@thespybreaker No I am not . here try this . State the fine tuning argument with caring if there's life. ."Scientists since the 1930s starting with Paul Dirac have proposed theories where the universal constants can be different under certain situations. Again we have no evidence that this is possible only theories. 2 that is exactly what you are proposing that God created the universe ex nihilo
@thespybreaker What makes you believe those constants can be other than what they are. 2 if they were changed so what no life . you would have to assume that the purpose of the universe is to form life and there is no way of getting there without imposing a creator
@thespybreaker WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories. Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
@thespybreaker William Lane craig "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@thespybreaker Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
Craig recycling the same arguments over and over and over. My god( sorry about the pun) can this man actually think for himself or does he just follow the same script.
Science has confirmed that the total energy of the universe is 0, meaning such event as the big bang can come from nothing more than quantum fluctuations. There need not be any prime mover.
@GiveCourage I agree that the creation of the universe doesn't need a prime mover (and personally I don't think there is one) but to be fair to Dr. Craig, isn't the zero-energy universe still a hypothesis?
@thedaystripper It's well supported that the 4D universe is flat with the mass-energy at zero. These are hypotheses, but according to the interpretations of some of the top astrophysics, it seems the evidence is stacking up more favorably for them over the others. More importantly, the God hypothesis has no evidence, explains nothing, and even if true doesn't really give much credit to the existent religions anyway in their dumbassness.
@claireshana i agree, Dawkins seems to put himself in corners and says things that he shouldn't say at times and at times seems a bit arrogant at times.
I always doubt the "personal experience" thing, I mean if you can summon up god then do it and get it tested but usually the feelings turn out to be placebo effect.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@ngimangi Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group.
Like the Islamic or Christian Religions just to mention a few.....
@Heelissrogue i love your definition of propaganda. How is aethism any different to religion. yes aethism denies the possibility of god but it is just as dogmatic in its assertion that god does not exist. it is simply the flipside of that theological coin. Science is not designed to answer questions of philosophy. why do people think that it can?
@MomoTheBellyDancer elaborate oh mighty one (expand with reason and logic) wow u have faith in science to answer all yor qu's lol that;s what harris will do to ya!
@MomoTheBellyDancer It's not a question that science can answer. Science derives its laws and principles from the observations of phenomena within space and time (& whatever additional dimensions people have found out). If we do define the big bang as the "beginning" of the universe i.e. the beginning of time, space etc., then obviously we cannot extrapolate laws that only work within our realm to a region whereby these fundamental dimensions don't exist. Not saying god did it though lol
@MomoTheBellyDancer It is the precise nature of science that it cannot answer what is not within our universe. Like how science cannot prove or disprove whether god or heaven or hell exists or not, considering god is on an ethereal plane different from this universe. Science is a bunch of theories based on the natural world. Explaining the big bang goes beyond the natural world. Now, only mathematics come close with string and m theory ... but they're hardly what we know as science.
@MomoTheBellyDancer@L02T " Science is a bunch of theories" and.... "string and m theory ... but they're hardly what we know as science" Tells you all that you need to know about 'L02T'
The ancient and phony 'god of the gaps' strikes again, you'd think that they'd have learned their lesson by now
For centuries, the religious have had to admit that they were wrong about countless claims when confronted with the truth.
How is the "new" atheism any different than the old one? Atheism simply boils down to lack of belief in god(s).
And if you want to accuse something of propaganda, you'll have to refer to the likes of Craig and Strobel. They spout a lot of claims without backing any of them up.
@MomoTheBellyDancer clearly u dont keep up with the times. new atheism religiously attacks belief in theism. 0ld atheism isnt as aggressive... duh :) google it!
". new atheism religiously attacks belief in theism."
No, people simply don't swallow this religious nonsense wholesale anymore. Religions are just opinions, and they don't deserve any extra respect just because they're religions.
@MomoTheBellyDancer and most of the planet dont swallow atheism whole either. it is propagated in the west why? because we think we are so advanced we dont need god...
"and most of the planet dont swallow atheism whole either."
Irrelevant. The number of believers of a claim does not say anything about the veracity of said claim. Besides, atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods. There's nothing to "swallow".
"it is propagated in the west why?"
It is propagated everywhere else too.
"because we think we are so advanced we dont need god..."
No, it's because there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of any gods.
@MomoTheBellyDancer when did i say that the percentage whole proved a belief? i didn't I was merely pointing out that out of 7 billion people at least 5 billion believe in God/Gods.then u cite evidence why? i dont get it? what do u honestly want? what is evidence when it comes to god for you. We have nothing that can prove good physically so why do u keep going on about it? can u prove gravity? No.. but u see its effects, can i scientifically prove God? No.. but i can point to his handiwork
@MomoTheBellyDancer wow u are funny little person. Forever quoting my comments lol :) Your arguments literally read like dawkins God delusion. Why can u not think for your self? The universe had a beginning. i am stating that God is the cause and we are the effect. This is a matter of philosophical reason. It has nothing to do with science... I see design in nature and logically there is a strong argument for causality... Look around u son and u will see his work...
@ngimangi You claim that you observe nature, and you see causality. Meaning, everything in nature, things that exist within time & space, is caused by something preceding it. The funny thing about natural laws is that you cannot apply laws derived from the natural to things outside the natural, for instance, applying the law of causality to things before time exist, and ask "what caused the universe?". There's no 'before' the universe to have something to temporally cause it.
blah blah exist blah universe blah blah it exist God blah blah blah. he dont even know wtf he just said. he probably looked at this video 1000 times and came to the conclusion he should have said exist one more time.
Hitchin’s is the biggest fool, he may be a good thinker but his soul is bankrupt and his heart is hard as rock. The truth is everybody dies and when Hitchin’s is laying is his death bed the truth to life will be very clear to him and may be too late and the only one who can save him is Jesus.
Any person who think that the ontological argument is a sound one needs to be shot on site. That is the dumbest argument ever purported. Those who are smart will understand why.
@TheWhiteKing01 LOL i completely agree its such b.s and has been resurfaced numerous times throughout the years in philosophy because it keeps getting debunked.
@TheWhiteKing01 Maybe your experience has been different, but I have yet to meet a Christian who believes on the basis of Anselm's ontological arguments. Almost invariably, a positive experience and subsequent relationship with a religious community precedes an indiviual's affirmation of that faith. This, I suspect, is the case for most, if not all, Christians.
if god did created the universe, then why did he make it so big? why make millions of rather uselss planets? why make dying stars and suns? why not just make the earth and nothing else? or a cirlcuar small universe around the earth?
@Yenwop121 Why would god even create a universe.If he's infinitly great (PERFECT) then why would he need to create a universe with life. A perfect being by definition doesn't need anything and therefore it wouldnt make sense to create a universe.
@mrabdrum Agreed. And even if they go to the age old argument that he was lonely, and wanted someone to be with, then why put us on earth at all, knowing we would suffer and knowing we would sin? Why not create us in Heaven to begin with? When I meet someone that I want to be friends with, I dont make them run the gauntlet and force them to prove themselves worthy. I simply accept them into my circle.
@mrabdrum A perfect being is not capable of growth. It could only do something the perfect way which is always the same way. No experemention, no change, no growth. UNLESS this being creates something less perfect than itself to do the experiments, make the mistakes and add the growth. That's where we come in. we can try to be perfect but by failing in this, we fulfill a function.
@mrabdrum What if a creator created a universe and life forms in order to sustain itself as in a symbiotic relationship. I'm an atheist, but I write fantasy/horror fiction and the gods in my stories create "children" for this purpose. What do you think of that idea?
@mrabdrum That's a silly little strawman you've made against our theistic friends. Who said he 'needs' to create a universe with life. A perfect being doesn't need anything and therefore ---wouldn't make sense to create a universe? This is still based on the assumption of it only making something because it needs it. Not to mention how your argument is deductively fallacious to begin with. Your conclusion that it doesn't make sense because of that is non-sequitur.
@TheUSBcable Well, every explanation for why God chose to create the universe implies that God lacked something. Even if you say that God created the universe for our benefit... why would he bother? If he's perfect then why bother create a universe? And IT DOES follow logically that God does not exist if this being lacks perfection because God is by definition perfect. Just calling my argument silly won't make it silly. Point out which parts are false please.
None of these idiots are educated. (Note Hitchens is not an idiot so this does not apply to him). None of them have taken any philosophy classes. They are using arguments from ignorance that are not even valid.
"In moral experience we apprehend a realm of objective moral duties..."
He hasn't argued this but simply stated it. What does he mean? That when we moralise we think we do so on the basis of objective moral values? Yes, but that doesn't mean we're right about it does it.
The ontological argument is a useless argument. It states that the possibility of God's existence implies his existence. That if you define God as a being that must exist, then he must exist if he could exist.
But what evidence would support the claim that it is possible for God to exist? Evidence of his actual existence. In lieu of that there is no way to support the premise that it is possible for God to exist, but if you had it, you wouldn't need the ontological argument in the first place!
They keep arguing about a high possibility that there must have been a creator for the universe, however, they never prove that the creator is god nor the christian god. I could say elves created the universe because something must have created it therefore it was elves.
"If the universe has an explanation of its existense that explanation is god. And the universe obviously exists. From that it follows that if the universe has an explanation of its existence then god exists."
Go Humpty Dumpty! Why not just say; I have the assumption that the cause of the universe is an (unvisible and undetectable) god. Period. Why must WLC always complicate his faith and how does he think it makes anything he says more believable than if he just said it as simple as it is?
Hahahaha!!! Give WLC just 4 minutes and this is what we get; a comic circus with a concentration of his most beloved strawmans and circular reasonings. How can this man live with his extreme intellectual dishonesty? Why not just call his believes a faith like an honest and normal theist?
@BraunBrothers Are you kidding? You don´t hear it? Here`s some goodies: "If the universe has an explanation of its existence that explanation is god. And the universe obviously exists. From that it follows that if the universe has an explanation of its existence then god exists."
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Philosophical and scientific evidence shows that the universe began to exist from which it follows that there is a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time..."
@katnils When voices it to an uneducated audience it does sound as though he begs the question. But if you look at his scholarly works, he does NOT beg the question. Look at the critiques of prominent atheist philosophers and you will find no such accusation.
@BraunBrothers I have looked at many videos with him and he never makes any form of sense so why bother and read what someone like him has written?
What I say is that he has a FAITH (a belief without any evidence for it to be true) in a god and in his religion, fine, but it just sounds retarded when he tries to prove his faith to be right with his circular reasoning and strawmans.
@katnils Yikes yikes yikes. Listen to John Lennox's definition of faith; faith is rooted in evidence.
And it is fallacious to discard his scholarly works simply because you don't like his debates.
Not only that, but you have not given examples of his strawman attacks (unproven assertion so far) and I have already replied to the circular reasoning aspect; again, he does NOT use circular reasoning in his scholarly works.
@BraunBrothers Because he didn´t use strawmans in this video as I can remember. But he usually are very fond of defining things in his own way and pretend this being the common definition. He makes his own version of how evolution works for example so that he can disprove his own version of evolution. He deliberately states evolution to be something no one has said it is and leaves out inconvenient parts and then "disproves" it. I find him extremely intellectually dishonest.
@BraunBrothers Then we have some circular reasoning that would take too long and too much energy to discuss so I skip them.
And then he "proves facts" with what is written in the bible. Sigh.
Do you honestly not hear his circular reasoning and that it is necessary to believe in a god, and also his god, from the start to find anything he says to make any form of sense?
@katnils Now it's my turn to say, "Are you kidding me?" This is the problem I find with public debates. It's far too easy to point out "mistakes" when an atheist/theist is talking in a public debate; but contrary to what you infer, Craig does NOT use circular reasoning in his published works. I genuinely cannot find one instance in his published material where he argues for the legitimacy of the Bible on the basis that it is legitimate (a.k.a. the word of God).
@BraunBrothers I´ve seen videos with him where he talks about hundreds of eye witnesses to Jesus´ miracles and resurrection as absolute facts that cant be denied and he base that on Christians writings several decades after Jesus supposed death when nothing would have stopped the historical Jesus to have become a mythical Jesus. No eye witnesses wrote a single word about him. I mean extremely odd when we talk about such a miraculous man rising people from death and walking on water etc.
@katnils Yikes. I see you haven't done your research. The authors of the Gospels very well MAY have been eyewitnesses (this is contested). And even if they were not, if you look at the studies for how much time it has taken for "mythical" stories to arise, it take about 150 years+ (conveniently about the same time the apoc. gospels came about).
@BraunBrothers You´re wrong. Just think about how much better a good story can get in just one year. And there are people that has become legends in their own life time. Sai Baba had millions of followers when he lived, and still have, who are convinced he performed miracles.
@katnils Can you give me multiple examples (as the Jesus Seminar (who agree Jesus didn't resurrect) would say) of historical figures who had historical documents written about them that were clearly legendary? And said documents were written within 10-50 years after the subject of the document's death?
@BraunBrothers Just why would you need multiple examples from me? If it can happen that someone becomes a legend already in his own lifetime it can happen and then it isn´t a fact but a faith we are talking about regarding Jesus.
@katnils I will wait for your reply to my question. Let me know if you can come up with anything. Because surely Jesus isn't the only "mythical figure" with the same exact legendary statistics?
@BraunBrothers I gave you Sai Baba didn´t I? As an example from modern time with millions of followers believing he performed miracles. So we know from just Sai Baba that someone can become a legend even in his own lifetime.
This has not really anything to do with this but I stumbled upon a funny site with Christian urban legends:
@BraunBrothers Besides these similarities authors of the gospels also knew what prophesies that needed to be fulfilled (just like Jesus himself knew this) and their stories where a bit different from each other in their creativity to make Jesus fulfill prophesies.
My point is not to disprove Jesus divinity to you but to say that it is of course not possible to prove your religion to be right and I find Craig unbelievably dishonest when he doesn´t just call his believes a faith like it is.
@BraunBrothers Even the first Christians understood that faith was needed for their beliefs and the new testament is filled with verses emphasising the virtue of faith. (Use the search term faith sometime on an online NT and look at how many hits you get). And then comes Craig and PROVES his religion to be right with his own facts. He is nothing but a dishonest Humpty Dumpty.
@BraunBrothers They MAY have been eye witnesses. That proves everything. And explains why the first one to write about Jesus, as far as I know; Paul, didn´t write about his miracles that people later wrote about. And why the historian, Josephus, who was born a couple of years after Jesus´s supposed death also didn´t describe his supposed miracles. And why not lots of literal people travel far to live get to see such a miraculous man. Yes of course Craig´s right about his "facts".
That panel is wholly unfair... The organizes obviously had their own agenda creating a panel like that.... completely one sided.. I mean ... those 4 Christian apologists never stood a chance ;)
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
More impressive than Christopher Hitchens' arguments is his his ability to sit through christians babbling nonsense. If any single one of them read a book with an open mind they would instantly see how wrong and unnecessary their beliefs are.
This debate is worth watching. Hitchens' patience, sly humour and formidable skills as an orator are in evidence throughout. Not one of his four 'opponents' can do any more than run through the usual ham-fisted appeals to authority, appeals from ignorance, straw men, logical fallacies and pseudo-science and Hitchens destroys them. Four of Christianity's brighest stars, and not one of them can scratch the surface of Hitchens' withering critique of their gullible belief in a sky daddy.
Other guy speech, set on a loop and uses one's personal experiences to speak on generalities.
Why oh why, do the sane, rational thinking human being even tries to debate with religious zombies? If every answer can be justified with, "cause god made it so" then there is no more need for logic or thought.
Hence its illogical to converse with said people on matters that require thought and facts.
REV 22-16 IS THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR-VENUS WORSHIP--ITS ALL ASTROTHEOLOGY-JESUS IS REPTILLIAN WORSHIP-AND HE WAS BARIED IN SRINIGAR-INDIA--ANYWAYS--CHRISTIANITY IS --A THROW AWAY SOLAR CULT RELIGION WAKE UP-THE SAME STORY WAS RUNNING AROUND THE MED FOR `1000 YEARS BEFORE RA HORUS--MYTHRA-KRISHNA-SAME STORIES --IT CAME THRU THE MEROVIGN BLOODLINE THIS RELIGULOUS NONSENSE
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y-please watch and understand ur own bible
Ugh, they always make this bullshit argument that the universe came into existence then god had to have done it. Let's say I give you that, what makes it your god?! Only your belief.
how can people say there is a creator without surveying the entire universe? sure the universe "started" from a big bang, but without examining the entire universe a person can't say "there has to be a god".
I think Humanity explored less than .01% of the universe. But it might be far less. so then, how can people stubbornly say "there has to be a creator" without examining the entire universe? it doesn't make sense.
It is unfortunate how many people will listen to men talk about religion and somehow are able to make up their minds. I think most Atheists and even Christians have never fully read the Bible. I know I haven't. It isn't smart to believe or not believe in something you do not understand. I'm going to read the Bible, hear what the theists have to say about the scripture (because I surely won't understand all of it) and come to an intelligent decision.
Of all the believers on the panel, the only one I have any respect for is the one in the center. He is the only one that admits that what he adheres to is a faith & tradition. He believes it is a good one (can't fault him for that) & wants to justify it as much as possible intellectually, but in the end, he accepts it is a faith. The other panelists are delusional retards that try to prove god. The moderator is also honest, & admits faith is for those who are "not intelligent" (his words).
the second to last guy on the left is such an idiot i had to pause and type this out. He states the fine tuning of life (his arrogant mind generalizing the little he knows past what his own eyes can see) is either physical necessity chance or design. This is where he should have just ended the argument, because he cannot even deduce other things, especially as a person believing in a floating man in the sky. Hell, the universe could be fluffy plastic in a duct tape wallet. its all perspective.
Wait why doesnt God exist because of what science and its evidences say?? You cant measure and test something or someone that isnt even of this world so to do so, of course you wouldnt find any evidence, your statement is self refuting and illogical :\
@Blackopjeff your contradicting yourself in your own explanation. why DOES god exist because of what (or the lack of) science and its evidences say? why would you doubt people who have at least a small basis of how our own planet works and just believe in the thing that you can not even experience or have proof of? Think about being born and not knowing of a god, but you CHOOSE to start believing in god. wouldnt happen. your either an illogical blinded moron, or your a hypocrite.
Why does god make his children have to shit everyday ?? I mean, If humans are so much higher than the animals why do we have to shit ?? If we're made in the image of god, does that mean that god has to shit as well ??
OMG! WLC makes almost made me vomit! I hear him talking but he's not saying anything. He sounds like a used-car salesman, who just like to hear himself talk. The ontological argument is RIDICULOUS! So, because it's POSSIBLE that unicorns can exist then unicorns MUST exist. Seriously, it IS POSSIBLE that, through evolutionary means, a unicorn could be produced given the right circumstances. How is this guy employed?!?
HITCH SLAPPED!! epic fail for the christians... nobody created god cuz based on the lack of evidence he don't exist and you can't prove he does because you can't prove something that isn't there.. IF he was there then we would have evidence and there would only be one absolute religion(gods) worldwide instead of several. Besides if "he" was an all knowing perfect being wouldn't he know you can't rely on your only proof to be in text form..just show up you pussy..smite me now!! still here darn:)
Imagine if society knew nothing of mathematics. Literally nothing. And someone asked if 2+2=5. We wouldnt know and would come to the conclusion that 2+2 could equal 5, and given an infinite number of chances it eventually would. But we all know 2+2 will and can not ever equal 5. It is the same with Doctor craigs God. The only reason we think there is a chance of it happening is because we dont know
I understand what Dr Craig is trying to say, given an infinite number of possible worlds, and it is possible that God exists, then God must exist. The only reason why we think theres a chance God could exist is because of our limited minds. Its not like rolling a dice, where 6 outcomes are possible so eventually all 6 come up. We are saying we dont know if God exists, so there is a chance that he does. It may sound obvious, but if God doesnt exist, then it is impossible for him to exist.
Okay here is the problem, people think science is automatic proof that God doesn't exist but yet science never disproved the existence of God.. They want to say that God doesn't exist because they don't want him to. God's existence is undecidable through science, I know there is a God you can't disprove God and will never make me falter. I have a question of any atheist or agnostic that reads this, what is your purpose in this world and whats the purpose for the universe?
@UntamedBahamut Don't even know if we have a purpose.Jus' as no one does.Don't need it either.
Thing is you can't prove god,you know.So you don't know there's a god.You believe there is.It's different.You wanna believe,go believe.Jus' don't claim you know somethin' when you don't.
@TylerMcManus1 I have a purpose in life as a Christian, I can say that.. Now say I wasn't a Christian could I have a true standard purpose if I knew that I was going to die and everything I did here on earth wouldn't matter then no I can't say I would have a definite purpose.
And true as of now there is no way to prove/disprove God, I'm just saying I know myself that God is real, wasn't trying say I can prove to anyone God is real atm, I just know personally that God is with me and is very real.
@UntamedBahamut Why is it so important to seek a meanin' in what only seems to be an absurd maelstrom?
How d'you know that-thing-you-call-god's lrea?What makes you so special as to know for sure somethin' no one can?You jus' believe,not know.Maybe it's jus' a semiotic ghost,who knows?
@TylerMcManus1 okay please explain to me your reason for all of us why are we all here? are we here just to die and thats it? please tell me. Now as for your question "What makes you so special as to know for sure somethin' no one can?" well I'm not the only one that knows, there are a lot of people that know God and know Jesus Christ. now can you prove to me that your life existed 5mins ago? and that everything around you wasn't just now thought of?
@UntamedBahamut Let me answer that last one for you.. No, you can't but yet undoubtedly you know in your mind that how ever many years that made up your life are real and not just some made up story. so you can't prove your life but you know it was all real. So why is it that God automatically isn't real because he can't be scientifically proven? now your probably thinking of some way to prove the last 5mins of your life was real maybe even googling it but sorry not possible.
@UntamedBahamut And no,I don't know anytghing to be real.I jus' know it's my memories.That doesn't make it neccessarily real nor accurate.So,no,I haven't thought of any way to prove anything.
"So why is it that God automatically isn't real because he can't be scientifically proven?"Where did I say that?
@TylerMcManus1 so your going along with me as to you can't prove the last 5mins of your life is real and your furthering it by saying you don't know anything to be real, but instead you believe in your memories which form your life. I say you believe in your memories and not know because for you to know something must mean its real, which you stated earlier you don't know anything to be real. Does this sound correct to you? I'll finish my comment once you answer.
@UntamedBahamut I don't believe my memories are real.I think they're information gathered by my senses of this commonal illusion and stored in my conscience.But that's what I think.I don't believe.I accept it as a reasonable way to interact with this shared illusion,which,for all I know could be real.Or maybe not.Real is a matter of perception.
@TylerMcManus1 Okay so your agnostic, you think your your memories are real, your not for sure if your life is actually real, and all of this is some thought up illusion pretty much going by the question I gave you earlier about the whole not being able to prove 5mins of your life.. So, this must be a pretty crappy illusion huh? to be sitting in front of your computer debating with me over something you don't really care about because you don't believe in anything.
@UntamedBahamut Why there must be a reason?And you can't prove that thing you call god is real,so I'd stick with "no-one can know".Oh and I can't prove anythin' existed 5 min. ago and wasn't made jus' now.Why should I,anyway?I'm not sayin' I know.I'm agnostic'bout everythin',pal.I jus' don't have any belief.So I don't know why should I proove anything'bout the shared illusion..
@TylerMcManus1 Okay this whole debate me and you are having started with the "So you don't know there's a god.You believe there is." I'm proving to you I know there is.. now many times you have used "I know" in the statements of your not real. So in this your saying you know something when your not real or rather there is no evidence to prove your existence. so how is it that you know something that you stated wasn't real. But the fact I'm stating is I Know God and he is real.
@UntamedBahamut How d'you know there is?When I say I know I refer to the shared "reality".To things that can be proven.Prove that thing you call god is real.If you can.
You got me wrong.I know my life is real.I jus' think my memories to be an interpretation.Doesn't make'em real.
The fact that I don't care doesn't mean tghis is unfunny..
@thespybreaker well maybe we can pick up tomorrow where we left off . I do recommend reading the debate I referenced. It's a good read
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker How bout the modal perfection form of the ontological argument?
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker Which one would you like to discuss next?
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker 2 down 2 to go .
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thespybreaker No I am not . here try this . State the fine tuning argument with caring if there's life. ."Scientists since the 1930s starting with Paul Dirac have proposed theories where the universal constants can be different under certain situations. Again we have no evidence that this is possible only theories. 2 that is exactly what you are proposing that God created the universe ex nihilo
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker Google Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996 it's the first result . Check out Craig's rebuttal. that's where I got the quote
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker No I'm quoting CRAIG.
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker You see the problem? assuming that the universe has a goal. Take this assumption out of the equation and you have nothing
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker What makes you believe those constants can be other than what they are. 2 if they were changed so what no life . you would have to assume that the purpose of the universe is to form life and there is no way of getting there without imposing a creator
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories. Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker William Lane craig "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker If you'd like we can discuss any or all of them
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
@thespybreaker Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 4 weeks ago
Craig recycling the same arguments over and over and over. My god( sorry about the pun) can this man actually think for himself or does he just follow the same script.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
can we all agree that w l craig is a moron.
imabeastnimadawg 2 months ago
RIP you beautiful basterd
mowgli123456789 2 months ago
Craaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggg. Go fuck yourself.
iowntwocats 2 months ago
LOL'd a bit when in the midst of Craigs ramblings, Hitchens goes on to put some drops in his eyes, as if he doesn't care.
ttcmp0 2 months ago
A point that "Dr." Craig should know:
Science has confirmed that the total energy of the universe is 0, meaning such event as the big bang can come from nothing more than quantum fluctuations. There need not be any prime mover.
GiveCourage 2 months ago
@GiveCourage I agree that the creation of the universe doesn't need a prime mover (and personally I don't think there is one) but to be fair to Dr. Craig, isn't the zero-energy universe still a hypothesis?
thedaystripper 2 months ago
@thedaystripper It's well supported that the 4D universe is flat with the mass-energy at zero. These are hypotheses, but according to the interpretations of some of the top astrophysics, it seems the evidence is stacking up more favorably for them over the others. More importantly, the God hypothesis has no evidence, explains nothing, and even if true doesn't really give much credit to the existent religions anyway in their dumbassness.
GiveCourage 2 months ago
@claireshana i agree, Dawkins seems to put himself in corners and says things that he shouldn't say at times and at times seems a bit arrogant at times.
ImOnlyMildlyRacist 3 months ago
I always doubt the "personal experience" thing, I mean if you can summon up god then do it and get it tested but usually the feelings turn out to be placebo effect.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
HITCHENS = NEW ATHEISM PROPAGANDA!
ngimangi 4 months ago
@ngimangi Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group.
Like the Islamic or Christian Religions just to mention a few.....
Heelissrogue 4 months ago
@Heelissrogue i love your definition of propaganda. How is aethism any different to religion. yes aethism denies the possibility of god but it is just as dogmatic in its assertion that god does not exist. it is simply the flipside of that theological coin. Science is not designed to answer questions of philosophy. why do people think that it can?
ngimangi 4 months ago
@ngimangi
"Science is not designed to answer questions of philosophy."
The claim that a god was involved with the beginning of the universe is a scientific one.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer elaborate oh mighty one (expand with reason and logic) wow u have faith in science to answer all yor qu's lol that;s what harris will do to ya!
ngimangi 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer It's not a question that science can answer. Science derives its laws and principles from the observations of phenomena within space and time (& whatever additional dimensions people have found out). If we do define the big bang as the "beginning" of the universe i.e. the beginning of time, space etc., then obviously we cannot extrapolate laws that only work within our realm to a region whereby these fundamental dimensions don't exist. Not saying god did it though lol
L02T 4 months ago
@L02T
"It's not a question that science can answer."
Says who? There's no reason to believe that it won't be able to one day.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer It is the precise nature of science that it cannot answer what is not within our universe. Like how science cannot prove or disprove whether god or heaven or hell exists or not, considering god is on an ethereal plane different from this universe. Science is a bunch of theories based on the natural world. Explaining the big bang goes beyond the natural world. Now, only mathematics come close with string and m theory ... but they're hardly what we know as science.
L02T 4 months ago
@L02T
"god is on an ethereal plane different from this universe."
If this god exists, then it is just as much part of this universe as everything else.
"Explaining the big bang goes beyond the natural world. "
Nonsense.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer @L02T " Science is a bunch of theories" and.... "string and m theory ... but they're hardly what we know as science" Tells you all that you need to know about 'L02T'
The ancient and phony 'god of the gaps' strikes again, you'd think that they'd have learned their lesson by now
For centuries, the religious have had to admit that they were wrong about countless claims when confronted with the truth.
Willful ignorance taken to a whole new level
comanchio1976 4 months ago
@ngimangi
"HITCHENS = NEW ATHEISM PROPAGANDA!"
How is the "new" atheism any different than the old one? Atheism simply boils down to lack of belief in god(s).
And if you want to accuse something of propaganda, you'll have to refer to the likes of Craig and Strobel. They spout a lot of claims without backing any of them up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer clearly u dont keep up with the times. new atheism religiously attacks belief in theism. 0ld atheism isnt as aggressive... duh :) google it!
ngimangi 4 months ago
@ngimangi
". new atheism religiously attacks belief in theism."
No, people simply don't swallow this religious nonsense wholesale anymore. Religions are just opinions, and they don't deserve any extra respect just because they're religions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer and most of the planet dont swallow atheism whole either. it is propagated in the west why? because we think we are so advanced we dont need god...
ngimangi 4 months ago
@ngimangi
"and most of the planet dont swallow atheism whole either."
Irrelevant. The number of believers of a claim does not say anything about the veracity of said claim. Besides, atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods. There's nothing to "swallow".
"it is propagated in the west why?"
It is propagated everywhere else too.
"because we think we are so advanced we dont need god..."
No, it's because there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of any gods.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer when did i say that the percentage whole proved a belief? i didn't I was merely pointing out that out of 7 billion people at least 5 billion believe in God/Gods.then u cite evidence why? i dont get it? what do u honestly want? what is evidence when it comes to god for you. We have nothing that can prove good physically so why do u keep going on about it? can u prove gravity? No.. but u see its effects, can i scientifically prove God? No.. but i can point to his handiwork
ngimangi 4 months ago
@ngimangi
"what is evidence when it comes to god for you"
YOU claim this god exist, so it's up to YOU to provide the evidence. I don't have to do your work for you.
"We have nothing that can prove good physically "
Then I have no reason to believe you.
"can u prove gravity? No.. but u see its effects"
Seeing the effects qualifies as evidence. Can you show some effects of your god?
"i can point to his handiwork"
Really? Let's see it then.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer wow u are funny little person. Forever quoting my comments lol :) Your arguments literally read like dawkins God delusion. Why can u not think for your self? The universe had a beginning. i am stating that God is the cause and we are the effect. This is a matter of philosophical reason. It has nothing to do with science... I see design in nature and logically there is a strong argument for causality... Look around u son and u will see his work...
ngimangi 4 months ago
@ngimangi
"Why can u not think for your self?"
Did you come up with that god-idea yourself then?
"God is the cause and we are the effect."
Evidence, please.
"This is a matter of philosophical reason"
No, it's a scientific statement.
"see design in nature"
Some people see Jesus' face in a piece of toast. So what?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@ngimangi You claim that you observe nature, and you see causality. Meaning, everything in nature, things that exist within time & space, is caused by something preceding it. The funny thing about natural laws is that you cannot apply laws derived from the natural to things outside the natural, for instance, applying the law of causality to things before time exist, and ask "what caused the universe?". There's no 'before' the universe to have something to temporally cause it.
L02T 4 months ago
If the maximally delicious flying spaghetti monster is even possible, then it definitely exists. Man wtf @ 8:10 onward
I think we may have a maximally bullshit argument on our hands.
FlipCoder 4 months ago
blah blah exist blah universe blah blah it exist God blah blah blah. he dont even know wtf he just said. he probably looked at this video 1000 times and came to the conclusion he should have said exist one more time.
sirrtee 4 months ago
Is it just me or does Craig's vocabulary far exceed his intellect.
crispy380 4 months ago
@crispy380
"Is it just me or does Craig's vocabulary far exceed his intellect."
He's been stretching his mouth to let the big words come right out.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
Hitchin’s is the biggest fool, he may be a good thinker but his soul is bankrupt and his heart is hard as rock. The truth is everybody dies and when Hitchin’s is laying is his death bed the truth to life will be very clear to him and may be too late and the only one who can save him is Jesus.
MrRwarby 5 months ago
@MrRwarby NO ALLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!one!!! HE CAN SAVE HIM NOT JESUS.
Disprove that you condecending fucking sack of shit.
Dgoosh1000 5 months ago in playlist Hitchens Vs 4 christians at book expo 2009
Craig, the master and personal god of circular logic.
1. Make an assumption, draw consequences from this assumption, show that those consequences require your first assumption to be true.
2. Stay away from logic and reason as far as you can.
3. Use as many latin and/or greek words as you can to sound more intelligent.
4. Pretend that what you said makes sense.
PeterK1984 6 months ago 38
This has been flagged as spam show
@PeterK1984
5. use big numbers that you don't even understand
6. pretend you already won the argument although you are going to ignore the rebuttal
7. stay a brainwashed idiot.
realbojay 5 months ago
Any person who think that the ontological argument is a sound one needs to be shot on site. That is the dumbest argument ever purported. Those who are smart will understand why.
TheWhiteKing01 6 months ago
@TheWhiteKing01 LOL i completely agree its such b.s and has been resurfaced numerous times throughout the years in philosophy because it keeps getting debunked.
Scienceoverreligion 6 months ago
@TheWhiteKing01 Maybe your experience has been different, but I have yet to meet a Christian who believes on the basis of Anselm's ontological arguments. Almost invariably, a positive experience and subsequent relationship with a religious community precedes an indiviual's affirmation of that faith. This, I suspect, is the case for most, if not all, Christians.
writersblock26 5 months ago
'THE UNIVERSE EXIST THEREFORE GOD EXISTS' WHAT A COLLOSSAL DUMBASS
JuanchoMan 6 months ago
hitch at 9.40 propping his eyelids open with matchsticks! yawn.
bearwoodcarpentry 6 months ago
THEY NEED MORE CHRISTIANS! lol
highlanderdurp 6 months ago
if god did created the universe, then why did he make it so big? why make millions of rather uselss planets? why make dying stars and suns? why not just make the earth and nothing else? or a cirlcuar small universe around the earth?
Yenwop121 6 months ago
@Yenwop121 Why would god even create a universe.If he's infinitly great (PERFECT) then why would he need to create a universe with life. A perfect being by definition doesn't need anything and therefore it wouldnt make sense to create a universe.
mrabdrum 6 months ago 8
@mrabdrum Agreed. And even if they go to the age old argument that he was lonely, and wanted someone to be with, then why put us on earth at all, knowing we would suffer and knowing we would sin? Why not create us in Heaven to begin with? When I meet someone that I want to be friends with, I dont make them run the gauntlet and force them to prove themselves worthy. I simply accept them into my circle.
bendon82 6 months ago
@bendon82 Exactly. Why would God create us in sin and then command us to be well and believe in him, or else we end up in hell.
mrabdrum 6 months ago
@mrabdrum good point,,, as hitch says if their is a good he's either very lazy or cruel...
Yenwop121 6 months ago
@mrabdrum A perfect being is not capable of growth. It could only do something the perfect way which is always the same way. No experemention, no change, no growth. UNLESS this being creates something less perfect than itself to do the experiments, make the mistakes and add the growth. That's where we come in. we can try to be perfect but by failing in this, we fulfill a function.
JustaSmuck 3 months ago
@mrabdrum fantastic point!!!
jcandnp 3 months ago
@jcandnp sank you ;)
mrabdrum 3 months ago
@mrabdrum What if a creator created a universe and life forms in order to sustain itself as in a symbiotic relationship. I'm an atheist, but I write fantasy/horror fiction and the gods in my stories create "children" for this purpose. What do you think of that idea?
AylaPersephone 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens Debates At The 2009 Christian Book Expo
@AylaPersephone Yea, its possible.... and it is a great idea for writing!
mrabdrum 2 months ago
@mrabdrum That's a silly little strawman you've made against our theistic friends. Who said he 'needs' to create a universe with life. A perfect being doesn't need anything and therefore ---wouldn't make sense to create a universe? This is still based on the assumption of it only making something because it needs it. Not to mention how your argument is deductively fallacious to begin with. Your conclusion that it doesn't make sense because of that is non-sequitur.
TheUSBcable 2 months ago
@TheUSBcable Well, every explanation for why God chose to create the universe implies that God lacked something. Even if you say that God created the universe for our benefit... why would he bother? If he's perfect then why bother create a universe? And IT DOES follow logically that God does not exist if this being lacks perfection because God is by definition perfect. Just calling my argument silly won't make it silly. Point out which parts are false please.
mrabdrum 2 months ago
None of these idiots are educated. (Note Hitchens is not an idiot so this does not apply to him). None of them have taken any philosophy classes. They are using arguments from ignorance that are not even valid.
SexyArcanine666 6 months ago
then where did god come from.
tormentorox1 6 months ago
"In moral experience we apprehend a realm of objective moral duties..."
He hasn't argued this but simply stated it. What does he mean? That when we moralise we think we do so on the basis of objective moral values? Yes, but that doesn't mean we're right about it does it.
scepticthinktank 6 months ago
The ontological argument is a useless argument. It states that the possibility of God's existence implies his existence. That if you define God as a being that must exist, then he must exist if he could exist.
But what evidence would support the claim that it is possible for God to exist? Evidence of his actual existence. In lieu of that there is no way to support the premise that it is possible for God to exist, but if you had it, you wouldn't need the ontological argument in the first place!
scepticthinktank 6 months ago
@MultiGreenpen He's referring to the ontological argument.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
"4 vs 1 and they still loose..." - 2nd highest rated comment
"Lose" son... your misspelling speaks volumes.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
They keep arguing about a high possibility that there must have been a creator for the universe, however, they never prove that the creator is god nor the christian god. I could say elves created the universe because something must have created it therefore it was elves.
EddieFivespeed 7 months ago
William Lane Craig.... Let me start by saying...<- who cares!
OwensTV 8 months ago
"If the universe has an explanation of its existense that explanation is god. And the universe obviously exists. From that it follows that if the universe has an explanation of its existence then god exists."
Go Humpty Dumpty! Why not just say; I have the assumption that the cause of the universe is an (unvisible and undetectable) god. Period. Why must WLC always complicate his faith and how does he think it makes anything he says more believable than if he just said it as simple as it is?
katnils 8 months ago
Hahahaha!!! Give WLC just 4 minutes and this is what we get; a comic circus with a concentration of his most beloved strawmans and circular reasonings. How can this man live with his extreme intellectual dishonesty? Why not just call his believes a faith like an honest and normal theist?
katnils 8 months ago
@katnils Where does he use circular reasoning?
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers Are you kidding? You don´t hear it? Here`s some goodies: "If the universe has an explanation of its existence that explanation is god. And the universe obviously exists. From that it follows that if the universe has an explanation of its existence then god exists."
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Philosophical and scientific evidence shows that the universe began to exist from which it follows that there is a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time..."
katnils 7 months ago
@katnils When voices it to an uneducated audience it does sound as though he begs the question. But if you look at his scholarly works, he does NOT beg the question. Look at the critiques of prominent atheist philosophers and you will find no such accusation.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers I have looked at many videos with him and he never makes any form of sense so why bother and read what someone like him has written?
What I say is that he has a FAITH (a belief without any evidence for it to be true) in a god and in his religion, fine, but it just sounds retarded when he tries to prove his faith to be right with his circular reasoning and strawmans.
katnils 7 months ago
@katnils Yikes yikes yikes. Listen to John Lennox's definition of faith; faith is rooted in evidence.
And it is fallacious to discard his scholarly works simply because you don't like his debates.
Not only that, but you have not given examples of his strawman attacks (unproven assertion so far) and I have already replied to the circular reasoning aspect; again, he does NOT use circular reasoning in his scholarly works.
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers Because he didn´t use strawmans in this video as I can remember. But he usually are very fond of defining things in his own way and pretend this being the common definition. He makes his own version of how evolution works for example so that he can disprove his own version of evolution. He deliberately states evolution to be something no one has said it is and leaves out inconvenient parts and then "disproves" it. I find him extremely intellectually dishonest.
katnils 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers Then we have some circular reasoning that would take too long and too much energy to discuss so I skip them.
And then he "proves facts" with what is written in the bible. Sigh.
Do you honestly not hear his circular reasoning and that it is necessary to believe in a god, and also his god, from the start to find anything he says to make any form of sense?
katnils 7 months ago
@katnils Now it's my turn to say, "Are you kidding me?" This is the problem I find with public debates. It's far too easy to point out "mistakes" when an atheist/theist is talking in a public debate; but contrary to what you infer, Craig does NOT use circular reasoning in his published works. I genuinely cannot find one instance in his published material where he argues for the legitimacy of the Bible on the basis that it is legitimate (a.k.a. the word of God).
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers I´ve seen videos with him where he talks about hundreds of eye witnesses to Jesus´ miracles and resurrection as absolute facts that cant be denied and he base that on Christians writings several decades after Jesus supposed death when nothing would have stopped the historical Jesus to have become a mythical Jesus. No eye witnesses wrote a single word about him. I mean extremely odd when we talk about such a miraculous man rising people from death and walking on water etc.
katnils 7 months ago
@katnils Yikes. I see you haven't done your research. The authors of the Gospels very well MAY have been eyewitnesses (this is contested). And even if they were not, if you look at the studies for how much time it has taken for "mythical" stories to arise, it take about 150 years+ (conveniently about the same time the apoc. gospels came about).
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers You´re wrong. Just think about how much better a good story can get in just one year. And there are people that has become legends in their own life time. Sai Baba had millions of followers when he lived, and still have, who are convinced he performed miracles.
katnils 7 months ago
@katnils Can you give me multiple examples (as the Jesus Seminar (who agree Jesus didn't resurrect) would say) of historical figures who had historical documents written about them that were clearly legendary? And said documents were written within 10-50 years after the subject of the document's death?
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers Just why would you need multiple examples from me? If it can happen that someone becomes a legend already in his own lifetime it can happen and then it isn´t a fact but a faith we are talking about regarding Jesus.
katnils 7 months ago
@katnils I will wait for your reply to my question. Let me know if you can come up with anything. Because surely Jesus isn't the only "mythical figure" with the same exact legendary statistics?
BraunBrothers 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers I gave you Sai Baba didn´t I? As an example from modern time with millions of followers believing he performed miracles. So we know from just Sai Baba that someone can become a legend even in his own lifetime.
This has not really anything to do with this but I stumbled upon a funny site with Christian urban legends:
religioustolerance . org/chr_cul . htm (remove spaces)
katnils 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers This is a you tube video with the chronology for when the stories about Jesus´miracles emerged:
"I Am Legend [An Atheist Reads the Bible - 13]"
This is a you tube video about how much alike other mythical figures stories about Jesus are:
"Religion is a Control Tool" (Don´t bother about the title. It´s an informative video)
katnils 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers Besides these similarities authors of the gospels also knew what prophesies that needed to be fulfilled (just like Jesus himself knew this) and their stories where a bit different from each other in their creativity to make Jesus fulfill prophesies.
My point is not to disprove Jesus divinity to you but to say that it is of course not possible to prove your religion to be right and I find Craig unbelievably dishonest when he doesn´t just call his believes a faith like it is.
katnils 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers Even the first Christians understood that faith was needed for their beliefs and the new testament is filled with verses emphasising the virtue of faith. (Use the search term faith sometime on an online NT and look at how many hits you get). And then comes Craig and PROVES his religion to be right with his own facts. He is nothing but a dishonest Humpty Dumpty.
katnils 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers They MAY have been eye witnesses. That proves everything. And explains why the first one to write about Jesus, as far as I know; Paul, didn´t write about his miracles that people later wrote about. And why the historian, Josephus, who was born a couple of years after Jesus´s supposed death also didn´t describe his supposed miracles. And why not lots of literal people travel far to live get to see such a miraculous man. Yes of course Craig´s right about his "facts".
katnils 7 months ago
@BraunBrothers So just how can his supposed miracles and resurrection be facts? They just aren´t.
katnils 7 months ago
That panel is wholly unfair... The organizes obviously had their own agenda creating a panel like that.... completely one sided.. I mean ... those 4 Christian apologists never stood a chance ;)
guitardave100 8 months ago 17
@guitardave100 best comment ever.
max11binf 8 months ago
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
More impressive than Christopher Hitchens' arguments is his his ability to sit through christians babbling nonsense. If any single one of them read a book with an open mind they would instantly see how wrong and unnecessary their beliefs are.
doveyt3 9 months ago
LOL at christians using arguments debunked for 1500 years (Ontological)
alexicoff 9 months ago
ROFL, what the hell is Hitchens doing at the Christian book expo? only Hitchens has the balls to show up to something like this.
ThePuzzler81 9 months ago
6:26 - 6:48 perfect example of meaningless tautology "Assume X is true....blablablabla....then X is true!"
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago
6:26 - 6:48 perfect example of logical fallacy. "Assume X is true..blablabla...then A is true!"
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago
This debate is worth watching. Hitchens' patience, sly humour and formidable skills as an orator are in evidence throughout. Not one of his four 'opponents' can do any more than run through the usual ham-fisted appeals to authority, appeals from ignorance, straw men, logical fallacies and pseudo-science and Hitchens destroys them. Four of Christianity's brighest stars, and not one of them can scratch the surface of Hitchens' withering critique of their gullible belief in a sky daddy.
tvdd1973 9 months ago
that pastor is only talking... "bla bla blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaaa blaaa there for god exits"...
MrLuiS3rd 9 months ago in playlist Controversy
Hitchens' speech, coherent and states his point.
Other guy speech, set on a loop and uses one's personal experiences to speak on generalities.
Why oh why, do the sane, rational thinking human being even tries to debate with religious zombies? If every answer can be justified with, "cause god made it so" then there is no more need for logic or thought.
Hence its illogical to converse with said people on matters that require thought and facts.
geradical 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4 Pantheists posing as Christians Vs One Athiest that kicks thier self contadicting heads into the sand!
MrLittletomdj 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REV 22-16 IS THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR-VENUS WORSHIP--ITS ALL ASTROTHEOLOGY-JESUS IS REPTILLIAN WORSHIP-AND HE WAS BARIED IN SRINIGAR-INDIA--ANYWAYS--CHRISTIANITY IS --A THROW AWAY SOLAR CULT RELIGION WAKE UP-THE SAME STORY WAS RUNNING AROUND THE MED FOR `1000 YEARS BEFORE RA HORUS--MYTHRA-KRISHNA-SAME STORIES --IT CAME THRU THE MEROVIGN BLOODLINE THIS RELIGULOUS NONSENSE
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y-please watch and understand ur own bible
theywarnedus 9 months ago
man. Christopher must have tremendous patience in order to do what he does.
solusnoir 10 months ago 4
Ugh, they always make this bullshit argument that the universe came into existence then god had to have done it. Let's say I give you that, what makes it your god?! Only your belief.
biggingeryeti 10 months ago 3
how can people say there is a creator without surveying the entire universe? sure the universe "started" from a big bang, but without examining the entire universe a person can't say "there has to be a god".
I think Humanity explored less than .01% of the universe. But it might be far less. so then, how can people stubbornly say "there has to be a creator" without examining the entire universe? it doesn't make sense.
OyonTheAdept 10 months ago
It is unfortunate how many people will listen to men talk about religion and somehow are able to make up their minds. I think most Atheists and even Christians have never fully read the Bible. I know I haven't. It isn't smart to believe or not believe in something you do not understand. I'm going to read the Bible, hear what the theists have to say about the scripture (because I surely won't understand all of it) and come to an intelligent decision.
perfectfailure23 10 months ago
It's actually 5 vs 1. The guy at the podium gets involved later.
Dennygieck 10 months ago
Hitchens is smart. he adapts his speech so that he doesnt offend these christians.
that way they are more likely to listen to what he said.
highlanderdurp 10 months ago 3
Of all the believers on the panel, the only one I have any respect for is the one in the center. He is the only one that admits that what he adheres to is a faith & tradition. He believes it is a good one (can't fault him for that) & wants to justify it as much as possible intellectually, but in the end, he accepts it is a faith. The other panelists are delusional retards that try to prove god. The moderator is also honest, & admits faith is for those who are "not intelligent" (his words).
cupwithhandles 10 months ago
the second to last guy on the left is such an idiot i had to pause and type this out. He states the fine tuning of life (his arrogant mind generalizing the little he knows past what his own eyes can see) is either physical necessity chance or design. This is where he should have just ended the argument, because he cannot even deduce other things, especially as a person believing in a floating man in the sky. Hell, the universe could be fluffy plastic in a duct tape wallet. its all perspective.
hewooo3 10 months ago
Wait why doesnt God exist because of what science and its evidences say?? You cant measure and test something or someone that isnt even of this world so to do so, of course you wouldnt find any evidence, your statement is self refuting and illogical :\
Blackopjeff 11 months ago
@Blackopjeff your contradicting yourself in your own explanation. why DOES god exist because of what (or the lack of) science and its evidences say? why would you doubt people who have at least a small basis of how our own planet works and just believe in the thing that you can not even experience or have proof of? Think about being born and not knowing of a god, but you CHOOSE to start believing in god. wouldnt happen. your either an illogical blinded moron, or your a hypocrite.
hewooo3 10 months ago
Why does god make his children have to shit everyday ?? I mean, If humans are so much higher than the animals why do we have to shit ?? If we're made in the image of god, does that mean that god has to shit as well ??
MrBeautifulba1 11 months ago 2
@MrBeautifulba1 God is in all of us, and everyday we release him to the world. Therefore, God is shit! :P
big1gangsta2clink 10 months ago
@big1gangsta2clink BOOYAH !
MrBeautifulba1 10 months ago
Eye drops when Craig is talking, LOL
Zimnyification 1 year ago
OMG! WLC makes almost made me vomit! I hear him talking but he's not saying anything. He sounds like a used-car salesman, who just like to hear himself talk. The ontological argument is RIDICULOUS! So, because it's POSSIBLE that unicorns can exist then unicorns MUST exist. Seriously, it IS POSSIBLE that, through evolutionary means, a unicorn could be produced given the right circumstances. How is this guy employed?!?
dafontenot 1 year ago
HITCH SLAPPED!! epic fail for the christians... nobody created god cuz based on the lack of evidence he don't exist and you can't prove he does because you can't prove something that isn't there.. IF he was there then we would have evidence and there would only be one absolute religion(gods) worldwide instead of several. Besides if "he" was an all knowing perfect being wouldn't he know you can't rely on your only proof to be in text form..just show up you pussy..smite me now!! still here darn:)
L3G3NDizAtheist 1 year ago
hitch is just having fun....a little like a cat with an injured mouse.
avalanchesoul 1 year ago 2
there will always be the nr 1 killer argument that teists can never answer: who created God?
snookerjam 1 year ago
It's possible fairies exist. Therefore they exist. It's possible the Virgin Mary lied. Therefore she lied. Idiot.
maximusspqr 1 year ago
Imagine if society knew nothing of mathematics. Literally nothing. And someone asked if 2+2=5. We wouldnt know and would come to the conclusion that 2+2 could equal 5, and given an infinite number of chances it eventually would. But we all know 2+2 will and can not ever equal 5. It is the same with Doctor craigs God. The only reason we think there is a chance of it happening is because we dont know
skenners 1 year ago
I understand what Dr Craig is trying to say, given an infinite number of possible worlds, and it is possible that God exists, then God must exist. The only reason why we think theres a chance God could exist is because of our limited minds. Its not like rolling a dice, where 6 outcomes are possible so eventually all 6 come up. We are saying we dont know if God exists, so there is a chance that he does. It may sound obvious, but if God doesnt exist, then it is impossible for him to exist.
skenners 1 year ago
6:00 - 6:50
That was the poorest explanation of the existence of God. "The Universe exists, the universe has an explanation so God must exist..."
What?
00D00 1 year ago
satan creeping in by turning christain talking points away from gods works and jesus works to defend their exsentance. same way politics works
stevin47 1 year ago
christopher hitchens is the coolest debater on earth, coolness personified
drsambo74 1 year ago 62
@drsambo74
he is cold as ice...if there were a heaven i bet he could argue his way in, or even maybe convince god he himself didnt exist...
rcmaphia 4 months ago
4 vs 1 and still they loose.....speaks volumes
velendzas 1 year ago 52
Nice 'Alexander Pope' quote there Hitchens :) "The proper study of mankind is man"
Notharah 1 year ago
6:52 is the best part
DeadlyThrashViking 1 year ago
WLC = deepity
caseybv74 1 year ago
Such a "good" man.
theDuctapeUnion 1 year ago
It's weird how Hitchens sounds like a person and the others sound like preachers I've never personal met a Christian who could talk and not preach.
kittley1984 1 year ago 2
@UnitedFan16 most are .
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
Okay here is the problem, people think science is automatic proof that God doesn't exist but yet science never disproved the existence of God.. They want to say that God doesn't exist because they don't want him to. God's existence is undecidable through science, I know there is a God you can't disprove God and will never make me falter. I have a question of any atheist or agnostic that reads this, what is your purpose in this world and whats the purpose for the universe?
UntamedBahamut 1 year ago
@UntamedBahamut Don't even know if we have a purpose.Jus' as no one does.Don't need it either.
Thing is you can't prove god,you know.So you don't know there's a god.You believe there is.It's different.You wanna believe,go believe.Jus' don't claim you know somethin' when you don't.
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
@TylerMcManus1 I have a purpose in life as a Christian, I can say that.. Now say I wasn't a Christian could I have a true standard purpose if I knew that I was going to die and everything I did here on earth wouldn't matter then no I can't say I would have a definite purpose.
And true as of now there is no way to prove/disprove God, I'm just saying I know myself that God is real, wasn't trying say I can prove to anyone God is real atm, I just know personally that God is with me and is very real.
UntamedBahamut 1 year ago
@UntamedBahamut Why is it so important to seek a meanin' in what only seems to be an absurd maelstrom?
How d'you know that-thing-you-call-god's lrea?What makes you so special as to know for sure somethin' no one can?You jus' believe,not know.Maybe it's jus' a semiotic ghost,who knows?
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
@TylerMcManus1 here goes wisdom again --- boy
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
@SuperPatrick777 .. .. Any purpose to your comment--- lad?
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
@TylerMcManus1 im sure you can work that out for yourself .
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
@SuperPatrick777 Oh,I mea<nt beyond mere stupidity in thinkin' your opinion's worth anythin to me..
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
@TylerMcManus1 okay please explain to me your reason for all of us why are we all here? are we here just to die and thats it? please tell me. Now as for your question "What makes you so special as to know for sure somethin' no one can?" well I'm not the only one that knows, there are a lot of people that know God and know Jesus Christ. now can you prove to me that your life existed 5mins ago? and that everything around you wasn't just now thought of?
UntamedBahamut 1 year ago
@UntamedBahamut Let me answer that last one for you.. No, you can't but yet undoubtedly you know in your mind that how ever many years that made up your life are real and not just some made up story. so you can't prove your life but you know it was all real. So why is it that God automatically isn't real because he can't be scientifically proven? now your probably thinking of some way to prove the last 5mins of your life was real maybe even googling it but sorry not possible.
UntamedBahamut 1 year ago
@UntamedBahamut And no,I don't know anytghing to be real.I jus' know it's my memories.That doesn't make it neccessarily real nor accurate.So,no,I haven't thought of any way to prove anything.
"So why is it that God automatically isn't real because he can't be scientifically proven?"Where did I say that?
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
@TylerMcManus1 so your going along with me as to you can't prove the last 5mins of your life is real and your furthering it by saying you don't know anything to be real, but instead you believe in your memories which form your life. I say you believe in your memories and not know because for you to know something must mean its real, which you stated earlier you don't know anything to be real. Does this sound correct to you? I'll finish my comment once you answer.
UntamedBahamut 1 year ago
@UntamedBahamut I don't believe my memories are real.I think they're information gathered by my senses of this commonal illusion and stored in my conscience.But that's what I think.I don't believe.I accept it as a reasonable way to interact with this shared illusion,which,for all I know could be real.Or maybe not.Real is a matter of perception.
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
@TylerMcManus1 Okay so your agnostic, you think your your memories are real, your not for sure if your life is actually real, and all of this is some thought up illusion pretty much going by the question I gave you earlier about the whole not being able to prove 5mins of your life.. So, this must be a pretty crappy illusion huh? to be sitting in front of your computer debating with me over something you don't really care about because you don't believe in anything.
UntamedBahamut 1 year ago
@UntamedBahamut Why there must be a reason?And you can't prove that thing you call god is real,so I'd stick with "no-one can know".Oh and I can't prove anythin' existed 5 min. ago and wasn't made jus' now.Why should I,anyway?I'm not sayin' I know.I'm agnostic'bout everythin',pal.I jus' don't have any belief.So I don't know why should I proove anything'bout the shared illusion..
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago
@TylerMcManus1 Okay this whole debate me and you are having started with the "So you don't know there's a god.You believe there is." I'm proving to you I know there is.. now many times you have used "I know" in the statements of your not real. So in this your saying you know something when your not real or rather there is no evidence to prove your existence. so how is it that you know something that you stated wasn't real. But the fact I'm stating is I Know God and he is real.
UntamedBahamut 1 year ago
@UntamedBahamut How d'you know there is?When I say I know I refer to the shared "reality".To things that can be proven.Prove that thing you call god is real.If you can.
You got me wrong.I know my life is real.I jus' think my memories to be an interpretation.Doesn't make'em real.
The fact that I don't care doesn't mean tghis is unfunny..
TylerMcManus1 1 year ago