The question of us having some sort of god given sense to rule right from wrong has never impressed me. It is explained by evolution. 200 000 years ago, we fought within our packs to find an alpha, and these fights usually ended in death, as in most other alpha-male packs. Where were our morals then? Also, the packs that murdered or killed fellow pack members without survivalistic reason went extinct, and we are the descendants of the succesful packs that did not.
3:46 guilt of the murder yes....but WHY is it wrong! Dacey dodged that one by focusing on the "is there guilt or not" instead of establishing WHY its wrong on moral grounds.
@hexusziggurat why murder is wrong? Socially accepted behaviors (aka morals) are not specific to humans and they evolve over time. Yesterday it was morally okay to have slaves, today is not. Imagine tomorrow morals. For example, having more than 2 kids would be immoral. Why? Because earth resources cannot support further growth of humanity. consider how immoral you would be if you "produce" 8 kids? Everybody would see you as immoral for creating suffering. Morals = socially accepted behaviors
@MrGluepower "Morals = socially accepted behaviors" but that doesn't establish source. If you say that its humans that are source & they are "evolving to fit a given time" then nobody is correct. There is no overarching anchor point to establish "objective" morality.
"Socially accepted behaviors (aka morals) are not specific to humans and they evolve over time"....& animals have no capacity to understand WHY its right/wrong...i believe in objective morality...its wrong no matter what time it is.
@MrGluepower "Morals = socially accepted behaviors" but that doesn't establish source. If you say that its humans that are source & they're "evolving to fit a given time" then nobody is correct. There is no overarching anchor point to establish "objective" morality.
"Socially accepted behaviors (aka morals) are not specific to humans and they evolve over time"....& animals have no capacity to understand WHY its right/wrong...i believe in objective morality...its wrong no matter what time it is.
@hexusziggurat That assumption is easy to test. For example, Is homosexuality morally wrong? Is slavery morally wrong? How did we got to point to accept homosexuality and reject slavery? Not with some divine inspiration but with reasoning and fight. Is it really objectively wrong to have 3 kids and is okay to have 2? There is no "objective", there is only what is considered acceptable. Now you can add that "there must be more" but that is pure assertion and it is same as "god exist"
@hexusziggurat Sam Harris beautifully explain where our morals comes from. If you google "The moral landscape" you will find his work on youtube. I don't completely agree with him in regards to details but he have sound arguments without involving supernatural. If you only look how muslims are confident marrying little girls and despise women walking "naked" you will see that our moral values look perfect only in our own eyes.Nothing objective about it, just what is acceptable by culture.
@MrGluepower I often find that people who truly believe root morality is subjective are really just not wanting absolutes or actuall TRUE morals. They really just want something that fits the mood which is the worst kind of morality to buy into. The Jesuits used this same method as long as justification for the end goal "could" be established. Harris' morality based on "well-being" is more of this whimsical concept of morality. Its really more of a self-based morality that changes with mood.
@hexusziggurat I understand that you don't like idea. WLC says "without god there is no objective morality". For me "objective" means "objective" in today level of progress. Tomorrow that will change, for sure, our morality gets improved. Not fair? Not nice to think that way? WLC say "objective morality exist" but as illusory concept that cant tell us right from wrong. We still have to figure it out, once we do, then we know. WTF? If you don't know what it is, how do you know it exist?
@MrGluepower The point is, what you think is objective is not objective at all. It is objective only inside your culture. Change the culture (go to islam, hindu or budhism) you will see that moral values change. Not completely but you get idea. Moral standards from year 1000 would not be acceptable in 1920, and they would not be acceptable in year 30. Do we have "true" standard that can super-seed all these? You say yes, but don't know what they are, and give no proof they exist.
@Jesuslives310 Lots of Christians are rude as well and I'm saying this as a Christian. Lets not over-generalize the behaviors of a certain group of people. But I definitely agree with you in that it would be nice to to more choices of people to engage in rational discussions with!
@HaShim383 I went to a very conservative Christian high school where if you weren't a Christian, you will be treated differently, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Many people in my school were not sensitive to the beliefs or others and engages in discussions from a very one-dimensional perspective. But then of course that is just my personal experience. My previous post is not meant to generalize the Christian population as a whole to be rude, but instead is intended to say that
4:10 I hate that bullshit. Morals are based on rational choices and norms NOTHING MORE! There is no such thing as a soul. If the soul is responsible for morals then how come intelligent animals have these properties? According to Christianity, they do not have souls, they do have intelligence though. We can therefore safely conclude that morals are a product of intelligence, or we could make up some insane story of how this fits into the Christian doctrine. Fucking retards, so conceited.
Never heard of this guy Austin Dacey, but he's the first person I've heard that undeniably annihilated, and thoroughly humiliated, Craig's arguments. After this savage beating, Craig probably had to take one of those rape showers.
I asked a reasonable question in the comments on Drcraigvideos videos (not specifically to him, but to anybody who might read it), only to have him respond to the question not by answering it, but by attacking a position that I don't even hold, and then blocking me, allowing himself to get the last word.
So thank you Christianjr4 from uploading these videos and allowing people to freely comment on them (as far as I know). It speaks well for you.
Oops! Think you got it backwards, didn't you? I'm sure you meant to say
Craig - 10
Dacey -0
game called after 5 innings due to the ten-run rule.
The only thing I'll give Dacey credit for (remembering that there are NO moral victories) is that was civil and polite throughout the debate, as opposed to radials like Hitchens who throw Molotov Cocktails at every turn. I'd imagine that even Hitchens is not so brash now, knowing that his date with the Judge will be SOON.
Unfortunately, you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the subtleties in this debate to realize that Dacey won this confrontation. Even if he isn't the outright winner, it's quite clear that the score wouldn't be as lopsided as 10 - 0.
The validity of Craig's arguments for the resurrection of Jesus is founded mostly on his arrogance and his persistence, not on a solid foundation of logic and evidence. That alone defeats his attempt to prove a "Christian" God.
@III24601III - I'm sure you're right about that. After all, we've dialogued for, what is it now, 5-6 years? If anyone should know my intellectual capabilities by now, it would be YOU, oh great one.
Craig's argument for the fact of the Resurrection may seem to be arrogance (I concede that he IS very persistent about it...no shame there), but given the volumes of evidence you cite to back up your claim, it's clear to see why atheism is the powerful force for evil that it is!
@tigerlilly66 5-6 years is overkill. One of your comments is sufficient.
1. First example: There is no logical connection between any of the statements in your 2nd paragraph.
2. Second example: Your calling of atheism as a "powerful force of evil" also displays your lack of intelligence. I imagine that you are "atheist" towards the Greek Gods of Olympus and towards Allah, so according to your own words, you are evil as well.
3. You think Craig's argument for Resurrection is successful.
(sorry my spelling has been off. I'm quit tired.) But despite our obviously different views. I hope that any atheist reading this know that I am simply trying to answer their questions to the best of my knowledge and I hope no offense is taken.
4) His points pretty much beg the question so we can't say it's valid...I gave you a rebuttal regarding 1-3
5) No explanation for one-side does not make the other side valid since the other side makes too many assumptions...occam's razor destroys the God theory...it's an argument from ignorance.
@TheAtheistOasis would argue that the spirit is the whats seems missing componet in how the brain works. that the spirit determines the free will acts and that it is related to and affects the brain but just not in a scientificly detectable way. and regarding the last question, why would your chemicals disappear if god exist? at all?
@TheAtheistOasis I believe the point he's trying to make is that we don't have an answer as to how the conscious or brain works yet. See your assuming that chemicals and thoughts are either one and the same or that chemicals cause thoughts. Craig believes this to be a problem like many scholars do. And you can read more about why in many books. One of which is "god is great, god is good." but to answer your question as to whether or not a soul make a difference in free will he'd (I believe)
I like the fact that Dacey pointed out the problem with assuming unknown reasons that God might have for allowing suffering. Dacey really hits the nail on the head: An evil god allowing good things for unknown reasons is just as probable. I wish more debaters would point that out, because there really is no good comeback for Craig to resort to.
LOL just because you say so doesn't prove it so...you can't just define something into existance...How can something even function outside of time & space? magic powers?
You haven't even proven consciousness can exist without a brain...wow...just wow
1) craig answers himself in the debate. "the cause and effect of something can happen symotaniously"
2) becasue for something to come from nothing it has to be willed into being. everything cause withought a concious we know of is a direct result of a nother cause.
30 craig believes that we don't fully understand teh brain and we dont. from my understanding he bellieves that the brain is a tool that the "spirit" uses to express it's self. so a spirtual being having a concious is not
1) That begs the question...when does the simultaneous cause & effect happen? if the cause & effect happens simultaneously it still begs the question when it actually happened...it must happen within time or it could not have happened at all.
2) Begs the question how can you will something without actual time to will it into existence? it's a logical paradox & a self-refuting statement
3) it's not non-probable to him but then what is the proof for his assertion that spirits exist?
@Abgef Just wanted to point out a couple things, first special relativity postulates that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Spacetime would not have existed as we understand it so it is plausible to think that the effect and cause could occur at the same time, and indeed at the quantum level entangled electrons effect each other simultaneously across great distances, and experiments have even shown that there is such thing as retrocausation, so causation is a tricky thing.
"it so it is plausible to think that the effect and cause could occur at the same time"
That would imply a cause...the claim that the effect happened simultaneously is non-sequitur to a claim that a first cause has occured...so when did the cause occur?
If there was no time before time then how could there be time for a simultaneous cause & effect to occur? see how this argument contradicts itself?
@Abgef I just said, cause and effect do not rely on the notions of "before" and "after." In quantum mechanics it happens all the time that causes actually come AFTER the effect. Your subjugating the idea of causality to time when in reality it is the opposite. The moment is defined by the event, not the event by the moment. "how could there be time for a simultaneous cause & effect to occur?" Pretty simple, there MUST be time when it happens or it could not have happened.
"there MUST be time when it happens or it could not have happened"
exactly my point...if there was no time before then it could not have happened...therefore, a logical paradox & a self-contradicting & self-refuting argument
4) I believe he'd argue that the proof lies in all the points he made in the debate. Especially the ones that were left unanswered.
5) The proof lies in the fact that if a non conscious cause does exist outside of time. It would have no regulation or explanation for it's self. "How did it become "regulated and designed"
What naturalist explanation can account for the fact that Herod thought John the Baptist had risen from the dead in the form of Jesus? What naturalistic explanation can account for the fact that many many people report having seen Elvis after his death?
@estragon9 How man of those elvis witnesses would endure torture and death, to defend their account? 1000s of christians including the apostles themselves were martyred in HORRIFIC ways and went to their death with the name of the man they witnesses alive after an excruciating death, on their lips
@arktheball The 1000's killed by the Roman's did not claim to be eye witnesses to the risen Jesus. They simply would not renounce their faith (belief without seeing). Today we don't kill people for their beliefs. But consider the Jews. How many were tortured and killed by Christians during the inquisition because they would not convert to Christianity? Does their determination to keep their faith mean Christianity is false? These are not rhetorical questions.
@estragon9 The thousands werent, but did you miss where I said the apostles? They lived with the man, and claimed to have seen him rise from the dead. And as to "christians" torturing, that would be the CATHOLIC CHURCH!!! Not christianity
@arktheball So we agree that someone being willing to die for their beliefs does not make their beliefs true. Otherwise a maniac flying a plane into a building would demonstrate the truth of Islam. We must therefore, also agree that you bringing up 1000's of Christians who were martyred has nothing to do with anything. You just mentioned it to muddy the water. You point was about the apostles.
@estragon9 Actually I mispoke when I said the thousands didn't. There were infact many eyewitnesses to jesus' proclaimed resurrection. I wasn't attempting to "muddy the water." And yes, while not wholly an argument, the fact that those who claimed in the face of the jewish sanhedrin, and the Roman governers, that they had seen Jesus rise from the dead, and that His claims of divinity were affirmed tells you that they wouldnt give up on that claim even unto death.
@arktheball The 1000 was an exaggeration to make your argument sound stronger. It had the opposite effect. How many was it? In what town? And what evidence do you have that anyone saw the risen Jesus. I guess you will say the Bible: A book filled with contradictions and ridiculous stories about talking donkeys and snakes.
Herod believed that John the Baptist rose from the dead. Does that affirm John the Baptist as divine? By the way Herod was wrong he was mistook Jesus for John.
@estragon9 Your equivocation with their torture and execution at the hands of the Sanhedrin and Governers, and muslim jihadists mass murdering civilians, is as bad as equivocating the message of Jesus, with the catholic church. The two situations are motivated for TOTALLY different reasons. 1 Christians died because their oppressors didnt like their message 2. Muslim jihadists died because it would please Allah to slaughter the infidel who fall into the house of war.
@arktheball My point was clear. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all been confident enough in their beliefs to die for them. That they believed in very different things was my point. They can't all be true. Christianity and Islam can not both be truth. Therefore, it is obvious that being willing to die for your beliefs is not evidence that your beliefs are true. It demonstrates that people be can be absolutely convinced about things that are not true.
@arktheball The stories about the apostles and there martyrdom are no more historically accurate than the gospels. Many stories were written at that time with all kinds of crazy claims. Most were rejected by the early church. The early church fathers selected only those books and stories that served there purposes. By the way that was the roots of the Catholic Church. If you want to believe in Christianity fine, but claiming you have solid historical evidence is bull.
@estragon9 Well then I guess those stories about the apostles must be pretty dang accurate then, as few to no other book of antiquity is as well attested as the collection of writtings penned by the very disciples of Jesus Christ commonly known as the New Testament. Pray tell, what crazy stories? What time period? What early church? Where is your proof of this conspiracy of the "early church fathers?" ESPECIALLY considering the early church fathers were.. DA DA NUNAH The disciples!!!!
@arktheball What makes you think that the disciples penned the new testament. Not even the Bible says that. Luke and Mark are never listed as Jesus's disciples (even in the Gospels themselves). Men named Mark and John are at least listed as disciples but the narratives are written in the 3rd person. Bible scholars are in pretty clear agreement that the people who wrote the Gospels never knew Jesus personally. Paul is the early church's biggest advocate and he is never met Jesus.
@arktheball Crazy stories: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Hebrews, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Phillip, The Gospel of Peter. Written in the 1st through the 4th centuries. Some older than the canonical gospels. However, when they were written is not the point. The point is people are willing to write stories and call them gospels whether they are true or not. Do you think the Gospel of Peter was written by Peter?
@arktheball When I say early church I mean of St. Clement, Mathetes, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Barnabas, St. Papias, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus and guys like that. Before them the original disciples of Jesus preached apocalypse the immediate return of Jesus. (He said he would return before his contemporaries died) They were all killed and he never came back. That movement died with them. The people I mentioned above created the church that lead to what you believe.
@arktheball I never said conspiracy. I said that the people who decided what to keep and what to throw out of the Bible chose books that suited there purpose. The history of the Bible has been studied widely. I would recommend John Romer's "Testament" if you want to learn. Ironically your beliefs about the Bible and the early church are based on stories that suit your purpose rather than being based on objective truth.
@arktheball: Catholics make up more than half of christians. So you claiming your little minority group of christians, whatever it is, is right does not impress me. I'm sure you have the same sort of weird beliefs like killing and animal or a human, like Jesus, as a blood sacrifice somehow makes your life better. That's a sick belief. Take responsibility for yourself.
@estragon9 And boy do you know how to win people. Just throw out as many insults as you can about something you are completely ignorant on. I do believe that the wages of my sins is death, I do believe that Christ offered to pay the wages of my sins, and I believe that because I accepted his Gift, he took the punishment for me when he gave up his blameless life for mine. Its beautiful, not sick. I took the responsibility for my sins, Christ just asked to bear the punishment.
@arktheball I don't intend to win anyone. I intend to tell you in no uncertain terms that your superstitious beliefs do not deserve respect. There is nothing beautiful about nailing someone to a cross. Why is Jesus called the lamb of God? Because the people who wrote the bible had a belief in ritual sacrifice. If you had not grow up with this nonsense you would wince at the idea of eating Christ's body and drinking his blood. Believe what you want but don't pretend like its rational.
@estragon9 If you think protestants have not committed atrocities in the name of Christianity then your study of history is very selective indeed. This is the problem with Christianity and religion in general: Nobody can agree on what the truth is. Religion is because it is based on wants, desires and fantasies, rather than facts. That is why Christianity has splintered into so many groups, each one saying the others are wrong. Just like you are doing.
@estragon9 Its not about denominations. That is where some of your confusion lies. Its the political powers robed in the religious belief of the area that causes these horrid atrocities "in the name of God," whom just so conveniently only speaks to them. I singled out the catholic church because they are responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in history. Such as: Spanish inquisition, crusades etc... Mind you I am only referring to the political organization here.
@arktheball Science is convergent because scientist have to provide evidence for their assertions. In this way wrong ideas are discarded and agreement is reached on the most plausible explanations. Religion has no such standard. That is why Christianity has split into many, many, many denominations. If you don't like what your church believes start another one. You don't need any evidence. And I agree with you its about power.
@arktheball Understanding that human knowledge is limited preserves sanity. Thinking you have absolute knowledge leads to tragedy. Religions claim to know absolutely, what God wants, what he is, what people should do. Dogma.
Respond to this video... To end this, I will say this. I said "And if you would like to debate on the subject of wether or not the Papacy represented, and represents Christ I would be MORE than happy." And your replies were unwarranted in insults, attacks, and diatribes. So I will restate my original intent, and if you wish to take up my offer I would be more than happy to. Other wise I am done with this cascade of hostility I have had released against me.
@arktheball I agree with you that the Papacy does not represent Christ. However, I would say, nor do you or any Church. Nor does any religious organization represent God. I talk to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, you name it. A few are honest with me (mostly Hindus). Those who are honest admit that they do not know. Their faith is their faith. The idea that you can justify your religious beliefs with historical facts is an insult to reason.
Who says we are just electo-chemical machines if we don’t have a soul? Was that point established earlier?
How does a soul have freewill if it exists in a world with an all-knowing God who must then know exactly what you will do? You must do what he knows you will do.
Furthermore, if God knows exactly why you have done anything why would he punish anyone for anything? How can you be held morally accountable if all cause and effect is completely understood.
One of the better debates I have heard! AD is very articulate and so is WLC. Does God Exist?True science must operate within a very narrow "method" that makes science unable to operate in some arenas. I was concerned with the multitude of assumptions, "perhapsand could be's" that the naturalist is left with to explain how we came into existence and why there is no God. I would have expected more concrete SCIENCE to support the position that there is no God. IMO: WLC presents the stronger arg.
"IF we are just electrochemical machines determined by our genetic makeup and the input of our 5 senses then our moral actions are no more significant than the movement of a puppets limbs" CORRECT first right thing you said, however if those limbs killed a bunch of puppets the puppet world (in order to sustain its self) would have no choice but to condemn the the first puppet to jail (or in some states death)
@Abgef Time is something we imagine to help us keep record, organize, and plan. Simply a tool of measurement. Like an inch, or foot. That answers 1, and destroys your faulty premise. 3 you assume that the brain must be physical, and in this universe to have consciousness. 4 You obviously missed Craigs argument on the nature of the physical constants. 5. You are doing the same thing here, that you attempt to complain that the religious do. Simply hypothesizing isn't a reason to not believe
1) Time is also a succession of moments...if there was no moment for the creation to occur then how can there be a moment for the first moment to even be created? therefore...God theory proposes a logical paradox.
3) everything we have observed to have a mind has a brain...if WLC proposes a mind can exist without a brain then he must give proof of a disembodied mind & not just assume it in the premises
4) no his explanation is faulty because it doesn't answer my #2
@Abgef 1. Your still using the assumption that actions require moments and moments require time to exist, or happen. That is like saying Montana cant exist if the hundreds of miles that span it cant exist. An action happens regardless of what 1/60000 of the day it happens in. You are creating a false paradox.
3. But not every brain has a mind ;) haha I am kidding. Dr Craig has givin MANY arguments in favor of mind/ brain duality before. Look them up and disagree with them there.
1)How is that an assumption? everything that has cause needs time to actually cause something...it is self-contradicting to say something happened but did not have a moment in time when it happened...how can something happen & not happen at the same time? Logical paradox
3) Nope, all his arguments rests upon the fact that it cannot be observed, tested or either needs to be assumed in such testimonies, not to mention his "arguments from ignorance"...therefore, his argument is invalid.
@Abgef I gave you a reason why its a false paradox and you ignored it. I can kick a horse, and simply because there is no when to put that event at, for your referential benefit, does nothing to discount the occurring of that event. As I stated, time is OUR tool to help us reference events. It is no more a substance then miles, or inches, or kilometers, or pounds. Could you provide examples of these "arguments from ignorance?" lack of testing or observation does nothing for an argument.
"As I stated, time is OUR tool to help us reference events"
it is a tool & I already said this tool is defined as a series of occuring moments...if there were no succeeding moment to create something then how can creation occur? magic powers?
you can't reach a kilometer without reaching an inch &...
you can't create a cause without a moment for the cause to happen LOGICAL PARADOX
Respond to this video...Let me respond to your 4. in your own manner. Structure needs a structurer. We have NEVER observed chaos producing self replicating order. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It applies because the universe we live in is a closed system, being the boundary of space its self, which is a requirement for matter to exist. The cause in the case of the universe MUST be conscious based on our own experience alone that jet engines don't assemble themselves.
4) God violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics & therefore violates your own logic...& we do not live in a closed system in the universe but we live in the closed system of earth...it does not apply to the universe since the universe itself is not just a collection of matter & energy but the whole of time & space & spacetime...our own subjective experiences in the closed system of earth therefore does not apply to the universe.
@Abgef The universe is a closed system, Michio Kaku described the universe as a balloon. And its precisely because its the whole of spacetime (which is just a way of describing distance ex: lightyear, the distance a light particle travels at a known speed, in given period of time(our own creation for reference)) that proves my description the universe as a closed system. You asserted that God violates the 2nd LoTD without ANY reasoning or supportive argumentation.... help me out here.
THAT does not apply to the 2nd law of thermodynamics since the only applies to existing matter & anergy & NOT spacetime...do you even know what the other laws are?
"You asserted that God violates the 2nd LoTD without ANY reasoning or supportive argumentation"
YES because time is needed for causes to actually cause something...he simply violates that by definition
@Abgef God invented conciousness, time and space. So He must be outside it. The universe and everything in it clearly has a cause and that cause must be God.
"begging the question," is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." More specifically, it refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise.
Man1: God created the universe.
Man2: How do you know that?
Man1: because it fits God & I don't have a better explanation.
(Man1 is clearly begging the question by asserting/assuming God's existence without actually proving God's existence)
@Abgef Craig never committed the fallacy of "begging the question"
He stated that through a form of the kalam cosmological arg
Simplified
1. The universe had a beginning of space time and all things
2. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
3. That cause has to be timeless space less and immaterial.
from there he makes the point that god would be all those things and there for is the best explanation we currently have for the beginning of the universe.
@Abgef Why must I prove something contradictory to our experience? YOU are the one asserting that it is possible that a "non-conscious unexplainable cause" is what started this universe, while failing to do ANYTHING more than say God doesn't exist because what if?...
"YOU are the one asserting that it is possible that a "non-conscious unexplainable cause" is what started this universe"
you have asked me to prove a negative my friend
of course it's possible since you have not provided reasons why the cause has to be conscious...deduction of possiblities arise from eliminating other possibilites so unless you can prove one is an actual impossibility then we can't claim it is not.
it's like asking someone to prove impossibility of Odin or Zeus.
How come everyone on here talks..so propper and intelligently... damn i don't know what the fuck half of you are saying, big words can't make up for anything
Dacey's argument against the resurrection are very weak and he doesn't touch Craig's arguments in support. He grants the empty tomb then ignores the rest of the effect of that argument.
hahaha. Great minds think alike. Austin also used the Elvis argument like I did in the earlier clips. And as I mentioned before. This includes Bigfoot or the Chuppa Caubra. So many people claim to have seen BFoot, yet as large and monstrous as the slow walking beastie is, no skeletons or anything relating to it, have been found. Come on people. THINK!
2:23 " the idea that there is a soul doesn't really add anything of use"
but if we have it we should therefor forget about examining it in any fashion cause we don't know what its used for? Are you serious Dacey? This kind of cavalier dismissal is grounds for excommunication of a person from the field of science altogther. I see that thing there....but i dunno what it does....oh well its not for anything.
@mrbluesky323 hmm maybe you are missing my point or i didn't explain it correctly. The idea that somebody adresses a something...and since we cannot see it therefor it doesn't exist? Thats just about as ludicrous as saying I see that thing there...but i don't klnow what it does so it must not be for anything. the door swings both ways. Now many lay claim to a soul...is it their fault they cannot provide empirical evidence...no...its sciences fault for not coming up with a method to do so yet.
So, if I understand you correctly, your position would be that claims that people make are true until disproved by science? Or, more precisely, that we cannot deny the validity of a claim that someone makes until we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're wrong?
If there's no evidence of something's existence (besides the fact that someone is claiming it exists) aren't we reasonably justified in denying that such things exist?
@mrbluesky323 my words were meant to be sarcastic in reference to Dacey's logic being present in that part of the clip i referenced. 2:23
simply just as you are saying...we don't neccesarily believe truth as somebody says right off...but by the same token...we don't dismiss it either simply b/c we can't fire it through a battery of scientific tests (or perhaps the tests don't even exist yet). So we can't be calling ourselves "good" science practitioners if we dismiss things non-chalantly.
Well fair enough. But i guess my point is that the "soul" is defined in such a way that science can NEVER access it. It's a mysterious non-physical material. Science can only deal with physical objects.
With this in mind the ONLY way you can ever use the soul as an explanation is due to an inability to explain something via physical mechanisms. It's inevitably a claim of ignorance. There's no practical difference between "We don't know" and "the soul is responsible".
@mrbluesky323 I'm not so sure that science will "never" be able to "sense or even vallidate" these mysterious things in humanity. I believe that it'll take somebody bold enough to step beyond the "acceptable norm" of the scientific community (even though good science shouldn't have such boundaries at all) to establish unorthodox methods to get some data on these subjects. We only think it can't be done but there is really allot of things that man thought "it can't be done"...we need visionaries
In that case though, it would no longer be classified as supernatural-- it would then be a part of nature, albeit a new and uncharted part of nature. This is just a matter of definition.
We both agree that consciousness is not understood. What is the purpose of calling the soul an immaterial, supernatural substance if such substances can be studied by a naturalistic process?
What does it mean to call something supernatural if not to differentiate it from the natural?
@mrbluesky323 i think supernatural is what humanity labels the "unchartered waters"...perhaps we as humans cannot possibly build a ship that can ever sail those seas or maybe its has less to do with a "machine" or process and more to do with the human brain and how it is a receiver of extraordinary capability. study under "naturalistic" measures is also an open wild card in the sense that we just need more imagination/open mindedness to sense these things.
Well, ok. I think that most people wouldn't agree with your definition of supernatural. But i also think that they unintentionally use the word to support your definition. So, I agree that the word is used that way, but it's not how most people think of the word. If that makes any sense.
We'll just have to respectfully disagree.
And I wouldn't say that I am good people. Not bad people for sure, but not good people either. Just a person.
@mrbluesky323 Supernatural –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. -noun 8. the supernatural, a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively. b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural. my "unchartered waters" is simply a metaphor for all of it. my compliment was just a compliment (it feels that even that has been refuted).
I was attempting to show that the definition from the dictionary was inconsistent with the usage you were using earlier. I think I poorly communicated.
-You said earlier that science may one day be able to understand the "soul" if they're open minded/creative enough.
-I'm saying that such a statement contradicts the dictionary definition you've given above.
If you could reread my previous post with that in mind, maybe things will be cleared up?
I'm saying that there's a difference between unexplained and unexplainABLE. Where your earlier usage referred to something unexplained, and this dictionary definition is making a stronger statement than that.
@mrbluesky323 well i think that everything that man could not explain at one time was "unexplainable" with their current means. So it could easily have adopted the name "supernatural". But as we advance we learn that things that at one time were not explainable are with more modern ideas/measures that by the standards of history are unorthodox for information gathering (simply more advanced). I was alluding to the idea that maybe in 100yrs finding the soul would be simple by their means.
Craig’s arguments seem to add up to a tautology involving a back and forth gestalt between evidentialism and presuppositional apologetics. He keeps stating that the evidence yields the presence of something (God) that he is certain exists a priori to the evidence itself. The funny thing is that when he attempts to corroborate his claims, the evidence stops short of the foregone conclusions he “derives” from such evidence.
@namasteywhat false - Brian created everything that exists according to his nature, including free will. Free will allows one to choose an action against Brian and his nature. So Brian created a world where child rape could possibly occur but he does not condone the act nor is it in accordance with his nature. Why would Brian create a world with free will? So that free agents could choose to express love back and not commit child rapes which are against God's intent. Simple. See?
Good debate overall. I thought Dacey's mind/body argument was by far his weakest argument. In fact I think the existence of consciousness shows that everything is not matter and energy.
Craig won the debate but Dacey gave him a good challenge perhaps more so than anyone else Craig has debated.
@christianjr4, i do wonder why you left out the conclusion, with the results of the debate. is it because it was a minumental failure for craig? you don't have to answer that, already know the answer.
@brownbigb actually it would be because as far as I can tell from searching, for one, there is no hidden clip he left out. the debate ends on this question in every full version of this 120 minute debate and there is no revealing of the results of the debate to be found. If you can provide evidence that there are results of this debate that favor either one or the other, I would gladly check it out. But to imply that Christiannjr4 is deceptively trying to leave out the results is fallacious
I would say Dacey was a good contender for Craig however he lost as he didn't refute on some of Craig's arguments. Craig on the other hand refutted all of Dacey's arguments easily. Craig is still undefeated and has yet to be proven wrong.
"Craig...refuted all of Dacey's arguments easily?"
I must have been watching a different debate.
"Craig is still undefeated and has yet to be proven wrong"?
He's an accomplished debater, to be sure--his eloquent and organized delivery makes him superficially persuasive--but his arguments are never as strong as he seems to think they are. To me, he is the typical question-begging apologist, starting with his conclusions and then fashioning arguments to order to justify them.
@7tylerjb Craigs arguments seem mostly based on the historicity of the resurrection and theological blablabla. The historicity of the resurrection cannot be proven since the bible is the only source and theology is the art if putting a reasonable cloak on otherwise unreasonable propositions.
Funnily enough... since Dacey is a philosopher, everyone seems to agree that he debated Craig to a standstill.
Simply because he understood the language and approach needed.
Does this mean that Craig "won" all his other debates?
No.. it just shows how when you take away the advantage he bestows on himself by defining the terms of the debate.. all of a sudden.. he's not so convincing.
( I certainly give you credit for posting this video too )
this debate is draw for most of the part it is only latter where craig got the upperhand. i think even craig himself says the austin was a very good debater and the momentum have shifted one way to another. austin got caught with the resurrection thing in which he answers a level one kind of argument. he couldn't get out a very good reason. but he is for me so far the best atheist debater...
Craig is 100% right that if there is no god there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE moral values. Morals would only be SUBJECTIVE survival mechanisms from evolution if god does not exist.
Dacey was wrong when he tried to deny this.
However, even though Craig is correct on this point about morals, that does not in itself prove or disprove god. It only attaches objective morals to god but does not prove god itself.
I am a christian and i think Dacey did pretty good. I would say this debate was a draw which is pretty good for Dacey because 9 times out of 10 Craig wins by a longshot.
I think Richard Dawkins would be wise to mimic Dacey's maturity but instead Dawkins clings to immature name calling and childish arguments like "the flying spaghetti monster" or comparing creationists to flat-earthers or "advocates of the stork theory of reproduction."
I disagree.... Dacey stopped Craig cold because he is also well versed in the language of philosophy, not because he's mature.
You may think the " flying spaghetti monster " is a childish argument, but it stems from a protest over Kitzmiller vs Dover decision, and it makes a valid point.
Funnily enough, no philosophers were required to testify at that hearing.
@Roper122 I'm about to make an ad hominen statement so I will point out beforehand that Bobby Henderson's integrity has nothing to do with creationism vs evolution and I am merely making an aside.
"In December 2005 Bobby Henderson received a reported USD $80,000 advance from Villard to write The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
I point this out because you mention "Kitzmiller vs Dover" and I find it interesting that Bobby continued to make a ministry where he collects donation over it.
@Roper122 The point I am making is that to the layman, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just cute satire but to Bobby Henderson this is his primary source of income. It may be a joke to most but to him he is making serious cash off of the book and ministry.
@Roper122 For Roper122 or anyone else that wants to join our convo please look at "/watch?v=Qd17iRmiE4o" for a good example of childish atheists. In this video I link you will see that the atheists have a poor understanding of the objective vs subjective morality argument and turn into sophomoric insults and satire. Even though I am a christian I can concede that Craig VS Dacey was a draw. I hope that Ropey122 or other atheists can concede that the creationist won the debate I just linked.
5:10 'it is frustrating in these debates to have to try to talk in sound bites & not be able to delve into these issues at length'
So why doesn't somebody organize a debate where people actually 'delve into the issues?' hmmm.... I wonder why that is. hmmm... I wonder... what could be the reason?
One cannot reduce the Oneness of all things and expect to observe the reality of it. Inside the Atom is mostly space. Inside an Electron, part of the Atom is mostly space. The tiniest particle we can observe, the Quanta, is mostly then voided space. It remains the proven fact that Design is more meaningful than Material Substance lent to the Design. We have no physical proof of higher dimensions beyond Time, except what the Numbers report. Thus more exists than our senses report.
the claim that the human brain has "only physical properties" is false. Light has no color, but only wavelength that affects visibility. But the pleasure of the sentient mind is to see colors, and I emphasize the word "pleasure." There is really no such thing as red and blue, but we are all wrapped up in the distinctions of colors blending from red to blue. Color is then a supernatural effect, not a physical property. Color and the pleasure of it cannot be proven to exist materially.
William Craig Does it again!!! Win
killorocko18 1 week ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
The question of us having some sort of god given sense to rule right from wrong has never impressed me. It is explained by evolution. 200 000 years ago, we fought within our packs to find an alpha, and these fights usually ended in death, as in most other alpha-male packs. Where were our morals then? Also, the packs that murdered or killed fellow pack members without survivalistic reason went extinct, and we are the descendants of the succesful packs that did not.
Eirikofs 1 month ago
I watched this entire debate today. I'd like for all debates to go this way. Dacey/Craig were very very respectful to each other.
acousticnirvana94 2 months ago
wait a minute... the top comments are coherent and respectful! what the hell is going on here? this is youtube!
nicocap24 3 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
This has been flagged as spam show
@isthechurchtrue Which also says, it only takes an unknown atheist to debate with the foremost theist.
h2321 4 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
at 5:00
Dr Casey?
The video description says Dr Austin Dacy and the video title says Dacey (which is the correct spelling)
Part 13 at 3:21
"I would like to ask Dr. Lacy, Uh Dacey..."
Very few people there even know who Dr. Austin Dacey is, how embarrassing.
isthechurchtrue 5 months ago
Comment removed
h2321 4 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey
Good debate on both sides, I think Dacey responded well to Craigs arguments.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
wow what a great debate. good job with the upload Christianjr4.
scoey84 6 months ago
3:46 guilt of the murder yes....but WHY is it wrong! Dacey dodged that one by focusing on the "is there guilt or not" instead of establishing WHY its wrong on moral grounds.
hexusziggurat 6 months ago
@hexusziggurat why murder is wrong? Socially accepted behaviors (aka morals) are not specific to humans and they evolve over time. Yesterday it was morally okay to have slaves, today is not. Imagine tomorrow morals. For example, having more than 2 kids would be immoral. Why? Because earth resources cannot support further growth of humanity. consider how immoral you would be if you "produce" 8 kids? Everybody would see you as immoral for creating suffering. Morals = socially accepted behaviors
MrGluepower 5 months ago
@MrGluepower "Morals = socially accepted behaviors" but that doesn't establish source. If you say that its humans that are source & they are "evolving to fit a given time" then nobody is correct. There is no overarching anchor point to establish "objective" morality.
"Socially accepted behaviors (aka morals) are not specific to humans and they evolve over time"....& animals have no capacity to understand WHY its right/wrong...i believe in objective morality...its wrong no matter what time it is.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@MrGluepower "Morals = socially accepted behaviors" but that doesn't establish source. If you say that its humans that are source & they're "evolving to fit a given time" then nobody is correct. There is no overarching anchor point to establish "objective" morality.
"Socially accepted behaviors (aka morals) are not specific to humans and they evolve over time"....& animals have no capacity to understand WHY its right/wrong...i believe in objective morality...its wrong no matter what time it is.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat That assumption is easy to test. For example, Is homosexuality morally wrong? Is slavery morally wrong? How did we got to point to accept homosexuality and reject slavery? Not with some divine inspiration but with reasoning and fight. Is it really objectively wrong to have 3 kids and is okay to have 2? There is no "objective", there is only what is considered acceptable. Now you can add that "there must be more" but that is pure assertion and it is same as "god exist"
MrGluepower 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat Sam Harris beautifully explain where our morals comes from. If you google "The moral landscape" you will find his work on youtube. I don't completely agree with him in regards to details but he have sound arguments without involving supernatural. If you only look how muslims are confident marrying little girls and despise women walking "naked" you will see that our moral values look perfect only in our own eyes.Nothing objective about it, just what is acceptable by culture.
MrGluepower 5 months ago
@MrGluepower I often find that people who truly believe root morality is subjective are really just not wanting absolutes or actuall TRUE morals. They really just want something that fits the mood which is the worst kind of morality to buy into. The Jesuits used this same method as long as justification for the end goal "could" be established. Harris' morality based on "well-being" is more of this whimsical concept of morality. Its really more of a self-based morality that changes with mood.
hexusziggurat 5 months ago
@hexusziggurat I understand that you don't like idea. WLC says "without god there is no objective morality". For me "objective" means "objective" in today level of progress. Tomorrow that will change, for sure, our morality gets improved. Not fair? Not nice to think that way? WLC say "objective morality exist" but as illusory concept that cant tell us right from wrong. We still have to figure it out, once we do, then we know. WTF? If you don't know what it is, how do you know it exist?
MrGluepower 5 months ago
@MrGluepower The point is, what you think is objective is not objective at all. It is objective only inside your culture. Change the culture (go to islam, hindu or budhism) you will see that moral values change. Not completely but you get idea. Moral standards from year 1000 would not be acceptable in 1920, and they would not be acceptable in year 30. Do we have "true" standard that can super-seed all these? You say yes, but don't know what they are, and give no proof they exist.
MrGluepower 5 months ago
I like debating with atheists. But in a nice way. But so many atheists are rude. Why cant we just have discussions like the proffesionals do?
Jesuslives310 8 months ago 19
@Jesuslives310 I wish the same bro! God bless!
dominguessdude 8 months ago
@Jesuslives310 Err....AmunRa lives!
wowamonn 7 months ago
@Jesuslives310 Lots of Christians are rude as well and I'm saying this as a Christian. Lets not over-generalize the behaviors of a certain group of people. But I definitely agree with you in that it would be nice to to more choices of people to engage in rational discussions with!
vincentwu 7 months ago in playlist DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey 11
@vincentwu I'd like for you to show me several examples of which you came across Christians acting up more than atheists?
HaShim383 5 months ago
@HaShim383 I went to a very conservative Christian high school where if you weren't a Christian, you will be treated differently, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Many people in my school were not sensitive to the beliefs or others and engages in discussions from a very one-dimensional perspective. But then of course that is just my personal experience. My previous post is not meant to generalize the Christian population as a whole to be rude, but instead is intended to say that
vincentwu 5 months ago
@HaShim383 there are both rude and well-mannered peoples from each belief.
vincentwu 5 months ago
@Jesuslives310
Please search for Dawkins hate mail on youtube, you will be enlightened.
xHouseyx 2 months ago 2
Dacey did well but his response to the boys question about the 'advanced weed' (lol) was kind of lame.
ShawDAMAN 8 months ago
good debate. Dacey was quite appealing actually and unlike a good number of his peers, was humble.
ShawDAMAN 8 months ago
Creation is an act of love in itself.
dannywizz 9 months ago
4:10 I hate that bullshit. Morals are based on rational choices and norms NOTHING MORE! There is no such thing as a soul. If the soul is responsible for morals then how come intelligent animals have these properties? According to Christianity, they do not have souls, they do have intelligence though. We can therefore safely conclude that morals are a product of intelligence, or we could make up some insane story of how this fits into the Christian doctrine. Fucking retards, so conceited.
M3t4lManiac 10 months ago
Sorry Theists, but your boy Craig got pwned on that one....
lethalvb01 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Never heard of this guy Austin Dacey, but he's the first person I've heard that undeniably annihilated, and thoroughly humiliated, Craig's arguments. After this savage beating, Craig probably had to take one of those rape showers.
redchango 11 months ago
This guys are great!!!
VDMpeniel 11 months ago
well, I'm glad that Christianjr4, unlike drcraigvideos, allows for free discussion on his vids. I applaud you, sir.
Drgamedood 11 months ago
@Drgamedood Agreed!
I asked a reasonable question in the comments on Drcraigvideos videos (not specifically to him, but to anybody who might read it), only to have him respond to the question not by answering it, but by attacking a position that I don't even hold, and then blocking me, allowing himself to get the last word.
So thank you Christianjr4 from uploading these videos and allowing people to freely comment on them (as far as I know). It speaks well for you.
Walabinx 10 months ago
Dacey is thoughtful, but his arguments are not very trenchant.
djs259 11 months ago
You don't have to read much New Testament history to see that Craig is flat out lying about what "everybody admits".
Springheel01 11 months ago
Austin Dacey: 1, William Craig: 0
III24601III 1 year ago
@III24601III =
Oops! Think you got it backwards, didn't you? I'm sure you meant to say
Craig - 10
Dacey -0
game called after 5 innings due to the ten-run rule.
The only thing I'll give Dacey credit for (remembering that there are NO moral victories) is that was civil and polite throughout the debate, as opposed to radials like Hitchens who throw Molotov Cocktails at every turn. I'd imagine that even Hitchens is not so brash now, knowing that his date with the Judge will be SOON.
tigerlilly66 11 months ago
@tigerlilly66
Unfortunately, you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the subtleties in this debate to realize that Dacey won this confrontation. Even if he isn't the outright winner, it's quite clear that the score wouldn't be as lopsided as 10 - 0.
The validity of Craig's arguments for the resurrection of Jesus is founded mostly on his arrogance and his persistence, not on a solid foundation of logic and evidence. That alone defeats his attempt to prove a "Christian" God.
III24601III 11 months ago
@III24601III - I'm sure you're right about that. After all, we've dialogued for, what is it now, 5-6 years? If anyone should know my intellectual capabilities by now, it would be YOU, oh great one.
Craig's argument for the fact of the Resurrection may seem to be arrogance (I concede that he IS very persistent about it...no shame there), but given the volumes of evidence you cite to back up your claim, it's clear to see why atheism is the powerful force for evil that it is!
Hoo Hah
tigerlilly66 11 months ago
@tigerlilly66 5-6 years is overkill. One of your comments is sufficient.
1. First example: There is no logical connection between any of the statements in your 2nd paragraph.
2. Second example: Your calling of atheism as a "powerful force of evil" also displays your lack of intelligence. I imagine that you are "atheist" towards the Greek Gods of Olympus and towards Allah, so according to your own words, you are evil as well.
3. You think Craig's argument for Resurrection is successful.
III24601III 11 months ago
@TheAtheistOasis some corrections.
Component*
scientifically*
(sorry my spelling has been off. I'm quit tired.) But despite our obviously different views. I hope that any atheist reading this know that I am simply trying to answer their questions to the best of my knowledge and I hope no offense is taken.
babertron 1 year ago
@babertron
4) His points pretty much beg the question so we can't say it's valid...I gave you a rebuttal regarding 1-3
5) No explanation for one-side does not make the other side valid since the other side makes too many assumptions...occam's razor destroys the God theory...it's an argument from ignorance.
Abgef 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis would argue that the spirit is the whats seems missing componet in how the brain works. that the spirit determines the free will acts and that it is related to and affects the brain but just not in a scientificly detectable way. and regarding the last question, why would your chemicals disappear if god exist? at all?
babertron 1 year ago
@TheAtheistOasis I believe the point he's trying to make is that we don't have an answer as to how the conscious or brain works yet. See your assuming that chemicals and thoughts are either one and the same or that chemicals cause thoughts. Craig believes this to be a problem like many scholars do. And you can read more about why in many books. One of which is "god is great, god is good." but to answer your question as to whether or not a soul make a difference in free will he'd (I believe)
babertron 1 year ago
I like the fact that Dacey pointed out the problem with assuming unknown reasons that God might have for allowing suffering. Dacey really hits the nail on the head: An evil god allowing good things for unknown reasons is just as probable. I wish more debaters would point that out, because there really is no good comeback for Craig to resort to.
gluemoae 1 year ago
Causes need time to have an effect, therefore:
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
furthermore...
2) Why does the cause need to be conscious?
3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain?
4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist?
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
too many assumptions...occam's razor destroys WLC's arguments
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef God is outside of time and space so your argument fails
9pt9 1 year ago
LOL just because you say so doesn't prove it so...you can't just define something into existance...How can something even function outside of time & space? magic powers?
You haven't even proven consciousness can exist without a brain...wow...just wow
how stupid.
Abgef 1 year ago
@9pt9 Yes, out of existence is correct.
inswoon 11 months ago
@Abgef
1) craig answers himself in the debate. "the cause and effect of something can happen symotaniously"
2) becasue for something to come from nothing it has to be willed into being. everything cause withought a concious we know of is a direct result of a nother cause.
30 craig believes that we don't fully understand teh brain and we dont. from my understanding he bellieves that the brain is a tool that the "spirit" uses to express it's self. so a spirtual being having a concious is not
babertron 1 year ago
@babertron
1) That begs the question...when does the simultaneous cause & effect happen? if the cause & effect happens simultaneously it still begs the question when it actually happened...it must happen within time or it could not have happened at all.
2) Begs the question how can you will something without actual time to will it into existence? it's a logical paradox & a self-refuting statement
3) it's not non-probable to him but then what is the proof for his assertion that spirits exist?
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef Just wanted to point out a couple things, first special relativity postulates that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Spacetime would not have existed as we understand it so it is plausible to think that the effect and cause could occur at the same time, and indeed at the quantum level entangled electrons effect each other simultaneously across great distances, and experiments have even shown that there is such thing as retrocausation, so causation is a tricky thing.
dbmcmillan 11 months ago
@dbmcmillan
"it so it is plausible to think that the effect and cause could occur at the same time"
That would imply a cause...the claim that the effect happened simultaneously is non-sequitur to a claim that a first cause has occured...so when did the cause occur?
If there was no time before time then how could there be time for a simultaneous cause & effect to occur? see how this argument contradicts itself?
Abgef 11 months ago
@Abgef I just said, cause and effect do not rely on the notions of "before" and "after." In quantum mechanics it happens all the time that causes actually come AFTER the effect. Your subjugating the idea of causality to time when in reality it is the opposite. The moment is defined by the event, not the event by the moment. "how could there be time for a simultaneous cause & effect to occur?" Pretty simple, there MUST be time when it happens or it could not have happened.
dbmcmillan 11 months ago
@dbmcmillan
"there MUST be time when it happens or it could not have happened"
exactly my point...if there was no time before then it could not have happened...therefore, a logical paradox & a self-contradicting & self-refuting argument
Abgef 11 months ago
@Abgef unprobable to him.
4) I believe he'd argue that the proof lies in all the points he made in the debate. Especially the ones that were left unanswered.
5) The proof lies in the fact that if a non conscious cause does exist outside of time. It would have no regulation or explanation for it's self. "How did it become "regulated and designed"
babertron 1 year ago
@Abgef and most likely a non conscious entity outside of space in time would either do two things I believe.
1) (Being purely chaotic) never stop creating resulting in a chaos and destruction of all things brought to being.
Or 2) (more likely) do nothing and stay that way.
But the main problem with a infinite non conscious thing with properties (needed to create the universe)
Is that it leads us to an infinite regress
babertron 1 year ago
Could you provide examples of these "arguments from ignorance?"
omfg...pls wiki argument from ignorance.
I don't think you even understand what it means.
Abgef 1 year ago
Causes need time to have an effect, therefore:
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
furthermore...
2) Why does the cause need to be conscious?
3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain?
4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist?
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
too many assumptions...occam's razor destroys WLC's arguments
Abgef 1 year ago
What naturalist explanation can account for the fact that Herod thought John the Baptist had risen from the dead in the form of Jesus? What naturalistic explanation can account for the fact that many many people report having seen Elvis after his death?
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 How man of those elvis witnesses would endure torture and death, to defend their account? 1000s of christians including the apostles themselves were martyred in HORRIFIC ways and went to their death with the name of the man they witnesses alive after an excruciating death, on their lips
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball The 1000's killed by the Roman's did not claim to be eye witnesses to the risen Jesus. They simply would not renounce their faith (belief without seeing). Today we don't kill people for their beliefs. But consider the Jews. How many were tortured and killed by Christians during the inquisition because they would not convert to Christianity? Does their determination to keep their faith mean Christianity is false? These are not rhetorical questions.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 The thousands werent, but did you miss where I said the apostles? They lived with the man, and claimed to have seen him rise from the dead. And as to "christians" torturing, that would be the CATHOLIC CHURCH!!! Not christianity
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball So we agree that someone being willing to die for their beliefs does not make their beliefs true. Otherwise a maniac flying a plane into a building would demonstrate the truth of Islam. We must therefore, also agree that you bringing up 1000's of Christians who were martyred has nothing to do with anything. You just mentioned it to muddy the water. You point was about the apostles.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 Actually I mispoke when I said the thousands didn't. There were infact many eyewitnesses to jesus' proclaimed resurrection. I wasn't attempting to "muddy the water." And yes, while not wholly an argument, the fact that those who claimed in the face of the jewish sanhedrin, and the Roman governers, that they had seen Jesus rise from the dead, and that His claims of divinity were affirmed tells you that they wouldnt give up on that claim even unto death.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball The 1000 was an exaggeration to make your argument sound stronger. It had the opposite effect. How many was it? In what town? And what evidence do you have that anyone saw the risen Jesus. I guess you will say the Bible: A book filled with contradictions and ridiculous stories about talking donkeys and snakes.
Herod believed that John the Baptist rose from the dead. Does that affirm John the Baptist as divine? By the way Herod was wrong he was mistook Jesus for John.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 Your equivocation with their torture and execution at the hands of the Sanhedrin and Governers, and muslim jihadists mass murdering civilians, is as bad as equivocating the message of Jesus, with the catholic church. The two situations are motivated for TOTALLY different reasons. 1 Christians died because their oppressors didnt like their message 2. Muslim jihadists died because it would please Allah to slaughter the infidel who fall into the house of war.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball My point was clear. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all been confident enough in their beliefs to die for them. That they believed in very different things was my point. They can't all be true. Christianity and Islam can not both be truth. Therefore, it is obvious that being willing to die for your beliefs is not evidence that your beliefs are true. It demonstrates that people be can be absolutely convinced about things that are not true.
estragon9 1 year ago
@arktheball The stories about the apostles and there martyrdom are no more historically accurate than the gospels. Many stories were written at that time with all kinds of crazy claims. Most were rejected by the early church. The early church fathers selected only those books and stories that served there purposes. By the way that was the roots of the Catholic Church. If you want to believe in Christianity fine, but claiming you have solid historical evidence is bull.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 Well then I guess those stories about the apostles must be pretty dang accurate then, as few to no other book of antiquity is as well attested as the collection of writtings penned by the very disciples of Jesus Christ commonly known as the New Testament. Pray tell, what crazy stories? What time period? What early church? Where is your proof of this conspiracy of the "early church fathers?" ESPECIALLY considering the early church fathers were.. DA DA NUNAH The disciples!!!!
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball What makes you think that the disciples penned the new testament. Not even the Bible says that. Luke and Mark are never listed as Jesus's disciples (even in the Gospels themselves). Men named Mark and John are at least listed as disciples but the narratives are written in the 3rd person. Bible scholars are in pretty clear agreement that the people who wrote the Gospels never knew Jesus personally. Paul is the early church's biggest advocate and he is never met Jesus.
estragon9 1 year ago
@arktheball Crazy stories: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Hebrews, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Phillip, The Gospel of Peter. Written in the 1st through the 4th centuries. Some older than the canonical gospels. However, when they were written is not the point. The point is people are willing to write stories and call them gospels whether they are true or not. Do you think the Gospel of Peter was written by Peter?
estragon9 1 year ago
@arktheball When I say early church I mean of St. Clement, Mathetes, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Barnabas, St. Papias, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus and guys like that. Before them the original disciples of Jesus preached apocalypse the immediate return of Jesus. (He said he would return before his contemporaries died) They were all killed and he never came back. That movement died with them. The people I mentioned above created the church that lead to what you believe.
estragon9 1 year ago
@arktheball I never said conspiracy. I said that the people who decided what to keep and what to throw out of the Bible chose books that suited there purpose. The history of the Bible has been studied widely. I would recommend John Romer's "Testament" if you want to learn. Ironically your beliefs about the Bible and the early church are based on stories that suit your purpose rather than being based on objective truth.
estragon9 1 year ago
@arktheball: Catholics make up more than half of christians. So you claiming your little minority group of christians, whatever it is, is right does not impress me. I'm sure you have the same sort of weird beliefs like killing and animal or a human, like Jesus, as a blood sacrifice somehow makes your life better. That's a sick belief. Take responsibility for yourself.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 And boy do you know how to win people. Just throw out as many insults as you can about something you are completely ignorant on. I do believe that the wages of my sins is death, I do believe that Christ offered to pay the wages of my sins, and I believe that because I accepted his Gift, he took the punishment for me when he gave up his blameless life for mine. Its beautiful, not sick. I took the responsibility for my sins, Christ just asked to bear the punishment.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball I don't intend to win anyone. I intend to tell you in no uncertain terms that your superstitious beliefs do not deserve respect. There is nothing beautiful about nailing someone to a cross. Why is Jesus called the lamb of God? Because the people who wrote the bible had a belief in ritual sacrifice. If you had not grow up with this nonsense you would wince at the idea of eating Christ's body and drinking his blood. Believe what you want but don't pretend like its rational.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 And if you would like to debate on the subject of wether or not the Papacy represented, and represents Christ I would be MORE than happy.
arktheball 1 year ago
@estragon9 If you think protestants have not committed atrocities in the name of Christianity then your study of history is very selective indeed. This is the problem with Christianity and religion in general: Nobody can agree on what the truth is. Religion is because it is based on wants, desires and fantasies, rather than facts. That is why Christianity has splintered into so many groups, each one saying the others are wrong. Just like you are doing.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9 Its not about denominations. That is where some of your confusion lies. Its the political powers robed in the religious belief of the area that causes these horrid atrocities "in the name of God," whom just so conveniently only speaks to them. I singled out the catholic church because they are responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in history. Such as: Spanish inquisition, crusades etc... Mind you I am only referring to the political organization here.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball Science is convergent because scientist have to provide evidence for their assertions. In this way wrong ideas are discarded and agreement is reached on the most plausible explanations. Religion has no such standard. That is why Christianity has split into many, many, many denominations. If you don't like what your church believes start another one. You don't need any evidence. And I agree with you its about power.
estragon9 1 year ago
@arktheball Understanding that human knowledge is limited preserves sanity. Thinking you have absolute knowledge leads to tragedy. Religions claim to know absolutely, what God wants, what he is, what people should do. Dogma.
estragon9 1 year ago
Respond to this video... To end this, I will say this. I said "And if you would like to debate on the subject of wether or not the Papacy represented, and represents Christ I would be MORE than happy." And your replies were unwarranted in insults, attacks, and diatribes. So I will restate my original intent, and if you wish to take up my offer I would be more than happy to. Other wise I am done with this cascade of hostility I have had released against me.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball I agree with you that the Papacy does not represent Christ. However, I would say, nor do you or any Church. Nor does any religious organization represent God. I talk to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, you name it. A few are honest with me (mostly Hindus). Those who are honest admit that they do not know. Their faith is their faith. The idea that you can justify your religious beliefs with historical facts is an insult to reason.
estragon9 1 year ago
Who says we are just electo-chemical machines if we don’t have a soul? Was that point established earlier?
How does a soul have freewill if it exists in a world with an all-knowing God who must then know exactly what you will do? You must do what he knows you will do.
Furthermore, if God knows exactly why you have done anything why would he punish anyone for anything? How can you be held morally accountable if all cause and effect is completely understood.
estragon9 1 year ago
One of the better debates I have heard! AD is very articulate and so is WLC. Does God Exist?True science must operate within a very narrow "method" that makes science unable to operate in some arenas. I was concerned with the multitude of assumptions, "perhapsand could be's" that the naturalist is left with to explain how we came into existence and why there is no God. I would have expected more concrete SCIENCE to support the position that there is no God. IMO: WLC presents the stronger arg.
HMSRedbeard 1 year ago
"IF we are just electrochemical machines determined by our genetic makeup and the input of our 5 senses then our moral actions are no more significant than the movement of a puppets limbs" CORRECT first right thing you said, however if those limbs killed a bunch of puppets the puppet world (in order to sustain its self) would have no choice but to condemn the the first puppet to jail (or in some states death)
BenG549 1 year ago
WLC owned another atheist.
9pt9 1 year ago
Craig has pwned no one...here's why
Causes need time to have an effect, therefore:
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
furthermore...
2) Why does the cause need to be conscious?
3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain?
4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist?
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
answer those logically & you may just be the first person to prove God's existence.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef Time is something we imagine to help us keep record, organize, and plan. Simply a tool of measurement. Like an inch, or foot. That answers 1, and destroys your faulty premise. 3 you assume that the brain must be physical, and in this universe to have consciousness. 4 You obviously missed Craigs argument on the nature of the physical constants. 5. You are doing the same thing here, that you attempt to complain that the religious do. Simply hypothesizing isn't a reason to not believe
arktheball 1 year ago
1) Time is also a succession of moments...if there was no moment for the creation to occur then how can there be a moment for the first moment to even be created? therefore...God theory proposes a logical paradox.
3) everything we have observed to have a mind has a brain...if WLC proposes a mind can exist without a brain then he must give proof of a disembodied mind & not just assume it in the premises
4) no his explanation is faulty because it doesn't answer my #2
5) present evidence then.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef 1. Your still using the assumption that actions require moments and moments require time to exist, or happen. That is like saying Montana cant exist if the hundreds of miles that span it cant exist. An action happens regardless of what 1/60000 of the day it happens in. You are creating a false paradox.
3. But not every brain has a mind ;) haha I am kidding. Dr Craig has givin MANY arguments in favor of mind/ brain duality before. Look them up and disagree with them there.
arktheball 1 year ago
1)How is that an assumption? everything that has cause needs time to actually cause something...it is self-contradicting to say something happened but did not have a moment in time when it happened...how can something happen & not happen at the same time? Logical paradox
3) Nope, all his arguments rests upon the fact that it cannot be observed, tested or either needs to be assumed in such testimonies, not to mention his "arguments from ignorance"...therefore, his argument is invalid.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef I gave you a reason why its a false paradox and you ignored it. I can kick a horse, and simply because there is no when to put that event at, for your referential benefit, does nothing to discount the occurring of that event. As I stated, time is OUR tool to help us reference events. It is no more a substance then miles, or inches, or kilometers, or pounds. Could you provide examples of these "arguments from ignorance?" lack of testing or observation does nothing for an argument.
arktheball 1 year ago
"As I stated, time is OUR tool to help us reference events"
it is a tool & I already said this tool is defined as a series of occuring moments...if there were no succeeding moment to create something then how can creation occur? magic powers?
you can't reach a kilometer without reaching an inch &...
you can't create a cause without a moment for the cause to happen LOGICAL PARADOX
Abgef 1 year ago
Respond to this video...Let me respond to your 4. in your own manner. Structure needs a structurer. We have NEVER observed chaos producing self replicating order. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It applies because the universe we live in is a closed system, being the boundary of space its self, which is a requirement for matter to exist. The cause in the case of the universe MUST be conscious based on our own experience alone that jet engines don't assemble themselves.
arktheball 1 year ago
4) God violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics & therefore violates your own logic...& we do not live in a closed system in the universe but we live in the closed system of earth...it does not apply to the universe since the universe itself is not just a collection of matter & energy but the whole of time & space & spacetime...our own subjective experiences in the closed system of earth therefore does not apply to the universe.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef The universe is a closed system, Michio Kaku described the universe as a balloon. And its precisely because its the whole of spacetime (which is just a way of describing distance ex: lightyear, the distance a light particle travels at a known speed, in given period of time(our own creation for reference)) that proves my description the universe as a closed system. You asserted that God violates the 2nd LoTD without ANY reasoning or supportive argumentation.... help me out here.
arktheball 1 year ago
THAT does not apply to the 2nd law of thermodynamics since the only applies to existing matter & anergy & NOT spacetime...do you even know what the other laws are?
"You asserted that God violates the 2nd LoTD without ANY reasoning or supportive argumentation"
YES because time is needed for causes to actually cause something...he simply violates that by definition
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef God invented conciousness, time and space. So He must be outside it. The universe and everything in it clearly has a cause and that cause must be God.
9pt9 1 year ago
You are begging the question:
"begging the question," is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." More specifically, it refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise.
Man1: God created the universe.
Man2: How do you know that?
Man1: because it fits God & I don't have a better explanation.
(Man1 is clearly begging the question by asserting/assuming God's existence without actually proving God's existence)
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef Craig never committed the fallacy of "begging the question"
He stated that through a form of the kalam cosmological arg
Simplified
1. The universe had a beginning of space time and all things
2. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
3. That cause has to be timeless space less and immaterial.
from there he makes the point that god would be all those things and there for is the best explanation we currently have for the beginning of the universe.
babertron 1 year ago
Respond to this video... 5. Of what?
arktheball 1 year ago
5) you did not answer the question...therefore...
You must present evidence that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be or this whole kalam argument has no leg to stand on.
Abgef 1 year ago
@Abgef Why must I prove something contradictory to our experience? YOU are the one asserting that it is possible that a "non-conscious unexplainable cause" is what started this universe, while failing to do ANYTHING more than say God doesn't exist because what if?...
arktheball 1 year ago
"YOU are the one asserting that it is possible that a "non-conscious unexplainable cause" is what started this universe"
you have asked me to prove a negative my friend
of course it's possible since you have not provided reasons why the cause has to be conscious...deduction of possiblities arise from eliminating other possibilites so unless you can prove one is an actual impossibility then we can't claim it is not.
it's like asking someone to prove impossibility of Odin or Zeus.
Abgef 1 year ago
WLC got pwned once again...
bloodties1 1 year ago
How come everyone on here talks..so propper and intelligently... damn i don't know what the fuck half of you are saying, big words can't make up for anything
zblamm2121 1 year ago
Dacey's argument against the resurrection are very weak and he doesn't touch Craig's arguments in support. He grants the empty tomb then ignores the rest of the effect of that argument.
sidthekid229 1 year ago
One of the few debates that I thought had strong people on both sides make strong arguments.
98nafets 1 year ago
hahaha. Great minds think alike. Austin also used the Elvis argument like I did in the earlier clips. And as I mentioned before. This includes Bigfoot or the Chuppa Caubra. So many people claim to have seen BFoot, yet as large and monstrous as the slow walking beastie is, no skeletons or anything relating to it, have been found. Come on people. THINK!
Domzdream 1 year ago
2:23 " the idea that there is a soul doesn't really add anything of use"
but if we have it we should therefor forget about examining it in any fashion cause we don't know what its used for? Are you serious Dacey? This kind of cavalier dismissal is grounds for excommunication of a person from the field of science altogther. I see that thing there....but i dunno what it does....oh well its not for anything.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
"I see that thing there....but i dunno what it does.."
If you SEE it, it's not a soul. The only way to conclude a soul exists is to say something similar to what you're criticizing.
I.e. "I DON'T see how the mind works naturally, so let's just conclude that there must be a soul."
The soul is like god of the gaps. It's a placeholder for something we don't understand.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323 hmm maybe you are missing my point or i didn't explain it correctly. The idea that somebody adresses a something...and since we cannot see it therefor it doesn't exist? Thats just about as ludicrous as saying I see that thing there...but i don't klnow what it does so it must not be for anything. the door swings both ways. Now many lay claim to a soul...is it their fault they cannot provide empirical evidence...no...its sciences fault for not coming up with a method to do so yet.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
So, if I understand you correctly, your position would be that claims that people make are true until disproved by science? Or, more precisely, that we cannot deny the validity of a claim that someone makes until we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're wrong?
If there's no evidence of something's existence (besides the fact that someone is claiming it exists) aren't we reasonably justified in denying that such things exist?
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323 my words were meant to be sarcastic in reference to Dacey's logic being present in that part of the clip i referenced. 2:23
simply just as you are saying...we don't neccesarily believe truth as somebody says right off...but by the same token...we don't dismiss it either simply b/c we can't fire it through a battery of scientific tests (or perhaps the tests don't even exist yet). So we can't be calling ourselves "good" science practitioners if we dismiss things non-chalantly.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
Well fair enough. But i guess my point is that the "soul" is defined in such a way that science can NEVER access it. It's a mysterious non-physical material. Science can only deal with physical objects.
With this in mind the ONLY way you can ever use the soul as an explanation is due to an inability to explain something via physical mechanisms. It's inevitably a claim of ignorance. There's no practical difference between "We don't know" and "the soul is responsible".
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323 I'm not so sure that science will "never" be able to "sense or even vallidate" these mysterious things in humanity. I believe that it'll take somebody bold enough to step beyond the "acceptable norm" of the scientific community (even though good science shouldn't have such boundaries at all) to establish unorthodox methods to get some data on these subjects. We only think it can't be done but there is really allot of things that man thought "it can't be done"...we need visionaries
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
In that case though, it would no longer be classified as supernatural-- it would then be a part of nature, albeit a new and uncharted part of nature. This is just a matter of definition.
We both agree that consciousness is not understood. What is the purpose of calling the soul an immaterial, supernatural substance if such substances can be studied by a naturalistic process?
What does it mean to call something supernatural if not to differentiate it from the natural?
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323 i think supernatural is what humanity labels the "unchartered waters"...perhaps we as humans cannot possibly build a ship that can ever sail those seas or maybe its has less to do with a "machine" or process and more to do with the human brain and how it is a receiver of extraordinary capability. study under "naturalistic" measures is also an open wild card in the sense that we just need more imagination/open mindedness to sense these things.
you sound like good people mrbluesky.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
Well, ok. I think that most people wouldn't agree with your definition of supernatural. But i also think that they unintentionally use the word to support your definition. So, I agree that the word is used that way, but it's not how most people think of the word. If that makes any sense.
We'll just have to respectfully disagree.
And I wouldn't say that I am good people. Not bad people for sure, but not good people either. Just a person.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
"unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; "
Something which is ultimately explainable by science is not unexplainable by natural law.
It doesn't refer to something which is merely misunderstood, it refers to things which are completely beyond understanding.
So I think that it would be a misnomer to call something supernatural if you expect that science may one day understand such things. Mostly semantic.
"my compliment was just a compliment"
:D
Sorry. See what I mean?
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323 i just took the definition from the dictionary
"unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; "
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
I was attempting to show that the definition from the dictionary was inconsistent with the usage you were using earlier. I think I poorly communicated.
-You said earlier that science may one day be able to understand the "soul" if they're open minded/creative enough.
-I'm saying that such a statement contradicts the dictionary definition you've given above.
If you could reread my previous post with that in mind, maybe things will be cleared up?
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat
(Continued)
I'm saying that there's a difference between unexplained and unexplainABLE. Where your earlier usage referred to something unexplained, and this dictionary definition is making a stronger statement than that.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323 well i think that everything that man could not explain at one time was "unexplainable" with their current means. So it could easily have adopted the name "supernatural". But as we advance we learn that things that at one time were not explainable are with more modern ideas/measures that by the standards of history are unorthodox for information gathering (simply more advanced). I was alluding to the idea that maybe in 100yrs finding the soul would be simple by their means.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
"Advanced weed" lol, what a twat.
Forkroute 1 year ago
Craig’s arguments seem to add up to a tautology involving a back and forth gestalt between evidentialism and presuppositional apologetics. He keeps stating that the evidence yields the presence of something (God) that he is certain exists a priori to the evidence itself. The funny thing is that when he attempts to corroborate his claims, the evidence stops short of the foregone conclusions he “derives” from such evidence.
Kaniki80 1 year ago
WTF lol... why do they keep calling him Dr. Casey?
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
@namasteywhat false - Brian created everything that exists according to his nature, including free will. Free will allows one to choose an action against Brian and his nature. So Brian created a world where child rape could possibly occur but he does not condone the act nor is it in accordance with his nature. Why would Brian create a world with free will? So that free agents could choose to express love back and not commit child rapes which are against God's intent. Simple. See?
QuakePhil 1 year ago
I like Dacey's persona. Craig has debated many other people who are just down right rude.
othellopiano 1 year ago 2
Good debate overall. I thought Dacey's mind/body argument was by far his weakest argument. In fact I think the existence of consciousness shows that everything is not matter and energy.
Craig won the debate but Dacey gave him a good challenge perhaps more so than anyone else Craig has debated.
vizion24 1 year ago
I liked this debate
YodatheJedi12 1 year ago
@christianjr4, i do wonder why you left out the conclusion, with the results of the debate. is it because it was a minumental failure for craig? you don't have to answer that, already know the answer.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb actually it would be because as far as I can tell from searching, for one, there is no hidden clip he left out. the debate ends on this question in every full version of this 120 minute debate and there is no revealing of the results of the debate to be found. If you can provide evidence that there are results of this debate that favor either one or the other, I would gladly check it out. But to imply that Christiannjr4 is deceptively trying to leave out the results is fallacious
theantihero420 1 year ago
@brownbigb First "hoding" and now "minumental". That is "far from brilliant" (not that you claimed to be so) my friend.
hawkwho 1 year ago
@hawkwho
that's called a bad keyboard and no proof reading. 170 iq is enough for me.
brownbigb 1 year ago
I would say Dacey was a good contender for Craig however he lost as he didn't refute on some of Craig's arguments. Craig on the other hand refutted all of Dacey's arguments easily. Craig is still undefeated and has yet to be proven wrong.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
"Craig...refuted all of Dacey's arguments easily?"
I must have been watching a different debate.
"Craig is still undefeated and has yet to be proven wrong"?
He's an accomplished debater, to be sure--his eloquent and organized delivery makes him superficially persuasive--but his arguments are never as strong as he seems to think they are. To me, he is the typical question-begging apologist, starting with his conclusions and then fashioning arguments to order to justify them.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago 6
@7tylerjb Craigs arguments seem mostly based on the historicity of the resurrection and theological blablabla. The historicity of the resurrection cannot be proven since the bible is the only source and theology is the art if putting a reasonable cloak on otherwise unreasonable propositions.
lizazoon 1 year ago
Craig has not proven anything to be refuted..
Causes need time to have an effect, therefore:
1) How can God create time without the time to do it?
furthermore...
2) Why does the cause need to be conscious?
3) How can a consciousness be eternal & exist w/out a brain?
4) Where is the proof that magical GOD powers does exist?
5) Where is proof that a non-conscious unexplainable cause cannot possibly be?
answer those logically & you may just be the first person to prove God's existence.
Abgef 1 year ago
Funnily enough... since Dacey is a philosopher, everyone seems to agree that he debated Craig to a standstill.
Simply because he understood the language and approach needed.
Does this mean that Craig "won" all his other debates?
No.. it just shows how when you take away the advantage he bestows on himself by defining the terms of the debate.. all of a sudden.. he's not so convincing.
( I certainly give you credit for posting this video too )
Roper122 1 year ago
this debate is draw for most of the part it is only latter where craig got the upperhand. i think even craig himself says the austin was a very good debater and the momentum have shifted one way to another. austin got caught with the resurrection thing in which he answers a level one kind of argument. he couldn't get out a very good reason. but he is for me so far the best atheist debater...
archangelcats 1 year ago
Craig is 100% right that if there is no god there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE moral values. Morals would only be SUBJECTIVE survival mechanisms from evolution if god does not exist.
Dacey was wrong when he tried to deny this.
However, even though Craig is correct on this point about morals, that does not in itself prove or disprove god. It only attaches objective morals to god but does not prove god itself.
I am a Christian btw
Banzinator 1 year ago
@Banzinator " Craig is 100% right that if there is no god there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE moral values. "
Of course... since there are no objective moral values.. Craig has just disproved the existence of god.
Roper122 1 year ago
I am a christian and i think Dacey did pretty good. I would say this debate was a draw which is pretty good for Dacey because 9 times out of 10 Craig wins by a longshot.
I think Richard Dawkins would be wise to mimic Dacey's maturity but instead Dawkins clings to immature name calling and childish arguments like "the flying spaghetti monster" or comparing creationists to flat-earthers or "advocates of the stork theory of reproduction."
Dawkins makes atheists look bad.
Banzinator 1 year ago
@Banzinator " Dawkins makes atheists look bad. "
I disagree.... Dacey stopped Craig cold because he is also well versed in the language of philosophy, not because he's mature.
You may think the " flying spaghetti monster " is a childish argument, but it stems from a protest over Kitzmiller vs Dover decision, and it makes a valid point.
Funnily enough, no philosophers were required to testify at that hearing.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I'm about to make an ad hominen statement so I will point out beforehand that Bobby Henderson's integrity has nothing to do with creationism vs evolution and I am merely making an aside.
"In December 2005 Bobby Henderson received a reported USD $80,000 advance from Villard to write The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
I point this out because you mention "Kitzmiller vs Dover" and I find it interesting that Bobby continued to make a ministry where he collects donation over it.
Banzinator 1 year ago
@Roper122 The point I am making is that to the layman, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just cute satire but to Bobby Henderson this is his primary source of income. It may be a joke to most but to him he is making serious cash off of the book and ministry.
Banzinator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Banzinator " The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just cute satire but to Bobby Henderson this is his primary source of income "
I have no problem with Bobby making money off the FSM.
In some ways I applaud it.. people obviously like supporting him, and it's become a shorthand way of pointing out a serious problem.
( that reminds me.. I need some pastafarian merchandise for the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door )
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 For Roper122 or anyone else that wants to join our convo please look at "/watch?v=Qd17iRmiE4o" for a good example of childish atheists. In this video I link you will see that the atheists have a poor understanding of the objective vs subjective morality argument and turn into sophomoric insults and satire. Even though I am a christian I can concede that Craig VS Dacey was a draw. I hope that Ropey122 or other atheists can concede that the creationist won the debate I just linked.
Banzinator 1 year ago
@Banzinator ; Truth is not a popularity contest. Evidence, not theological blablabla.
lizazoon 1 year ago
5:10 'it is frustrating in these debates to have to try to talk in sound bites & not be able to delve into these issues at length'
So why doesn't somebody organize a debate where people actually 'delve into the issues?' hmmm.... I wonder why that is. hmmm... I wonder... what could be the reason?
Lightmane321 1 year ago
Stop with the moral argument. Except for Pascal's Wager it is the worst. Just stop it and make up something better, ok?
omnissient 1 year ago
One cannot reduce the Oneness of all things and expect to observe the reality of it. Inside the Atom is mostly space. Inside an Electron, part of the Atom is mostly space. The tiniest particle we can observe, the Quanta, is mostly then voided space. It remains the proven fact that Design is more meaningful than Material Substance lent to the Design. We have no physical proof of higher dimensions beyond Time, except what the Numbers report. Thus more exists than our senses report.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
the claim that the human brain has "only physical properties" is false. Light has no color, but only wavelength that affects visibility. But the pleasure of the sentient mind is to see colors, and I emphasize the word "pleasure." There is really no such thing as red and blue, but we are all wrapped up in the distinctions of colors blending from red to blue. Color is then a supernatural effect, not a physical property. Color and the pleasure of it cannot be proven to exist materially.
CarmineFragione 1 year ago
@CarmineFragione still purely physical. Do you think pleasure is not a purely chemical reaction?
NoCrispin 1 year ago