & Eve disobey him and to be in sin.

But then to punish them AND ALL their descendants for ever, seams pretty strange to me.

Then to kill yourself, in sacrifice to yourself to atone the sin that you knew would be commited ? (yes Jesus is God, look it up)

[arktheball]

I would like to offer a counter prospective on the Adam and Eve question. If you look at what God did for adam and eve, it was he created and ENTIRE garden for them to live and eat. God aid EVERYTHING they ate was good except for one little tree. JUST one!!!. And if God was to give them free will it required that they had an option to disobey. So think about it this way, God gave them MYRIAD choices that were right, and only one that was wrong. So it seems to me that God wasVERY merciful there.

[jbiemans77]

Now think about this.....

Adam and Eve had no idea about what the difference between right and wrong was, as they had not eaten from the tree yet. So not having the knowledge to know what they were doing was actually wrong, how can you punish them ?

Why would God even put the tree there. Here is the analogy that I like to use for this......

[jbiemans77]

Imagine that I took a room in my house and covered the walls with buttons. Some of them make lights go off, some make silly sounds, etc. Now I put a child in that room and tell them that they can push every button they like, but not the little red one in the corner.

What do you think will happen ?

If the child does push the button, should the child be held responsible ?

Would it not be more responsible for me to remove the button, or place the child under supervision?

[hexusziggurat]

@jbiemans77 if you were responsible enough to let the child know what punishment means...then the whole scenario is fine.

[hexusziggurat]

@jbiemans77 not knowing the difference between good/evil doesn't mean you don't understand what punishment means or what commiting something wrong means. An infraction against a rule doesn't neccesarily mean evil intent nor does it neccesarily mean evil in and of itself. People can have a perfect understanding about punishment and rules without understanding evil.

[jbiemans77]

@hexusziggurat I would have to disagree with you on that one. You get punished if you do something bad, and rewarded if you do something good (in general). So if you are not sure if you are doing something bad or good, how can you know if you will get a punishment or a reward ?

How do you know that it is good to obey me, if you do not know what good is.

Cont....

[jbiemans77]

@jbiemans77 I just thought of a good analogy. Imagine if you took someone that was color blind and placed them into the room full of buttons, and then told them not to push the red button. (to make it more analogus they would have to gain the ability to see color after pushing the red button), They go around pushing buttons, but would not realize their mistake until after pushing the button.

Can you blame the person for pushing the red button if they were color blind ?

[hexusziggurat]

@jbiemans77 well would is seem rather odd for them to actually understand God at all. I mean if they can't understand what it means NOT to do something then it would stand they don't understand what it means to do anything. An entity endowed with the kind of wisdom we associate to God would find it meaningless to iterate meaningless words...anything that was meaningless would therefor depose Him from the concept of divinity. Yes when we apply humanistic versions of the story we see err.

[jbiemans77]

@hexusziggurat What I said was that they wouldn't realize that it was wrong to do something you were told not to, or good to do what they were told.

That is if the tree was actually of the knowledge of good and evil as is said.

[hexusziggurat]

@jbiemans77 i would agree with you on that point but i'm trying to point out that good/evil are different than right/wrong. So the children would know right/wrong but not understand what evil/good mean exactly. Now if I tell you about a ruleset and say you can't have any infractions against it...you'll create all sorts of ways to live within those parameters which could be evil OR good...but it still remains that you would be following right/wrong codes not neccessarily good/evil codes.

[jbiemans77]

@hexusziggurat yes there is a difference between good and evil, and right and wrong, but the difference is subtle. Its like saying there is a difference between hot and warm.

If you do not know what good is, how do you know that what is right is good, and what is wrong is not good ? Without knowing what is good, you cannot know the difference between right and wrong.

[hexusziggurat]

@jbiemans77 ?Without knowing what is good, you cannot know the difference between right and wrong.?

If you give me rules & i understand what rules are & you tell me not to break any of the rules & we are both speaking the same language & fully understand each other....i don't have to know anything about good/bad to know how not to break those rules. I just simply don't break them. Now if the thought crept into my head "Why can't i break them?" then we creep into the good/bad realm.

[jbiemans77]

@hexusziggurat But what if I told you to break the rules you were told. With no knowledge of what is good, how can you determine the correct course of action, break the rules, or not break the rules.

It is pretty much a guess isn't it ? It would be like picking what is behind door #1 or door #2. How can you be responsible if door #1 happened to be the wrong choice ?

[Bonitatem]

So many atheists, including educated ones such as De Sousa, lose credibility when they open their potty mouths. At 4:02 he complains about God "Fuck it! Why didn't he get it right the first time.

I'm sorry, this is probably a corollary to the old Chinese maxim: the first person to raise their voice, loses the argument.

[Dark1777]

It has no bearing on the truth claim and there is no logical structure to accept the argument upon the exclamation.

He doesn't even raise his voice or say it in anger. Its purely for comical effect so I don't see how it at all relates to your quote. Also if you haven't been out of the states the word isn't considered a fraction as vulgar in other English speaking countries and De Sousa is clearly not from the States.

[UrinationNation]

If I go to a store and I buy a toaster but it does not do what it's supposed to, then who's to blame? Am I to blame for having randomly chosen the box with the flawed toaster, or is the person who created the toaster to blame? Of course if you believe in god then you must also believe that not only am I to blame for the toaster being flawed but that my children and my childrens children are at fault for the toaster. Any descent creator would have an exchange policy, or atleast store credit

[Deliratio]

"More rhetoric."

Are you arguing that my source, atheist apologist Jeff lowder, has a pro-christian bias?

[ivanisavich]

I think it's funny that Craig goes on and on about how terrible certain actions are, in an emotional appeal to validate his claim that morality is objective (ie, "rape is always wrong regardless of the circumstances", and other such claims he's made in debates)....

However, when god's morality is questioned, his response is "well god had a morally sufficient reason for x allegedly-immoral action he performed".

How does Craig know the rapist does not also possess such a reason? Silly Craig.

[regelemihai]

Was that a rhetorical question? If you hold to that view, it's okay. However, don't act like a pompous individual by calling him names with condescention.

[ivanisavich]

Did you even read my comment?

[regelemihai]

That would be obvious if you consider me saying that it is a " rhetorical question."

[ivanisavich]

The question was not rhetorical.

[Deliratio]

you can have objective morality and excuses/morally sufficient reasons at the same time

[ivanisavich]

I'm not making an argument against objective moral values. I'm pointing out that while Craig brushes off all of god's extreme actions as "morally sufficient", he will not do the same for humans...on top of that, his explanation for why god's actions are morally sufficient is severely lacking.

[Deliratio]

if you want exhaustive explanations for god's actions, you would have to spend a few hours to it. Craig doesn't have that time in a debate

You can list 30 biblical contradictions in your opening statement, watch the christian try explain 2-3 of them, wasting most of his time and claim at the end "he didn't adress all of my arguments, I win". it's basically the same

[ivanisavich]

Well one of Craig's main points in nearly every debate I've seen of his is that "god exists because objective morality exists". If he doesn't have "time" to explain god's morally sufficient reasons for acting in a way that humans would deem immoral, he shouldn't make it a cornerstone of his position.

If I state that rapists have morally sufficient reasons for their actions, I should plan to justify that claim extensively.

[Deliratio]

honestly, God's sufficient reasons for allowing certain acts are completely irrelevant to craigs argument from morality. it's a defense to the problem of evil, which is a completely different topic

[ivanisavich]

"honestly, God's sufficient reasons for allowing certain acts are completely irrelevant to craigs argument from morality"

Umm no.

If Craig is going to defend his position that God is morally perfect, and is in fact the author of objective morals, he's going to have to justify all kinds of heinous actions of that god as described in the bible, as well as the existence of things like suffering.....because those can serve as refutations of his position.

[Deliratio]

Craig's argument from morality is that naturalism entails moral nihilism (and ~50% of all atheist agree with him), plus "moral nihilism is false" (and ~50% of all atheist agree with him).

I already said, argumentum ad cerebrosum is like listing "1001 irrifutible bible contradictions"

By the way, contemporary philosophers of religion (theists and atheista alike) consider the argument from suffering as dead since Alvin Plantinga's rebuttal to J.L. Mackie's logical problem of evil

[ivanisavich]

"Craig's argument from morality is that naturalism entails moral nihilism"

If that was his argument, then Craig would be setting up a false dichotomy. In order for Craig's argument to be good, he has to show that supernaturalism entails objective morality.

"By the way, contemporary philosophers of religion (theists and atheista alike) consider the argument from suffering as dead

Haha! Are you kidding? There are plenty of good refutations of Plantinga's argument.

[Deliratio]

"In order for Craig's argument to be good, he has to show that supernaturalism entails objective morality."

That could be one of the worst responses to this argument I've even encountered.

"Haha! Are you kidding? There are plenty of good refutations of Plantinga's argument. "

Wishful thinking my friend.

"Huh? No idea which magic hat you pulled this out of."

"he's going to have to justify all kinds of heinous actions of that god as described in the bible,"

this one

[ivanisavich]

"That could be one of the worst responses to this argument I've even encountered."

Unless you can show why you think this, you're just spouting useless rhetoric.

Supernaturalism does not automatically entail objective morality. It could be the case that supernaturalism entails moral nihilism. It is up to Craig to show otherwise.

"Wishful thinking my friend."

More rhetoric.

[Deliratio]

"Unless you can show why you think this, you're just spouting useless rhetoric.

Supernaturalism does not automatically entail objective morality. It could be the case that supernaturalism entails moral nihilism. It is up to Craig to show otherwise."

You're commiting a fallacy. Craig argues:

(1) If -A, then -B

(2) B

(3) Therefore, A

As long as "If A, then -B" is unsound, he does not need to show that "If A, then B" is true.

[ivanisavich]

Sorry, no fallacy. You're missing the point that Craig is trying to argue that objective morality entails supernaturalism, without first giving a good proof that morality is objective in the first place.

It's funny that you think my response is "one of the worst" and "a fallacy"....because Craig attempts to do exactly what I stated he'd have to do in the debate! His argument for objective morality is poor, but at least he attempts one. However, according to you his doing so is a fallacy. Lol!

[Deliratio]

It's funny that when it comes to morality, atheists are always repeating themselves and confuse terms.

Your argument is actually getting worse and I'm not sure if you deserve a response. Good night.

[ivanisavich]

"Your argument is actually getting worse "

Well, if saying that makes you feel better about your own position, go ahead?

As I demonstrated in text, you don't understand the burden of proof Craig has regarding objective morality, you don't understand the type of justification Craig has to provide for god's actions (and duties) if he would like to argue that god is morally perfect, and you don't understand that rhetoric does not function as a rebuttal to a point.

Have a nice sleep.

[ivanisavich]

"this one"

If asking Craig to justify how god can be morally perfect while god does things like cause suffering is an "argument from outrage", then you've just undermined HIS whole position...because every time Craig says something like "if morality is not objective, then it would be permissible to rape", one could respond by saying "that's an argument from outrage!"

[Deliratio]

You are repeating yourself. X isn't morally wrong" is still different from "One can allow X to happen".

You are also confusing terms. "Why does God do this?" is the argument from outrage.

[ivanisavich]

1) Craig argues that moral duties exist as well. Maybe you've missed that part in his debates? That's a significant part of what Craig needs to justify.

2) Not all suffering is caused by humans and/or "free will". If the universe was designed by an omniscient god, that entails that he causes a fair amount of it.

3) Nothing is being confused. "Why does God do this" is a good question if his actions contradict his alleged nature. In fact, that's what Craig tried to justify in the first place.

[Deliratio]

sounds like you really like the argument from outrage

[ivanisavich]

Huh? No idea which magic hat you pulled this out of.

Or are you just trying to dodge the fact that Craig does not properly defend his position?

[XZerocX]

"Supernaturalism does not automatically entail objective morality. It could be the case that supernaturalism entails moral nihilism. It is up to Craig to show otherwise."

I don't see your point here. He is arguing for a form of supernaturalism that entails moral realism. The problem for him and his fellow theists is that they can't really prove moral realism and have to rely on intuitions.

[ivanisavich]

My point is that Craig has not proven that objective morality exists. He makes a weak appeal to emotion for objective moral values, then goes right on with his dichotomy between naturalism/supernaturalism.

To give Craig credit, often he DOES debate atheists who DO agree that morality is objective, so he wouldn't need to prove that it is if both parties already agree. However, I've seen debates of his where the atheists didn't agree, and Craig's proof was still nonexistent there.

[XZerocX]

By the way, calling him silly but accusing others "spouting useless rhetoircs" when they point to the fact that most philosophers agree that Plantinga's Free Will Defense defeated the logical problem of evil seems incredibly dishonest.

I would recommend you to be less arrogant when arguing with theists, or you will do them a favo, just like the idiocy of people like VenomFangX does us a favor.

[ivanisavich]

At best, that was an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy on Deliratio's part. I doesn't matter if 99% of philosophers agree with Plantinga, that doesn't magically erase the good rebuttles to Plantinga from existence.

"I would recommend you to be less arrogant when arguing with theists"

It's ironic that you should say this about me, after you call me "incredibly dishonest" for pointing out that "Wishful thinking my friend" is not an argument, but rhetoric. Take your own advice please.

[XZerocX]

I don't think Deliratio argued that the consensus erases the rebuttals. But that wasn't my point at all.

What you fail to realize is that he/she was correct in saying that the PoE has been abandoned and you responded with "Haha! Are you kidding?". You were the one who used rheotiric. The response seemed to imply that there is no consensus because of the "many rebuttals", which would be, in fact, wishful thinking on your part.

[ivanisavich]

"I don't think Deliratio argued that the consensus erases the rebuttals."

No, he went one step further and denied that any rebuttals exist. That's what gave me a chuckle.

"the PoE has been abandoned "

No it hasn't. If you think the free will defense defeated the PoE, I suggest you do some research.

The PoE's domain isn't even limited to human action, so how someone could think a FWD could defeat it is beyond me. The FWD doesn't address suffering caused by natural disasters, for example.

[XZerocX]

"No, he went one step further and denied that any rebuttals exist."

Ok, now _I_ have to accuse you of wishful thinking, because that's all he/she did.

By the way, I check the infidels-entry on the PoE and their grandmaster Jeff Lowder is saying exactly what Deliratio said he was: Contemporary philosophers concluded logical arguments from evil are unsuccesful since Plantinga's rebuttal to J.L. Mackie.

Also, I'm under the impression that you fail to grasp the conclusion of Plantinga's FWD.

[agnostaxian]

good to see a reasonable atheist out there. Many are just hitchen or dawkin drones. I read the pop atheists and thought atheists were just rhetorical angry morons who should not be taken to seriously until I read steele's book "atheism explained" and some of Sinnott-Armstrongs stuff. They give great philosophical defenses of atheism that wasn't the ridiculous adhoc crap of the pop's. U r right, they are like 6g earthers to us.