God may exist, but we could give it no form we know of. There is no reason to believe in such a being. And because 'god', if i exists, is a mystery, postulating such an idea only begs more questions than it answers. Such as, where did God come from? and do on.
...furthermore, if it is true that Dr. Harris has been encouraged to "not play Dr. Craig's game" as I read before viewing this debate, what is it that Dr. Harris is meant not to take part in? Are intelligent young men and women really encouraging a scholar such as Dr. Harris not to take part in friendly scholarly debate with another scholar? This is just madness. The New Atheist movement is so popular because of emotional impact and not rigorous personal education on the subjects of religion.
I don't understand how people support Dr. Harris here! All he does is throw out vague attacks against Christianity, the same ones Atheists have been using ineffectively for hundreds of years, and then, by avoiding the question at hand, makes moral judgements without actually having established any reason to have objective moral judgements apart from a metaphysical objective reality such as God. Please, please, please, do not be taken in by pop Atheism.
Craig is really petty in this one, he just uses his contingencies to exonerate himself from his ridiculous claims that his doctrine and others are filled with hundreds of pages of genocide. He claims that Sam keeps trying to debate theism even though thats not the topic (Does Good Come From God) and then keeps saying that atheism is obviously bad because it has no grounded morals from god.
7:25 is where the entire debate falls apart for Craig. He is reduced to simply re-iterating and ignoring Dr. Harris's points while insisting that God is what makes morality objective. He has already explained what he believes, but is at an utter loss to support his beliefs, and has no further options other than to say I'M RIGHT! HE'S WRONG! like a toddler having a tantrum. I'm always shocked at the intellectual bankruptcy of apologists, but I'm no longer surprised.
I actually had respect for Craig as a philosopher until 10:45. His argument: P1: if god exists, then there are (objective) moral values. P2: there are (objective) moral values ("evil actually proves that god exists!") C1: therefore, god exists. This is such an elementary logically fallacy that it hurts: P1: if p then q. P2: q. C1: p. Invalid. Whereas logically it is this: P1: if p then q. P2: p. C1: q. Valid. What a tragedy to hear a renowned philosopher say that!
@itchynights Replace "renowned" with "incompetent" and "had respect" with "thought he could make an argument without elementary logical fallacies" then we agree. Craig teaches at 'Leadership' University, doesn't he? Is LeaderU known for philosophical prowess? Unfortunately, he's among the few apologists with a PhD in something other than theology and his career is based on giving validation to masses of christians desperate to have their beliefs taken seriously, so he gets undeserved attention.
oh is that so? he gave off an air of being somewhat reasonable, and he made some good points against harris (like reminding him of the actual topic of the debate). but i suppose i can't be too surprised by an apologist.
i just hope that Christians wake up and understand that eternal burning in Hell is not Biblical it make no sens that a loving God burn people for ever in Hell, that mid evil doctrine has done lot of damage to God character and Christianity it self.if people want proof of my claim then study the web site on my channel and learn the real truth about the end of the wicked.also see this video.Lecture - Edward Fudge - The Fire That Consumes, 3rd edition..plz shear this whit your fellow christians.
@jesusLostChildren777 I don't need to study your website. The New Testament very clearly, explicitly, and in no uncertain terms condemns unbelievers to eternal torture after physical death. No amount of fudging the truth (no pun intended), apologetic gymnastics, and playing the Big Book of Multiple Choice game can get you around this fact. Would it not be more honest, more humble, and show greater depth of character to admit that the Bible was made up by ignorant savages, not a personal god?
@vau0807 there was a time i believed in Hell to,and indeed most churches teach this doctrine,and if you read the Bible normally its looks like it to.but there are some mistakes made in translations.in the old testament you find the word Hell many times but that is a wrong translation,in the original text the word Hell do not exist,but the real meaning of that word is Sheol,or hades and one time Tartarus it comes from the Hebrew alphabet it mean the ''grave''
@vau0807 in the new testament the real meaning of Hell is Gehenna what Jesus used as a fit symbol for what happen whit the wicked the where burned up,so the word Hell is wrong translation true the hole Bible all word's means the grave Gehenna is the symbol for the lake of fire where the wicked die the second dead.: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in (Gehenna)" Mat. 10:28
@vau0807 also there is a false believe that we have immortal soul.but in this verse.which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.you see there is very good reasons why eternal torture in Hell do not exist.
@jesusLostChildren777 you believe the Bible is nothing more than fairy tales. But this cannot be for it contains great wisdom and truth and it has been verified throughout history as being accurate. Its historical accounts are flawlessly accurate. In fact, archeology routinely demonstrates the accuracy of the biblical records concerning locations and events recorded in the Bible. the bible have stand the test of time and your believe in Bible will not chance that.
@jesusLostChildren777 You aren't aware of the many verses that contradict other verses? The Bible is rife with falsified claims. Google is your friend - please do some research, because you are dangerously close to getting labeled a Poe. Regarding hell, there are verses throughout John, Revelations, Thessalonians, etc. confirming eternal torture. It's not my problem that your supposed omniscient god wrote a book so ambiguous that there are 10K+ different Christian sects w/ different beliefs.
@vau0807i am not going to convince you about Hell doctrine because you dont even study the bible.its all your opinion anyway.i rather shear this with people that actually is interesting to now God's word.Hell is not eternal and i can proof it and your commends about hell proofs noting.i have complete study about this and video's.you only fallow some main stream teaching.that is refuted time over time..people watch Lecture - Edward Fudge - The Fire That Consumes, 3rd edition.
I have never seen a debate that is more of an embarrassment to both debaters, and an exercise in total futility. Of course if the absolute exists then absolute morals might (not necessarily DO!) exist. And of course if the opposite is true, then there is no objective morality. Mr Craig, Mr Harris, please - either stop delivering bullshit, or stop taking money for it.
Harris delivered gold in this section. Craig came back with his rebuttal making it evident that he is a debater and less concerned with the truth. He comes out with an annoying snickering statement: '' Haha the less moral frame work is ATHEISM! Why... it HAS no moral frame work''. Why is Sam even wasting his time? If there is no god than I guess christians will just have to reconcile their negative feelings with having to be moral without one.
I think Harris just got to the point in this debate. He said "WLC says God is moral, but in the Bible, which is the source of WLC's beliefs, god does immoral things." Craig's response is that what god commands is moral by definition, including genocide, but that simply exposes his theory as being based on the SUBJECTIVE whims of an arbitrary authority. If your moral view allows you to justify genocide, then something is seriously fucked up with your moral view. The end.
Not really?? If the people you are killing are evil, and are terrorizing those you love, then you would be justified in killing them, especially if you warned them and gave them time to repent.
@Missangelcake68 But that's not the justification Craig offers. He says "Welp, God said so, so it must be good." I could just as easily make a command theory of morality off of Kim Jong-Il once i define "goodness" in terms of his character.
In any case, good luck convincing anyone that full-scale genocide is needed for self-defense.
I don't think I've ever heard such a complete, such a sloppy misrepresentation of the Christianity. Harris can't possibly believe the things he's saying... he can't be so bigoted, can he? The man is either a liar or a fool.
@AD6043 Where does one begin? Harris simply ignores the thoughtful and satisfying answers produced by the last 500 years of theological grappling on questions like invincible ignorance and the problem of evil, and simply assumes that everyone is a bible-thumping pentecostal without two brain cells to rub together. He disrespects Craig by refusing to debate the issue and answer his arguments logically, and instead reverts to his rabble-rousing talking points. He contributes absolutely nothing.
@Onetruthrgv How can you say objective morality comes from an unseen, immeasurable force and say that it's true? His hypothetical God, which is perfect and infallable is an excellent candidate, but without proof and plenty of counterpoints to what is "just", you cannot make an argument for objective morality directly from God without proving your God.
@SocialDissimulation I agree! I cannot (At least on this topic alone) give you reason why we as a people should accept x as a moral standard but that is not my point of Dr Craig's point in the debate. From our preposition we can show how we account for what is moral. Now notice the discussion is not on existence but about in a possible world. Trust me existence is no problem to debate but its just not the topic for the discussion.
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
Christians are such hypocrites grounding there morality on god hasn't made them any better or changed the world so wheres his statistics that say god belief makes people better? History says having gods hasn't really improved our situation it only muddys up the water even more.
at 09:05 Craig says "You don't believe in god to avoid going to hell."
That explains why so many Christians still yank out Pascal's wager at the drop of a hat.
And the old "fire and brimstone" sermons from my youth must have had something to do with forest fires or something, since "fear of hell" apparently wasn't the intent.
Convince a Christian that you're not buying the whole love and eternity in paradise stuff, and the sales pitch switches to "hell" in a heartbeat.
"so if you hear a dumb unchrist-like"fire and brimstone" preacher.... there not going about it the way jesus did."
Would you please show me where Jesus refuted Exodus 21:20-21 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property"
I've haven't been able to find where Jesus had a problem with these passages.
ppl critic slavery, yet they own pets... isn't that ironic.... Where is the moral line to say its acceptable for us to wear animal skins, or eat animals, yet it is acceptable for us to control pets, or have animal as pets. yet when we do it to our race, its wrong... what makes it different. now i'm posing a question, not a pointless argument... someone please answer my initial question. What makes one acceptable as oppose to the other... Pets can call us unmoral for what we do to them. Get it?
I don't hear any arguments about how morality comes from nature. I just hear Harris playing upon the emotions of the audience. Great way to deviate from the real issues
@wownov83 Harris in not brilliant because he is an atheist. Atheists are not objective and fair with the facts. And most I've met or worked with are egotistical pricks for some reason. The agnostic is the one who faces the facts with objectivity. One can not KNOW with certainity if God exists. What is on the other side of the Big Bang? Who or what created or determined the laws of physics? Our universe can't exist without a creator unless we find millions of multiverses exist. It's agnosticism!!
@boblackey1 Harris never said he was certain that god doesn't exist. He says there's no good reason to believe that a god exists. Technically you're right, that would be agnostic atheism. Most atheists actually adopt the same position; as you said no one can know for certain if god does or does not exist. Your last few sentences are completely false; there's no need to involve god in the creation of our universe; that must be demonstrated first, and you definitely haven't done that.
@wownov83 Well I direct you to Fred Hoyle's Wikipedia page, about a third of the way down, where Hoyle states it's clear that some super intellect must be behind the universe. Also Dr. Kaku stated on C-Span that he would ask Richard Dawkins who created the laws of physics and Dawkins would have to say "I don't know". Dr. Kaku believes in the God of Einstein. The "Who" or "What" determined the laws of nature. Stephen Hawkings' position that the discovery of mulit-verses would put God out.
@boblackey1 You're essentially correct here. Einstein was a deist, not a theist. But that has nothing to do with a personal god, which Einstein clearly rejected. I don't know why you're insisting on "putting God out" when you haven't actually showed why anyone should believe in God in the first place.
@wownov83 Well you are talking to an agnostic. I was raised a Christian but even as a kid I had doubts. Did Jesus rise from the dead? I hope so. But I'm not sure. Why should anyone believe in God in the first place. Well to some I know, it makes more since to explain why the universe is here. Why something exists. But several of these people are not religious but a deist. One is a physics professor at a local college. To devout Christians I know, it makes them happy, full of joy and hope.
@wownov83 The reason God is a possibility for the creation of the universe we live in is that too many unlikely accidents happened to get galaxies, stars, planets, life etc. There is much order including the laws of nature, the laws of physics. But if we one day can prove there are millions of other universes, maybe all connected by black holes and the others are in disorder and stars, life etc can't form, then the UNLIKELY universe we live in most likely had NO intelligent creator.
@boblackey1 God is certainly a possibility. But you haven't shown, and in fact no one has, that God is actually the creator. So I'll remain with my rejected belief in God until you have proof. Also, physicists completely understand how galaxies and stars, planets came into being. It has nothing to do with accidents. The fact that our universe is "unlikely" has nothing to do with it being created or not.
@wownov83 Well if you change the physics of our universe just a bit up or down, then galaxies can't form. Stars can't form. Life can't emerge and evolve. That is what the discovery, if it ever happens, that many, many OTHER universes also exist and nothing can form in those places. That way we can over come the math that says it is unlikely ( a nice little accident that it turned out to be JUST right) for stars to form etc etc. Also do you agree that God or something has existed forever?
@boblackey1 Certainly if the constants that govern our universe were changed just slightly, we would live in a completely different universe, where life and stars as we know them now, would most certainly probably not exist. But it's hardly an accident; we wouldn't be here to discuss the physics of our universe if the laws had been slightly different. You wouldn't say it's an accident that plants grow on earth, where the conditions are just right, and not on Venus, right? It's the same thing.
@wownov83 By accidents I mean something that is VERY unlikely. Conditions were just right. If NO high intelligence caculated the laws that control the universe, the laws of physics, then one could call them lucky little accidents could they not? Maybe accidents isn't the right word.
@wownov83 In other words, if God exists and created all, then God could not have a beginning. God has existed for all eternity. If God does not exist, and since we exist and the universe exists, then whatever was first and gave rise to what was second, would necessarily have to have existed WITHOUT a beginning. Unless you use the eternal regress theory where nothing has existed forever, but there was always something before any place in the past you care to go, to give rise to it.
@boblackey1 You have to be careful when you talk about the beginning of our universe in such common sense terms. If physics tells us anything, it's that our intuition fails, bigtime, when we apply it to understanding the universe. We don't know anything about the cause of the big bang and the creation of our universe. So until then, I'll wait, not presuming the existence of some eternal being that caused it. There's nothing wrong with not knowing.
@wownov83 Well you are more an agnostic than atheist. I'm agnostic. Atheism, to me, is a kind of leap of faith too, like the religion I was raised in. But it is all interesting. Fred Hoyle held the universe had NO beginning and is eternal. But Big Bang says NO. Our universe began 13.2 billion years ago. But I'm crazy about Hoyle. He rejected Darwinism too. Held life is older than the earth and came from outerspace. I like scientists who don't side with the orthodox view. They are fun to read.
@boblackey1 This is really more of a semantic discussion. To be fair, many atheists define atheism as the rejection of belief in god, and not that god doesn't exist. You'll be hard pressed to find any atheists of the latter kind in professional debates, or even on YouTube. You would be absolutely correct that in assuming god definitely does not exist, that would be a leap of faith. As for your "fine tuning" argument, I seriously recommend that you watch the Krauss vs. Craig debates.
@wownov83 Well Stephen Hawkings, who went to Cambridge to be a studen of Hoyle and is now called the smartest man in the world, says the ONLY way to put God out of the running is to find the multiverses. So Krauss must be wrong. Hoyle accepted the fine tunning. Read his Wikipedia page. The math says this universe can't exist without a creator unless the mulitverses exist. Billions of them where nothing works. Richard Dawkins visited Stephen Hawkings on this subject and its on YouTube.
@wownov83 Well people such as Dr. Craig here offers proof that God's exists. I don't know Dr. Craig's work that well but I did listen to his presentation about why God must exist. Craig offered a number of reasons, that to Dr. Craig, puts the question of God's existence beyond doubt. Also I've heard Dr. D. James Kennedy's similar prestation in the form of a sermon on his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church hour on TV. But I remain a skeptic. An agnostic about theism, Christianity AND atheistism.
@wownov83 Also a few Christian friends have offered me the site "Reasons to Believe" which is run by a Christian who is also an astronomer with a Phd. It is Hugh Ross, Phd and this website and a book or two I've received by Dr. Ross make some interesting arguments about the structure of the universe, stars, the complexity of the universe and many, many arguments for design that he and his team sees in life here on earth that to them, prove God.
@boblackey1 There are many people who believe in god, and many who don't. The issue here isn't trying to figure out who exactly believes what. The issue is that there is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore there is no good reason to believe in his existence.
@wownov83 Well that is bull shit. There is plenty of evidence that the universe that we live in could have been created by an intelligence and with a purpose. I was just listening to George Norey on that all night AM talk show which has all kinds of weird and scientific stuff and he just had an authority on the universe and he too finds that it is possible to read the evidence in a clear way that is a stong indication that the universe was CREATED and with a purpose. Harris is closed minded!!!
@boblackey1 Again you just say that god exists because this person and this person said so. That's not convincing, and I have no idea what an "authority on the universe" is, but whoever holds that title is probably a crackpot.
@wownov83 Well of course you know what an authority on the universe happens to be. Even William Lane Craig claims to be an authority on the universe. But I would say that rather than getting to that level by warming a seat in an university for a few years, Dr. Craig claims it because he has studied in great detail the work of those IN the field. It think Craig's two Phds are NOT in physics or astronomy. There are dozens of authorities who see God as a possibility. Robert Jastrow&Fred Hoyle or
@wownov83 Paul Davies is another. I have several books by Dr. Davies and is sees God as a very strong possibility as what started the universe. Sam Harris is an atheist and is rejecting God not as much for scientific reasons as OTHER motives. And it is clear to me that Harris actually is turned off so much by the God concept found in religion and Christianity in particular, that one can safely assume he is as much motivated by those motives as Craig is by his faith in Christ.
@wownov83 Take a stroll over to Wikipediadotorg and type in Fred Hoyle or Paul C. Davies just for starters and read their pages and see if you think they are crackpots. If you do or don't, I've give you some more names later of scientists who think God could be in the details of the universe. But remember, I'm not trying to prove it one way or the other. I'm agnostic and open minded to the possibilities. Hardshell atheists like Same Harris or Richard Dawkins hate God so much they just can't.
@boblackey1 I really hate to stress this, but all you've ever done is give me names of people who happen to believe that god exists. That's not an argument. And Hoyle is certainly not an "authority on the universe", he was a physicist.
Secondly, Harris and Dawkins don't hate god, they would have to believe he exists to hate him.
@wownov83 If Hoyle was NOT an authority on the universe, if Carl Sagen was not, If Stephen Hawking was not, if George Smoot was not, if Paul Davies was not, then WHO would be an authority? Saying Hoyle is not an authority on the universe is like saying Dr. Craig, or Dr. Ehrman or Dr. Tabor are not authorities on the Christian religion! But I'm NOT saying all these authorities agree! Hoyle and Sagen, for example, parted company on several fronts. Harris and Dawkins DO hate God AND religion!
@boblackey1 The point I'm making is that you're placing way too much emphasis on who says what, you're just blindly accepting what "authorities" are saying. I'm not saying that they're wrong, necessarily. It's just not an effective way to get a point across. You haven't actually offered any argument, just a bunch of quotes. Harris and Dawkins certainly dislike religion, as I do, but they don't "hate God". How can you hate something you don't believe exists? Another classic misunderstanding.
@wownov83 Well then you must be a scientist who does research and come to your own conclusions in the lab!! I'm not a scientist so I must rely on "authorities" have to say just as I do my doctor. But I don't use just ONE authority as I wouldn't trust the opinio of just one doctor for something serious with my health. I read and listen to a number of authorities. Harris and Dawkins DO hate/dislike the God of Christianity, Islam etc. They dislike Christianity and all it teaches. It's all they do.
@boblackey1 If you admit to not having the capacity to handle these debates, and you instead just rely on relaying information that you've heard other people saying, what's the point, really? I have to repeat myself; Hitchens and Harris do NOT "hate God". They don't believe in God. They can't hate him. Secondly, they're both public intellectuals and writers/professors. They have real jobs; "hating religion" is certainly not "all they do".
@wownov83 I have the capacity to handle this or any debate. What I'm saying is this: I NEVER hear anyone, not Harris, not Dawkins, not Craig, not Oral Roberts deliver a "knock out" punch. To present hard evidence that God doesn't exist and did not create the universe or God does exist and did create the universe. I always see a loose end. Something left out. Something they just don't really know. Something that is just a good speculation or theory without any evidence. So I continue agnostic.
@boblackey1 If I told you I believed in Leprechauns, would you believe me? There's no evidence that Leprechauns don't exist. So would you be agnostic about Leprechauns? Imagine what a world we would live in if it worked like this. I could claim that you're a murderer, and you'd go to jail, since there's no way of proving that you have definitely NOT murdered somebody. Rejection in the belief of something until it is proven with evidence is basically self-evident, would you not agree?
@wownov83 Well I don't agree with the comparison. Almost all normal educated adult people would seriously doubt Leprechauns would exist anywhere in the universe. But the door is still open for the existence of God. (When I say God, I mean a power of high intelligence that created the universe with a purpose and may NOT be the God of any religion known to man) Something has existed without a beginning or we would not be here. Is it God or is it some other force or energy with no intelligence?
@boblackey1 Why is the door still open for the existence of God? Why is it that it's perfectly natural for you to doubt leprechauns, but not God, when there is no evidence for either? You may not assume that God likely exists since we don't know the cause of the beginning of the universe, that is an argument based on ignorance.
@wownov83 Also would you not say that it is possible that Leprechauns, or something similar..maybe a little guy with huge eyes and just holes in his face and no nose, and he (they) have space ships, that live on a planet that is in orbit around a star which is one of 200 billion stars in this galaxy or the millions of other galaxies that are known to exist. Indeed, with the latest telescopes, as we look back into time and deeper into space, there are just more galaxies. It seems to go forever.
@boblackey1 The point is simply that it is fallacious to assume that since I can't prove the negative, i.e. that god doesn't exists, that the positive is true, i.e. that god exists. With this sort of logic, you must believe not only in the christian God, but also every God in existence. Surely you're not a Muslim, right? Well, you certainly can't prove the non-existence of Allah. So why do you cherry pick what you do and don't believe in the light of zero evidence?
@wownov83 Because I don't accept zero evidence for God. I think there IS evidence that God created the universe. I tend to be impressed with the "fine tuning" position and the anthropic principle position. Type in "fine tuning of the universe" here in the search box on YouTube for some vids. But this evidence, while compelling, isn't strong enough to convince me that God does exist so I remain an agnostic. I really don't like being an agnostic but I just can't move one way or the other.
@boblackey1 I'm very familiar with the fine tuning argument. There are multiple explanations for it... firstly, there's no evidence that the physical constants that govern the universe can even be changed. Secondly, life that could discuss the universe can only evolve in a universe that is conducive to life. Thirdly, if you believe that an intelligent being is involved, there's no reason to think that it's the christian God rather than any other God.
@boblackey1 You admit that the evidence isn't strong enough to convince you that God exists, yet you remain agnostic... This is why I raised the question in previous posts; you're glad to reject belief in leprechauns, since there's no evidence for the existence of leprechauns, but you're reluctant to reject belief in god, when, as you said yourself, the evidence for god is NOT sufficient. This is special pleading, and it's intellectually dishonest.
@wownov83 No you are not following me. I said to me there is NO evidence that leprechauns exist so it is easy for me to reject that notion. But there IS evidence that God exists. Fine tuning, anthropic principle, who or what created the laws of nature and physics? etc etc. Dr. Craig gives some here. Now here is what I'm saying. I find the evidence for the existence of God to be compelling but yet it doesn't deliver a knock out punch to me, so I remain an agnostic. Same with the atheist argument.
@boblackey1 There is no "atheist" argument... it's a lack of belief in god. That's akin to saying, why should I believe in "innocent until proven guilty". Should I believe in leprechauns until I have definite proof against them? I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here, so I don't know why you asked for an argument "for atheism". The big difference between us is that you find this (weak) evidence to be reason enough to not doubt god. That's just nonsense, the arguments all fall down.
@wownov83 They don't fall down to me. When I read Fred Hoyle's books or Robert Jastrow or Paul C. Davies or some of Dr. Craig's arugments seem convincing to me. I've watched other Sam Harris videos. Just recently one from a talk he gave in Canada. He seems dangerous to me. I sounds as if he wants to take away freedom of speech and religion from people. He finds many Christians dangerous. He would be as alarmed to have a
@wownov83 I'm getting tired of YouTube today. I'll be back in a day or so. I'm tired of having to type in those odd letters that are so hard to read everytime now. But I was saying when I read a book like "God and the new Physics" by Paul C. Davies, Phd who did his Phd at Cambridge under Fred Hoyle, Hoyle was chairman of the department of astronomy at Cambridge for many years, I find evidence for God being behind the creation of the universe that is compelling. But I'm not completely convinced.
@wownov83 I'm getting tired of YouTube today. I'll be back in a day or so. I'm tired of having to type in those odd letters that are so hard to read everytime now. But I was saying when I read a book like "God and the new Physics" by Paul C. Davies, Phd who did his Phd at Cambridge under Fred Hoyle, Hoyle was chairman of the department of astronomy at Cambridge for many years, I find evidence for God being behind the creation of the universe that is compelling. But I'm not completely convinced.
Davies like myself is a deist of sort. The teleological argument from fine-tuning is not evidence for a god as described by theists, but an unknown, undefined, non-personal agent(s) or force. Craig believes is a much different type of entity then what Davies might support.
@revo1974 Thanks for the support. Harris and my friend here wownov83 and most atheists that I've met personally or online inisist there is NO evidence AT ALL that God exists and any scientist who believes in God is allowing their personal faith from their past to interfer with their better judgment of the facts of science. But that is simply not true. No question that Albert Einstein was a deist as is Dr Kaku who I see on the science channel now. Paul C. Davies is another as was Fred Hoyle later
Indeed, in-fact even though the word deist derives from the Latin word deus, which means god, deism is not necessarily a belief in a god as normally depicted by theists. Instead, it is the belief in a creator/designer/grand architect of some kind.
There is no empirical evidence for a god or anything that lies beyond our four dimensional space-time continuum. There is however circumstantial evidence, which IS evidence for design. Reason then leads some of us to believe there may be a designer(s) of some sort.
Aristotle, who was a deist of sort, put forth the concept that perhaps nature itself is inherently intelligent. This is a possibility that explains the highly ordered and harmonious Universe without agency.
@revo1974 Robert Jastrow is another Phd astronomer who believes in God. I remember his book on the subject. But the only Phd astronomer that I can think of who is alive who believes in God as a Christian is Ross who has the "Reasons to Believe" website. So Davies, Einstein, Kaku, Hoyle & others are/were NOT religious people. They didn't accept the God of any of the religions. Just God that they saw in the design and beauty of the universe. Hoyle: we are in his God's remote past. Not aware of us.
@wownov83 Certainly trashing God and religion and the Christian religion in general IS what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins DO for a living. As Stephen Hawking said to Dawkings "why do you talk about God all the time?" They are on a mission. Just as William Lane Craig is on a mission. Craig's entire purpose is to convince as many people as possible that God does exist and Jesus Christ died for their sins and to accept Christ's death on the cross for payment for their sins before it's too late.
@wownov83 William Lane Craig is a Christian evangelist just as sure as Billy Graham was one. Dr. Craig's MINISTRY is to take the saving grace of Jesus and the good news of the gospel to a lost world of sinners who are in rebellion against God and his law. Have broken his 10 commandments and will be judged at their death with eternal death unless they turn to Christ before it's too late. Billy Graham did it with preaching meetings in stadiums. Craig does it debating atheists. Both have same job.
@wownov83 All of Harris' and Dawkins' efforts today, their books, their speaking engagements etc have to do with trashing Christianity and religion. Dawkins recently interviews Stephen Hawking (I saw it) and Hawking ask him why do you talk about God all the time. Hawking's view is that IF multiverse, maybe billions with different laws of nature and no real order, exist..then it is not likely God exists. But if this is the ONLY one, then maybe God does exist. Good agnostic answer!
@boblackey1 Sorry for being rash but I'm growing a little sick of you telling me what other people think about the issue, like that's supposed to convince me one way or the other. I make up my mind by considering both arguments and evidence, not by blindly accepting the word of authority.
@wownov83 Well I DO the same. Here I carefully listened to Harris and to Craig. I don't go to a video like this as do most atheist or Christians and already have picked a winner because I'm pulling for the guy you believes like me. I'm an agnostic. After listening and reading many "authorities" I'm not convinced that God created the universe and I'm not convinced it has existed forever or came to be without God (meaning a creative intelligence who had a purpose in creating it).
@wownov83 Also as an agnostic and after watching a couple additional debates between Dr. Craig and Dr. Price and Dr. Craig and Dr. Carrier, I find it actually funny that those who seem to be Christian find Dr. Craig to be absolutely brilliant and his skeptic opponent to be pretty much a joke. And I see the same here between Craig and Harris. And those who seem to be atheist take the other view. Harris, Price, Carrier are brilliant and Craig is an idiot. It seems none have an open mind.
@wownov83 And finally, one book I have on the "hot big bang theory" says all TIME, MATTER, ENERGY AND SPACE came to exist at the moment of the big bang. On the other side of the big bang you and I couldn't exist because there was no matter for our existence, no time for our lives, no space for us to be in and no energy to make us go. That view of the big bang couldn't be right could it? Fred Hoyle rejected Big Bang even tho he named it. Hoyle held the universe had not beginning. Steady State.
Atheists always bring up the issue of suffering children and unfortunate tragedies (tsunamis, etc) to pull at the heart strings of their opponents, but this is a poor argument against God. Just face it, people die. If not in tragedies when young, they will die anyway when they are older. This kind of logic implies that simply by making people die, whether they are 5 or 95, God is "not good". People die and bad things happen to everyone, but this does not disprove God or that he is not "good".
@BachScholar The issue of suffering is not about the death of young and old but the suffering (there's a clue in the name) that is presumably dished out by an all powerful god. The reason this 'issue' is continuously raised is that there has yet to be a reasonable counter to this argument against a loving god. If you can come up with one then I can assure you the 'issue' will no longer be raised. This is not an argument against the existence of a god but against the existence of a loving god.
Let's just be OK with maniacs who torture and murder children, then. People die anyways, right?
Harris asks for the minimum consistency from who believes a God rules the universe. If that's the case, everything going on around has to be attributed to God. Billions of little children throughout history died in excruciating pain. many other countless tragedies of all kinds. If a God really rules the universe, that God is evil. A loving, caring God would do something about it.
@BachScholar You don't see any difference between dying at 5 and dying at 95? I think almost everyone else does. Now, I could picture a possible God that could engineer as system like this and would still be 'good.' However, the Christian God does not fit the bill, because of the possibility of an eternal punishment for finite "crimes," most of which have no victims, such as unrequited lust, or disbelief. The parable of the wedding feast demonstrates God/Jesus' fixation on arbitrary criteria.
Not only WLC's arguments are painfully stupid, but he keeps repeating them over and over without advancing a single inch in his points nor addressing Harris' ones. Listening at him after his first speech is a total waste of time.
He's right that religion is fraught with temptation to abuse power and neglect care for others in favor of narcissism. It seems to me that these are human temptations that atheists are by no means immune to. Every world view can be twisted to empower the people who seek it illicitly. This does not amount to a defense of Craig's objections to Harris' argument. Still waiting...
Dr. Craig claims he isn't defending the bible but the bible is where he gets his views so Craig can't just put it aside when its essential to his world view so Harris has ever right to address it.
@wachnathan Incorrect. It may be true that you and Harris would like to hear more about the Bible, but that is not the topic for this philosophical debate. As Craig says, he would love to have that debate in the future...
@jacobmoon No actually, i disagree Dr. Craig is bound to this book he claims gives us explaination of where our morality comes from and Harris is pointing out that the bible is a very bad example and it contradicts the very definition of morality and i have to agree with him but Craig doesn't even want to acknowledge any other concepts or ideas so its not off topic to knock out the legs of Craigs foundation.
The only thing Dr. Graig does is fill in gaps with assertions, Just because we possess a moral value doesn't prove we got it from a god, besides it makes no sense to me to think that a being that doesn't have to obey any moral standard itself would have any idea of what morallity is. We ourselves have and own our morality we are responsible for our own situations we have a basic judge with in us where the hell do theists get off monopolizing human nature?
2000 years from now we'll still know where Elvis is buried. Technically, we could exhume his corpse, take a DNA sample, & mix it with pancake batter, & have arguably sound grounds for saying we've transformed our pancakes into the body of Elvis. We simply can't turn crackers into Jesus though. Because he's currently whipping Joseph Smith's ass at Yahtzee on the star-base Kolob while Muhammad sits in the corner wearing a dunce cap that reads, "I must learn to play nicely with others."
@AD6043 Right.. this is clearly a bastardization of Philosophy. Objective means absolute, free from any and all interpretation. Objective DOES NOT have a subject; it is absolute by itself NO ONE can say otherwise. Subjective however means it does require a subject, being or person, it is subjective to interpretation.
If "Objective morality" exist then it is free from any and ALL interpretation, even a God's.
@mjhallfs Well Harris is an idiot too. The fact is that nobody can absolutely say with complete certainity that God does or does not exist. And what has existed forever with NO beginning? God or the universe. Carl Sagan admitted that something did. Is it God? Dr. Sagan said "why not save a step and say the Universe has always existed and is all there is and all there ever will be". You really believe something has existed forever without a beginning?
Sigh, another blithering idiot. It would be nice to see a genuine debate rather than a guy spouting ideas versus a guy sniggering about his own moronic remarks.
I just watched Craig vs. Krauss. Craig gets manhandled by the brilliant scientist Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Wow. After this intellectual beat down, Craig's relevance is deeply questionable. At best this man will just wind up a funny little footnote along the way. Krauss, for his contributions, will forever be in history and science books.
@mouthyweasel I just also watched the Craig vs. Krauss debate and gave Craig a slight edge. Krauss wasn't as sharp and clean as Craig. Also Krauss could not or would not give ground to Craig about "NOTHING". He refused to go back to where Craig wanted to go, back to when there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And of course if Krauss went there he would be stuck because it is still the case that you can't get something from absolutely nothing. Either God exists or something else exists that had no start!
If it were not for human's propensity for self-delusion, things like religion would not exist today. Religion is the result of this cognitive handicap, which some people refuse to recognize in themselves and/or overcome.
You can tell that Craig is getting desperate at this point - repeating what he's already said and encouraging people to go read specific books or his website. "I would happily engage with Harris on this but this is not the topic tonight" lol. Go Sam Harris!
"Why, when Harris specifically spells out that he's not calling all Christians psychopathic, does Craig take it as the complete opposite? Because Craig is a disingenuous prick."
That's right. Harris explicitly said he is nice calling all Christians psychopathic. Craig will never learn honesty pays because he is never gonna try it.
The bottom line is Harris lined up atheism’s best attempt to ground objective morality like a house made of building blocks. Craig came along and knocked them over. Then he laughed
If Craig won the debate it is because he has convinced you of the points which he set out to prove. I doubt he won any hearts. That is because he failed to see that certain strong arguments that Harris presented for questioning the morality of God are valid. Harris sees God as arbitrary and indifferent to the sentiments of men especially those of unbelievers. Jesus was hardest on hard core believers. Doesn't that make you wonder what was believed? God is love. If Harris knows love he knows God
@MrEvenkeel1 God is pancakes, if Harris eats pancakes, then he knows God.... the statement "God is love" is nonsense.
Also, Craig's assertion that "atheism is completely morally baseless" is stupid. So is sandwich making, but that doesn't mean that sandwich makers are immoral. The existence of magical beings has no bearing on morality.
I love the smile on the moderator's face at around 7.30, right when Craig starts his speech. The moderator finds Craig's crying/begging voice funny. So do I.
God may exist, but we could give it no form we know of. There is no reason to believe in such a being. And because 'god', if i exists, is a mystery, postulating such an idea only begs more questions than it answers. Such as, where did God come from? and do on.
winston2015 4 weeks ago in playlist Sam Harris vs William Craig
To bad Nietzsche or Hume isn't around to shut them up.
5heynen5 1 month ago
...furthermore, if it is true that Dr. Harris has been encouraged to "not play Dr. Craig's game" as I read before viewing this debate, what is it that Dr. Harris is meant not to take part in? Are intelligent young men and women really encouraging a scholar such as Dr. Harris not to take part in friendly scholarly debate with another scholar? This is just madness. The New Atheist movement is so popular because of emotional impact and not rigorous personal education on the subjects of religion.
yshua1337 1 month ago
I don't understand how people support Dr. Harris here! All he does is throw out vague attacks against Christianity, the same ones Atheists have been using ineffectively for hundreds of years, and then, by avoiding the question at hand, makes moral judgements without actually having established any reason to have objective moral judgements apart from a metaphysical objective reality such as God. Please, please, please, do not be taken in by pop Atheism.
yshua1337 1 month ago
Sam Harris. What a genius.
Kuhnfuze 1 month ago in playlist Debate - Sam Harris vs Willian Craig
Is this really the best atheists have to offer? These arguments are nothing new and have been answered times over by Craig and others.
mbelma6329 1 month ago
Look at all the balance of opinions here on YouTube! Haha
mbelma6329 1 month ago
Craig is really petty in this one, he just uses his contingencies to exonerate himself from his ridiculous claims that his doctrine and others are filled with hundreds of pages of genocide. He claims that Sam keeps trying to debate theism even though thats not the topic (Does Good Come From God) and then keeps saying that atheism is obviously bad because it has no grounded morals from god.
DuppyBruh 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ItsCWG
7:25 is where the entire debate falls apart for Craig. He is reduced to simply re-iterating and ignoring Dr. Harris's points while insisting that God is what makes morality objective. He has already explained what he believes, but is at an utter loss to support his beliefs, and has no further options other than to say I'M RIGHT! HE'S WRONG! like a toddler having a tantrum. I'm always shocked at the intellectual bankruptcy of apologists, but I'm no longer surprised.
devourerofbabies 2 months ago
Sam is my new hero!
tollington14 3 months ago
thank you Sam.
Gumikrukon 4 months ago
itchynights 4 months ago 2
@itchynights Replace "renowned" with "incompetent" and "had respect" with "thought he could make an argument without elementary logical fallacies" then we agree. Craig teaches at 'Leadership' University, doesn't he? Is LeaderU known for philosophical prowess? Unfortunately, he's among the few apologists with a PhD in something other than theology and his career is based on giving validation to masses of christians desperate to have their beliefs taken seriously, so he gets undeserved attention.
vau0807 4 months ago
@vau0807
oh is that so? he gave off an air of being somewhat reasonable, and he made some good points against harris (like reminding him of the actual topic of the debate). but i suppose i can't be too surprised by an apologist.
itchynights 4 months ago
@itchynights That's a rather generic and somewhat empty compliment for you to give WLC, but I can't disagree, either.
vau0807 4 months ago
i just hope that Christians wake up and understand that eternal burning in Hell is not Biblical it make no sens that a loving God burn people for ever in Hell, that mid evil doctrine has done lot of damage to God character and Christianity it self.if people want proof of my claim then study the web site on my channel and learn the real truth about the end of the wicked.also see this video.Lecture - Edward Fudge - The Fire That Consumes, 3rd edition..plz shear this whit your fellow christians.
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
@jesusLostChildren777 I don't need to study your website. The New Testament very clearly, explicitly, and in no uncertain terms condemns unbelievers to eternal torture after physical death. No amount of fudging the truth (no pun intended), apologetic gymnastics, and playing the Big Book of Multiple Choice game can get you around this fact. Would it not be more honest, more humble, and show greater depth of character to admit that the Bible was made up by ignorant savages, not a personal god?
vau0807 4 months ago
Comment removed
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
Comment removed
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
@vau0807 there was a time i believed in Hell to,and indeed most churches teach this doctrine,and if you read the Bible normally its looks like it to.but there are some mistakes made in translations.in the old testament you find the word Hell many times but that is a wrong translation,in the original text the word Hell do not exist,but the real meaning of that word is Sheol,or hades and one time Tartarus it comes from the Hebrew alphabet it mean the ''grave''
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
@vau0807 in the new testament the real meaning of Hell is Gehenna what Jesus used as a fit symbol for what happen whit the wicked the where burned up,so the word Hell is wrong translation true the hole Bible all word's means the grave Gehenna is the symbol for the lake of fire where the wicked die the second dead.: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in (Gehenna)" Mat. 10:28
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vau0807 also there is a false believe that we have immortal soul.but in this verse.which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.you see there is very good reasons why eternal torture in Hell do not exist.
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
Comment removed
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
@jesusLostChildren777 you believe the Bible is nothing more than fairy tales. But this cannot be for it contains great wisdom and truth and it has been verified throughout history as being accurate. Its historical accounts are flawlessly accurate. In fact, archeology routinely demonstrates the accuracy of the biblical records concerning locations and events recorded in the Bible. the bible have stand the test of time and your believe in Bible will not chance that.
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
@jesusLostChildren777 You aren't aware of the many verses that contradict other verses? The Bible is rife with falsified claims. Google is your friend - please do some research, because you are dangerously close to getting labeled a Poe. Regarding hell, there are verses throughout John, Revelations, Thessalonians, etc. confirming eternal torture. It's not my problem that your supposed omniscient god wrote a book so ambiguous that there are 10K+ different Christian sects w/ different beliefs.
vau0807 4 months ago
@vau0807i am not going to convince you about Hell doctrine because you dont even study the bible.its all your opinion anyway.i rather shear this with people that actually is interesting to now God's word.Hell is not eternal and i can proof it and your commends about hell proofs noting.i have complete study about this and video's.you only fallow some main stream teaching.that is refuted time over time..people watch Lecture - Edward Fudge - The Fire That Consumes, 3rd edition.
jesusLostChildren777 4 months ago
I have never seen a debate that is more of an embarrassment to both debaters, and an exercise in total futility. Of course if the absolute exists then absolute morals might (not necessarily DO!) exist. And of course if the opposite is true, then there is no objective morality. Mr Craig, Mr Harris, please - either stop delivering bullshit, or stop taking money for it.
betlamed 4 months ago
Harris delivered gold in this section. Craig came back with his rebuttal making it evident that he is a debater and less concerned with the truth. He comes out with an annoying snickering statement: '' Haha the less moral frame work is ATHEISM! Why... it HAS no moral frame work''. Why is Sam even wasting his time? If there is no god than I guess christians will just have to reconcile their negative feelings with having to be moral without one.
Johnf85 4 months ago
And the answer to human suffering on the atheist side is 1) blaming God and 2) killing people they dislike.
God says atheism is madness. Who is there not to agree?
CJFCarlsson 5 months ago
I think Harris just got to the point in this debate. He said "WLC says God is moral, but in the Bible, which is the source of WLC's beliefs, god does immoral things." Craig's response is that what god commands is moral by definition, including genocide, but that simply exposes his theory as being based on the SUBJECTIVE whims of an arbitrary authority. If your moral view allows you to justify genocide, then something is seriously fucked up with your moral view. The end.
Hektor88 5 months ago
Not really?? If the people you are killing are evil, and are terrorizing those you love, then you would be justified in killing them, especially if you warned them and gave them time to repent.
Missangelcake68 5 months ago
@Missangelcake68 But that's not the justification Craig offers. He says "Welp, God said so, so it must be good." I could just as easily make a command theory of morality off of Kim Jong-Il once i define "goodness" in terms of his character.
In any case, good luck convincing anyone that full-scale genocide is needed for self-defense.
Hektor88 5 months ago
I don't think I've ever heard such a complete, such a sloppy misrepresentation of the Christianity. Harris can't possibly believe the things he's saying... he can't be so bigoted, can he? The man is either a liar or a fool.
Dauphin35 5 months ago
@Dauphin35
"Come on, baby, I could have said the same thing" Christopher Hitchens to Dineesh D"Souza.
Have some self respect and make a point
AD6043 5 months ago
@AD6043 Where does one begin? Harris simply ignores the thoughtful and satisfying answers produced by the last 500 years of theological grappling on questions like invincible ignorance and the problem of evil, and simply assumes that everyone is a bible-thumping pentecostal without two brain cells to rub together. He disrespects Craig by refusing to debate the issue and answer his arguments logically, and instead reverts to his rabble-rousing talking points. He contributes absolutely nothing.
Dauphin35 5 months ago
Both of these men deviated from the topic of discussion (horribly).
Keysteeze 6 months ago
@Keysteeze No in fact craig actually brought up that sam harris was making the debate about belief
Onetruthrgv 6 months ago
@Onetruthrgv How can you say objective morality comes from an unseen, immeasurable force and say that it's true? His hypothetical God, which is perfect and infallable is an excellent candidate, but without proof and plenty of counterpoints to what is "just", you cannot make an argument for objective morality directly from God without proving your God.
SocialDissimulation 6 months ago
@SocialDissimulation I agree! I cannot (At least on this topic alone) give you reason why we as a people should accept x as a moral standard but that is not my point of Dr Craig's point in the debate. From our preposition we can show how we account for what is moral. Now notice the discussion is not on existence but about in a possible world. Trust me existence is no problem to debate but its just not the topic for the discussion.
Onetruthrgv 6 months ago
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
SocialDissimulation 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
SocialDissimulation 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
SocialDissimulation 6 months ago
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
SocialDissimulation 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
SocialDissimulation 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onetruthrgv If that is not the topic of the debate, then you cannot in any way mention God to rationalize either point. If Dr. Harris cannot say God does not exist and if he did he does bad things, therefore he cannot be objectively moral. Dr. Craig cannot say, conversely, God is good and exists because God is objectively good. His existence, if brought into the debate, is subject to question. If there is a flaw in your argument, a rather large flaw, then why continue down the same road?
SocialDissimulation 6 months ago
Christians are such hypocrites grounding there morality on god hasn't made them any better or changed the world so wheres his statistics that say god belief makes people better? History says having gods hasn't really improved our situation it only muddys up the water even more.
wachnathan 7 months ago
at 09:05 Craig says "You don't believe in god to avoid going to hell."
That explains why so many Christians still yank out Pascal's wager at the drop of a hat.
And the old "fire and brimstone" sermons from my youth must have had something to do with forest fires or something, since "fear of hell" apparently wasn't the intent.
Convince a Christian that you're not buying the whole love and eternity in paradise stuff, and the sales pitch switches to "hell" in a heartbeat.
fusedchromosome 7 months ago 2
@fusedchromosome
jesus when talking to a non believer never tried to scare someone into believing.
he never forced anyone to listen.
he never pressured anyone to hear.
he just showed everyone his forgiveness... and his love.
so if you hear a dumb unchrist-like"fire and brimstone" preacher.... there not going about it the way jesus did.
MrKerpelWatson 4 months ago
@MrKerpelWatson
"so if you hear a dumb unchrist-like"fire and brimstone" preacher.... there not going about it the way jesus did."
Would you please show me where Jesus refuted Exodus 21:20-21 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property"
I've haven't been able to find where Jesus had a problem with these passages.
fusedchromosome 4 months ago
@fusedchromosome
hahaha
when atheists have no other arguments with the bible they always take random verses to
try and make the bible look bad.
the whole biblical story has nothing to do with slavery...
your taking two verses to describe the entire 66 chapter book???
way way way out of context.
MrKerpelWatson 4 months ago
ppl critic slavery, yet they own pets... isn't that ironic.... Where is the moral line to say its acceptable for us to wear animal skins, or eat animals, yet it is acceptable for us to control pets, or have animal as pets. yet when we do it to our race, its wrong... what makes it different. now i'm posing a question, not a pointless argument... someone please answer my initial question. What makes one acceptable as oppose to the other... Pets can call us unmoral for what we do to them. Get it?
stevelovesgod 7 months ago
Holy shit, Harris didn't pull any punch?
theviolator23 8 months ago
I like the smile on the moderator's face at 7:36. What was that weird trembling voice of Craig?
AD6043 8 months ago 9
I don't hear any arguments about how morality comes from nature. I just hear Harris playing upon the emotions of the audience. Great way to deviate from the real issues
jasonkmoore88 8 months ago
Craig's arrogant snickering is genuinely sickening.
wownov83 8 months ago 20
I was thinking the same thing about Harris.
Missangelcake68 5 months ago
@Missangelcake68 Harris arrogant? Please.
wownov83 5 months ago
Harris is absolutely brilliant.
wownov83 8 months ago 2
@wownov83
boblackey1 8 months ago
@wownov83 Harris in not brilliant because he is an atheist. Atheists are not objective and fair with the facts. And most I've met or worked with are egotistical pricks for some reason. The agnostic is the one who faces the facts with objectivity. One can not KNOW with certainity if God exists. What is on the other side of the Big Bang? Who or what created or determined the laws of physics? Our universe can't exist without a creator unless we find millions of multiverses exist. It's agnosticism!!
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 Harris never said he was certain that god doesn't exist. He says there's no good reason to believe that a god exists. Technically you're right, that would be agnostic atheism. Most atheists actually adopt the same position; as you said no one can know for certain if god does or does not exist. Your last few sentences are completely false; there's no need to involve god in the creation of our universe; that must be demonstrated first, and you definitely haven't done that.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Well I direct you to Fred Hoyle's Wikipedia page, about a third of the way down, where Hoyle states it's clear that some super intellect must be behind the universe. Also Dr. Kaku stated on C-Span that he would ask Richard Dawkins who created the laws of physics and Dawkins would have to say "I don't know". Dr. Kaku believes in the God of Einstein. The "Who" or "What" determined the laws of nature. Stephen Hawkings' position that the discovery of mulit-verses would put God out.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 You're essentially correct here. Einstein was a deist, not a theist. But that has nothing to do with a personal god, which Einstein clearly rejected. I don't know why you're insisting on "putting God out" when you haven't actually showed why anyone should believe in God in the first place.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Well you are talking to an agnostic. I was raised a Christian but even as a kid I had doubts. Did Jesus rise from the dead? I hope so. But I'm not sure. Why should anyone believe in God in the first place. Well to some I know, it makes more since to explain why the universe is here. Why something exists. But several of these people are not religious but a deist. One is a physics professor at a local college. To devout Christians I know, it makes them happy, full of joy and hope.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@wownov83 The reason God is a possibility for the creation of the universe we live in is that too many unlikely accidents happened to get galaxies, stars, planets, life etc. There is much order including the laws of nature, the laws of physics. But if we one day can prove there are millions of other universes, maybe all connected by black holes and the others are in disorder and stars, life etc can't form, then the UNLIKELY universe we live in most likely had NO intelligent creator.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 God is certainly a possibility. But you haven't shown, and in fact no one has, that God is actually the creator. So I'll remain with my rejected belief in God until you have proof. Also, physicists completely understand how galaxies and stars, planets came into being. It has nothing to do with accidents. The fact that our universe is "unlikely" has nothing to do with it being created or not.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Well if you change the physics of our universe just a bit up or down, then galaxies can't form. Stars can't form. Life can't emerge and evolve. That is what the discovery, if it ever happens, that many, many OTHER universes also exist and nothing can form in those places. That way we can over come the math that says it is unlikely ( a nice little accident that it turned out to be JUST right) for stars to form etc etc. Also do you agree that God or something has existed forever?
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 Certainly if the constants that govern our universe were changed just slightly, we would live in a completely different universe, where life and stars as we know them now, would most certainly probably not exist. But it's hardly an accident; we wouldn't be here to discuss the physics of our universe if the laws had been slightly different. You wouldn't say it's an accident that plants grow on earth, where the conditions are just right, and not on Venus, right? It's the same thing.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 By accidents I mean something that is VERY unlikely. Conditions were just right. If NO high intelligence caculated the laws that control the universe, the laws of physics, then one could call them lucky little accidents could they not? Maybe accidents isn't the right word.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@wownov83 In other words, if God exists and created all, then God could not have a beginning. God has existed for all eternity. If God does not exist, and since we exist and the universe exists, then whatever was first and gave rise to what was second, would necessarily have to have existed WITHOUT a beginning. Unless you use the eternal regress theory where nothing has existed forever, but there was always something before any place in the past you care to go, to give rise to it.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 You have to be careful when you talk about the beginning of our universe in such common sense terms. If physics tells us anything, it's that our intuition fails, bigtime, when we apply it to understanding the universe. We don't know anything about the cause of the big bang and the creation of our universe. So until then, I'll wait, not presuming the existence of some eternal being that caused it. There's nothing wrong with not knowing.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Well you are more an agnostic than atheist. I'm agnostic. Atheism, to me, is a kind of leap of faith too, like the religion I was raised in. But it is all interesting. Fred Hoyle held the universe had NO beginning and is eternal. But Big Bang says NO. Our universe began 13.2 billion years ago. But I'm crazy about Hoyle. He rejected Darwinism too. Held life is older than the earth and came from outerspace. I like scientists who don't side with the orthodox view. They are fun to read.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 This is really more of a semantic discussion. To be fair, many atheists define atheism as the rejection of belief in god, and not that god doesn't exist. You'll be hard pressed to find any atheists of the latter kind in professional debates, or even on YouTube. You would be absolutely correct that in assuming god definitely does not exist, that would be a leap of faith. As for your "fine tuning" argument, I seriously recommend that you watch the Krauss vs. Craig debates.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Well Stephen Hawkings, who went to Cambridge to be a studen of Hoyle and is now called the smartest man in the world, says the ONLY way to put God out of the running is to find the multiverses. So Krauss must be wrong. Hoyle accepted the fine tunning. Read his Wikipedia page. The math says this universe can't exist without a creator unless the mulitverses exist. Billions of them where nothing works. Richard Dawkins visited Stephen Hawkings on this subject and its on YouTube.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 Again, why do you think I need to put god "out of the running"? I don't need to disprove god; you need to prove him!
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Well people such as Dr. Craig here offers proof that God's exists. I don't know Dr. Craig's work that well but I did listen to his presentation about why God must exist. Craig offered a number of reasons, that to Dr. Craig, puts the question of God's existence beyond doubt. Also I've heard Dr. D. James Kennedy's similar prestation in the form of a sermon on his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church hour on TV. But I remain a skeptic. An agnostic about theism, Christianity AND atheistism.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@wownov83 Also a few Christian friends have offered me the site "Reasons to Believe" which is run by a Christian who is also an astronomer with a Phd. It is Hugh Ross, Phd and this website and a book or two I've received by Dr. Ross make some interesting arguments about the structure of the universe, stars, the complexity of the universe and many, many arguments for design that he and his team sees in life here on earth that to them, prove God.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@boblackey1 There are many people who believe in god, and many who don't. The issue here isn't trying to figure out who exactly believes what. The issue is that there is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore there is no good reason to believe in his existence.
wownov83 8 months ago
@wownov83 Well that is bull shit. There is plenty of evidence that the universe that we live in could have been created by an intelligence and with a purpose. I was just listening to George Norey on that all night AM talk show which has all kinds of weird and scientific stuff and he just had an authority on the universe and he too finds that it is possible to read the evidence in a clear way that is a stong indication that the universe was CREATED and with a purpose. Harris is closed minded!!!
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 Again you just say that god exists because this person and this person said so. That's not convincing, and I have no idea what an "authority on the universe" is, but whoever holds that title is probably a crackpot.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Well of course you know what an authority on the universe happens to be. Even William Lane Craig claims to be an authority on the universe. But I would say that rather than getting to that level by warming a seat in an university for a few years, Dr. Craig claims it because he has studied in great detail the work of those IN the field. It think Craig's two Phds are NOT in physics or astronomy. There are dozens of authorities who see God as a possibility. Robert Jastrow&Fred Hoyle or
boblackey1 7 months ago
@wownov83 Paul Davies is another. I have several books by Dr. Davies and is sees God as a very strong possibility as what started the universe. Sam Harris is an atheist and is rejecting God not as much for scientific reasons as OTHER motives. And it is clear to me that Harris actually is turned off so much by the God concept found in religion and Christianity in particular, that one can safely assume he is as much motivated by those motives as Craig is by his faith in Christ.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@wownov83 Take a stroll over to Wikipediadotorg and type in Fred Hoyle or Paul C. Davies just for starters and read their pages and see if you think they are crackpots. If you do or don't, I've give you some more names later of scientists who think God could be in the details of the universe. But remember, I'm not trying to prove it one way or the other. I'm agnostic and open minded to the possibilities. Hardshell atheists like Same Harris or Richard Dawkins hate God so much they just can't.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 I really hate to stress this, but all you've ever done is give me names of people who happen to believe that god exists. That's not an argument. And Hoyle is certainly not an "authority on the universe", he was a physicist.
Secondly, Harris and Dawkins don't hate god, they would have to believe he exists to hate him.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 If Hoyle was NOT an authority on the universe, if Carl Sagen was not, If Stephen Hawking was not, if George Smoot was not, if Paul Davies was not, then WHO would be an authority? Saying Hoyle is not an authority on the universe is like saying Dr. Craig, or Dr. Ehrman or Dr. Tabor are not authorities on the Christian religion! But I'm NOT saying all these authorities agree! Hoyle and Sagen, for example, parted company on several fronts. Harris and Dawkins DO hate God AND religion!
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 The point I'm making is that you're placing way too much emphasis on who says what, you're just blindly accepting what "authorities" are saying. I'm not saying that they're wrong, necessarily. It's just not an effective way to get a point across. You haven't actually offered any argument, just a bunch of quotes. Harris and Dawkins certainly dislike religion, as I do, but they don't "hate God". How can you hate something you don't believe exists? Another classic misunderstanding.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Well then you must be a scientist who does research and come to your own conclusions in the lab!! I'm not a scientist so I must rely on "authorities" have to say just as I do my doctor. But I don't use just ONE authority as I wouldn't trust the opinio of just one doctor for something serious with my health. I read and listen to a number of authorities. Harris and Dawkins DO hate/dislike the God of Christianity, Islam etc. They dislike Christianity and all it teaches. It's all they do.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 If you admit to not having the capacity to handle these debates, and you instead just rely on relaying information that you've heard other people saying, what's the point, really? I have to repeat myself; Hitchens and Harris do NOT "hate God". They don't believe in God. They can't hate him. Secondly, they're both public intellectuals and writers/professors. They have real jobs; "hating religion" is certainly not "all they do".
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 I have the capacity to handle this or any debate. What I'm saying is this: I NEVER hear anyone, not Harris, not Dawkins, not Craig, not Oral Roberts deliver a "knock out" punch. To present hard evidence that God doesn't exist and did not create the universe or God does exist and did create the universe. I always see a loose end. Something left out. Something they just don't really know. Something that is just a good speculation or theory without any evidence. So I continue agnostic.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 If I told you I believed in Leprechauns, would you believe me? There's no evidence that Leprechauns don't exist. So would you be agnostic about Leprechauns? Imagine what a world we would live in if it worked like this. I could claim that you're a murderer, and you'd go to jail, since there's no way of proving that you have definitely NOT murdered somebody. Rejection in the belief of something until it is proven with evidence is basically self-evident, would you not agree?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Well I don't agree with the comparison. Almost all normal educated adult people would seriously doubt Leprechauns would exist anywhere in the universe. But the door is still open for the existence of God. (When I say God, I mean a power of high intelligence that created the universe with a purpose and may NOT be the God of any religion known to man) Something has existed without a beginning or we would not be here. Is it God or is it some other force or energy with no intelligence?
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 Why is the door still open for the existence of God? Why is it that it's perfectly natural for you to doubt leprechauns, but not God, when there is no evidence for either? You may not assume that God likely exists since we don't know the cause of the beginning of the universe, that is an argument based on ignorance.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Also would you not say that it is possible that Leprechauns, or something similar..maybe a little guy with huge eyes and just holes in his face and no nose, and he (they) have space ships, that live on a planet that is in orbit around a star which is one of 200 billion stars in this galaxy or the millions of other galaxies that are known to exist. Indeed, with the latest telescopes, as we look back into time and deeper into space, there are just more galaxies. It seems to go forever.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 The point is simply that it is fallacious to assume that since I can't prove the negative, i.e. that god doesn't exists, that the positive is true, i.e. that god exists. With this sort of logic, you must believe not only in the christian God, but also every God in existence. Surely you're not a Muslim, right? Well, you certainly can't prove the non-existence of Allah. So why do you cherry pick what you do and don't believe in the light of zero evidence?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Because I don't accept zero evidence for God. I think there IS evidence that God created the universe. I tend to be impressed with the "fine tuning" position and the anthropic principle position. Type in "fine tuning of the universe" here in the search box on YouTube for some vids. But this evidence, while compelling, isn't strong enough to convince me that God does exist so I remain an agnostic. I really don't like being an agnostic but I just can't move one way or the other.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 I'm very familiar with the fine tuning argument. There are multiple explanations for it... firstly, there's no evidence that the physical constants that govern the universe can even be changed. Secondly, life that could discuss the universe can only evolve in a universe that is conducive to life. Thirdly, if you believe that an intelligent being is involved, there's no reason to think that it's the christian God rather than any other God.
wownov83 7 months ago
@boblackey1 You admit that the evidence isn't strong enough to convince you that God exists, yet you remain agnostic... This is why I raised the question in previous posts; you're glad to reject belief in leprechauns, since there's no evidence for the existence of leprechauns, but you're reluctant to reject belief in god, when, as you said yourself, the evidence for god is NOT sufficient. This is special pleading, and it's intellectually dishonest.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 No you are not following me. I said to me there is NO evidence that leprechauns exist so it is easy for me to reject that notion. But there IS evidence that God exists. Fine tuning, anthropic principle, who or what created the laws of nature and physics? etc etc. Dr. Craig gives some here. Now here is what I'm saying. I find the evidence for the existence of God to be compelling but yet it doesn't deliver a knock out punch to me, so I remain an agnostic. Same with the atheist argument.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 There is no "atheist" argument... it's a lack of belief in god. That's akin to saying, why should I believe in "innocent until proven guilty". Should I believe in leprechauns until I have definite proof against them? I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here, so I don't know why you asked for an argument "for atheism". The big difference between us is that you find this (weak) evidence to be reason enough to not doubt god. That's just nonsense, the arguments all fall down.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 They don't fall down to me. When I read Fred Hoyle's books or Robert Jastrow or Paul C. Davies or some of Dr. Craig's arugments seem convincing to me. I've watched other Sam Harris videos. Just recently one from a talk he gave in Canada. He seems dangerous to me. I sounds as if he wants to take away freedom of speech and religion from people. He finds many Christians dangerous. He would be as alarmed to have a
Christian around his child as a sex offender.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 I really have no idea what that has to do with the existence of a God...
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 I'm getting tired of YouTube today. I'll be back in a day or so. I'm tired of having to type in those odd letters that are so hard to read everytime now. But I was saying when I read a book like "God and the new Physics" by Paul C. Davies, Phd who did his Phd at Cambridge under Fred Hoyle, Hoyle was chairman of the department of astronomy at Cambridge for many years, I find evidence for God being behind the creation of the universe that is compelling. But I'm not completely convinced.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@wownov83 I'm getting tired of YouTube today. I'll be back in a day or so. I'm tired of having to type in those odd letters that are so hard to read everytime now. But I was saying when I read a book like "God and the new Physics" by Paul C. Davies, Phd who did his Phd at Cambridge under Fred Hoyle, Hoyle was chairman of the department of astronomy at Cambridge for many years, I find evidence for God being behind the creation of the universe that is compelling. But I'm not completely convinced.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1
Davies like myself is a deist of sort. The teleological argument from fine-tuning is not evidence for a god as described by theists, but an unknown, undefined, non-personal agent(s) or force. Craig believes is a much different type of entity then what Davies might support.
revo1974 7 months ago
@revo1974 Thanks for the support. Harris and my friend here wownov83 and most atheists that I've met personally or online inisist there is NO evidence AT ALL that God exists and any scientist who believes in God is allowing their personal faith from their past to interfer with their better judgment of the facts of science. But that is simply not true. No question that Albert Einstein was a deist as is Dr Kaku who I see on the science channel now. Paul C. Davies is another as was Fred Hoyle later
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 The Deist god is NOT the christian god. What revo said, true as it may be, is not support for your conventional view of god.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83
Indeed, in-fact even though the word deist derives from the Latin word deus, which means god, deism is not necessarily a belief in a god as normally depicted by theists. Instead, it is the belief in a creator/designer/grand architect of some kind.
revo1974 7 months ago
@boblackey1
There is no empirical evidence for a god or anything that lies beyond our four dimensional space-time continuum. There is however circumstantial evidence, which IS evidence for design. Reason then leads some of us to believe there may be a designer(s) of some sort.
Aristotle, who was a deist of sort, put forth the concept that perhaps nature itself is inherently intelligent. This is a possibility that explains the highly ordered and harmonious Universe without agency.
revo1974 7 months ago
@revo1974 Robert Jastrow is another Phd astronomer who believes in God. I remember his book on the subject. But the only Phd astronomer that I can think of who is alive who believes in God as a Christian is Ross who has the "Reasons to Believe" website. So Davies, Einstein, Kaku, Hoyle & others are/were NOT religious people. They didn't accept the God of any of the religions. Just God that they saw in the design and beauty of the universe. Hoyle: we are in his God's remote past. Not aware of us.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@wownov83 Certainly trashing God and religion and the Christian religion in general IS what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins DO for a living. As Stephen Hawking said to Dawkings "why do you talk about God all the time?" They are on a mission. Just as William Lane Craig is on a mission. Craig's entire purpose is to convince as many people as possible that God does exist and Jesus Christ died for their sins and to accept Christ's death on the cross for payment for their sins before it's too late.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@wownov83 William Lane Craig is a Christian evangelist just as sure as Billy Graham was one. Dr. Craig's MINISTRY is to take the saving grace of Jesus and the good news of the gospel to a lost world of sinners who are in rebellion against God and his law. Have broken his 10 commandments and will be judged at their death with eternal death unless they turn to Christ before it's too late. Billy Graham did it with preaching meetings in stadiums. Craig does it debating atheists. Both have same job.
boblackey1 7 months ago
@wownov83 All of Harris' and Dawkins' efforts today, their books, their speaking engagements etc have to do with trashing Christianity and religion. Dawkins recently interviews Stephen Hawking (I saw it) and Hawking ask him why do you talk about God all the time. Hawking's view is that IF multiverse, maybe billions with different laws of nature and no real order, exist..then it is not likely God exists. But if this is the ONLY one, then maybe God does exist. Good agnostic answer!
boblackey1 7 months ago
@boblackey1 Sorry for being rash but I'm growing a little sick of you telling me what other people think about the issue, like that's supposed to convince me one way or the other. I make up my mind by considering both arguments and evidence, not by blindly accepting the word of authority.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Well I DO the same. Here I carefully listened to Harris and to Craig. I don't go to a video like this as do most atheist or Christians and already have picked a winner because I'm pulling for the guy you believes like me. I'm an agnostic. After listening and reading many "authorities" I'm not convinced that God created the universe and I'm not convinced it has existed forever or came to be without God (meaning a creative intelligence who had a purpose in creating it).
boblackey1 7 months ago
@wownov83 Also as an agnostic and after watching a couple additional debates between Dr. Craig and Dr. Price and Dr. Craig and Dr. Carrier, I find it actually funny that those who seem to be Christian find Dr. Craig to be absolutely brilliant and his skeptic opponent to be pretty much a joke. And I see the same here between Craig and Harris. And those who seem to be atheist take the other view. Harris, Price, Carrier are brilliant and Craig is an idiot. It seems none have an open mind.
boblackey1 8 months ago
@wownov83 And finally, one book I have on the "hot big bang theory" says all TIME, MATTER, ENERGY AND SPACE came to exist at the moment of the big bang. On the other side of the big bang you and I couldn't exist because there was no matter for our existence, no time for our lives, no space for us to be in and no energy to make us go. That view of the big bang couldn't be right could it? Fred Hoyle rejected Big Bang even tho he named it. Hoyle held the universe had not beginning. Steady State.
boblackey1 8 months ago
Atheists always bring up the issue of suffering children and unfortunate tragedies (tsunamis, etc) to pull at the heart strings of their opponents, but this is a poor argument against God. Just face it, people die. If not in tragedies when young, they will die anyway when they are older. This kind of logic implies that simply by making people die, whether they are 5 or 95, God is "not good". People die and bad things happen to everyone, but this does not disprove God or that he is not "good".
BachScholar 8 months ago
@BachScholar The issue of suffering is not about the death of young and old but the suffering (there's a clue in the name) that is presumably dished out by an all powerful god. The reason this 'issue' is continuously raised is that there has yet to be a reasonable counter to this argument against a loving god. If you can come up with one then I can assure you the 'issue' will no longer be raised. This is not an argument against the existence of a god but against the existence of a loving god.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 8 months ago
@BachScholar
Let's just be OK with maniacs who torture and murder children, then. People die anyways, right?
Harris asks for the minimum consistency from who believes a God rules the universe. If that's the case, everything going on around has to be attributed to God. Billions of little children throughout history died in excruciating pain. many other countless tragedies of all kinds. If a God really rules the universe, that God is evil. A loving, caring God would do something about it.
AD6043 8 months ago
@BachScholar You don't see any difference between dying at 5 and dying at 95? I think almost everyone else does. Now, I could picture a possible God that could engineer as system like this and would still be 'good.' However, the Christian God does not fit the bill, because of the possibility of an eternal punishment for finite "crimes," most of which have no victims, such as unrequited lust, or disbelief. The parable of the wedding feast demonstrates God/Jesus' fixation on arbitrary criteria.
bcgonynor 8 months ago
Not only WLC's arguments are painfully stupid, but he keeps repeating them over and over without advancing a single inch in his points nor addressing Harris' ones. Listening at him after his first speech is a total waste of time.
JennyFarlopez 8 months ago
"UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy " A video compilation on
YOUTUBE reveals informaton by astronauts, military personnel,
American presidents, politicians. The compilation contains aired news
UFO footage, reveals knowledge of life beyond Earth, hidden free
energy technology + the current ongoing E.T. presence which is
being hidden from the public for over 50 years + more.
Futurecop2012G 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey God youre so fine. youre so fine you blow my mind
hey God.
jonLukasC 9 months ago
He's right that religion is fraught with temptation to abuse power and neglect care for others in favor of narcissism. It seems to me that these are human temptations that atheists are by no means immune to. Every world view can be twisted to empower the people who seek it illicitly. This does not amount to a defense of Craig's objections to Harris' argument. Still waiting...
jacobmoon 9 months ago
Dr. Craig claims he isn't defending the bible but the bible is where he gets his views so Craig can't just put it aside when its essential to his world view so Harris has ever right to address it.
wachnathan 9 months ago
@wachnathan Incorrect. It may be true that you and Harris would like to hear more about the Bible, but that is not the topic for this philosophical debate. As Craig says, he would love to have that debate in the future...
jacobmoon 9 months ago
@jacobmoon No actually, i disagree Dr. Craig is bound to this book he claims gives us explaination of where our morality comes from and Harris is pointing out that the bible is a very bad example and it contradicts the very definition of morality and i have to agree with him but Craig doesn't even want to acknowledge any other concepts or ideas so its not off topic to knock out the legs of Craigs foundation.
wachnathan 9 months ago
The only thing Dr. Graig does is fill in gaps with assertions, Just because we possess a moral value doesn't prove we got it from a god, besides it makes no sense to me to think that a being that doesn't have to obey any moral standard itself would have any idea of what morallity is. We ourselves have and own our morality we are responsible for our own situations we have a basic judge with in us where the hell do theists get off monopolizing human nature?
wachnathan 9 months ago
Craig says the word Taliban like Schwarzenegger would say it.
lambent77777 9 months ago
2000 years from now we'll still know where Elvis is buried. Technically, we could exhume his corpse, take a DNA sample, & mix it with pancake batter, & have arguably sound grounds for saying we've transformed our pancakes into the body of Elvis. We simply can't turn crackers into Jesus though. Because he's currently whipping Joseph Smith's ass at Yahtzee on the star-base Kolob while Muhammad sits in the corner wearing a dunce cap that reads, "I must learn to play nicely with others."
mouthyweasel 9 months ago
As a Christian I cannot see how they can account for objective morals.
PaperNun 9 months ago
@PaperNun
Absolute: unchangeable, unchangeable describes the kind of morality Craig offers, not objective
Atheists are against absolute morality because it is objectively immoral to make morality absolute.
AD6043 9 months ago
@AD6043 Right.. this is clearly a bastardization of Philosophy. Objective means absolute, free from any and all interpretation. Objective DOES NOT have a subject; it is absolute by itself NO ONE can say otherwise. Subjective however means it does require a subject, being or person, it is subjective to interpretation.
If "Objective morality" exist then it is free from any and ALL interpretation, even a God's.
PaperNun 9 months ago
@AD6043 Also Atheist can't account for Objective morality? ah what about the Categorical imperative? =/
PaperNun 9 months ago
@PaperNun
Sorry, I didn't get your words
AD6043 9 months ago
@AD6043 Google?
PaperNun 9 months ago
is there a version of this where u can hear what they say
farerse 9 months ago
@mjhallfs Well Harris is an idiot too. The fact is that nobody can absolutely say with complete certainity that God does or does not exist. And what has existed forever with NO beginning? God or the universe. Carl Sagan admitted that something did. Is it God? Dr. Sagan said "why not save a step and say the Universe has always existed and is all there is and all there ever will be". You really believe something has existed forever without a beginning?
boblackey1 9 months ago
Can anyone say "red herring?"
pianoplayingelectric 9 months ago
Jesus FTW! n_n
dunno194 9 months ago
@dunno194 Magic Bastard Hippie Zombie FTW!
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago in playlist Harris
Sigh, another blithering idiot. It would be nice to see a genuine debate rather than a guy spouting ideas versus a guy sniggering about his own moronic remarks.
GoodbeyonDevil 9 months ago
Ok objective moral values dont exist, how about a collective moral value that has to do with well being?
MrDusty1982 9 months ago
I just watched Craig vs. Krauss. Craig gets manhandled by the brilliant scientist Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Wow. After this intellectual beat down, Craig's relevance is deeply questionable. At best this man will just wind up a funny little footnote along the way. Krauss, for his contributions, will forever be in history and science books.
mouthyweasel 9 months ago 24
@mouthyweasel too true
nuitaridark 9 months ago
@mouthyweasel I just also watched the Craig vs. Krauss debate and gave Craig a slight edge. Krauss wasn't as sharp and clean as Craig. Also Krauss could not or would not give ground to Craig about "NOTHING". He refused to go back to where Craig wanted to go, back to when there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And of course if Krauss went there he would be stuck because it is still the case that you can't get something from absolutely nothing. Either God exists or something else exists that had no start!
boblackey1 7 months ago
William Lane Craig = Fail. That's it.
HorrorIllogium 9 months ago 3
@HorrorIllogium hahaaha yepyep
nuitaridark 9 months ago
If it were not for human's propensity for self-delusion, things like religion would not exist today. Religion is the result of this cognitive handicap, which some people refuse to recognize in themselves and/or overcome.
chansetwo 9 months ago
You can tell that Craig is getting desperate at this point - repeating what he's already said and encouraging people to go read specific books or his website. "I would happily engage with Harris on this but this is not the topic tonight" lol. Go Sam Harris!
GalenSchultz 10 months ago
Why, when Harris specifically spells out that he's not calling all Christians psychopathic, does Craig take it as the complete opposite?
nick260682 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nick260682
"Why, when Harris specifically spells out that he's not calling all Christians psychopathic, does Craig take it as the complete opposite?"
Because Craig is a disingenuous prick.
MomoTheBellyDancer 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Why, when Harris specifically spells out that he's not calling all Christians psychopathic, does Craig take it as the complete opposite? Because Craig is a disingenuous prick."
That's right. Harris explicitly said he is nice calling all Christians psychopathic. Craig will never learn honesty pays because he is never gonna try it.
AD6043 9 months ago
Comment removed
AD6043 10 months ago
Comment removed
AD6043 10 months ago
The bottom line is Harris lined up atheism’s best attempt to ground objective morality like a house made of building blocks. Craig came along and knocked them over. Then he laughed
ofssk 10 months ago
If Craig won the debate it is because he has convinced you of the points which he set out to prove. I doubt he won any hearts. That is because he failed to see that certain strong arguments that Harris presented for questioning the morality of God are valid. Harris sees God as arbitrary and indifferent to the sentiments of men especially those of unbelievers. Jesus was hardest on hard core believers. Doesn't that make you wonder what was believed? God is love. If Harris knows love he knows God
MrEvenkeel1 10 months ago
@MrEvenkeel1 God is pancakes, if Harris eats pancakes, then he knows God.... the statement "God is love" is nonsense.
Also, Craig's assertion that "atheism is completely morally baseless" is stupid. So is sandwich making, but that doesn't mean that sandwich makers are immoral. The existence of magical beings has no bearing on morality.
compactdisk2 10 months ago
I love the smile on the moderator's face at around 7.30, right when Craig starts his speech. The moderator finds Craig's crying/begging voice funny. So do I.
AD6043 10 months ago