Craig NEEDS to drag his opponents to a debate on god's existence, he keeps trying to apply his two contingents on purpose or not, trying to get the atheist to engage on a discussion he is well known to have all the time and "win" with fallacies and ridicule arguments. Puff.
If the universe have a purpose or not, who knows? The thing that fascinates me tough, is that christians always wants the atheist to prove his theory all the way to the end.... while christen religion is like a book missing the first million pages.
@TomFynn ur just one of those morons. with God or with out God life is still but a hiccup of nothingness. If u r without God dont drag me with ur ignorance. Meaning of life what a drama.
The whole format of this debate sucked. I feel somewhat ashamed for that the host did not conduct himself properly to the speakers, but that's probably because we're not used to have this kind of talks in Mexico. Now, the really good thing is to have this type of discussions in our country, hopefully this will make people think more about these issues, and will make them read more on the subject. Oh, and William Lane Craig's arguments are getting old. Watch Shelly Kagan vs. WLC, here on YouTube.
maybe we can really never find the question because we are bound to this universe and we "probably" cant observe it from the outside for further scientific research.
MIchio Kaku already gave the answer. We must only describe the 11 Dimensions and then we are pretty close to the answer, i mean right next to it next, to god, the creator, the initiation. like i said befor we must only scientifically search for it.
@skillfulblade umm, sry maybe this is only the beginning because scientist believe that there are other universes with different dimensions, and when they clashed our universe was created. so maybe we even have got to go further then that.
i think it all comes down to causaliy: cause (big bang) and effect (everything that came after it including us), sadly we cant really talk about a god until we found him. we must first step by step search for him, scientifically.
its funny how so many people leaving messages and comments on this talk as if they are truly versed, studied intellegent people with a level of rational ideals. But then i remember we as a species love to apply 'simple' patterns and ideas to complex situations sorry to spell this to both sides but you are both wrong... the reality is we will never truly know, after all God cant or wont answer and DNA wont evolve to tell us its reality, which means ALL the texts we use are just theory, not fact..
The dwarf @ 1:32:55 berates the atheists with a false claim. We have only said there is no evidence the universe has a purpose. The theists claim their special god made the universe for a purpose, but they also have no evidence for him. The atheist is honest enough to admit he doesn't know, That's called having integrity.
@ExtantFrodo2 well they can keep searching....oh wait Dawkins wont as after failing with Selfish Gene he will sit at home and think of more targets...just hope the real scientist do as you say...open themselves to all possibility
@sicakes What makes you say he failed with "The Selfish Gene"? It was a masterpiece. I'm wondering if you've ever read any of his works. I ask because you are under the impression that he is closed minded. What makes you so sure of this?
@ 1:14 what the hell is WLC talking about? Dawkins was saying WE can create our own purpose. He was NOT saying we can create a purpose for the universe. Listen to Craig again bearing this in mind and see what a fool he is.
He admits there is no way to determine if god exists so he graps his sense of purpose from wishing that god truly exists. It's sad he can not see this.
WLC, @ 18:28 "Evil is evidence that god exists" LOL I've yet to see anyone stick their whole leg down their mouth.
We can agree there is a way things ought to be because we share the same physiology and needs and wants and these form our aspirations, intuitions and concerns. It does not mean it comes down from on high.
I am an atheist and I have to say that I am quite embarrassed of with our weak arguments. In this debate to be fair, the theist side truly owned us. Dr Dawkins was not his own self, he was owned by Craig. I guess that may be the reason why Dr Dawkins always abstained from debating him one on one. I hope in the future Dr Dawkins will redeem himself with a one on one debate against Craig.
Come on, get some Muslim Sheikhs in there like Imran Hosein, Yasir Qadhi, or Hamza Yusef! They don't bother with the brilliant minds in Islam, they get other random folks.
What i do not understand is why they talk both in Spanish (I am sorry if I am wrong) and English. That way both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking people wont understand everything...
@helios9235 Well, in the debate they are allways listening to a live translator, both spanish and english speakers. I consider myself to have a lot of luck, since this debate contains the only two languages I speak LOL.
WLC: "To refuse to ask such "why" questions is to reduce human beings to mere animals - we're just animated chunks of matter in motion. Love, questions of meaning and so forth are ultimately just spin-offs of the blind evolutionary process". BINGO! End of debate.
Really...how could they not give the speakers at least a 30 second warning to wrap up their thoughts rather then yelling TIME OUT while right in the middle of a fucking sentence!
I'm now obout one hour into the dabate, and I'm starting to lose my patients. I understand now, why Dawkins usually refuses to debate people like this. They don't discuse. They preach. They don't have arguments. I meen, those guys are suposed to be professional debaters, but they still bring up stuff like "finetuned universe" or "The atheists asume that there is no God, but cannot provide evidence". I'm a layman, and even I know how unvalide those "arguments" are!
my god what a god damn silly circus setup, the ridiculous timeouts and the silly boxing ring, bet all of em laughed at it after the debate, prolly not together, but god damn :p Oh and i got slaugthered in every game :P
The thought processes when they were told that they only had 6 minutes:
The scientists: How am I going to condense all of the intensely comprehensive science into 6 minutes? I'll have to settle for some anecdotal examples and hope that the viewers are smart enough to do their own reading.
The religious: 6 minutes? That should give me enough time to make my point and reiterate it about 4 further times. I hope the viewers are impressed by how confidently I shout non-sequiturs.
I think I figured Billy Craig out: He spent so much time memorizing vocab and learning to feign exasperation and enthusiasm that he never learned to examine his own ideas.
Craig is a moron. His ramblings were completely incoherent, and he failed to produce any evidence to back up his claim that the universe has a purpose.
By the way, Craig is such an ignorant sophist. He appeals to emotion and constructs strawmen. He is always talking about how god is presupposed in morality, yet he fails to ever adress all the various modern ethics that are perfectly coherent and never mention a god. And also, what about theories of functions and purposes that relativizes purpose to intention? In such framework, talking about "objective purpose" is a contradictio in adjecto. Craig is preying on his opponents lack of knowledge!!
Jerome Friedman says best (1:24) A concise understanding of what purpose is etc... & the implication of the "need for a reasoning creator" & the lack of evidence to support that point of view. "Do you have to have a narrative to fill in that mystery?" & no you do not. & Henry(@ 1:28... WHAT IS HIS LAST NAME? btw??) His whole speech leading to "The universe can give birth to purpose regardless of how pointless." -is the answer.
@gutterbyrd1 There are big problems with naturalist conceptions of purpose, since they purport to introduce teleology into a natural world. The beauty of evoulutionary theory is that it cuts out purposes, so that purpose-talk is a mere expositionary tool. No need to defend purposes, since arguments from apparent design stem from ignorance of the naturalist definition of function. The opponents are wasting time blabbing on about how little they get modern science. At least their arguments tellit
Both the Theists & the Atheists did communicate clearly and conducted themselves quite respectfully. If I may be permitted to share that Michio Kaku is becoming less and less relevant every time he shares his thoughts. At 1h07m54s, Michio displays that he may have acquired a public presence within the scientific community, yet he chooses to ignore and to misrepresent the assertions, positions and notions of his peers. Not once, did these Atheists profess that there is no god.
I´m ashamed this travesty of a populist debacle was hosted in Mexico. Giving these distinguished guests 30 seconds to expose their arguments is simply for show. You can not develop a compelling argument this way. Not that the theist side of the debate - again, more like debacle - could really develop with more time their non-sequitors and logical fallacies.
The host was a rude imbecile, and the whole notion of a "ring" and "intellectual hooks to the cerebellum" was incredibly condescending.
Evil is not an objective thing, so why does Mr. Craig state that it's necessary to have an objective basis for it? What we consider evil now might not have been considered evil many hundreds of years ago, but through social development we decided it so.
Dr. Kaku always gets on my nerves, always. He doesn't fail to disappoint again. It's not a matter of having to know absolutely. It's simply a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion. There is no evidence.
@drstrangelove09 Agreed. There is no 50/50 split when it comes to evidence. We have mountains of evidence in favor of a naturally occurring universe, whereas we have no evidence in favor of an intelligently designed universe. We can be agnostic about many things when there is a lack of evidence on both sides, but that isn't the case we have with the universe. The origin of the universe is not 50% for God and 50% against God, we have overwhelming evidence against God, and zero evidence for God.
Does the universe have a purpose in relation to what? The purpose of the legislative branch in government is to make laws. Without God, there is nothing greater than the universe. Logically speaking, God is just as possible as leprechauns and unicorns. It's saddening to hear, but that doesn't make it less true.
There is no set meaning for life. Whatever gives you a sense of fulfillment is your own personal meaning. This isn't a very difficult question. It's really brainwish to think you're immortal in any sense. Yes, I meant to say brainwish. You wish it be true, so you're convinced it's true. You brainwash yourself with wishful thinking.
@lxAgnosticxl The argument assumes that the universe has a purpose to create life . To have this purpose it must have a creator. No creator no purpose no fine tuning.Life is just an accident
The whole point of the argument is to note that life falls under an extremely small persian of independent constants , on naturalism life has no meaning & no worth so it doesn't make any sense , on theism life has purpose and this give good reason for the fine tunning.
@lxAgnosticxl That is the default position . If you have evidence to the contrary I wil listen."on naturalism life has no meaning & no worth so it doesn't make any sense ," Better no sense than on derived from bronze age sheep herders wouldn't you say. It would be up to the individual to derive his or her own purpose, Time to row up I would say. Fine Tuning begs the question and is a logical fallacy rendering it usless as a proof of god
@lxAgnosticxl You walk along and see a puddle on the ground do you assume a creator or is the default position that it just happened?. It begs the question because you must assume a creator with a purpose to get to the point of saying WOW it's finely tuned fo life.
Ive herd the anthropic principle before , but life is valuable on a theistic world view & not on a natural world view meaning theism better explains it, 50 or constants hae to be just right from a number that defies comprension.
@lxAgnosticxl " life is valuable on a theistic world" i would disagree it is given and taken on what appears to whuim. Life is precious on the atheistic side
@lxAgnosticxl "what makes us speacial?" Is there a reason why we should be special? If you want a dad to say good boy then be honest about it.", do think chance just settles it?/ Absolutely . Yoyu you think that god caused the 40,000 humans that starve to death every day. Or the countless floods and misery humanity suffers?
you do realise that people like Roger Penrose has taken just 1 of these constants and was able to work out useing science that our solar system is far more probable to have formed by the random colision of particles than for and entropy rate to allow for life,
the point about purpose on theism best explains that, How much faith do you have to have to believe our universe just pooped into being to allow for life?
@lxAgnosticxl You do realize that one of NASA probes has found 5 planets in the golilock zone of their sun.And that it examined a minuscule fraction of the 400 billion galaxies with 100 billion solar system in each . Claiming stats is less than genuine when there is little or nothing to compare. statistics are only relevant when discussing more that one thing sucjh as a solar system
@emailpobox666 My position there is no evidence for any of the gods mankind has "invented" without any evidence it is wish fulfillment to pick and choose one or any
So what? the argument is based on the universe not a planet, as a christian im open to the idea god has other creations, but this demonstrates nothing. 100 billion galaxies actually
The problem of evil here is an emotinal one not a rational one,
We all know cases where we allow suffering for a greater good. God could not have created a world which had as much good as the actual world, but with less evil; and god has morally sufficent reasons for permitting the evil that exists. So long as that last statement is even possible then theres no problem of evil.
@lxAgnosticxl Do you feel that comfortable switching from emotional argument-to intellectual argument and back again. My argument are not based on any emotion. it would be ridiculous to act thta way . Kinda like being angry at the tooth fairy
yes murder is wrong, because of the impact it has on another human, the difference is theres no reason on naturalism why that matters but on theism there is.
@lxAgnosticxl I bring up acts which you ignore (evil acts) that your god gets a pass on and a simple act of supposed kindness like not dying from a firring squad ihe is given credit. this is to show you that you cherry pick what you wish to address and only what comfirms your preconcieved beliefs
when did you bring up any evil acts & you have no bases for calling them evil, unless you wan't to admit Objective Morality & then you have to admit god
@lxAgnosticxl do you do do youn ot agree with the statement that morality exist with or without a god? an atheist can be moral in the absence of a god
@lxAgnosticxl If murder is wrong why does Your god murder many with the great flood and please don't justify drowning women children infants and fetuses. let me guess we do not understand god's plan. How close did I get to your response?
@lxAgnosticxl You need god to prove objective morals . Objective morals do not prove god. If you don't have evidence for god you can't assume its existence and then use that assumption to create evidence to prove the assumption true
Objective morality is self evident , e.g. if the nazis won WW2 and brain washed everyone to believe in the 3rd reich, they would still be wrong even if they believed it was ok< thats OM
@lxAgnosticxl Then why did mankind for most of it 100,000 years of existence believe this self evident truth?Self evident truths come under deductive arguments?
It is self evident , if the price of atheism is to say the universe randomly & spontaneously appered without a cause from absolute nothing , then let any mocker of religion be for ever silent , i can't think of anything more irrational than that.
@lxAgnosticxl If you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true. Then more power to you. I need no fairytale to make me feel important . The days of the security blanket are long gone
how has that got any thing to do with evaluating the world ,to say the universe just appeared with out a cause is meta-physics & we have nothing to agree with it
@lxAgnosticxl If we were talking about common sense you could bring up that but we are alking about a logical proof of god. In the end it is a matter of faith. embrace your faith don't hide it in bogus illogical proofs
@lxAgnosticxl " you have no bases for calling them evil," Don't I? Morality is derived form society. I can believe the murder is wrong child abuse is wrong It's just I don't attribute the wrongness on a god. it's wrong because we are all human beings and to live together we have to respect their rights
@lxAgnosticxl If an alien 1 million years more advanced than came to our planet an d claimed to be god. How would you know it really was god if no logic no evidence you could ever come up with would tell you otherwise. would this be your god?
In his book Universes, Leslie describes a philosophical parable in which an individual survives a firing squad of fifty expert marksmen unscathed. He offers two explanations for this remarkable event: either it is a fortuitous outcome, to be expected occasionally by pure chance among many thousands of attempted executions by firing squad, or it is intentional.
@lxAgnosticxl Why could it not be pure chance. where you aware they tested the power of prayer on the outcomes of sick patients and found no evidence for any positive effect. Theists have their cake and eat it too. If god answers your prayer god exists if he doesn't it's the mystery of god. Heads I win Tails you lose
Francis Collins references this parable in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief as part of his argument that the Anthropic Principle strongly suggests a Creator with intent
Craig NEEDS to drag his opponents to a debate on god's existence, he keeps trying to apply his two contingents on purpose or not, trying to get the atheist to engage on a discussion he is well known to have all the time and "win" with fallacies and ridicule arguments. Puff.
DemonLordDavid 22 hours ago
At the beggining they had the "I don't understand shit of what this moron is saying :yaoming:"
At least i do understand.
DemonLordDavid 23 hours ago
Carl Segan at 1:30:00
TrumpetTepmurt 6 days ago
If the universe have a purpose or not, who knows? The thing that fascinates me tough, is that christians always wants the atheist to prove his theory all the way to the end.... while christen religion is like a book missing the first million pages.
LarsEmann92 6 days ago 3
Without God life is but a hiccup of nothingness.
MrMatutum 1 week ago
@MrMatutum If you need God to give your life meaning, you are a fucking retard.
TomFynn 1 week ago 3
@TomFynn ur just one of those morons. with God or with out God life is still but a hiccup of nothingness. If u r without God dont drag me with ur ignorance. Meaning of life what a drama.
MrMatutum 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMatutum If you take out the first two words you are correct.
Ex. life is but a hiccup of nothingness.
Here is what you should have put.
-life is but a hiccup of nothingness, with a god we feel better about it.
DanceDiggy 3 days ago
@MrMatutum And what exactly is wrong with that? Give your life a meaning on your own, instead of waiting for some "superior" to tell you.
DemonLordDavid 23 hours ago
The whole format of this debate sucked. I feel somewhat ashamed for that the host did not conduct himself properly to the speakers, but that's probably because we're not used to have this kind of talks in Mexico. Now, the really good thing is to have this type of discussions in our country, hopefully this will make people think more about these issues, and will make them read more on the subject. Oh, and William Lane Craig's arguments are getting old. Watch Shelly Kagan vs. WLC, here on YouTube.
ealpmx 1 week ago
Why are a bunch of spanish speaking folk coming to watch people debate in English?
RectalDiscourse 1 week ago
@RectalDiscourse because the debate took place in a spanish speaking country (Mexico)? Duh... did you actually watch and listen?
ealpmx 1 week ago
@ealpmx
why were they debating in english. also there are spanish speaking folk in mexico, they're all here in the states.
RectalDiscourse 1 week ago
@ealpmx
also no i got annoyed with laine so intensely that I couldn't watch anymore
lol my security code is "noming"
RectalDiscourse 1 week ago
theists make me angry...
brockemon757 1 week ago
maybe we can really never find the question because we are bound to this universe and we "probably" cant observe it from the outside for further scientific research.
ps: the moderator is a true laughing stock...
skillfulblade 1 week ago
MIchio Kaku already gave the answer. We must only describe the 11 Dimensions and then we are pretty close to the answer, i mean right next to it next, to god, the creator, the initiation. like i said befor we must only scientifically search for it.
skillfulblade 1 week ago
@skillfulblade umm, sry maybe this is only the beginning because scientist believe that there are other universes with different dimensions, and when they clashed our universe was created. so maybe we even have got to go further then that.
skillfulblade 1 week ago
i think it all comes down to causaliy: cause (big bang) and effect (everything that came after it including us), sadly we cant really talk about a god until we found him. we must first step by step search for him, scientifically.
skillfulblade 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join in on Debates at:
religiousdebates.co.uk
YouTutorials0 1 week ago
the way that idiot interrupted Kaku
theAntilli 1 week ago
its funny how so many people leaving messages and comments on this talk as if they are truly versed, studied intellegent people with a level of rational ideals. But then i remember we as a species love to apply 'simple' patterns and ideas to complex situations sorry to spell this to both sides but you are both wrong... the reality is we will never truly know, after all God cant or wont answer and DNA wont evolve to tell us its reality, which means ALL the texts we use are just theory, not fact..
sicakes 1 week ago
por que no esta subtitulado? why this is not subtittled? alguno no spodemos entender el acento del noreste de estados unidos (sarcasmo)
isaacasimov054 2 weeks ago
That girl at the end was great, she owned the regilion BS for last hour
ValkyrieofTomorrow 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ValkyrieofTomorrow Agreed. She comes in at 1:31:10 for those who want to jump to her place in the video.
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins was the worst speaker for me here, he just kept repeating the sem bullshit he memorized.
JackSparrowDepp 2 weeks ago
I want to punch the guy who keeps timing out! You don't stop a man like Michio Kaku when he is talking.
Subaru537 2 weeks ago 4
The dwarf @ 1:32:55 berates the atheists with a false claim. We have only said there is no evidence the universe has a purpose. The theists claim their special god made the universe for a purpose, but they also have no evidence for him. The atheist is honest enough to admit he doesn't know, That's called having integrity.
ExtantFrodo2 2 weeks ago
@ExtantFrodo2 well they can keep searching....oh wait Dawkins wont as after failing with Selfish Gene he will sit at home and think of more targets...just hope the real scientist do as you say...open themselves to all possibility
sicakes 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sicakes What makes you say he failed with "The Selfish Gene"? It was a masterpiece. I'm wondering if you've ever read any of his works. I ask because you are under the impression that he is closed minded. What makes you so sure of this?
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
@ 1:14 what the hell is WLC talking about? Dawkins was saying WE can create our own purpose. He was NOT saying we can create a purpose for the universe. Listen to Craig again bearing this in mind and see what a fool he is.
He admits there is no way to determine if god exists so he graps his sense of purpose from wishing that god truly exists. It's sad he can not see this.
ExtantFrodo2 2 weeks ago
WLC, @ 18:28 "Evil is evidence that god exists" LOL I've yet to see anyone stick their whole leg down their mouth.
We can agree there is a way things ought to be because we share the same physiology and needs and wants and these form our aspirations, intuitions and concerns. It does not mean it comes down from on high.
ExtantFrodo2 2 weeks ago
1:16:05 hahaha, FTW man!!!
MrWicher 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
I am an atheist and I have to say that I am quite embarrassed of with our weak arguments. In this debate to be fair, the theist side truly owned us. Dr Dawkins was not his own self, he was owned by Craig. I guess that may be the reason why Dr Dawkins always abstained from debating him one on one. I hope in the future Dr Dawkins will redeem himself with a one on one debate against Craig.
caitlyn20051 2 weeks ago
@caitlyn20051 If you truly believe that, you don't understand the content.
kingwillie206 2 weeks ago
Michio Kaku FTW!
Aseeb36 3 weeks ago
Come on, get some Muslim Sheikhs in there like Imran Hosein, Yasir Qadhi, or Hamza Yusef! They don't bother with the brilliant minds in Islam, they get other random folks.
Gizmo7750 3 weeks ago
Burden of Proof. Enough said.
Sangimino81kg 3 weeks ago
Sorry!! Theists know little sciene, yet dare to debate scientists.
singhumt 3 weeks ago
Stupid midget...
Mexicano1288 3 weeks ago
What i do not understand is why they talk both in Spanish (I am sorry if I am wrong) and English. That way both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking people wont understand everything...
helios9235 3 weeks ago
@helios9235 Well, in the debate they are allways listening to a live translator, both spanish and english speakers. I consider myself to have a lot of luck, since this debate contains the only two languages I speak LOL.
DemonLordDavid 21 hours ago
Rabbi David Wolpe's manner of speaking I find very irritating and his arguments are extremely weak.
gigisdad 3 weeks ago
WLC: "To refuse to ask such "why" questions is to reduce human beings to mere animals - we're just animated chunks of matter in motion. Love, questions of meaning and so forth are ultimately just spin-offs of the blind evolutionary process". BINGO! End of debate.
gigisdad 3 weeks ago
Really...how could they not give the speakers at least a 30 second warning to wrap up their thoughts rather then yelling TIME OUT while right in the middle of a fucking sentence!
gigisdad 3 weeks ago
I'm now obout one hour into the dabate, and I'm starting to lose my patients. I understand now, why Dawkins usually refuses to debate people like this. They don't discuse. They preach. They don't have arguments. I meen, those guys are suposed to be professional debaters, but they still bring up stuff like "finetuned universe" or "The atheists asume that there is no God, but cannot provide evidence". I'm a layman, and even I know how unvalide those "arguments" are!
TheTruggsess 3 weeks ago
my god what a god damn silly circus setup, the ridiculous timeouts and the silly boxing ring, bet all of em laughed at it after the debate, prolly not together, but god damn :p Oh and i got slaugthered in every game :P
RipTheJackR 3 weeks ago
nice 1h43min, *starts SC2*
RipTheJackR 3 weeks ago
The thought processes when they were told that they only had 6 minutes:
The scientists: How am I going to condense all of the intensely comprehensive science into 6 minutes? I'll have to settle for some anecdotal examples and hope that the viewers are smart enough to do their own reading.
The religious: 6 minutes? That should give me enough time to make my point and reiterate it about 4 further times. I hope the viewers are impressed by how confidently I shout non-sequiturs.
youcancallmedoodle 3 weeks ago 21
I think I figured Billy Craig out: He spent so much time memorizing vocab and learning to feign exasperation and enthusiasm that he never learned to examine his own ideas.
Ematched 3 weeks ago
fast forward to 8:40
MrLucasNess 3 weeks ago 3
Love this video, food for the brain, personally I find the non believers arguments far more humble and compelling
supernoodlerage 4 weeks ago
the candidate would be ... oh, times up!
MrCraniumExplosion 4 weeks ago
They threw in a midget hahahaha! What am I watching? It's definitely not a debate.
RoCk4LiFe90 4 weeks ago
Craig is a moron. His ramblings were completely incoherent, and he failed to produce any evidence to back up his claim that the universe has a purpose.
RoCk4LiFe90 4 weeks ago
Michael Shermer is so under qualified for this debate.
kenzo4000 4 weeks ago
The woman at 42:36 looks freaky
kenzo4000 4 weeks ago
The guy that starts out at 20:00 sucks lol
kenzo4000 4 weeks ago
By the way, Craig is such an ignorant sophist. He appeals to emotion and constructs strawmen. He is always talking about how god is presupposed in morality, yet he fails to ever adress all the various modern ethics that are perfectly coherent and never mention a god. And also, what about theories of functions and purposes that relativizes purpose to intention? In such framework, talking about "objective purpose" is a contradictio in adjecto. Craig is preying on his opponents lack of knowledge!!
Ewochable 4 weeks ago
Jerome Friedman says best (1:24) A concise understanding of what purpose is etc... & the implication of the "need for a reasoning creator" & the lack of evidence to support that point of view. "Do you have to have a narrative to fill in that mystery?" & no you do not. & Henry(@ 1:28... WHAT IS HIS LAST NAME? btw??) His whole speech leading to "The universe can give birth to purpose regardless of how pointless." -is the answer.
gutterbyrd1 4 weeks ago
@gutterbyrd1 There are big problems with naturalist conceptions of purpose, since they purport to introduce teleology into a natural world. The beauty of evoulutionary theory is that it cuts out purposes, so that purpose-talk is a mere expositionary tool. No need to defend purposes, since arguments from apparent design stem from ignorance of the naturalist definition of function. The opponents are wasting time blabbing on about how little they get modern science. At least their arguments tellit
Ewochable 4 weeks ago
"we're emotional??? YOU"RE EMOTIONAL!" atheists: 1 theists: QQ
thesearewarningsigns 1 month ago
The format for this SUCKED!!!!
MrFreezeframe666 1 month ago
I wanted to hear more of Kaku...
SacredSoul1990 1 month ago
Comment removed
SacredSoul1990 1 month ago
When the moderator cut off Michio Kaku, I almost punched my monitor.
masadavt 1 month ago
Dawkins is one bad ass mutha fucka!
masadavt 1 month ago
"I'll defending two contentions tonights debate" thats sounds familiar xD
Agree with every one here, two short time, and the last 30 seconds time was ridiculous short.
agustinbs 1 month ago
Debate Starts 8:10
ScientificExperience 1 month ago
Kaku wins!! both are owned hahaha..
junjunjun233 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Both the Theists & the Atheists did communicate clearly and conducted themselves quite respectfully. If I may be permitted to share that Michio Kaku is becoming less and less relevant every time he shares his thoughts. At 1h07m54s, Michio displays that he may have acquired a public presence within the scientific community, yet he chooses to ignore and to misrepresent the assertions, positions and notions of his peers. Not once, did these Atheists profess that there is no god.
thedeeliciousplum 1 month ago
Comment removed
thedeeliciousplum 1 month ago
Comment removed
shongrocks1622 1 month ago
This TIME OUT idiot is destroying the whole debate. People get started and then they are thrown off in the most disrespectful way.
Janusha 1 month ago 17
What kind of bullshit circus is this? This is not a debate, it's a pointless spectacle.
suspectjdj06 1 month ago
@suspectjdj06
I think youll find existential debates, high end physics and astronomy discussions are kinda new to Mexico.
Janusha 1 month ago
I loved the line up in this debate... especially when you through in Michio Kaku...
But I think the speakers needed more time...
And for Science's sake do away with the flashy showmanship! I came to learn... not be dazzled with techno and pretty, flashy lights.
MightyBaconSammich 1 month ago 4
Religion vs atheism debate in a disco. Atheist Idol?
huwrj 1 month ago
@huwrj I am so laughing at your "Atheist Idol"! Priceless. The boxing ring was also too funny!
thedeeliciousplum 1 month ago
31:15
"don't believe everything you think, and i think that makes sense"
well, that sums up religion perfectly.
DoctorAwesome94 1 month ago
It's a bit of a wank, isn't it!?
HENJAM48 1 month ago
I´m ashamed this travesty of a populist debacle was hosted in Mexico. Giving these distinguished guests 30 seconds to expose their arguments is simply for show. You can not develop a compelling argument this way. Not that the theist side of the debate - again, more like debacle - could really develop with more time their non-sequitors and logical fallacies.
The host was a rude imbecile, and the whole notion of a "ring" and "intellectual hooks to the cerebellum" was incredibly condescending.
psychodoodle 1 month ago in playlist Más vídeos de LaCiudaddelasIdeas
30 seconds? are u kidding? u just don't make this debates and hurry UP!!!! debatants! wtf ,,,
MrProtuber 1 month ago
time out?wtf is wrong with that middler?
MrProtuber 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrProtuber 1 month ago
Evil is not an objective thing, so why does Mr. Craig state that it's necessary to have an objective basis for it? What we consider evil now might not have been considered evil many hundreds of years ago, but through social development we decided it so.
BenjaminGoose 1 month ago
@BenjaminGoose Not to mention that some of us eat meat, and others don't..
c0mpiled 1 month ago
William Lane Craig has the logical sense of a brain damage victim.
HundKaiser 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LaCiudaddelasIdeas 2
Let's have a debate who farted 0:40:13
macyouall 1 month ago
Dr. Kaku always gets on my nerves, always. He doesn't fail to disappoint again. It's not a matter of having to know absolutely. It's simply a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion. There is no evidence.
drstrangelove09 1 month ago
@drstrangelove09 Agreed. There is no 50/50 split when it comes to evidence. We have mountains of evidence in favor of a naturally occurring universe, whereas we have no evidence in favor of an intelligently designed universe. We can be agnostic about many things when there is a lack of evidence on both sides, but that isn't the case we have with the universe. The origin of the universe is not 50% for God and 50% against God, we have overwhelming evidence against God, and zero evidence for God.
RoCk4LiFe90 4 weeks ago
@RoCk4LiFe90 Exactly! :)
drstrangelove09 3 weeks ago
Wolpe speaks well. He's wrong but he does speak well.
drstrangelove09 1 month ago
Make your words are nice and polite because the world is watching
teofilo787 1 month ago
I want to see who got the highest point of the debate and a winner with the acceptable judgement by the audience
teofilo787 1 month ago
@teofilo787 That sounds fair if the debate was held in Sweden but anywhere else where Christianity spread it poison into I think not
emailpobox666 1 month ago
Does the universe have a purpose in relation to what? The purpose of the legislative branch in government is to make laws. Without God, there is nothing greater than the universe. Logically speaking, God is just as possible as leprechauns and unicorns. It's saddening to hear, but that doesn't make it less true.
debenni 1 month ago
There is no set meaning for life. Whatever gives you a sense of fulfillment is your own personal meaning. This isn't a very difficult question. It's really brainwish to think you're immortal in any sense. Yes, I meant to say brainwish. You wish it be true, so you're convinced it's true. You brainwash yourself with wishful thinking.
debenni 1 month ago
Does the universe have a purpose ? This the assumed in Craig's fine tuning argument which begs the question
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
No it doesn't that is part of the conclusion.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Then I assume it is not finely tuned. Please state your reasons why you believe it is finely tuned
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
When you say 'fine tunned' do you mean the fine tunner or do you mean what the the fine tunner is to explain?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl The argument assumes that the universe has a purpose to create life . To have this purpose it must have a creator. No creator no purpose no fine tuning.Life is just an accident
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
"Life is just an accident."
Thats a positive claim PROVE IT!!!!
The whole point of the argument is to note that life falls under an extremely small persian of independent constants , on naturalism life has no meaning & no worth so it doesn't make any sense , on theism life has purpose and this give good reason for the fine tunning.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl That is the default position . If you have evidence to the contrary I wil listen."on naturalism life has no meaning & no worth so it doesn't make any sense ," Better no sense than on derived from bronze age sheep herders wouldn't you say. It would be up to the individual to derive his or her own purpose, Time to row up I would say. Fine Tuning begs the question and is a logical fallacy rendering it usless as a proof of god
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
"That is the default position"
No its not , that was a possitive statement that requires proof, it is not the default you're simply mistaken the default is 'i don't know.'
Ive explained why it doesn't beg the question & you repeat the same non-sense.
beginning the question would mean the conclusion is in the premise & it isn't
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl You walk along and see a puddle on the ground do you assume a creator or is the default position that it just happened?. It begs the question because you must assume a creator with a purpose to get to the point of saying WOW it's finely tuned fo life.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Ive herd the anthropic principle before , but life is valuable on a theistic world view & not on a natural world view meaning theism better explains it, 50 or constants hae to be just right from a number that defies comprension.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl " life is valuable on a theistic world" i would disagree it is given and taken on what appears to whuim. Life is precious on the atheistic side
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Im not saying atheists don't value life i think they do, but on the atheistic view what makes us speacial?
"can it be chance"
imagine you were in soviet russia during ww2 , you arrested and to be executed by 50 trained marksman, they aim......and FIRE!!!!!
but you realise a few minutes later you're still here all of them missed , do think chance just settles it?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl "what makes us speacial?" Is there a reason why we should be special? If you want a dad to say good boy then be honest about it.", do think chance just settles it?/ Absolutely . Yoyu you think that god caused the 40,000 humans that starve to death every day. Or the countless floods and misery humanity suffers?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
you do realise that people like Roger Penrose has taken just 1 of these constants and was able to work out useing science that our solar system is far more probable to have formed by the random colision of particles than for and entropy rate to allow for life,
the point about purpose on theism best explains that, How much faith do you have to have to believe our universe just pooped into being to allow for life?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl You do realize that one of NASA probes has found 5 planets in the golilock zone of their sun.And that it examined a minuscule fraction of the 400 billion galaxies with 100 billion solar system in each . Claiming stats is less than genuine when there is little or nothing to compare. statistics are only relevant when discussing more that one thing sucjh as a solar system
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 My position there is no evidence for any of the gods mankind has "invented" without any evidence it is wish fulfillment to pick and choose one or any
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
" You do realize etc."
So what? the argument is based on the universe not a planet, as a christian im open to the idea god has other creations, but this demonstrates nothing. 100 billion galaxies actually
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl the only reason I proposed this was to show you any intelligent answer o the unknown is I Don't Know
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
The problem of evil here is an emotinal one not a rational one,
We all know cases where we allow suffering for a greater good. God could not have created a world which had as much good as the actual world, but with less evil; and god has morally sufficent reasons for permitting the evil that exists. So long as that last statement is even possible then theres no problem of evil.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Heads I win Tail you lose.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl You throw out evil ( a great deal of evil)and attribute a small incident evidence foe gods action.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Do you feel that comfortable switching from emotional argument-to intellectual argument and back again. My argument are not based on any emotion. it would be ridiculous to act thta way . Kinda like being angry at the tooth fairy
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
*SIGH* you don't even realise you're argument is split into to types
1)the intellectual problem of evil
2)th emotianal problem of evil <the one you said.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl I do not believe in evil so therefore I would find it quite impossible to have an argument based on it
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
You don't believe in evil?
So if i raped a child thats in no moral sense any different from charity?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Evil and morally reprehensible acts are to different things. to you evil is personified in the devil
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
When did i say evil is personified by the Devil? You don't even believe in evil. So rape isn't wrong on you're view.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Is murder morally wrong?And why?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
yes murder is wrong, because of the impact it has on another human, the difference is theres no reason on naturalism why that matters but on theism there is.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl There is a reason. we live in societies and societies have rules to keep them cohesive.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
yea , but slavery was alowed at one time , with that sort of inter subjective morality you have to agree with it since socitey did.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl I bring up acts which you ignore (evil acts) that your god gets a pass on and a simple act of supposed kindness like not dying from a firring squad ihe is given credit. this is to show you that you cherry pick what you wish to address and only what comfirms your preconcieved beliefs
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
when did you bring up any evil acts & you have no bases for calling them evil, unless you wan't to admit Objective Morality & then you have to admit god
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl See comment below
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
What comment ?,you've listed no evil act.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Again with the nonsense that morality needs a god. please don't insult my intelligence
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Insult you're intelligence seriously?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl do you do do youn ot agree with the statement that morality exist with or without a god? an atheist can be moral in the absence of a god
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
"do you do do youn ot agree" <what the hell does that mean?
The argument has nothing to do with whether in god is required that morality wouldn't be objective
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl The objective morality argument is a proof for god that uses circular reasoning . that argument is nonsense.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
How?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl If murder is wrong why does Your god murder many with the great flood and please don't justify drowning women children infants and fetuses. let me guess we do not understand god's plan. How close did I get to your response?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Can you tell the difference between a parable & a literal meaning?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl How exactly do you tell the difference? are there footnotes does god whisper in your ear ? exactly how do you tell the difference?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Thats circular ? do you even know the meaning?
you can know threw different ways, usually an inner knowledge
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl You need god to prove objective morals . Objective morals do not prove god. If you don't have evidence for god you can't assume its existence and then use that assumption to create evidence to prove the assumption true
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
No one who has ever defended the moral argument has ever said that , you just made it up.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Prove there are objective morals without using god
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Objective morality is self evident , e.g. if the nazis won WW2 and brain washed everyone to believe in the 3rd reich, they would still be wrong even if they believed it was ok< thats OM
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl So is a flat earth
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
no it's not it was based on wrong calculation, but aristotle predicted a round earth with his common sense proving my point thank you.
Its a deductive argument if the premises are true the C follows wether you like it or not.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Then why did mankind for most of it 100,000 years of existence believe this self evident truth?Self evident truths come under deductive arguments?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
It is self evident , if the price of atheism is to say the universe randomly & spontaneously appered without a cause from absolute nothing , then let any mocker of religion be for ever silent , i can't think of anything more irrational than that.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl If you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true. Then more power to you. I need no fairytale to make me feel important . The days of the security blanket are long gone
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
When did i say that?
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl You said if the price of evaluating the world on the basis of logic and reason ( atheism) is.....
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
The irony is if you watch the debate , the theists gave proof the atheists stuck to emotion
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago 2
@lxAgnosticxl Yeah the bull shit coming from the theist kinda gets them pissed off
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"the bull shit coming from the theist".
the words of a defeated man.
how has that got any thing to do with evaluating the world ,to say the universe just appeared with out a cause is meta-physics & we have nothing to agree with it
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl If we were talking about common sense you could bring up that but we are alking about a logical proof of god. In the end it is a matter of faith. embrace your faith don't hide it in bogus illogical proofs
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl It is after a logical argument from William lane Craig for the existence of god . it is supposed to prove god's existence
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Gotta go for now . talk to ya later
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl " you have no bases for calling them evil," Don't I? Morality is derived form society. I can believe the murder is wrong child abuse is wrong It's just I don't attribute the wrongness on a god. it's wrong because we are all human beings and to live together we have to respect their rights
emailpobox666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
You said you don't believe in evil. "Morality is derived form society."
no it isn't society said yes to slavery, morality says no.
"we have to respect their rights."
thats great but it doesn't make it moraly wrong.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl If an alien 1 million years more advanced than came to our planet an d claimed to be god. How would you know it really was god if no logic no evidence you could ever come up with would tell you otherwise. would this be your god?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
In his book Universes, Leslie describes a philosophical parable in which an individual survives a firing squad of fifty expert marksmen unscathed. He offers two explanations for this remarkable event: either it is a fortuitous outcome, to be expected occasionally by pure chance among many thousands of attempted executions by firing squad, or it is intentional.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl Why could it not be pure chance. where you aware they tested the power of prayer on the outcomes of sick patients and found no evidence for any positive effect. Theists have their cake and eat it too. If god answers your prayer god exists if he doesn't it's the mystery of god. Heads I win Tails you lose
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Francis Collins references this parable in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief as part of his argument that the Anthropic Principle strongly suggests a Creator with intent
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
I DON'T BLOODY SPEAK SPANISH, YOU DAMN MODERATOR.
Afl4kman 1 month ago
It's a shame it couldn't go on longer. There were a lot of illogical arguments by both sides, but I always find it is worthwhile to talk about it.
So thank you for making this available. And for making it.
raliotenabona 1 month ago