As a lover of wisdom and a skeptic of all religion, just based on pure reason and logic, I have to say that Dr. Craig defeated Dr. Millican in this debate. Dr. Millican has made good points, but every one of the points is rebutted by Dr. Craig. Dr. Millican ultimately is a logical positivist, who claims that one cannot know anything for certain besides logic, yet this theory has been defeated. But I congratulate the respect and the brilliance that both have show!
Completely disagree with Craig about morality. From what I could tell he is implicating that because physical reality is objective, that morality must also be objective? If morality was objective, there would be no grey areas. A prime example would be the train and rail workers scenario. Aside from that, all over the world, there are contradictory moral perceptions (between civilizations) largely influenced by the culture... if morality was objective, it would be clear and not grey.
@ludogogo morality is objective because the basics of morality lying, stealing cheating etc. are known across the board. Your talking about complicated scenario's, this is where a theists would appeal to a higher authority and demonstrate that the world is clearly lost in this area.
I think the point of the comment was to say that if we believe in the objectivity of physical reality because it is so obvious, we should believe in the objectivity of morals because it is equally as obvious. There's no comment on what those morals are, and there's no claim that people perfectly know morality. There are grey areas even in physics, but that does not go against the objectivity of its existence - it just says we don't fully understand it; we can have discovery in both.
Further, subjective morality is no morality since it is in no way binding. It reduces morality to mere preference. However it is more obvious that morality exists than its negation, which leads to the conclusion that morality is therefore objective (merely by virtue of its existence).
What Craig says at around 1:20:30 is SUCH a rationalization I wanted to punch a baby kitten in the face. Really, what kind of reasoning is "well god doesn't more evidence cause he knows it won't make a difference"
Punch a baby kitten? Wow! You're really worked up over this. Craig was setting forth at this point a hypothetical argument, supposing why God may have created the world as it actually is, making no empirical claim as to the Creator's thinking process. Dr. Craig routinely uses this type of reasoning, when discussing the problem of evil.
@Shimbabwe1 I'm not worked up over it. You're reading me too literally. I just get tired after hearing over a half-hour's worth of Craig squaring his beliefs with the evidence.
I know the point that he was trying to make, but I'm talking about looking at his arguments from the bigger picture. He routinely makes statements along the lines of "even if... God could still exist". His conclusion is essentially a jello that can be retrospectively made to fit whatever evidence he likes. That gets old.
@AR333 Oh, and Dr. Craig has won every debate for the last 20 years per even commonsenseatheism dot con. Only sophomoric people who lack understanding of basic logic and are highly stupid, state William Craig is not the pillar of truth.
Craig is a master debater who cares not for the truth of his arguments, only about convincing less educated people of his ancient desert religion.
His strategy is to start out with a high volume of points so his opponent cannot possibly disect them all. Craig then poorly defends against whatever his opponent responds too, hoping to cause the opponent to respond to those responses and by the end craig still has many points unchallenged.
All the while his opponent had no time to build his case
@MrTechFox You make a self-refuting point. The whole point behind a debate is to present so many good arguments in favor of your position that your opponent is left with the daunting task of knocking them all down. That only proves that Dr. Craig had a lot of good arguments....so many that Atheists don't have time to knock them all down.
For a first time debater, Millican did just fine. I would give the nod to Craig, however as he presented a stronger case plus responded much better to Millican's critiques than Millican did to his. Plus, Millican was a tad inconsistent on his insistence of using empiricism and experience as the test for truth and then saying there's no reason the universe needs a cause (as all our empirical data points there and experience says an effect needs a cause).
id have to say this is the most substantive argumantation by an atheist ive seen thus far. very good debate. also very civil and not just the pre organised shouting of religous hatred normally done. usually athiets dont even engage his actual arguments and just say stuff like the bible supports slavery when craig is discussing somethingsuch as fine tuning. very well done
@lravenhill I agree, this was an awesome debate! Craig still won, but just. Millican was beter at logic, but clearly has less knowledge than Craig. If Millican would brush up on his theology it would even be closer. I would score this 48 vs 52 for Craig.
Millican's opening statement arguments was very good. He tried to discount most of Craig's arguments but he did not present anything to disprove God or to uphold atheism as the more probable or believable. Placing doubt in another's argument helps to dissuade others from that argument but it does not prove anything.
This was one of the best debates I have heard so far on the subject. Millican is a good opponent against theism but not as good a proponent of atheism.
None of you give a shit about there arguements, simply you say William had a good arguement if you are a theist and that Millican had a good argument if you are an atheist. Keep your beliefs to your self, what these two try to achieve is pointless, live and let live. I personally don't believe in the existence of a god, but I don't take it upon myself to make other disband their beliefs.
WOW. PETER MILLICAN COMPLETELY ANNHILATED WILLIAM CRAIG!!! I have always been impartial to Craig but this debate totally annhilated him. Millican must have wanted to explode at the stupidity of Craig's arguments!
Frankly, I am too embarrassed to remain a Christian in the light of all the evidence. The bible was always a problem but the number of stupid people in Christianity is mind boggling. How can anyone take the bible so seriously and yet never investigate its history and origins. Sad...
It was a good debate but in the final conclusions Craig was concise while Millican offered a poor argumentation. That being said, Millican was a good opponent and I'm happy about how it turned up.
The guy's question at the end about the influence of Jesus is actually called Ben Redmond, not Richmond. I wasn't expecting my question to be chosen so I didn't write my name that neatly. SO FRUSTRATING! :'(
Cool! That's great that your question got selected. I'm just curious, what exactly was your question? Were you asking how can Jesus be from God since there are more influential people than Jesus? The first part of the question didn't seem to connect with the second part. Perhaps this was just the moderator reading it out wrongly.
@Christianjr4 I was making the point that if Jesus is really the Son of God/his teachings were meant to have come from God (whatever interpretation you take), why aren't his teachings so special to the point where we might think "that's so brilliant, it can only have come from God"? His teachings&the things he said were great, but nothing truly special. If he did exist&did say such things then we owe him a lot of respect, but nothing beyond that. People have said many great things, not just him.
Why do people think this was a close debate? Millican rambled on about how religion held back science, which was entirely irrelevant, plus wrong IMO. Craig presented 5 solid arguments for the existence of God vs Millican's none (he didn't really delve into the problem of evil), was always concise, thorough and rebutted every single one of Millican's objections.
@gmh1206 Well, Craig didn't respond to the psychological factors brought up by Millican nor did he show any evidence of something actually coming into existence from nothing which is neccesary for his KALAM argument. Furthermore he didn't justify why god is more likely than anti-god and he wasn't able to come back at Millican's point about computers both having physical and algorithmic properties without there being an immaterial substance. All of these are key-elements in Craig's argument.
@1AxS1 You ask for evidence of something actually coming into existence from nothing? How about the Big Bang Theory which holds that space, time, and the material used to make up the universe exploded into existence ex nihilo some 13.5 billion years ago. Most credible scientists including many atheists endorse the Big Bang theory. The anti-god hypothesis was self-defeating because for God to be the transcendent foundation for absolute morality he would have to be the greatest conceivable good.
@sgedeon01 I don't think it's obvious that the big bang theory implies existance ex nihilo. As far as I can see it talks about when the state of the universe was confined to a singularity. Although I'm not a cosmologist so I may be wrong.
Why must god be good just because he created morality? For anti-god to be the foundation of absolute immorality he would have to the be the greatest conceivable evil. The flipside of immorality is morality thus anti-god also created morality.
@sgedeon01 The reason for this is because if there is no time, no decisions can be made, thus god can never decide to create the universe. This also means that god cannot reflect or calculate because reflection and calculations require time. So if god can't reflect, calculate nor decide anything i don't think the word mind is an appropriate description. If on the other hand god worked on another timeline then you haven't explained what created time and we are back to square one.
@1AxS1 Christian theology teaches that God is an eternal and omniscient being. Time is not a factor because God did not acquire infinite knowledge. God is infinite knowledge. He dosent need time to calculate anything or conceive of anything because in his transcendence he knows and sees all things past, present, and future as if they are present today. That's God's omniscience. Time only became a factor when God created the universe. However, time has no effect upon God's infinite knowledge.
@1AxS1 And the "mind" description should probably be best taken as a metaphor or anthropomorphic language. God is simply Spirit in essence without physicality and not confined to any location.
@sgedeon01 I'm afraid this doesn't help you at all. If god "knows" everything in the past and present but is unable to calculate or have a will what is left is pretty much a determenistic force containing information about future and past events (which never existed because time didn't!?). Moreover it really doesn't matter if the word "mind" is just a metaphor for an immaterial intelligent agent outside time when this makes just as much sense as a non-spatial mountain.
@1AxS1 How does it logically follow that since God knows all things, he does not have a will? That's a strawman youre tearing down. You obviously poorly understand Christian theology and the nature of God. Creation is an act of God's grace, not an act out of necessity. In other words, it was God's will to create the universe. "Containing information about future and past events (which never existed because time didnt)" . . . Whoever said future and past events never existed?
@sgedeon01 I did show you why god cannot have a will if he is outside time since he cannot make a choice to create the universe out of grace since a choice requires time. (pre-choice ---> choice---> creation) In other words he is unable to choose to act on his own will. So there was no strawman whatsoever.
Furthermore you can say what you want about christian theology but in order prove me wrong you have to take down my argument, I may be wrong but you have to show me why.
@sgedeon01 I just want to add that I don't think it will be fruitful to continue this discussion using a comment field. The subject is difficult enough as it is but the sign-restrictions really makes it hard to get ones point across and especially for a non-natural english speaker as myself. I am however more than willing to continue this discussion via messages. So if you want to continue this just send me a message and I'll be more than willing to reply.
@sgedeon01 You can try to change the wording from mind to spirit but then you are faced with the problem of defining the word spirit in order to see if it makes any more sense than the non-spatial mountain. There's also one more thing you can do and that is saying that god is ineffable although this leaves you with the problem of not being able to make any claims at all about his/her/its characteristics.
@1AxS1 Try to change the wording? Look, WLC describes God as an unembodied mind. This should probably be best taken metaphorically or anthropomorphically because "minds" are limited, at least with respect to creation (people). God is not part of the created order; he has infinite knowledge. As the prophet Isaiah said, "there is no searching of his understanding" (Isaiah 40:28). The Bible clearly teaches that God is spirit in essence (John 4:24).
@sgedeon01 Well again if a metaphor makes no sense then we are are just talking nonsense. If we are free to play around with words however we like without caring about their meanings a non-spatial mountain is just as logical as an unembodied mind.
@1AxS1 Nonspatial mountain? You cannot strip a mountain of all its attributes (physicality) and call it a mountain. By the way the unembodied mind concept is not exclusive to Christianity or religions in general. Some well known ancient Greek and non-Christian philosophers (like Plato) discussed the concept of the soul and it being able to exist apart from the human body.
@1AxS1 Metaphors are often used to describe God's activity because God's divine nature is completely non-physical. People use metaphors all the time even in fields like science (personification, anthropomorphisms) Read some good systematic theology (Augustine, Daniel Migliore, Karl Barth, WLC, etc.) and Christian philosophy and that will give you a better understanding of God's nature with respect to time. That way your not tearing down strawmen.
@1AxS1 The Bible does use humanlike characteristics to describe God's actions (arms, hands, fingers), but these have to be understood anthropormorphically because the Bible makes it clear that God is Spirit, invisible, non-spatial, omnipotent, omniscnient, and omnipresent. I'm aware that someone like you who is perhaps an atheist, agnostic or skeptic may reject the verbal inspiration of scripture but that's a different topic irrelevent to the above debate (Does God Exist?).
@1AxS1 Moreover, God is not a computer. If God exists and he created the universe, then he must have existed before the Big Bang which is when space and time came into existence. Physical entities could not exist before space and time. Therefore, God would have to be immaterial or non-physical. Therefore, he would have to be an eternal mind. And for God to conceive of the math and physics necessary to create the universe, his mind would have to be "exceptional" to use Millican's adjective.
@sgedeon01 I never claimed god to be a computer. Craig made a point on brains and then a computer was mentioned to refute Craig's claim. Craig never bothered to respond to the point made so he then failed to present evidence for immaterial minds. I simply stated that.
@sgedeon01 I really don't like talking about what was before space and time because I am very ignorant about what that means. I know very little of time and probably even less about space. This is the field of theoretical physicists like Hawking. However if we assume that "before time" means not just another timeline relative to ours but no time at all then i'm afraid god becomes nothing more than an unintelligent force of some kind, in other words not a god.
When Craig responds to criticism of the finetuning-argument he excludes the keypoint that his god is supposed to be omnipotent, which means that life would be able to be created in any kind of enviroment. Thus it is impossible for Craig to say that the universe is finetuned for life because life would be able to be created in any kind of universe.
@1AxS1 I believe that omnipotent means that you can do anything that is possible. So, making life where life is not possible would not fall under omnipotent. But creating an environment where life is possible and then making life there would.
@imkluu Well I'm afraid that still doesn't solve the problem since one of the attributes Craig calls upon to "prove" god is god's ability to perform the impossible by ressurrecting Jesus from the dead. So there is a contradiction there. You are then left with the problem of defining and providing evidence for what is possible without relying on the natural laws since god apparently is able to suspend them. Or else you can't say that god is unable to able to create life in any kind of universe.
@1AxS1 I do not see a contradiction. I do not think resurrection is impossible. I am not sure that Dr. Craig says it is impossible, either. He might, I don't remember. He said that it was not expected. But he obviously believes it is possible. Having been able to create life, it does not seem impossible for God to give life to something that was once alive. We have done this ourselves through science, though perhaps not after so long a time dead. But it is still possible.
It really doesn't matter because when you say that god only can do what is possible you must first define what you mean by the word "possible". Since the laws of the universe apparently do not restrict god you cannot rely on them to define his/her properties. So saying that god can only do what is possible isn’t really saying much.
Side note: Yes just as you say a lot of people have come alive after being apparently dead so I don’t see why you would give god the honor of doing it for Jesus?
@1AxS1 I dint actually say God can only do what is possible, I said that I define omnipotent as doing anything that is possible. I'm not sure if that makes a difference but I wanted to make sure it was stated correctly. I'd define 'possible' as being capable of happening, being real or true. I might clarify it as within the parameters of the universe in which it is to happen.
Side note: That's the story. If someone else was responsible I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it.
@imkluu as a further side note, I'm not sure I am capable of further debate on the subject. and thanks for posting on my channel comments that you had further commented on this page.
@imkluu Fair enough, so if I have understood you correctly you then mean that god is only omnipotent in such a way that he can do anything that is possible without violating any natural laws?
Side note: Well why assume anyone did it? There are hundreds if not thousands of cases of people waking up in morgues after being pronounced dead. Recognizing death is not as simple as you may think. That's why the diagnosis of it is constantly changing.
@1AxS1 Side note: I dint assume anything. I was told and then later read the story. The story thus out there needs to be accepted, discussed and/or refuted. I personally am not able to refute it and accept the historic accounts. The belief that it was God is on faith. By Faith I mean that I trust that those that gave the account were telling the truth. I have no reason to disbelieve them and as Dr. Craig has lectured in other videos I have seen, it makes the most sense given what we know.
@imkluu At this point in time it would be difficult to prove if Jesus was resurrected let alone by who. We only have the accounts of the time to go by. It comes down to trust in their truth or a need to prove them untruthful. I have heard nothing that proves that it could not have been God only conjecture as to what it might have been instead. Given no proven alternative and reasons to believe in the existence of God, I accept that it was God that Resurrected Jesus.
@imkluu I don't actually think that the resurrection of Jesus helps to prove God, This seems kind of circular to me. To me, to believe that Jesus was resurrected by God means you accept the existence of God and so it is predisposed and can't prove the existence of God. To my layman thinking this seems true. But I think the other arguments Dr. Craig puts forth to give reason to be a theist are sound logic.
Sorry for the multiple posts, just trying to finish the discussion.
@imkluu Haha fair enough, I guess we could probably go back and fourth forever. I just want to end in saying that yes I think you are correct that if we assume that the premises Craig puts forward in his argument for a creator are true then I aswell fail to see any flaws with it. However there is much that can be said about why those premises aren't to be trusted and why it becomes problematic when he tries to get from cause to deism and from deism to theism. Anyhow thanks for a good chat!
@Drcraigvideos Nimrod and his wife Semiramis (not mentioned in the bible, but her son Tammuz is) became the false sun and moon gods in ancient Mesopotamia (Babylon). There, the LORD came and confused the tongues and the names of the two false gods became thousands. Thus, we get the origin of all false gods and religion.
@Drcraigvideos Father, YHWH ELOHIM - LORD of all, Creator of the Universe, My banner and strong tower, bless Mr. Craig with even stronger arguments and irrefutable proof of your existence Adoni, Bless this man as he fights for you, Thank you Father! Thank you! In the precious name of Your only Son, our salvation - Y'shua Messiah!
Is there a way to access the mp3 directly? WLC's site is linking it to youtube, and your youtube is linking it to reasonablefaith. I'm only asking this so as to avoid spending 2 hours in converting it to mp3
@jtothen123 I guess you don't understand the proposition of the debate: Does God exist? WLC posed 5 solid arguments.....Peter gave maybe one --> the problem of evil but again that doesn't play into the atheist hands so if WLC has 5 good arguments and Peter has 0....who wins?
Fan based has nothing to do with rationality and looking objectively at the debate. All WLC debates with Atheist is sling mud at the Bible and avoid providing any arguments for atheism....so WLC clearly and logically won
@HaShim383 Craig’s arguments are based on abstract concepts, his beliefs, his unverifiable claims about god’s characteristics and motives. He expects Millican to provide proof for atheism, knowing one can’t prove a negative. Burden should be on Craig. If “god” is some disembodied intellect in a nonmaterial realm how does Craig know? Craig doesn't give one testable reason that god is not a figment of his philosophical imaginings. Sound logic is based on a well defined known.
@DEdgeOfReason "one can’t prove a negative" is false. See for example atheist philosopher Jeffrey Jay Lowder's article "Is a Sound Argument for the Nonexistence of a God Even Possible?" (1998) which can be found online where he debunks this claim that one can not prove a negative.
@GGDFan777 Really interesting article that's best described as "deep", but not in a bad way. I be re-reading it for a time or two. Thanks for pointing it out :)
@DEdgeOfReason I'm not going to debate on youtube because it gets no where, but I will say this....Atheism affirms the proposition: there is NO God. So you are completely mistaken. to say it is not sound logic is a low blow and clearly a person not listening to what he is actually saying. Craig provided logically DEDUCTIVE arguments you say its not sound logic is again completely absurd.
@HaShim383 “Atheism affirms the proposition: there is NO God.”
With all due respect, your statement does not accurately describe atheism; and certainly not a rational skeptical atheism. Such atheism is a simply a disbelief in deities or a skepticism of theist claims since "god" is not falsifiable in observable reality. It is not affirming anything. And since WLC’s premises about god are conveniently beyond truthfulness verification, then his “deductive logical argument” hardly seems sound.
@DEdgeOfReason "beyond truthfulness verification" whether or not humans have or have not proven anything at all doesn't make things not real. You can certainly use this line of verification with some things but not everything. The things science hasn't proven nor disproven yet doesn't make all those things "not real yet" whether they are or not....using this yard stick as a precurssor for many thigs is suitable to the naturalist ONLY....but humanity knows...science is not the be-all end-all.
@hexusziggurat Whether its scientific investigation or common sense rational analysis, one must apply some type of yard stick, or methodology to obtain accurate knowledge that is consistent with physical reality. In mystical unknown supernatural realms, delusions and superstitions like to hide out from critical examination.
@DEdgeOfReason "consistent with physical reality" then you've already classified a bias. Many within humanity "assume" there is ONLY physical reality.....until we know for certain we cannot assume. If we create a mechanism to study a "non-physical realm" (if its exists) then maybe we can once again jump up on the ego horse thinking we got "all of it locked down" once again. In the case of WLC "scientific investigation or common sense rational analysis" is all he ever really does.
@hexusziggurat "In the case of WLC "scientific investigation or common sense rational analysis" is all he ever really does."
What scientific rational analysis supports Craig’s statements that “god” is the uncaused cause of the universe, that “god” is the moral law giver, that “god” has reasons for hiding evidence of his existence? Both “god” and the Easter Bunny may exist in some hypothetical reality.To assert they exist and effect actual reality requires evidential support to be scientific.
@DEdgeOfReason "“god” is the uncaused cause of the universe" =rational analysis, logic is used within science as a viable method to evaluate the "best possible answer, given X"
to assert ANYTHING needs "evidential support to be scientific" only qualifies those things which CAN fall within the confines of a certain PART of the scientific method....if you expect that ALL things should fit in beakers to be scientific & can't stand alone with "logic"...that isn't practicing fair science.
@DEdgeOfReason If you have ever heard Craig debate or speak about his arguments, you will know that Craig does not claim to be able to PROVE anything. He simply states that the purpose of his arguments are to show that the existence of God is more probable than not. Craig has NEVER said that he can prove God exists.
@AegeanKing He says there is evidence for the existence god; which I do not agree. Craig seems to think that arguments based on abstract concepts is evidence; example: his version of the Kalam Argument, and his Probabilities of Life Permitting Universes (How did he observe other universe to get the probability?).
@DEdgeOfReason he is talking about the constants that we currently have, if they are changed slightly, no life and the constant do not have to be that way
@agnostaxian What I find so unconvincing is how casually he inserts “god” into it. He has not ruled out that the constants came about by natural processes. He is not able to take a random sample of universes and say how improbable life would be if the constants were different.
@DEdgeOfReason yes but dont we have what this universe could have been? if the constants were different we would have another universe and we can determine that right? craig is not arguing for certainty only what seems most likely on current evidence
@agnostaxian I must respectfully disagree. IMO, Craig through cleverly worded jargon, hides his huge assumptions, and stealthily appeals to the emotions of faith to say that some being (god) MUST have, in a manner of speaking, set the “dials” on these constants.
@DEdgeOfReason i understand. i dont think craig is saying god must have done it just that it seems more likely that an intelligence did. some atheists even think the universe may be a computer program done by aliens in a parallel universe, interesting
@agnostaxian "some atheists even think the universe may be a computer program done by aliens in a parallel universe, interesting"
LOL silly atheist! But if they seriously thought that, it would be a belief in something for which there is no evidence, which would in a way make them theists. It also brings up the problem of infinite regression. Would those aliens in turn be in a computer simulated universe by aliens in a higher universe, and so on?
@hexusziggurat “i'm not entirely sure what you base "logic =a well defined known"”
It’s your “given X”, a theorem or thoroughly tested known fact upon which you base a premise. WLC’s faith based abstract philosophical god premise is not well defined scientifically or by observable consensus. His “deductive logical argument” is not sound on that shaky premise. And BTW, which part of the scientific method absolves one of providing supporting evidence such that "logic" stands alone?
I was at this debate and found it thoroughly enjoyable - Prof. Millican did very well imho.
I must say, I was not too happy with his comments at the beginning about the centuries of scientific stagnation - they were not really relevent imo.
I also found some irony in Craig saying he had an issue with the concept of "0" whilst using computers (which, being based on binary, use 1's and 0's).
@barrry9 In Binary code, 1s and 0s aren't really numerical representations. They're more akin to the concepts of on/off, yes/no, etc. 1 and 0 are just used to make that dichotomy -it could have been any numbers like 3 for yes and 4 for no. But those numbers would have been arbitrary. 0 and 1 were just probably used for simplicity's sake.
@themorbidimmortal When people are in the war, they like to pillage and burn for the sake of it. There's nothing here to intimate that anything else was the reason.
Millican's "computer" analogy was a horrible one. While computers consist of material matter, the software that gives them value is non-material. If you were to weigh a blank thumb drive or CD and then load it with software and weigh it again, it would weigh the same. Software is non-material and metaphysical information that runs through a material shell - computer. Computer & software analogies actually confirm the theist's premise
I was very impressed by Craig’s handling of Millican’s quoting Vilenkin as saying that his (Vilenkin’s) theorem doesn’t actually show the universe had a beginning. Craig read the quote in context and showed that Vilenkin had actually said the opposite of what Millican was suggesting.
@MrProfTeach Agreed! Loved that too, I've seen quite many atheists trying to deny the conclusion of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. They also wrote papers before that, on how initial singularirites can't be avoided in Eternal Inflation, but their strongest proof was the paper where they cooperated, released 2003.
I believe in God, but I agree with Millican’s idea that the cause of the universe must be something of a kind that we cannot grasp: Neither a physical entity, nor an abstract entity, nor a mind.
I have always disliked Craig’s characterization of God as a “disembodied mind.”
Random comment: If Dr. Craig hasn't done this already, I think he should debate Michael Ruse. Ruse is pretty courteous to allowing other people to defend their beliefs and he's a good debater too.
It's been a while since I had heard a debate from Craig (since I've watched pretty much all of them on YouTube) and it's been even longer since I've heard a good debate given to him by an opponent.
The flaw I see in Dr Milligans presentation is that only one of DR Craig's arguments is in relation to Jesus Christ. What he offered in terms of philosophical arguments was for a general God, its not only confined to culture. But what got me is when he talked about the ressurection saying the apostles made it up or implying it was a result of their psychology, when the psychology of a first century Jew would not bring up such a thing in the first palce.
Millican is hugely mistaken about there being no evidence for PSI. Both Dean Radin & Rupert Sheldrake have done multiple repeatable experiments showing humans do have a capacity for PSI. Any skeptic can feel free to review the evidence on our channel. My impression of Millican during the debate was this "There may be good evidence in the future that disproves God, so that's my reason for doubting now."
@miking193 Can you point me to any articles or websites devoted to talking about this thing you call PSI? I tried doing a Google search about it, but the results seemed rather convoluted and iffy. If you could, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
@M3PanoS As mentioned in the comment you responded to, on our channel if you click on it, go to the favorites click, the third & fourth video from the top are two lectures on the evidence for PSI. The first one's title is ("Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin) . The second one's title is (The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence). Enjoy.
All things being equal I have to hand it to Millican. At least he didn't resort to "I'm smart and if you don't believe me you're just stupid' which is the status quo in most other WLC debated. I was frustrated by his complete lack of knowledge of the resurrection which was unfortunate since he was pretty good up to that point. Overall I really liked the fact that he stayed on topic and tried to actually address WLC's arguments so kudos to Millican for being an actual adult. Great debate!
4) Deep down we all need love. Seek and follow unconditional love and you will eventually come to know that personal creator. Here’s a clue, love Is revealed through personal sacrifice or its just an empty word. God is love and the truth of his love will set you free. Seeking this truth only with the intellect can only take you so far, at some point you must engage your heart. God is not asking you to throw your brain away but you will need more (Jeremiah 29:13).
3) The fact that there is order in the universe and that good and evil exists are to me knock out arguments for a personal cause of the universe. To believe that the order in the universe, and life itself is the result of random accidents takes to much faith for me to muster. Also, to believe that the evolutionary processes could bring about objective morality makes no sense. As far as who that personal creator is, i believe that creator has put a big clue in the heart of man.
2) I think most would agree in regards to things in time, infinity in the past is not possible, you may be able to deal with infinity in math but not in a temporal reality.
So, the big question is, is that transcendent, eternal, uncaused, cause of all material existence in the universe or multiverse a personal cause or impersonal cause? Either position is a position of faith. For me it’s a no brainier, the evidence around me and in me leads me to a personal creator.
1) Good debate. I could be wrong but i would imagine there are not many people who believe that something can come from absolutely “nothing”. Also, most would agree that a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”. So from what i can gather both theists and atheists are in the same boat, they must “believe” there is an uncaused cause that always existed and would have to transcend matter, space and time. Postulating multiverses only pushes the question back.
i don't know why people say millican is inteligent while he holds to the position that God don't exist" the holy bible calls those unbelievers" FOOLS"
Peter got spanked by WLC on every single rebuttal. Infinity does not exist. Einstein confirmed it. Ironically, a muslim was the champion that no one wanted to listen to 1000 years ago. It still puzzles me how anyone could still argue infinity. There is no example of anything infinite. The universe will die and its the only one we see.
@salapuyou89 But god already knows my every move, regardless of if he does so or not. If he did that I might be able to speak and reason with this transcendent being and actually begin to understand it, which i'd enjoy actually. I don't choose my beliefs, that is determined by either knowledge or lack there of. God can't make perfect beings? Then god is flawed or not powerful.
I like not being perfect because that's what makes me human, if I lost my flaws I would no longer be human.
Wow, finally ! an atheist puts up a good fight against Dr. Craig ! I've been waiting forever for someone to bring up the issue of an unembodied mind, and Craig's seemingly bizarre assertion that such a thing can exist. good job to both of them :)
I've never said this about an opponent before, but I think Millican is a beast. I think it's time to delve into the finer points of Hume's philosophy...brb in about 1 year.
@salapuyou89 If god wants us to know him why doesn't he show up more often? This might show the whole world god exists thereby allowing for more potential followers. Why stay absent for prolonged periods of time in which people would question it's very existence? Allowing for other religions to prosper. If god wants people to spend eternity with him why not make perfect beings to do so instead of going through all this nonsense? Especially when those people are threatened by eternal torture.
@EmceeBorg So the alternative is hell? Sounds like a threat to me not a free choice. And if god is doing this all for his ego how good can he really be? Doesn't sound like he has respect for his creation and only cares about himself. Freedom is nice, but you are no longer free when you are commanded and told to be a servant. That would make this freedom a lie, and for what? Just so god can get praised forever, this perfect being sounds imperfect to me.
We have trouble listing all the decimals of the constant pi even and finding the next prime number.
We know it begins 3,14 but then it goes on. Part of Craigs reasoning around infinity seems weak, and relying on human limitations rather than properties of the infiinite.
Its so refreshing to see Craig interact with people like Millican and Austin Dacey who can produce substantive arguments instead of parroting talking points from the new atheists. They weren't able to keep up with Craig in terms of efficiency and time allocation, but they did raise real issues that the serious theist needs to thoughtfully address. It was good to see the "Vilenken disagrees with Craig" argument exposed in an actual debate. Hopefully Craigs demolition will put it to rest.
I wish more of Craigs debates had the moderator conduct the q and a. It always struck me as a terrible idea to just have the q and a be an open mic session for the general public, who even at institutions like notre dame produce largely esoteric, unsophisticated, or non sequiter questions. Having the questions filtered and guided is wonderfully conducive to a productive conversation, and to salvaging a debate that clearly exploded beyond the ability of either debater to tie up all loose ends.
I have to say that millican does seem to be a mature, respectable opponent. However, I found that some of his "strongest" arguments were only possibly because he mixed atheistic views into Christian views. Example, his objection to fine tuning is that if God is omniscient He made a very inefficient universe, because it took 14+ billion years to evolve us. The Christian view doesn't propose at all that we evolved. Nice try though, very sneaky.
@ITTutorCanada The duration that God took to eventually bring mankind into being has no bearing on his omniscience. What difference is it to God if he created man in 1 nanosecond or 99 trillion years? The temporal duration of the creative process has no real meaning to an eternal being.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Yeah that is also true. I was just simply pointing out the fact that millican injected the naturalistic explanation for life coming into being into the Christian world view in order to discredit the Christian world view. Well of course that would discredit it, because the naturalistic world view is extremely discreditable. ;)
@ITTutorCanada "The Christian view doesn't propose at all that we evolved." Well something like that is proposed by Saint Agustine, that creation is evolving. And we have evidence for it in biology...
Wow, Millican is a tough dude. Its too bad the new Atheistg movement doesn't listen to intellectuals, they rather have Dawkins with glass of bourbon. I do see one of Millicans points, rational intuition can be wrong, this is where presuppositional apologetics does come in handy. Criag has an evidentialist way of doing apologetics and had to yield to Millicans predisposition of empiricism. Nevertheless, Millican didn't dispel the reasons for theism, his goal was just to undermine those reasons.
(2) The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
(3) Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.
Millican used a lot of rhetoric to make us humans think of ourselves less. "The universe is so big, there must be no God!" I just dont follow that logic. Still doesn't answer the question, why are we here?
And it's very possible that Humans are the only intellegent species in the world.
Wow, this was actually a great debate, I'm enjoying the tour so far, it's sad to see atheists come with the exact same arguments though. This Millican's a tough dude but Craig is tougher. Good video.
Peter Millican came out strong but began to wain in the ladder of the debate relying on assertions. Kudos to the mediator for advocating respect and kindness among intellectual discourse.
thought this was a good debate, I found Millican a good opponent for Craig. I think he brought some good generalised points, however, as with all these debates, I was left wanting more from both. Richard Dawkins should watch this and see how to interact with another on an intellectual level. He would have seen a debate where both sides treated each other with respect and at times pleasantly. An opponent doesn't need to be a hate figure mr Dawkins, and you can have a good open discussion/debate
I'll admit Millican did alright compared to other atheists, but I still think theism came out on top.Certainly more interesting than Law.
I think his last debate left to be uploaded is the one with Atkins..without having watched it I promise you Atkins embarrassed himself.Why Atkins agreed to debate is beyond me.
@markderosa Millican did alright? Lets give him credit, this was, BY A MILE the strongest response Craig has ever faced. Millican was calm, logical, very polite and structured. Awesome intellect. Very impressed. (And I'm a Christian and "Craig supporter" by the way!)
@stu1002 Exactly. I'm an atheist but I always give props to Craig and I watch just about all of his debates, so it's good to see a theist look at this fairly. It's rare for him to come across opposition like Millican. Just based on all his debates I've seen, his strongest opponents are always fellow philosophers. The scientists and others that he debates, I feel sorry for lol.
God has always existed, and reality (or the universe) as always existed, because God is omnipotent.So was their no reality before the Big Bang??
Of course reality existed, and God has always existed.Since reality is infinite in size, then that's good evidence that it has always existed, or what can we expect when we reach end of the universe or reality?? A wall??
However, Atheists have a lot of faith that All reality has a natural explanation
Craig owned him! Has any agnostics been challenged by his points?
grondog1 1 month ago
@grondog1 Oh they've tried....can't say they really succeeded.
ATLMastering 1 month ago
If you rely on quantum theory the answer to the question "Does God exist?" is yes and no.
bobbymars171 1 month ago
As a lover of wisdom and a skeptic of all religion, just based on pure reason and logic, I have to say that Dr. Craig defeated Dr. Millican in this debate. Dr. Millican has made good points, but every one of the points is rebutted by Dr. Craig. Dr. Millican ultimately is a logical positivist, who claims that one cannot know anything for certain besides logic, yet this theory has been defeated. But I congratulate the respect and the brilliance that both have show!
yihemaoful 2 months ago 4
30:55
BEST PART! WIKIPEDIA FTW
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
well done william!
CyprusHot 2 months ago 2
Completely disagree with Craig about morality. From what I could tell he is implicating that because physical reality is objective, that morality must also be objective? If morality was objective, there would be no grey areas. A prime example would be the train and rail workers scenario. Aside from that, all over the world, there are contradictory moral perceptions (between civilizations) largely influenced by the culture... if morality was objective, it would be clear and not grey.
ludogogo 2 months ago
@ludogogo morality is objective because the basics of morality lying, stealing cheating etc. are known across the board. Your talking about complicated scenario's, this is where a theists would appeal to a higher authority and demonstrate that the world is clearly lost in this area.
Law19157 2 months ago
@ludogogo
I think the point of the comment was to say that if we believe in the objectivity of physical reality because it is so obvious, we should believe in the objectivity of morals because it is equally as obvious. There's no comment on what those morals are, and there's no claim that people perfectly know morality. There are grey areas even in physics, but that does not go against the objectivity of its existence - it just says we don't fully understand it; we can have discovery in both.
Kiithknight 2 months ago
Comment removed
Kiithknight 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ludogogo
Further, subjective morality is no morality since it is in no way binding. It reduces morality to mere preference. However it is more obvious that morality exists than its negation, which leads to the conclusion that morality is therefore objective (merely by virtue of its existence).
Kiithknight 2 months ago
@ludogogo Well morality is not grey. We just look at it that way. Morality depends on the situation at hand.
Rvaccaro007 4 days ago
Some of Millican's defenses are a bit bizarre, but his performance here is clearly superior to those of Law, Hitchens, Harris and Krauss versus Craig.
He's very capably shown how you debate against William Lane Craig:
1. You come prepared, having done your homework.
2. You structure your arguments cogently and substantively.
3. You refrain from pointless, time-wasting, appeals to emotion.
4. You recognise the relevance and importance of the subject matter being discussed wherever applicable.
JCrownwell 2 months ago 16
Comment removed
JCrownwell 2 months ago
What Craig says at around 1:20:30 is SUCH a rationalization I wanted to punch a baby kitten in the face. Really, what kind of reasoning is "well god doesn't more evidence cause he knows it won't make a difference"
wow.
And this guy gets invited to debates.
AR333 3 months ago
@AR333
Punch a baby kitten? Wow! You're really worked up over this. Craig was setting forth at this point a hypothetical argument, supposing why God may have created the world as it actually is, making no empirical claim as to the Creator's thinking process. Dr. Craig routinely uses this type of reasoning, when discussing the problem of evil.
Shimbabwe1 3 months ago
@Shimbabwe1 I'm not worked up over it. You're reading me too literally. I just get tired after hearing over a half-hour's worth of Craig squaring his beliefs with the evidence.
I know the point that he was trying to make, but I'm talking about looking at his arguments from the bigger picture. He routinely makes statements along the lines of "even if... God could still exist". His conclusion is essentially a jello that can be retrospectively made to fit whatever evidence he likes. That gets old.
AR333 3 months ago
@AR333 Oh, and Dr. Craig has won every debate for the last 20 years per even commonsenseatheism dot con. Only sophomoric people who lack understanding of basic logic and are highly stupid, state William Craig is not the pillar of truth.
6630mcdo 2 months ago
@6630mcdo Lol nice reply, total tangent though. If you care to address what was actually said, go ahead.
AR333 2 months ago
@AR333 lol what was actually said
6630mcdo 2 months ago
@6630mcdo Guess that's a no. Have fun in that bubble of yours.
AR333 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AR333 I rest my case that atheists cannot debate. It's hard to when you don't have truth, i.e., God, on your side. Praise the Lord!
6630mcdo 2 months ago
Craig is a master debater who cares not for the truth of his arguments, only about convincing less educated people of his ancient desert religion.
His strategy is to start out with a high volume of points so his opponent cannot possibly disect them all. Craig then poorly defends against whatever his opponent responds too, hoping to cause the opponent to respond to those responses and by the end craig still has many points unchallenged.
All the while his opponent had no time to build his case
MrTechFox 3 months ago 6
@MrTechFox please free yourself from your obvious close-mindedness.
wullz16 3 months ago
@MrTechFox You make a self-refuting point. The whole point behind a debate is to present so many good arguments in favor of your position that your opponent is left with the daunting task of knocking them all down. That only proves that Dr. Craig had a lot of good arguments....so many that Atheists don't have time to knock them all down.
ATLMastering 1 month ago
Craig speaks so slowly I fell asleep on the subject and woke up fully rested by the time the verb arrived.
joavim 3 months ago in playlist Favoritos de joavim
For a first time debater, Millican did just fine. I would give the nod to Craig, however as he presented a stronger case plus responded much better to Millican's critiques than Millican did to his. Plus, Millican was a tad inconsistent on his insistence of using empiricism and experience as the test for truth and then saying there's no reason the universe needs a cause (as all our empirical data points there and experience says an effect needs a cause).
schumacr1 3 months ago
Will there be video available for this?
dsecomb 3 months ago in playlist Debates
id have to say this is the most substantive argumantation by an atheist ive seen thus far. very good debate. also very civil and not just the pre organised shouting of religous hatred normally done. usually athiets dont even engage his actual arguments and just say stuff like the bible supports slavery when craig is discussing somethingsuch as fine tuning. very well done
lravenhill 3 months ago 11
@lravenhill I agree, this was an awesome debate! Craig still won, but just. Millican was beter at logic, but clearly has less knowledge than Craig. If Millican would brush up on his theology it would even be closer. I would score this 48 vs 52 for Craig.
heinno777 3 months ago
Millican's opening statement arguments was very good. He tried to discount most of Craig's arguments but he did not present anything to disprove God or to uphold atheism as the more probable or believable. Placing doubt in another's argument helps to dissuade others from that argument but it does not prove anything.
This was one of the best debates I have heard so far on the subject. Millican is a good opponent against theism but not as good a proponent of atheism.
imkluu 3 months ago
None of you give a shit about there arguements, simply you say William had a good arguement if you are a theist and that Millican had a good argument if you are an atheist. Keep your beliefs to your self, what these two try to achieve is pointless, live and let live. I personally don't believe in the existence of a god, but I don't take it upon myself to make other disband their beliefs.
tombuckley91 3 months ago
WOW. PETER MILLICAN COMPLETELY ANNHILATED WILLIAM CRAIG!!! I have always been impartial to Craig but this debate totally annhilated him. Millican must have wanted to explode at the stupidity of Craig's arguments!
Frankly, I am too embarrassed to remain a Christian in the light of all the evidence. The bible was always a problem but the number of stupid people in Christianity is mind boggling. How can anyone take the bible so seriously and yet never investigate its history and origins. Sad...
mofomoffin 3 months ago
@mofomoffin, you're an idiot. Oh, and not fooling anyone.
strigoi4321 3 months ago
It was a good debate but in the final conclusions Craig was concise while Millican offered a poor argumentation. That being said, Millican was a good opponent and I'm happy about how it turned up.
signofthehammer 3 months ago
The guy's question at the end about the influence of Jesus is actually called Ben Redmond, not Richmond. I wasn't expecting my question to be chosen so I didn't write my name that neatly. SO FRUSTRATING! :'(
TheBreadmondShow 3 months ago 2
@TheBreadmondShow
Cool! That's great that your question got selected. I'm just curious, what exactly was your question? Were you asking how can Jesus be from God since there are more influential people than Jesus? The first part of the question didn't seem to connect with the second part. Perhaps this was just the moderator reading it out wrongly.
Christianjr4 3 months ago
@Christianjr4 I was making the point that if Jesus is really the Son of God/his teachings were meant to have come from God (whatever interpretation you take), why aren't his teachings so special to the point where we might think "that's so brilliant, it can only have come from God"? His teachings&the things he said were great, but nothing truly special. If he did exist&did say such things then we owe him a lot of respect, but nothing beyond that. People have said many great things, not just him.
TheBreadmondShow 3 months ago
Why do people think this was a close debate? Millican rambled on about how religion held back science, which was entirely irrelevant, plus wrong IMO. Craig presented 5 solid arguments for the existence of God vs Millican's none (he didn't really delve into the problem of evil), was always concise, thorough and rebutted every single one of Millican's objections.
gmh1206 3 months ago
@gmh1206 Well, Craig didn't respond to the psychological factors brought up by Millican nor did he show any evidence of something actually coming into existence from nothing which is neccesary for his KALAM argument. Furthermore he didn't justify why god is more likely than anti-god and he wasn't able to come back at Millican's point about computers both having physical and algorithmic properties without there being an immaterial substance. All of these are key-elements in Craig's argument.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 You ask for evidence of something actually coming into existence from nothing? How about the Big Bang Theory which holds that space, time, and the material used to make up the universe exploded into existence ex nihilo some 13.5 billion years ago. Most credible scientists including many atheists endorse the Big Bang theory. The anti-god hypothesis was self-defeating because for God to be the transcendent foundation for absolute morality he would have to be the greatest conceivable good.
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 I don't think it's obvious that the big bang theory implies existance ex nihilo. As far as I can see it talks about when the state of the universe was confined to a singularity. Although I'm not a cosmologist so I may be wrong.
Why must god be good just because he created morality? For anti-god to be the foundation of absolute immorality he would have to the be the greatest conceivable evil. The flipside of immorality is morality thus anti-god also created morality.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 The reason for this is because if there is no time, no decisions can be made, thus god can never decide to create the universe. This also means that god cannot reflect or calculate because reflection and calculations require time. So if god can't reflect, calculate nor decide anything i don't think the word mind is an appropriate description. If on the other hand god worked on another timeline then you haven't explained what created time and we are back to square one.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 Christian theology teaches that God is an eternal and omniscient being. Time is not a factor because God did not acquire infinite knowledge. God is infinite knowledge. He dosent need time to calculate anything or conceive of anything because in his transcendence he knows and sees all things past, present, and future as if they are present today. That's God's omniscience. Time only became a factor when God created the universe. However, time has no effect upon God's infinite knowledge.
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@1AxS1 And the "mind" description should probably be best taken as a metaphor or anthropomorphic language. God is simply Spirit in essence without physicality and not confined to any location.
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 I'm afraid this doesn't help you at all. If god "knows" everything in the past and present but is unable to calculate or have a will what is left is pretty much a determenistic force containing information about future and past events (which never existed because time didn't!?). Moreover it really doesn't matter if the word "mind" is just a metaphor for an immaterial intelligent agent outside time when this makes just as much sense as a non-spatial mountain.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 How does it logically follow that since God knows all things, he does not have a will? That's a strawman youre tearing down. You obviously poorly understand Christian theology and the nature of God. Creation is an act of God's grace, not an act out of necessity. In other words, it was God's will to create the universe. "Containing information about future and past events (which never existed because time didnt)" . . . Whoever said future and past events never existed?
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 I did show you why god cannot have a will if he is outside time since he cannot make a choice to create the universe out of grace since a choice requires time. (pre-choice ---> choice---> creation) In other words he is unable to choose to act on his own will. So there was no strawman whatsoever.
Furthermore you can say what you want about christian theology but in order prove me wrong you have to take down my argument, I may be wrong but you have to show me why.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 I just want to add that I don't think it will be fruitful to continue this discussion using a comment field. The subject is difficult enough as it is but the sign-restrictions really makes it hard to get ones point across and especially for a non-natural english speaker as myself. I am however more than willing to continue this discussion via messages. So if you want to continue this just send me a message and I'll be more than willing to reply.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 You can try to change the wording from mind to spirit but then you are faced with the problem of defining the word spirit in order to see if it makes any more sense than the non-spatial mountain. There's also one more thing you can do and that is saying that god is ineffable although this leaves you with the problem of not being able to make any claims at all about his/her/its characteristics.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 Try to change the wording? Look, WLC describes God as an unembodied mind. This should probably be best taken metaphorically or anthropomorphically because "minds" are limited, at least with respect to creation (people). God is not part of the created order; he has infinite knowledge. As the prophet Isaiah said, "there is no searching of his understanding" (Isaiah 40:28). The Bible clearly teaches that God is spirit in essence (John 4:24).
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 Well again if a metaphor makes no sense then we are are just talking nonsense. If we are free to play around with words however we like without caring about their meanings a non-spatial mountain is just as logical as an unembodied mind.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 Nonspatial mountain? You cannot strip a mountain of all its attributes (physicality) and call it a mountain. By the way the unembodied mind concept is not exclusive to Christianity or religions in general. Some well known ancient Greek and non-Christian philosophers (like Plato) discussed the concept of the soul and it being able to exist apart from the human body.
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@1AxS1 Metaphors are often used to describe God's activity because God's divine nature is completely non-physical. People use metaphors all the time even in fields like science (personification, anthropomorphisms) Read some good systematic theology (Augustine, Daniel Migliore, Karl Barth, WLC, etc.) and Christian philosophy and that will give you a better understanding of God's nature with respect to time. That way your not tearing down strawmen.
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@1AxS1 The Bible does use humanlike characteristics to describe God's actions (arms, hands, fingers), but these have to be understood anthropormorphically because the Bible makes it clear that God is Spirit, invisible, non-spatial, omnipotent, omniscnient, and omnipresent. I'm aware that someone like you who is perhaps an atheist, agnostic or skeptic may reject the verbal inspiration of scripture but that's a different topic irrelevent to the above debate (Does God Exist?).
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@1AxS1 Moreover, God is not a computer. If God exists and he created the universe, then he must have existed before the Big Bang which is when space and time came into existence. Physical entities could not exist before space and time. Therefore, God would have to be immaterial or non-physical. Therefore, he would have to be an eternal mind. And for God to conceive of the math and physics necessary to create the universe, his mind would have to be "exceptional" to use Millican's adjective.
sgedeon01 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 I never claimed god to be a computer. Craig made a point on brains and then a computer was mentioned to refute Craig's claim. Craig never bothered to respond to the point made so he then failed to present evidence for immaterial minds. I simply stated that.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@sgedeon01 I really don't like talking about what was before space and time because I am very ignorant about what that means. I know very little of time and probably even less about space. This is the field of theoretical physicists like Hawking. However if we assume that "before time" means not just another timeline relative to ours but no time at all then i'm afraid god becomes nothing more than an unintelligent force of some kind, in other words not a god.
1AxS1 3 months ago
When Craig responds to criticism of the finetuning-argument he excludes the keypoint that his god is supposed to be omnipotent, which means that life would be able to be created in any kind of enviroment. Thus it is impossible for Craig to say that the universe is finetuned for life because life would be able to be created in any kind of universe.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 I believe that omnipotent means that you can do anything that is possible. So, making life where life is not possible would not fall under omnipotent. But creating an environment where life is possible and then making life there would.
imkluu 3 months ago
@imkluu Well I'm afraid that still doesn't solve the problem since one of the attributes Craig calls upon to "prove" god is god's ability to perform the impossible by ressurrecting Jesus from the dead. So there is a contradiction there. You are then left with the problem of defining and providing evidence for what is possible without relying on the natural laws since god apparently is able to suspend them. Or else you can't say that god is unable to able to create life in any kind of universe.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 I do not see a contradiction. I do not think resurrection is impossible. I am not sure that Dr. Craig says it is impossible, either. He might, I don't remember. He said that it was not expected. But he obviously believes it is possible. Having been able to create life, it does not seem impossible for God to give life to something that was once alive. We have done this ourselves through science, though perhaps not after so long a time dead. But it is still possible.
imkluu 3 months ago
It really doesn't matter because when you say that god only can do what is possible you must first define what you mean by the word "possible". Since the laws of the universe apparently do not restrict god you cannot rely on them to define his/her properties. So saying that god can only do what is possible isn’t really saying much.
Side note: Yes just as you say a lot of people have come alive after being apparently dead so I don’t see why you would give god the honor of doing it for Jesus?
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 I dint actually say God can only do what is possible, I said that I define omnipotent as doing anything that is possible. I'm not sure if that makes a difference but I wanted to make sure it was stated correctly. I'd define 'possible' as being capable of happening, being real or true. I might clarify it as within the parameters of the universe in which it is to happen.
Side note: That's the story. If someone else was responsible I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it.
imkluu 3 months ago
Comment removed
imkluu 3 months ago
@imkluu as a further side note, I'm not sure I am capable of further debate on the subject. and thanks for posting on my channel comments that you had further commented on this page.
imkluu 3 months ago
@imkluu Fair enough, so if I have understood you correctly you then mean that god is only omnipotent in such a way that he can do anything that is possible without violating any natural laws?
Side note: Well why assume anyone did it? There are hundreds if not thousands of cases of people waking up in morgues after being pronounced dead. Recognizing death is not as simple as you may think. That's why the diagnosis of it is constantly changing.
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 Side note: I dint assume anything. I was told and then later read the story. The story thus out there needs to be accepted, discussed and/or refuted. I personally am not able to refute it and accept the historic accounts. The belief that it was God is on faith. By Faith I mean that I trust that those that gave the account were telling the truth. I have no reason to disbelieve them and as Dr. Craig has lectured in other videos I have seen, it makes the most sense given what we know.
imkluu 3 months ago
@imkluu At this point in time it would be difficult to prove if Jesus was resurrected let alone by who. We only have the accounts of the time to go by. It comes down to trust in their truth or a need to prove them untruthful. I have heard nothing that proves that it could not have been God only conjecture as to what it might have been instead. Given no proven alternative and reasons to believe in the existence of God, I accept that it was God that Resurrected Jesus.
imkluu 3 months ago
@imkluu I don't actually think that the resurrection of Jesus helps to prove God, This seems kind of circular to me. To me, to believe that Jesus was resurrected by God means you accept the existence of God and so it is predisposed and can't prove the existence of God. To my layman thinking this seems true. But I think the other arguments Dr. Craig puts forth to give reason to be a theist are sound logic.
Sorry for the multiple posts, just trying to finish the discussion.
imkluu 3 months ago
@imkluu Haha fair enough, I guess we could probably go back and fourth forever. I just want to end in saying that yes I think you are correct that if we assume that the premises Craig puts forward in his argument for a creator are true then I aswell fail to see any flaws with it. However there is much that can be said about why those premises aren't to be trusted and why it becomes problematic when he tries to get from cause to deism and from deism to theism. Anyhow thanks for a good chat!
1AxS1 3 months ago
@1AxS1 You're welcome and I would like to add that I appreciate the manner in which you engaged me without being insulting or rude.
imkluu 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imkluu with god all things are possible
lravenhill 3 months ago
@Drcraigvideos Nimrod and his wife Semiramis (not mentioned in the bible, but her son Tammuz is) became the false sun and moon gods in ancient Mesopotamia (Babylon). There, the LORD came and confused the tongues and the names of the two false gods became thousands. Thus, we get the origin of all false gods and religion.
rbx01x 3 months ago
@Drcraigvideos Father, YHWH ELOHIM - LORD of all, Creator of the Universe, My banner and strong tower, bless Mr. Craig with even stronger arguments and irrefutable proof of your existence Adoni, Bless this man as he fights for you, Thank you Father! Thank you! In the precious name of Your only Son, our salvation - Y'shua Messiah!
rbx01x 3 months ago
First time I hear someone address the shaky assumptions of W.L. Craig logic arguments finally!!
Ijustasking 3 months ago
atheists talk about how we are pattern seekers. isn't all things being explained through natural processes the most pattern seeking worldview?
agnostaxian 3 months ago
I want New Craig vs Atkins!!!!
giorgiv18 3 months ago
Is there a way to access the mp3 directly? WLC's site is linking it to youtube, and your youtube is linking it to reasonablefaith. I'm only asking this so as to avoid spending 2 hours in converting it to mp3
tabrizi79 3 months ago
"Just for those who subscribe to the podcast...." .....or anyone who knows what youtube is!
HappyWithWhatsThere 3 months ago
@jtothen123 I guess you don't understand the proposition of the debate: Does God exist? WLC posed 5 solid arguments.....Peter gave maybe one --> the problem of evil but again that doesn't play into the atheist hands so if WLC has 5 good arguments and Peter has 0....who wins?
Fan based has nothing to do with rationality and looking objectively at the debate. All WLC debates with Atheist is sling mud at the Bible and avoid providing any arguments for atheism....so WLC clearly and logically won
HaShim383 3 months ago
@HaShim383 Craig’s arguments are based on abstract concepts, his beliefs, his unverifiable claims about god’s characteristics and motives. He expects Millican to provide proof for atheism, knowing one can’t prove a negative. Burden should be on Craig. If “god” is some disembodied intellect in a nonmaterial realm how does Craig know? Craig doesn't give one testable reason that god is not a figment of his philosophical imaginings. Sound logic is based on a well defined known.
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason "one can’t prove a negative" is false. See for example atheist philosopher Jeffrey Jay Lowder's article "Is a Sound Argument for the Nonexistence of a God Even Possible?" (1998) which can be found online where he debunks this claim that one can not prove a negative.
GGDFan777 3 months ago
@GGDFan777 Really interesting article that's best described as "deep", but not in a bad way. I be re-reading it for a time or two. Thanks for pointing it out :)
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason I'm not going to debate on youtube because it gets no where, but I will say this....Atheism affirms the proposition: there is NO God. So you are completely mistaken. to say it is not sound logic is a low blow and clearly a person not listening to what he is actually saying. Craig provided logically DEDUCTIVE arguments you say its not sound logic is again completely absurd.
HaShim383 3 months ago
@HaShim383 “Atheism affirms the proposition: there is NO God.”
With all due respect, your statement does not accurately describe atheism; and certainly not a rational skeptical atheism. Such atheism is a simply a disbelief in deities or a skepticism of theist claims since "god" is not falsifiable in observable reality. It is not affirming anything. And since WLC’s premises about god are conveniently beyond truthfulness verification, then his “deductive logical argument” hardly seems sound.
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason Atheism is not the disbelief in deities your definition is agnosticism not atheism...../watch?v=XcuSMQVq5dM
HaShim383 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason "beyond truthfulness verification" whether or not humans have or have not proven anything at all doesn't make things not real. You can certainly use this line of verification with some things but not everything. The things science hasn't proven nor disproven yet doesn't make all those things "not real yet" whether they are or not....using this yard stick as a precurssor for many thigs is suitable to the naturalist ONLY....but humanity knows...science is not the be-all end-all.
hexusziggurat 3 months ago
@hexusziggurat Whether its scientific investigation or common sense rational analysis, one must apply some type of yard stick, or methodology to obtain accurate knowledge that is consistent with physical reality. In mystical unknown supernatural realms, delusions and superstitions like to hide out from critical examination.
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason "consistent with physical reality" then you've already classified a bias. Many within humanity "assume" there is ONLY physical reality.....until we know for certain we cannot assume. If we create a mechanism to study a "non-physical realm" (if its exists) then maybe we can once again jump up on the ego horse thinking we got "all of it locked down" once again. In the case of WLC "scientific investigation or common sense rational analysis" is all he ever really does.
hexusziggurat 3 months ago
@hexusziggurat "In the case of WLC "scientific investigation or common sense rational analysis" is all he ever really does."
What scientific rational analysis supports Craig’s statements that “god” is the uncaused cause of the universe, that “god” is the moral law giver, that “god” has reasons for hiding evidence of his existence? Both “god” and the Easter Bunny may exist in some hypothetical reality.To assert they exist and effect actual reality requires evidential support to be scientific.
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason "“god” is the uncaused cause of the universe" =rational analysis, logic is used within science as a viable method to evaluate the "best possible answer, given X"
to assert ANYTHING needs "evidential support to be scientific" only qualifies those things which CAN fall within the confines of a certain PART of the scientific method....if you expect that ALL things should fit in beakers to be scientific & can't stand alone with "logic"...that isn't practicing fair science.
hexusziggurat 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason If you have ever heard Craig debate or speak about his arguments, you will know that Craig does not claim to be able to PROVE anything. He simply states that the purpose of his arguments are to show that the existence of God is more probable than not. Craig has NEVER said that he can prove God exists.
AegeanKing 3 months ago
@AegeanKing He says there is evidence for the existence god; which I do not agree. Craig seems to think that arguments based on abstract concepts is evidence; example: his version of the Kalam Argument, and his Probabilities of Life Permitting Universes (How did he observe other universe to get the probability?).
See: /watch?v=71ZhJL56bdQ&list=PL4FB44609DEFDF0AC&index=1&feature=plpp_video
Evidence for God: William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss, a video that was uploaded on this same channel.
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason he is talking about the constants that we currently have, if they are changed slightly, no life and the constant do not have to be that way
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@agnostaxian What I find so unconvincing is how casually he inserts “god” into it. He has not ruled out that the constants came about by natural processes. He is not able to take a random sample of universes and say how improbable life would be if the constants were different.
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason yes but dont we have what this universe could have been? if the constants were different we would have another universe and we can determine that right? craig is not arguing for certainty only what seems most likely on current evidence
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@agnostaxian I must respectfully disagree. IMO, Craig through cleverly worded jargon, hides his huge assumptions, and stealthily appeals to the emotions of faith to say that some being (god) MUST have, in a manner of speaking, set the “dials” on these constants.
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason i understand. i dont think craig is saying god must have done it just that it seems more likely that an intelligence did. some atheists even think the universe may be a computer program done by aliens in a parallel universe, interesting
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@agnostaxian "some atheists even think the universe may be a computer program done by aliens in a parallel universe, interesting"
LOL silly atheist! But if they seriously thought that, it would be a belief in something for which there is no evidence, which would in a way make them theists. It also brings up the problem of infinite regression. Would those aliens in turn be in a computer simulated universe by aliens in a higher universe, and so on?
As you said interesting :)
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason lol, yes, i think they are just speculating maybe having some fun
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason "Sound logic is based on a well defined known."
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference
2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation
3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions
5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness
i'm not entirely sure what you base "logic =a well defined known"
hexusziggurat 3 months ago
@hexusziggurat “i'm not entirely sure what you base "logic =a well defined known"”
It’s your “given X”, a theorem or thoroughly tested known fact upon which you base a premise. WLC’s faith based abstract philosophical god premise is not well defined scientifically or by observable consensus. His “deductive logical argument” is not sound on that shaky premise. And BTW, which part of the scientific method absolves one of providing supporting evidence such that "logic" stands alone?
DEdgeOfReason 3 months ago
@DEdgeOfReason :) hehehe have a good day!
hexusziggurat 3 months ago
@jtothen123 LOL not sure if you actually heard the debate
HaShim383 3 months ago
I think Craig still won that debate..good try Millican
jordan6030 3 months ago
I was at this debate and found it thoroughly enjoyable - Prof. Millican did very well imho.
I must say, I was not too happy with his comments at the beginning about the centuries of scientific stagnation - they were not really relevent imo.
I also found some irony in Craig saying he had an issue with the concept of "0" whilst using computers (which, being based on binary, use 1's and 0's).
barrry9 3 months ago
@barrry9 In Binary code, 1s and 0s aren't really numerical representations. They're more akin to the concepts of on/off, yes/no, etc. 1 and 0 are just used to make that dichotomy -it could have been any numbers like 3 for yes and 4 for no. But those numbers would have been arbitrary. 0 and 1 were just probably used for simplicity's sake.
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@themorbidimmortal When people are in the war, they like to pillage and burn for the sake of it. There's nothing here to intimate that anything else was the reason.
LittleSn00py 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Millican's "computer" analogy was a horrible one. While computers consist of material matter, the software that gives them value is non-material. If you were to weigh a blank thumb drive or CD and then load it with software and weigh it again, it would weigh the same. Software is non-material and metaphysical information that runs through a material shell - computer. Computer & software analogies actually confirm the theist's premise
Hazakim 4 months ago
Comment removed
Hazakim 4 months ago
Comment removed
Hazakim 4 months ago
I was very impressed by Craig’s handling of Millican’s quoting Vilenkin as saying that his (Vilenkin’s) theorem doesn’t actually show the universe had a beginning. Craig read the quote in context and showed that Vilenkin had actually said the opposite of what Millican was suggesting.
MrProfTeach 4 months ago
@MrProfTeach Agreed! Loved that too, I've seen quite many atheists trying to deny the conclusion of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. They also wrote papers before that, on how initial singularirites can't be avoided in Eternal Inflation, but their strongest proof was the paper where they cooperated, released 2003.
TheisticThinker 3 months ago
I believe in God, but I agree with Millican’s idea that the cause of the universe must be something of a kind that we cannot grasp: Neither a physical entity, nor an abstract entity, nor a mind.
I have always disliked Craig’s characterization of God as a “disembodied mind.”
MrProfTeach 4 months ago
Random comment: If Dr. Craig hasn't done this already, I think he should debate Michael Ruse. Ruse is pretty courteous to allowing other people to defend their beliefs and he's a good debater too.
BassP86 4 months ago
It's been a while since I had heard a debate from Craig (since I've watched pretty much all of them on YouTube) and it's been even longer since I've heard a good debate given to him by an opponent.
98nafets 4 months ago
Excellent debate. Thank you for the upload.
JCrownwell 4 months ago
The flaw I see in Dr Milligans presentation is that only one of DR Craig's arguments is in relation to Jesus Christ. What he offered in terms of philosophical arguments was for a general God, its not only confined to culture. But what got me is when he talked about the ressurection saying the apostles made it up or implying it was a result of their psychology, when the psychology of a first century Jew would not bring up such a thing in the first palce.
TheIconodule 4 months ago
Millican is hugely mistaken about there being no evidence for PSI. Both Dean Radin & Rupert Sheldrake have done multiple repeatable experiments showing humans do have a capacity for PSI. Any skeptic can feel free to review the evidence on our channel. My impression of Millican during the debate was this "There may be good evidence in the future that disproves God, so that's my reason for doubting now."
miking193 4 months ago
@miking193 Can you point me to any articles or websites devoted to talking about this thing you call PSI? I tried doing a Google search about it, but the results seemed rather convoluted and iffy. If you could, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS As mentioned in the comment you responded to, on our channel if you click on it, go to the favorites click, the third & fourth video from the top are two lectures on the evidence for PSI. The first one's title is ("Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin) . The second one's title is (The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence). Enjoy.
miking193 4 months ago
All things being equal I have to hand it to Millican. At least he didn't resort to "I'm smart and if you don't believe me you're just stupid' which is the status quo in most other WLC debated. I was frustrated by his complete lack of knowledge of the resurrection which was unfortunate since he was pretty good up to that point. Overall I really liked the fact that he stayed on topic and tried to actually address WLC's arguments so kudos to Millican for being an actual adult. Great debate!
Equestions 4 months ago 13
4) Deep down we all need love. Seek and follow unconditional love and you will eventually come to know that personal creator. Here’s a clue, love Is revealed through personal sacrifice or its just an empty word. God is love and the truth of his love will set you free. Seeking this truth only with the intellect can only take you so far, at some point you must engage your heart. God is not asking you to throw your brain away but you will need more (Jeremiah 29:13).
ATOMICGLUE 4 months ago
3) The fact that there is order in the universe and that good and evil exists are to me knock out arguments for a personal cause of the universe. To believe that the order in the universe, and life itself is the result of random accidents takes to much faith for me to muster. Also, to believe that the evolutionary processes could bring about objective morality makes no sense. As far as who that personal creator is, i believe that creator has put a big clue in the heart of man.
ATOMICGLUE 4 months ago
2) I think most would agree in regards to things in time, infinity in the past is not possible, you may be able to deal with infinity in math but not in a temporal reality.
So, the big question is, is that transcendent, eternal, uncaused, cause of all material existence in the universe or multiverse a personal cause or impersonal cause? Either position is a position of faith. For me it’s a no brainier, the evidence around me and in me leads me to a personal creator.
ATOMICGLUE 4 months ago
1) Good debate. I could be wrong but i would imagine there are not many people who believe that something can come from absolutely “nothing”. Also, most would agree that a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”. So from what i can gather both theists and atheists are in the same boat, they must “believe” there is an uncaused cause that always existed and would have to transcend matter, space and time. Postulating multiverses only pushes the question back.
ATOMICGLUE 4 months ago
Man, for a professional philosopher, Millican sure likes the genetic fallacy.
wittenbergdoor 4 months ago
It's a pity there are not more atheists like Millican out there: polite, very intelligent and disarmingly honest. I'm definitely a Millican fan!
This debate was far more interesting and engaging than any debate with The Big D could ever have been. And now everyone knows - DAWKINS IS A COWARD!!
bushfingers 4 months ago 3
i don't know why people say millican is inteligent while he holds to the position that God don't exist" the holy bible calls those unbelievers" FOOLS"
Erap1muzik 4 months ago
Peter got spanked by WLC on every single rebuttal. Infinity does not exist. Einstein confirmed it. Ironically, a muslim was the champion that no one wanted to listen to 1000 years ago. It still puzzles me how anyone could still argue infinity. There is no example of anything infinite. The universe will die and its the only one we see.
domokunroxj00 4 months ago 2
@salapuyou89 But god already knows my every move, regardless of if he does so or not. If he did that I might be able to speak and reason with this transcendent being and actually begin to understand it, which i'd enjoy actually. I don't choose my beliefs, that is determined by either knowledge or lack there of. God can't make perfect beings? Then god is flawed or not powerful.
I like not being perfect because that's what makes me human, if I lost my flaws I would no longer be human.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
Wow, finally ! an atheist puts up a good fight against Dr. Craig ! I've been waiting forever for someone to bring up the issue of an unembodied mind, and Craig's seemingly bizarre assertion that such a thing can exist. good job to both of them :)
ABARANOWSKISKI 4 months ago 3
I've never said this about an opponent before, but I think Millican is a beast. I think it's time to delve into the finer points of Hume's philosophy...brb in about 1 year.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 2
Clearly one of the best debates WLC has ever had (and he still won it!).
BTW, I finally found a YouTube video of Dr. Craig debating in the German language!
Just search for William Lane Craig vs. Michael Schmidt-Salomon.
BibleLosophR 4 months ago
@salapuyou89 If god wants us to know him why doesn't he show up more often? This might show the whole world god exists thereby allowing for more potential followers. Why stay absent for prolonged periods of time in which people would question it's very existence? Allowing for other religions to prosper. If god wants people to spend eternity with him why not make perfect beings to do so instead of going through all this nonsense? Especially when those people are threatened by eternal torture.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence
You said: If god wants people to spend eternity with him why not make perfect beings to do so instead of going through all this nonsense?
Because a free creature can't be 'determined' to freely choose eternity with God.
EmceeBorg 4 months ago
@EmceeBorg So the alternative is hell? Sounds like a threat to me not a free choice. And if god is doing this all for his ego how good can he really be? Doesn't sound like he has respect for his creation and only cares about himself. Freedom is nice, but you are no longer free when you are commanded and told to be a servant. That would make this freedom a lie, and for what? Just so god can get praised forever, this perfect being sounds imperfect to me.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
I think Craig won that debate...Millican needs to try harder
jordan6030 4 months ago
We have trouble listing all the decimals of the constant pi even and finding the next prime number.
We know it begins 3,14 but then it goes on. Part of Craigs reasoning around infinity seems weak, and relying on human limitations rather than properties of the infiinite.
CJFCarlsson 4 months ago
Its so refreshing to see Craig interact with people like Millican and Austin Dacey who can produce substantive arguments instead of parroting talking points from the new atheists. They weren't able to keep up with Craig in terms of efficiency and time allocation, but they did raise real issues that the serious theist needs to thoughtfully address. It was good to see the "Vilenken disagrees with Craig" argument exposed in an actual debate. Hopefully Craigs demolition will put it to rest.
DrOman5596 4 months ago 8
I wish more of Craigs debates had the moderator conduct the q and a. It always struck me as a terrible idea to just have the q and a be an open mic session for the general public, who even at institutions like notre dame produce largely esoteric, unsophisticated, or non sequiter questions. Having the questions filtered and guided is wonderfully conducive to a productive conversation, and to salvaging a debate that clearly exploded beyond the ability of either debater to tie up all loose ends.
DrOman5596 4 months ago
I have to say that millican does seem to be a mature, respectable opponent. However, I found that some of his "strongest" arguments were only possibly because he mixed atheistic views into Christian views. Example, his objection to fine tuning is that if God is omniscient He made a very inefficient universe, because it took 14+ billion years to evolve us. The Christian view doesn't propose at all that we evolved. Nice try though, very sneaky.
ITTutorCanada 4 months ago
@ITTutorCanada The duration that God took to eventually bring mankind into being has no bearing on his omniscience. What difference is it to God if he created man in 1 nanosecond or 99 trillion years? The temporal duration of the creative process has no real meaning to an eternal being.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 4 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Yeah that is also true. I was just simply pointing out the fact that millican injected the naturalistic explanation for life coming into being into the Christian world view in order to discredit the Christian world view. Well of course that would discredit it, because the naturalistic world view is extremely discreditable. ;)
ITTutorCanada 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ITTutorCanada "The Christian view doesn't propose at all that we evolved." Well something like that is proposed by Saint Agustine, that creation is evolving. And we have evidence for it in biology...
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
I have to admit, this debate was quite invigorating.
SycrosD4 4 months ago
Wow, Millican is a tough dude. Its too bad the new Atheistg movement doesn't listen to intellectuals, they rather have Dawkins with glass of bourbon. I do see one of Millicans points, rational intuition can be wrong, this is where presuppositional apologetics does come in handy. Criag has an evidentialist way of doing apologetics and had to yield to Millicans predisposition of empiricism. Nevertheless, Millican didn't dispel the reasons for theism, his goal was just to undermine those reasons.
SylvanSage 4 months ago 2
@SylvanSage But even so, the conclusion for atheism is a mile away.
SylvanSage 4 months ago
(1) Gratuitous evils exist.
(2) The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
(3) Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.
Downshifting07 4 months ago
Millican used a lot of rhetoric to make us humans think of ourselves less. "The universe is so big, there must be no God!" I just dont follow that logic. Still doesn't answer the question, why are we here?
And it's very possible that Humans are the only intellegent species in the world.
209vaughn 4 months ago
Wow, this was actually a great debate, I'm enjoying the tour so far, it's sad to see atheists come with the exact same arguments though. This Millican's a tough dude but Craig is tougher. Good video.
Bigjon145 4 months ago
Comment removed
scar504 4 months ago
Peter Millican came out strong but began to wain in the ladder of the debate relying on assertions. Kudos to the mediator for advocating respect and kindness among intellectual discourse.
scar504 4 months ago
Why would people expect God to be a Superman; saving every day?
kevinvalsonjacob 4 months ago
thought this was a good debate, I found Millican a good opponent for Craig. I think he brought some good generalised points, however, as with all these debates, I was left wanting more from both. Richard Dawkins should watch this and see how to interact with another on an intellectual level. He would have seen a debate where both sides treated each other with respect and at times pleasantly. An opponent doesn't need to be a hate figure mr Dawkins, and you can have a good open discussion/debate
stephjh2006 4 months ago 5
I'll admit Millican did alright compared to other atheists, but I still think theism came out on top.Certainly more interesting than Law.
I think his last debate left to be uploaded is the one with Atkins..without having watched it I promise you Atkins embarrassed himself.Why Atkins agreed to debate is beyond me.
Thanks for uploading as always.
markderosa 4 months ago
@markderosa Millican did alright? Lets give him credit, this was, BY A MILE the strongest response Craig has ever faced. Millican was calm, logical, very polite and structured. Awesome intellect. Very impressed. (And I'm a Christian and "Craig supporter" by the way!)
stu1002 4 months ago 16
@stu1002 Agreed, I like Millican, he reasons and behaves like a gentlemen, his points are interesting but I think Craig addressed them well.
TheisticThinker 4 months ago
@stu1002 Exactly. I'm an atheist but I always give props to Craig and I watch just about all of his debates, so it's good to see a theist look at this fairly. It's rare for him to come across opposition like Millican. Just based on all his debates I've seen, his strongest opponents are always fellow philosophers. The scientists and others that he debates, I feel sorry for lol.
bwest8888 4 months ago 5
Of Course the universe has always existed.
God has always existed, and reality (or the universe) as always existed, because God is omnipotent.So was their no reality before the Big Bang??
Of course reality existed, and God has always existed.Since reality is infinite in size, then that's good evidence that it has always existed, or what can we expect when we reach end of the universe or reality?? A wall??
However, Atheists have a lot of faith that All reality has a natural explanation
TheSkepticChristian 4 months ago