Dr Craigs response to Dr. Harris analogy about the teacher in the classroom should have been that under the Athiests view, there would BE no Teacher in the classroom to give the student any directive such as 'punch them in the face', since Athiesm has no objective basis for morality, therefore, the equivalent scenario under Dr. Harris world view would be to do what would allign w/his own 'well being', & allow him to 'flourish', so it follows that if the child was a bully, he SHOULD punch him..
Dr. Harris is not responding to Dr. Craigs points.He seems to have a pre-choreographed position, which he keep re-stating, instead of reacting to the challenges to his arguments. This leads me to conclude that he has no valid argument to the contention that, number one, Athiests can affirm no OBJECTIVE basis for morality based on their world view of there being no GOD,and theres no POSSIBILITY of holding anyone responsible for their immoral actions, as Athiest contend that we have no free will.
Consensus does nothing to prove or disprove something unless the consensus is backed by some proven 100% factual data (in this case it is not) and consensus does nothing in or out of Christianity. People won't fully agree on topics, that's humanity. I wouldn't have asked such a question as well as coupling it with assertions.
Political correctness, tolerance and a changing social structure. This makes saying anything is laid to rest, irrelevant. Again 100 years from now the social structure of the world may be different which then changes what the secular world would view offensive, wrong, right etc this does not mean anything is laid to rest, this just means in the secular world things are dictated by an "in general" principle which can be influenced,changed and manipulated for any means,again "Truth by popularity".
and most would agree that exposing ones self in public is not ok. So for the man to mention consensus to me shows a lack of understanding of what Dr.Craig discussed and points out the flaw in reasoning some people have when it comes to God and Christianity. Then there is his assertion that things have been "laid to rest" where is the proof of this? on top of the fact that IN THE SECULAR WORLD as he states things are not decided by what actually IS right and wrong, it's decided by-->
Example, in ancient times war was agreed upon more so than today, so the general consensus for conquest, war etc was that it was ok. Does that REALLY make it so because most AGREE? No, this sounds like truth by popularity which is another problem I see in the modern world,relativism. Truth, right, wrong, evil etc is just socially established, not absolutes. 100 years from now if everyone stops wearing clothes the consensus would be not wearing clothes in public is ok, but today that is absurd.
FOR THEMSELVES regardless of what it actually means, this is humanity. We are not like dogs who you train to fetch so we fetch till be die. If you were to brainwash a human to fetch, he still is capable of seeing outside)other than you) influence that would get him to question and determine things on his own and one day he will not fetch for said reason. Consensus plays no part in if something is right or wrong, it only shows who agrees with what on any given day or period.
The individual who raised the question about consensus asserted too much. "If God is the basis of morality it seems it would easy to come up with a consensus" This assumes that influence plays no part. Disagreement is part of humanity, so how would it be easy to come to a consensus when people as humans disagree due to numerous factors? Bad questioning. "When Christians who are reading the same bible" STOP, what does it matter, PEOPLE themselves will dictate and interpret what something means-->
Craig knows that he lost the debate, it can be seen in his body language. At 3:40, when he goes to shake Harris's hand, he gives an under-handed handshake.
Politicians and the like generally try purposely to get an upper hand in handshakes because, subconsciously, it puts them in a position of power over their opponent.
@TheGildedStar Didn't you even notice that Craig's right hand is crippled? That's the reason why he gave an under-handed handshake; nothing to do with your body language pseudo-explanation.
@TheGildedStar I think the way they both handshaked had nothing to do with body language about Craig feeling he had lost the debate. Actually I think he won it, although he was in a more comfortable position: people resort to God precisely because they need moral absolutes. Harris was quite good at exposing the contradictions between a loving God and worldly evil, but could not provide an ontological ground for moral absolutes. The "worst state for everyone" really doesn't work.
@TheGildedStar I think the way they both handshaked had nothing to do with body language about Craig feeling he had lost the debate. Actually I think he won it, although he was in a more comfortable position: people resort to God precisely because they need moral absolutes. Harris was quite good at exposing the contradictions between a loving God and worldly evil, but could not provide an ontological ground for moral absolutes. The "worst state for everyone" really doesn't work.
@TheGildedStar I think the way they handshaked had nothing to do with body language about Craig feeling he had lost the debate. Actually I think he won it, although he was in a more comfortable position: people resort to God precisely because they need moral absolutes. Harris was very good at exposing the contradictions between a loving God and evil, but did not provide an ontological ground for moral absolutes. That was the topic at hand. The "worst state for everyone" really doesn't work.
The emergent mind escapes the mundane materialist view of this universe and enterprises in a quantum leap into other worlds. in which, like fish out of water, we are experience a liberty unrestrained by naturalism, and dwelling on the boundaries of a higher supreme authority of God, The thought itself, let loose from nature to unlimited outcomes,is Divine,and a sharing in God. Sam Harris wants to offer a methodological naturalism expectation of no free will, no new universe, no mystery
he is societal scum, honestly.. someone needs to institute capital punishment for willfully swindling and deceiving others with bullshit claims and unsound logical arguments with the smug air this parasite delivers it. "again this is not the topic of this debate" what a pasty faced coward! he is obviously either too afraid or unable to actually do what he came there to do, DEBATE!
it's interesting that so far, the "four horsemen" when debating William Lane Craig, tend to stray away from the arguments at hand. William Lane Craig, in my opinion, called out Sam Harris on that exact accusation.
But Sam Harris is brave to face William Lane Craig, and I admire him for that (nothing more: his arguments were so elementary, it was frustrating).
@countrydp really? I found Craig arguments so tautological and empty to be almost annoying.
Harris, on the other hand, missed a chance to make a point with those pressing him about the "universal objectivity" of his morality: that it doesn't really matter.
It doesn't matter if you can't define "universal" moral truths, cause that's not what the society needs. What the society needs is in fact a *relative*, not absolute, set of moral truths that can be applied for the maximum community's benefit.
Ok! This debate was, I think, one-sidedly pointless. For one, Craig's point states that without a god, we cannot have any objective morality. So in order to test such a hypothesis, either in a physical experiment of a thought experiment, one would have to create god, either physical (deus ex machina) or mental. Creating physical god would be a waste of time and resources though but a mental god would ultimately be grounded in one's own preferences or in other words entirely subjective...
@shade9592 Now I don't agree with Harris entirely on his argument that good depends merely on well-being. I think that we haven't yet studied neurology, psychology and sociology enough to have come up with a sound basis on which we can ground objective morality. That being said, I think Harris's argument for the basis of objective morality on human/sentient well-being could just be a good place to begin if we are to know of any objective morality.
The last question is the nail in Craig's coffin. Even if god exists, even if he is the ultimate good, even if his commands are supposed to be the objective moral foundation - there is zero consensus among theists as to what those commands are. Craig claims there is, but that's a blatant lie: you have only to look at Christian teachings on issues of sex: masturbation, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, contraception are all called mortal sin by some, minor by some, and praiseworthy by others.
@Eventsbyresonance COnsensus on a topic by a majority doesn't define that topic, like for example all academics agreeing that the earth was flat some hundred years ago didn't make the earth flat. The Bible is clear on all those subjects you listed, regardless of how christians try to fit them into their own paradigms. Christians are unperfect people just like everyone else, so its better to look to the Bible directly.
@evanom2 first - first, Pythagoras figured out the earth was flat in the 6th century BCE. There was a never a time when "academics" had a consensus of the earth being flat. But besides that, I am aware that the bible is pretty clear on SOME of those topics, I have read it. But "god" is a lousy communicator if his eternal word (the bible) can be interpreted in so many different ways. The fact that those who teach god's morality can't agree on what god is telling us shows how impractical it is
@Eventsbyresonance You're approaching the Bible as if it is a work of man. No other book in history has been compiled by over 30 writers from different backgrounds in a timespan of 1600 years with hundreds of prophecies that have not failed once. The existence of this book is in itself impossible, yet there it is. Have you ever once considered that maybe God isnt a "lousy communicator", rather you're a "lousy listener"? Atheist pride themselves as openminded. Are you openminded enough for this?
Actually the Bible isn't clear on those topics, especially the original, untranslated version of the bible. It is more like reading metaphorical proverbs than what the English translated Bible portrays. If the Bible was "god's word", then it would be crystal clear where there is absolutely no question. So much so that slavery in since "Jesus" would be a clear moral violation or acceptability. Instead Christianity allows for wiggle room for morality to suit society.
@nidodson But the Bible IS clear (on those topics). Sure there are metaphors and proverbs, but laws and instructions are never in these categories. You either obey them or you don't. Here's the thing: the bible is an interactive book, first and only in its kind. The reason it isn't "crystal clear" is because it isn't for everyone (please read Mat.13:10-17). It's God's book and He reveals. The question is, are you willing to learn?
Dr. Harris, and apparently you, are missing the issue of the debate.As Dr. Craig astutely points out,Dr Harris is continually introducing red herrings in order to distract from his faulty premise of there not being an OBJECTIVE source for 'morality' in the Athiest world view. Whether there is 'concensus' on the subject of Thiesm is not whats being debated, but whether Athiest have a OBJECTIVE basis to deem ANYTHING 'good' or 'moral' without an objective authority. They don't.
I heard nothing from Sam that was on topic...He constantly strayed to argue against the Holy Bible or in some fashion ridicule it. An illustrative example of what the debate was MEANT to be about. If you travel to every corner of the planet, it will be morally wrong for a man to rape a 2 week old little girl. Saying thats a repugnant act doesnt fit in the atheistic world of subjective moral relativism. I feel safe saying, zero theistic faiths in the world have a problem saying thats evil.
@tonysshadow only because it so happens we have no historical examples of (mono)theistic commanding a man to rape a 2 week old. But in Islam, on can marry and have sex with a non-consenting pre-teen girl. It's fine for WLC to say God's commands are good, but he doesn't explain how we are supposed to know his commands - he completely sidesteps the issue. But we know his answer even if he doesn't say = the bible. Thus Sam is completely right to point out that which WLC wants us to ignore.
I would probably say even many theists would agree Sam won that debate if they were being honest with themselves. In my opinion, not only were Sam's points pretty solid, but also Craig dodged many argument with either verbose incoherent babble, false claims about what Sam said or just dismissing arguments in terms of scope.
I'm in the U.S. and here the christian are extremely dogmatic. .We are supposed to be the melting pot of society,but you can't even get elected in this country unless your a christian. .Christian are constantly standing in the way of social progress by their views mainly on holy wars,homosexuality and abortion.
It all depends on the christians vs.muslims and the muslims vs. jews conflicts and wars.. If we can stop all these insane wars about whose invisble man in the sky is better.I swear its like three kids fighting over whose daddy could beat up the other kids except there's more at stake . .If we can educate people on how divisive religions are and how there's no evidence for any religion.Then yes I can see in 10 years the world being alot more peaceful.
So you see what's going on in the Middle East (mostly) as central to alot of our problems in the world? How are the Christians in your country? Where I am from, (I am from Canada) Christians do alot here for the community. How are the Christians where you are from? Or are you also in the Middle East?
You are mistaken.Our levels of greater morality is becoming higher and higher.I definitely see a lack of parents not raising there children with proper respect,but humanities moral compass is much greater than it was in the past.Per capita there is less murder,rape,torture,sexism,racism,and bigotry in the world. .You should not look at christian mythology for morality.The christians ancient text is full of evil and hate.Their version of god condones slavery,rape,murder,and genocide
interesting thanks for sharing. 10 years from now, say in 2021-22, do you see a world where we as people are more at peace with each other? I find with me personally, reasons to be concerned. I see 2021 as being a more dangerous time to be alive. Your thoughts?
Harris does an excellent job of pausing after most of his important points or statements to allow the audience time to let what he's said sink in and think the point over for themselves.
Based on a scientifical conclusion, noone won nor loose the debate. We all gained knowledge. Though I have to say, imagining an invisible entity that dictates all that happens is really not for me...
I think Harris is basicly stating the obvious. Morality is subject to the opinion of the concious beings who abide by the said moral values thus meaning the foundation of morality is humanity.
@theELUSIV Harris' claim is that morality is OBJECTIVE. Not only that, he said that what is moral is utilitarianism by definition. That's a point he's not willing to argue. Since science can help us realize utilitarianism, thus science gives us objective morals.
@theELUSIV whihc would then make Morality null in void because it does not really matter. Morality just becomes "on our word". This is moral because WE say it is, we made it up, not because it actually is, this is the problem.
...Humans are often guilty of INhumane things, therefore, if Dr. Harris contention is that the 'foundation of morality is humanity', then that would mean that our morality is subject to being INhumane. That doesn't quite work out.
@MsPROOFthatGODexists Well yes thats pretty obvious, you stated the morality based on humanity doesn't quite work out, how is that relevant to the premise being ture or false? Your asserting that morality should be or is objective yet in reality it is observed as being completely subjective.
It is actually possible to derive right and wrong with fatalism, because even if we are chemically programed to do something it could still be seen as wrong in society given that it goes against the victim and denies him his right to life. You could also go further into it by speaking about the persons motives because it could still be called wrong from that point as well, even if it was chemically mandated it would still be more on other aspects that result in guilt.
If you feel Craig won this debate, you must conclude he did so by use of infallible logic and reasoning in his discussion. If that is the case, then what you should be able to do is go back to the beginning of the debate and insert the word "zeus" when he invokes the word "God" and be equally as logical and reasoned and Harris's case should hold no water against Zeus either.
If however, you find that you cannot do that, then you need to be honest with yourself and ask why that is.
During this debate here, Harris was pathetic to say the very least. Harris was completely ignorant of the arguments and was obviously so outclassed that he merely resorted to sophomoric and ignorant diatribes to give the illusion of competency to his core group of village idiot fanboys and fangirls. It was like a dog returning to his own vomit to lap it up time and time again.
Although I think Sam Harris won the debate, I think Craig did a fantastic job of showing exactly why opponents find him intimidating. He was well spoken, articulate, and I find his level of investigation into how to win an argument pretty impressive.
Note that I'm not saying his arguments were valid; they weren't. However, arguing theology is all about obfuscating the truth in order to confuse the opponent, and convince the audience, and Craig is certainly a master at this, and it showed.
I have a question I would like to ask Sam Harris or any other atheist. Would you agree that our level of morality and ethics is becoming lower and lower? I ask this (I am a Christian BTW) because both my wife and I work with youth. My wife is a teacher, and I work with youth in conflict with the law. Anyway, we were talking on the topic some time ago at how the respect for authority by our youth is so non existent, it is actually scary. We didn't think of discussing 'morals'... cont
pt 2 ...but considering that also, I would have to say there is clearly reason for concern. Are you concerned about our modern day morality, and our morality of future generations? I love kids, and would love to have my own one day, but back in my mind is the understanding that this world is becoming increasingly harder to grow up in. IE, there are more temptations and evil to draw kids into a destructive direction. Do you have any of these concerns of the future?
@DeaconCliff Honestly, I believe that the history of human morality fluctuates. The only real moral lesson I think is necessary to humankind is the "golden rule". The earliest civilized societies were based on altruistic sensibility, but this is not constant. America is at a point where the combination of limited resources, and intellectual laziness has created an almost narcissistic environment, which brings about all kinds of bad side effects.
@DeaconCliff I would argue that humans are getting better and better wrt human well being in most fronts. Consider the history of humanity! It is a tough world, and it always has been, but for huge tracks of people , it has never been better to be alive...in the history of humanity....for the common man. We have a long way to go though and many problems to work on. this will be accomplished when we accept that human welfare is the ground and goal of morality.
here is the problem I have with what you are saying. The person who simply does not care about anyone else but himself and his own welfare. If you tell him some of the things he is doing is morally wrong, he looks at you as if you have 2 heads and tells you to .........................fill in the blanks............. Even if he is not necessarily breaking any law, but doing those things that are not good and best for humanity, and simply does not care what have to say.
@DeaconCliff well ,that would be fine if we were solitary beings, but we are not. This is why morality is an issue that relates to groups of finite conscious beings and a landscape of happiness/suffering. we naturally are concerned about psychopaths, because we recognize that they they take away from society's well being, not to mention their own...
@adstanra most of us are born with a conscience that allows us to negotiate the moral landscape with others...some are born without a conscience, through some sort of screw up of brain development. Even if we were all born without a conscience, we would still have to work together , because this would still maximize our happiness and minimize our suffering.
@chiachuck You're right. William Lane Craig is really good at making a pretzel look like a straight line. What he is basically saying in this debate is that, "Yes, I agree that a morality system which is grounded on subjective preferences and arbitrary whim is bad, but I think I've proven that morality is objective when I say that we should all base our morality on the subjective preferences and arbitrary whims of a self contradictory entity called God."
a very interesting debate. i thoroughly enjoyed it. personally i don't think either of them proved that they have an objective grounding for morality, though i do think that craig stuck to the actual topic of the debate more than harris...
Let me explain Craig's trap for everyone. He says, I am right about my two points until Sam deals with them. This is ridiculous. Even if Sam doesn't deal with them, it does not make Craig right. Unfortunately, this is always the same basis that Craig uses in all of his debates. As I have said before, when you realize that someone is ridiculous in their arguments, you don't give them merit by responding to it. As soon as you point this out, Craig's entire show falls apart.
Craig's childish attempt to throw Sam under the bus by misquoting Sam really turned me of to Craig. You know what I'm talking about. When Craig said that Sam said that all Craig's friends are psychopaths. This is such a typical christian thing to do, and I only hope that others point it out the same way I do.
I don't know about anyone else, but it sure does look to me as if objective morality is a pipedream. Is there anything in this World that shows there is such a thing? Everything, and I mean everything, points to subjective morality being what exists, and objective morality as what we would wish. Do I like the idea that people who I regard as immoral can lead privelidged lives? No, but because I wish for it to be different doesn't mean I'm gonna put on my rose-tinted spectacles.
Is it weird to someone else that Sam Harris never addressed his own deterministic beliefs? He claims that we have no free will, but that we also have moral duties. That is logically impossible, which Craig points out. Yet he never addresses it the ENTIRE debate
Did he just say that atheism says we are just machines without free will? Wow, I didn't know that there was one person who fully understands physics, chemistry, and their function in biology. He didn't even realize it, but he just made a statement claiming he has comprehensive knowledge about how a human brain, the most complex object known in the Universe I might add, works. How typically Christian....errmmm, I mean arrogant. Actually, they are synonyms.
@lonehunter65 Fair enough, I must have missed that. But I am surprised, as "fate", if you like, is more of a classical definition of spacetime, as in the whole of spacetime exists. All of space, and all of time, just exist, with the future already existing, we just haven't got there yet. Whereas the most popular interpretation of quantum physics describes spacetime being perpetually built from moment to moment. But anyway, I'm not debating this with you personally, just happens to be my reply
@russellrummage Right. There's the view that all of time is equally real and that we are just experiencing it at a certain point. And there is the view that the past really is the past objectively, not just from our point of view, and there really is an objective present and future. Either could possibly be true, but without any evidence to the contrary I see no reason to reject our experience of objective present. But then the question comes, if time exists, how could it exist without a god?
@lonehunter65 For me, it depends what kind of God you're talking about. I can accept the deist position, you may have noticed I'm a big science geek too. So I honestly can see why a designer is posited, reality's too majestic. But that requires a sentient being, and it just doesn't feel right to me, more like humanity imposing itself onto nature. Now if God IS physics, a sort of pantheist God, that seems more reasonable. But gods of religions just seem ridiculous...but what do I know? (nothing)
@russellrummage Ok, so you have no problem with the idea of a God? Just with the Christian, or any other religion's god?
What if there was significant evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead after claiming to be god? Would that be reason enough to persuade you that the Christian God exists?
@lonehunter65 The only evidence that would convince me was if I was with him, then saw him die, and I mean properly dead with no chance it's a coma, and later saw him rise again. At which point I would still be skeptical, I would quiz the hell out of him rather than just drop down with awe. For such claims I would require zero doubt and to see it first hand. So unfortunately no evidence available today could convince me of that. I'm atheist but can see deism, theism I don't think I ever will.
@russellrummage Then you have obviously hardened your heart to God. It's sad but one day your going to have to answer for why you didn't believe, even with the incredible evidence of creation around you. I pray that God will soften your heart to the truth.
@lonehunter65 I haven't hardened myself to God, there are many ways I could be converted, I just demand more proof than believers. I don't see existence itself as any proof for a deity. Yes, it's magnificent and mindblowing, but it doesn't mean that a personal God exists does it? I've said I'm open to the idea of a deistic God, but that actually unprovable. A theistic God could easily come to me and show its existence, but apparently I'm unworthy. Why's that? I lead a relatively good life
@russellrummage You just admitted that if you saw the resurrection yourself, you would still be skeptical. There is plenty of proof for a theistic God. In the historical and scientific accuracy of the scriptures and the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
A theistic god has shown you its existence. You've heard of Jesus right?
"I lead a relatively good life." That's relative. Compared to perfection? no, we've all lead horrible lives.
@lonehunter65 Well of course I'd be skeptical, only a gullible person would accept it without question. I won't pretend that I'm knowledgable about scripture, but I'm of the impression that for every correct statement, there's another wrong one. Not the definition of omniscience to me, and no argument claiming metaphors will do either. I've heard of Jesus, but I haven't met him, so I maintain I've no good reason to believe. I choose to use my time researching fundamental physics over theology.
@russellrummage So you admit that you don't know much about Jesus at all. You won't even investigate an opportunity that could possibly save your life for all of eternity? Even if it's a .0001% chance it's still worth checking out if it has that possibility. And I promise there is much more of a 'chance' than that. The evidence for the resurrection is incredible.
Someone once put it like this to me "I'd rather believe and find out i was wrong, than not believe and find out I was wrong."
@lonehunter65 Well I went to a state religion school, so until I was about 11 I wasn't even given the suggestion there was no God. But I'm aware of Pascal's wager which you are forwarding. If you want my honest answer, then if the God you believe in exists, I have a complaint. Why would it treat our lives like a game, a test? Doesn't seem compassionate to me, let alone worthy of praise. The evidence is sketchy at best, so why are we bestowed intelligence, then punished for persuing it?
@russellrummage If you heard the fine tuning argument you know how rock solid the evidence is.
God does NOT make life a game. God made us perfect in the beginning. But out of our own self-developed sinful nature we messed up, and now the world is fallen. God is the epitome of perfection, and anything imperfect cannot be in his presence. So he made hell 'away form his presence'. He does not wish anyone to go there. But anyone who is not made perfect by christ, can't be in his presence.
@lonehunter65 Well for the fine tuning argument, the anthropic principle may not be satisfactory (even for me) but it has a very good point. Is the Universe tuned for life or is life tuned to the Universe? I go for the latter, just like flight is tuned from aerodynamics, not aerodynamics for flight. I have no answer, but I don't see the answer from God as satisfactory at all. Again though, this is a deistic point and I've conceded that. I still maintain that God creating hell isn't praise worthy
@russellrummage I see your point. But one anthropic constant (speed at which the big bang happened) if changed even slightly, the universe would have collapsed in on itself. Life would not have been possible. A lot of the constants are like this one.
Ok so your ok with the deistic god, you just need evidence for a theistic god? And I explained him creating hell above ^^. Also, he is a just God and if he did not punish injustice, then he would be unjust and imperfect. and not praiseworthy
@lonehunter65 I know how finely tuned the Universe is, but I really don't see why sentience is invoked to explain it. It's a thoroughly human notion, which is why I distrust it. Just as common sense tells us the World is flat and we're the centre of the Universe. But this is philosophical speculation of a deistic and inconsequential God. Ok you have a good point about creating hell. But an omniscient God would surely know that most of his supposedly loved creations will end up in hell, no?
@russellrummage Sentience is needed by definition, based on the cosmological argument. All of nature came into existence at the time of the big bang. So the cause of the big bang must be something OUTSIDE of nature! (the definition of supernatural). The big bang must have had a supernatural cause by definition, and this is greater evidenced by the anthropic constants how intelligent, careful, and great a designer this supernatural cause must have been.
@lonehunter65 Well I have to disgree with the sentience argument too. Scientists take too much of a leap with the big bang than they should. All the big bang says is that the Universe was hotter and denser in the past, less space. That's it, to even say there was a time zero is to take a leap beyond what we actually know. Besides, many cosmologists are coming to the conclusion that the big bang may not even be the start, just the start of this iteration of the Universe. Sentience isn't vital.
@russellrummage That would just put the question off one more step. When was this 'hotter and denser' universe created? Who/What made it? The universe cannot be infinite in the past. We can grasp the idea of an infinite past abstractly, but concretely it really is an impossibility. Infinity cannot have an end, and today would be the 'end' of the past infinity, so the universe can't have had a past infinity. A timeless, materialess, supernatural, being had to have created the universe.
2 - nobody knows, plus it's an assumption in itself that it needed making in the first place
3 - As for infinity, well I'm no mathematician so will try not to say too much. But we know of infinities inside infinities inside infinities...etc. But our spacetime is a closed system, finite. Beyond that nobody knows.
And your last sentence is just an assumption. I have a million ideas, but what's true? I'm happy playing safe, thanks.
@russellrummage Nope, no assumption. At the big bang time, material, and nature were created. So the cause has to be timeless, materialess, and supernatural. That's just from the scientific evidence. Huh, sounds a lot like the biblical God? Strange...
1. it wasn't
2. i know
3. Past infinity is impossible. Which refutes your entire 'hotter and denser' theory.
@lonehunter65 Yes, assumption. We can map the big bang phase to within a few nanoseconds until our equations from General Relativity reach zero...well, actually infinity, but you know what I mean. But that is an assumption, following GR beyond its limits. So we DON'T know the Universe had a beginning, we assert it from a theory we know isn't universal & doesn't work subatomically. For point 3; Our spacetime is finite, yes. But time is part of this system, for beyond...who knows?
@russellrummage time, material, and nature are all interdependent. If one did not exist, neither did the others.
Of course we can't KNOW, the way your defining it. But we don't really KNOW anything, nothing can be proven in that way. I can't even PROVE that I really exist. But all the evidence points to a God, that much we do know.
My advice to you is to pray and ask God to reveal himself to you. Don't expect an angel or anything lol, but reveal to your heart. It might be worth a try!
@lonehunter65 Well time and material are nature. But you can prove you exist, I see you then I know you exist. Could be an illusion? Then affect something around me that others can attest, this conversation is doing quite well in that regard. So I believe you exist. Where's God? Never seen him, heard him or seen anything effected by him. Only got inferences and crazy ancient tales. Well for me that's not good enough, especially when apparently it's the most important decision one can make....
@lonehunter65 ...& let's not forget; you're arguing for Christianity. What makes you so sure the Hindu's aren't correct? For exactly the same reason as you disagree with me, but you can't use the same arguments with them. Even harder for you to say the Jews or Muslims are wrong, as your faiths are one and the same at a fundamental level, other than Jesus. So I look upon all these possibilities and say, "I'll stick to the natural World in all its glory, thanks". I don't need nor want supernatural
@russellrummage Because when I look at the evidence I see a need for a mono-THEistic god. The cause can not be a part of nature, because nature was created. So that rules out pantheism. It must be one God, because this cause must be infinite. There can't be 2 infinite beings, or they would be the same thing. So that brings us down to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. There is tons of historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Look up a WLC debate on it. That is why....
@lonehunter65 I would agree with some of your thinking here Lone...in the same vein, how do you suppose we keep our individual consciousness in heaven? How is it possible, logically, for God to think, create in spacetimelessness? It is space and time that confers individuality, and character. Space and time create dualistic notions like good and bad. This is why Hindus and Buddhists have a concept that "God" is ONE...and that our individual consciousness is a mere illusion of the ego.
@adstanra God is able to 'think' because he is a mind/soul When the bible says 'we are made in his image' it means that we have a mind (aka soul). We are a soul that uses a body to function. Look up Dualism to know what I am talking about. That is why God can exist and 'think' in a timeless, spaceless 'place' so to speak. Because a mind is not material, so time has no effect on it. Hindus are actually pantheist I believe. But yeah I think your on the right track in your last sentence.
@lonehunter65 Thinking is a process that occurs in time. You have no reference to even contemplate a mind thinking or acting or creating outside of space and time. This is completely incoherent, yet Theists speak about it all the time. It is space and time that affords minds and individual consciousness.In space timelessness there is no separation...so how do you think souls can exist separately from one another-maintain individual consciousness? what would separate me from you?
@adstanra Does thinking have to occur in time? We don't know. We know that space, material, and time are all interdependent. But a Mind is spaceless, timeless, etc.. So for all we know it is possible to 'think' outside of time. And I think you are correct, outside of space-time souls could not exist separately. That is why I believe in one God. We were created in space-time.
You ask good questions, that I don't think we will fully know the answers to, until after this life.
@lonehunter65 "outside of space-time souls could not exist separately'.....so do souls just amalgamate into god at death....? aso, I don't how you can say that minds are "outside " of time...this is incoherant. Thinking, as we know it involves processibng of information...how does that work in space timelessness? A mind is simply our awareness of brain activity. There is no mind without brains
@adstanra This is where I disagree with you. I believe we are souls/minds that USE our brain to function. In fact the Bible says we will receive new bodies, so it possible that you are right. Again I encourage you to look into Dualism. The 'mind' is not simple awareness of brain activity. When I say 'mind' i do not mean 'brain', it IS incoherent to think material brains exist outside of time. But immaterial 'minds' (aka souls) could exist outside of time.
@lonehunter65 i have read about dualism. I fail to see any reason to believe that minds are separate from brains. I could turn your mind off completely by stopping brain activity with a small injection of propofol. See how minds change with age,trauma, disease, drugs. Personality changes, emotions change,thoughts change.How was your mind before you were born? Thinking requires time...one thought leads to the next....and are composed of emotions as well. Minds=consciousness of brain activity
@adstanra Yes BRAINS change, we see that all the time. But that doesn't mean the MIND has changed. Think about it, if were simply all materiel (no mind) then why would we have consciousness? Our brain would just be a bunch of chemical reactions, that we can't control. We couldn't be morally responsible for anything. Consciousness is evidence for a MIND (aka soul). We are not simply robots controlled by random chemical processes. I think it is perfectly rational to think we have a mind.
@lonehunter65 I disagree with you. There is simply no logical,rational, evident reason to think of minds as existing outside a brain --or outside of space and time. Our brains are composed of atoms, molecules and physiological processes, that confer consciousness. Stop these activities and you will demonstrably stop consciousness. Where was your mind before you were born?...All mind activity...thinking, consciousness, identity, logic, memory, emotion require brains in space and time.
@adstanra If brains change...in what way does your mind NOT change....your thinking changes, your personality changes, your reasoning ability changes, your emotions change, your memory changes....in what way does your mind stay the same?....what do you mean by mind anyway...does it confer anything at all...about the same it confers onto your consciousness that it did before you were born? you have reduced mind to nothing.
@adstanra Your confusing the functions of a brain and a mind. The mind uses the brain, that much is obvious. But if there was no mind, then we would not have consciousness, we could not love, we could not detect beauty, etc. We would essentially be robots controlled by random chemical processes. As for changes, I certainly think that our minds were created along with our brains so there would not be a "before brain" state. But that is not a reason to think our minds will die alongside our brains
@lonehunter65 You are making baseless assertions. Damage certain areas of the brain and your capacity to rationalize, to appreciate beauty, to love, to maintain consciousness, to discern reality, to socialize with other people will be lost, because these things are functions of the brain: everything that makes us...well, us! Individual minds can logically only exist in space and time.Anyway, Paul and Jesus understood the kingdom as existing in space and time, with bodies.You "sleep" until then.
@lonehunter65 ....Look, I know I may come across as a skeptic for skeptic's sake, but I'm not. I'm not saying don't believe your hand when it's infront of your face, I'm saying we know so little, even about things we claim to know. So the possibilities are ironically infinite. You forward one possibility without any real evidence other than assertions derived from the human psyche. I'm open to things such as causality actually only being valid within this system, we're inside trying to look out.
@russellrummage I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Saying that scientists take too big of a leap with the big bang is just a silly thing to say. We know how fast the universe is expanding, therefore, we know that if you were able to rewind time, we can certainly conclude that everything in the universe was in one small spot. Besides, name one cosmologist, one without subjective thoughts of a silly god, that thinks it didn't happen.
@ja1doyle You've missed my point, I'm not saying the Universe wasn't in a small spot, I'm saying that we don't actually know if this spot came from nothing, because we don't. It's the obvious conclusion, but it's actually just a claim, nothing more. The spot could have always been there for all we know, and many cosmologists are coming up with hypotheses in which the spot didn't spontaneously "exist". All I'm saying is there are things we assume to be true that we we don't actually know for sure
@russellrummage Yes, I am familiar with Penrose. He thinks that there could have been a universe before ours. There is very little evidence to support it however, although, he is a smarter man than I. I understand your having a problem with the big bang coming from nothing, even though they call it a singularity. I know that I have have heard an idea in quantum mechanics, that states that nothing may actually be something, but I don't think that this has been fully worked out either.
@ja1doyle Exactly, nothing has been fully worked out and that's all I'm saying. The Big Bang is presented as a closed package, whereas it only describes the evolution of our Universe from a singularity, of which we know nothing about. I haven't a problem with something from nothing, but the idea assumes that's what's happened. I'm happy wondering about it all with all the infinite possibilities but facts are what ground us and we all easily read more into what the facts actually are.
@ja1doyle ...cont. Look, I'll go with what the cosmologists say but the models may not get everything right,. Some things are proven & others are assumed within the model, such as time-zero. One scientist is Roger Penrose who has an interesting hypothesis about a cyclic Universe, where at maximum entropy there is no physics so spacetime's meaningless resulting in our massive dead Universe being a singularity again. Watch 'Horizon - What happened Before the Big Bang?' if you can for others too.
@russellrummage Of course God knew that many people would end up in hell. But that was by their own choice! Should God have taken away Heaven for all of the people who did place their trust in him, just so the ones who rejected him could stay away from Hell? The people who end up in Hell choose their own fate. Thanks be to God that he is providing such a glorious and wonderful place as Heaven for the ones who do believe in Him! I encourage you to read Revelation 21, to understand Heaven more!
@lonehunter65 Well it just leads me to wonder; what's the point of this little test? I can think of many ways he could have just enlightened us, and given another existence where belief in him doesn't come with the risk of eternal torture for getting it wrong. And that's with VERY sketchy evidence for his existence. Why bestow us with intelligence and punish us for persuing it? And sorry, but I'm not gonna buy the fallen creation story at all. Humanity punished for two primitive peoples mistake.
@russellrummage It is not a 'test', as you say. Yes he could have stripped us of our free will, and made us worship him, but then we would just be robots. He gave us free will, and we have abused it.
He does not punish us for pursuing intelligence. Anyone honestly and objectively examining the evidence will see that God exists.
We are not punished for 2 peoples mistakes. We all would have made the same decision. Can you honestly say you have never lied/cheated? Injustice requires punishment
@lonehunter65 When I talk of the test, I'm not talking about free will as such, just that he chooses to hide himself. I'm a fan of his work, and research as much as I can, so because I find it fascinating that it all seems a self-regulatory system and hasn't a need for a deity (which seems more magical to me) I'm gonna get tortured for eternity? Well then, even if he exists I'm not gonna shower him with praise for being so callous. Existence doesn't show he is good, quite the opposite and petty.
@russellrummage Hasn't the need for a deity?? That's where I disagree. We could not have been there in the first place, without a deity.
Again God is just and sin must be punished. He does not want to punish you, so he gave an alternative: Accept Jesus as your savior and have your sins payed for by him! But either way your sins MUST be payed for.
Its fair to say that Craig adhered himself to the topic. Unfortunately, he gave us absolutely no evidence to support his idea, that if there were no god, we would have no morals. Now, he can babble about how gods command is where these morals came from, but unless you can prove that a god exists, his claim, as Dawkins would say, is spectacularly stupid.
@ja1doyle he said there would be no foundation by which you could make the claim, but morals don't adhere to logic and the concept of validating there foundation until certain axioms about them are made, two separate world views, two separate viewpoints about what was a solid foundation, we almost all experience a sense of morals and the source of them cannot be proved hence it is irrelevant until the source is proven hence debate was useless.. Harris seemed to realize this and talk about other
@themagicglass What exactly are you trying to say. My point was that Craig cannot prove the existence of a god, therefore, his points about how without a god, we would have no morals, is ridiculous. Harris is not going to fall into Craig's trap, because he understood Craig's premise the same way I did. When you realize that someone is being ridiculous in their arguments, you don't give them merit by responding to the same stupid argument.
@Prologicful First of all, there are folks out there, such as: theist, deists, agnostics and the like, who also, not only believe that the universe came into existence through an event called the big bang, but know it to be a fact. This is common knowledge to those who take science seriously, whether they are religious or not. To say that the universe was "created', would be a leap of faith that I am not willing to take. Creation of the universe is a claim, unsupported by fact.
@Prologicful get real buddy. You have no evidence for a space timeless being. The universe is governed by impersonal forces...no God required. By logical necessity, nothing comes from nothing, so there must exist some primordial stuff out of which the universe arose. You assert some incoherent being magically created the stuff from nothing (with a wand?). Atheists assert that the primordial stuff contained the necessary condition for every subsequent event (which is what we find).
@Prologicful "There's no evidence the universe is created, or of a "multiverse", or that the universe constantly expands/contracts."
-3 points, the latter two are false. There is some evidence of a possible multiverse as well as quite a bit of evidence of expansion/contraction. You are making false claims and dressing it up as fact. And your moronic "stfu" comment just shows your lack of maturity and reason. So what we have is a lying troll, who peppers lies with truth, and insults others.
"Unfortunately, he gave us absolutely no evidence to support his idea, that if there were no god, we would have no morals." - A naturalistic framework logically entails a feelingless universe. If there is no God, then the question of "why do I even feel negatively towards rape or murder" is meaningless, because it is purely brain chemistry to dictates how we react to such actions. That is something that Dr. Craig did comment on in the debate, though not as direct.
@BassP86 I stand by my comment. Morals come from inside a person. This is why a person should feel negatively towards rape and murder. What could be more natural than that? Go ahead and talk to a person who has killed and raped someone, then come back and tell me how you feel! Otherwise, feel free to agree with Craig.
"Morals come from inside a person." - You're missing the point here. I'm not saying that no one on earth has such feelings towards rape. I'm saying our feelings towards rape are the reality, but the worldview in question HAS to be able to account for why human beings even have such feelings. Naturalism does NOT account for this, because naturalism entails something completely different from what REALITY tells us. The problem is with the WORLDVIEW, not reality itself.
@ja1doyle I think he did give us evidence to support his idea. And I think that Harris utterly failed to account for how, if we are nothing more than biochemical machines without free will, there could be a moral standard beyond human opinion.
Craigs ontological ground for morality is basically God command theory.....he just hopes that God's nature is to command those things that naturally enhance our well being. Harris pointed out that revelation has not helped in our struggle for morality. We can easily improve on so-called revelation from the iron age...with reason and the basic assumption that all humans naturally wish to be happy and avoid suffering.
Excluding the misinformed opinions of philosophically illiterate laymen, simpletons and trolls, this was quite a spectacular debate win for William Lane Craig. The professional philosophical community at least are generally agreed on this point.
Sam Harris was so dejected and demoralised by the end, he knew fully well how poorly he fared, even in the context of low expectations of his performance. Dawkins next, I hope.
@Calenfeyn41 this was an easy victory for Sam Harris who destroyed WLC. WLC's argument is based upon founding morality upon a vague incoherent spacetimeles being that no one really knows about, but wave a holy book. Harris gives a practical real basis for morality that stems ultimately from the laws of physics and our fundamental nature to be happy and not suffer. WLCs god does not equal "God is love" in my book...so we have no basis for consensus,other than our mutual wellbeing anyway.
While you watch this, you might be able to picture your head inside a toilet bowl. I wouldn't tell you to picture what you'd see inside the toilet bowl, but as you can possibly imagine what sounds you'd hear once that toilet was flushed and what the suction on your head might feel like, then you know what it's like to listen to Dr. Craig speak. I enjoy playing snake when it's his turn to talk. (press pause, then start.. then the up & right arrows simultaneously)
Good last question - it's a shame it wasn't answered very well
1988Leger 3 weeks ago 2
Dr Craigs response to Dr. Harris analogy about the teacher in the classroom should have been that under the Athiests view, there would BE no Teacher in the classroom to give the student any directive such as 'punch them in the face', since Athiesm has no objective basis for morality, therefore, the equivalent scenario under Dr. Harris world view would be to do what would allign w/his own 'well being', & allow him to 'flourish', so it follows that if the child was a bully, he SHOULD punch him..
MsPROOFthatGODexists 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Harris is not responding to Dr. Craigs points.He seems to have a pre-choreographed position, which he keep re-stating, instead of reacting to the challenges to his arguments. This leads me to conclude that he has no valid argument to the contention that, number one, Athiests can affirm no OBJECTIVE basis for morality based on their world view of there being no GOD,and theres no POSSIBILITY of holding anyone responsible for their immoral actions, as Athiest contend that we have no free will.
MsPROOFthatGODexists 4 weeks ago
Consensus does nothing to prove or disprove something unless the consensus is backed by some proven 100% factual data (in this case it is not) and consensus does nothing in or out of Christianity. People won't fully agree on topics, that's humanity. I wouldn't have asked such a question as well as coupling it with assertions.
Shadowlooker12 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Shadowlooker12
EXACTLY.
MsPROOFthatGODexists 4 weeks ago
Political correctness, tolerance and a changing social structure. This makes saying anything is laid to rest, irrelevant. Again 100 years from now the social structure of the world may be different which then changes what the secular world would view offensive, wrong, right etc this does not mean anything is laid to rest, this just means in the secular world things are dictated by an "in general" principle which can be influenced,changed and manipulated for any means,again "Truth by popularity".
Shadowlooker12 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
and most would agree that exposing ones self in public is not ok. So for the man to mention consensus to me shows a lack of understanding of what Dr.Craig discussed and points out the flaw in reasoning some people have when it comes to God and Christianity. Then there is his assertion that things have been "laid to rest" where is the proof of this? on top of the fact that IN THE SECULAR WORLD as he states things are not decided by what actually IS right and wrong, it's decided by-->
Shadowlooker12 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Example, in ancient times war was agreed upon more so than today, so the general consensus for conquest, war etc was that it was ok. Does that REALLY make it so because most AGREE? No, this sounds like truth by popularity which is another problem I see in the modern world,relativism. Truth, right, wrong, evil etc is just socially established, not absolutes. 100 years from now if everyone stops wearing clothes the consensus would be not wearing clothes in public is ok, but today that is absurd.
Shadowlooker12 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
FOR THEMSELVES regardless of what it actually means, this is humanity. We are not like dogs who you train to fetch so we fetch till be die. If you were to brainwash a human to fetch, he still is capable of seeing outside)other than you) influence that would get him to question and determine things on his own and one day he will not fetch for said reason. Consensus plays no part in if something is right or wrong, it only shows who agrees with what on any given day or period.
Shadowlooker12 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The individual who raised the question about consensus asserted too much. "If God is the basis of morality it seems it would easy to come up with a consensus" This assumes that influence plays no part. Disagreement is part of humanity, so how would it be easy to come to a consensus when people as humans disagree due to numerous factors? Bad questioning. "When Christians who are reading the same bible" STOP, what does it matter, PEOPLE themselves will dictate and interpret what something means-->
Shadowlooker12 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I can only use religious language to describe Harris' cunning: Oh my God and holy shit.
009SoundVEVO 1 month ago
@009SoundVEVO What strikes me about Harris' arguments is how accessible they were compared to Craig's philosophical jargon.
MrMZaccone 1 month ago
Craig knows that he lost the debate, it can be seen in his body language. At 3:40, when he goes to shake Harris's hand, he gives an under-handed handshake.
Politicians and the like generally try purposely to get an upper hand in handshakes because, subconsciously, it puts them in a position of power over their opponent.
TheGildedStar 2 months ago
@TheGildedStar Didn't you even notice that Craig's right hand is crippled? That's the reason why he gave an under-handed handshake; nothing to do with your body language pseudo-explanation.
aaantunes 2 months ago
@aaantunes I have horrible eyesight so no, I didn't notice. Why is it a pseudo-explanation?
TheGildedStar 2 months ago
@TheGildedStar I think the way they both handshaked had nothing to do with body language about Craig feeling he had lost the debate. Actually I think he won it, although he was in a more comfortable position: people resort to God precisely because they need moral absolutes. Harris was quite good at exposing the contradictions between a loving God and worldly evil, but could not provide an ontological ground for moral absolutes. The "worst state for everyone" really doesn't work.
aaantunes 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGildedStar I think the way they both handshaked had nothing to do with body language about Craig feeling he had lost the debate. Actually I think he won it, although he was in a more comfortable position: people resort to God precisely because they need moral absolutes. Harris was quite good at exposing the contradictions between a loving God and worldly evil, but could not provide an ontological ground for moral absolutes. The "worst state for everyone" really doesn't work.
aaantunes 2 months ago
@TheGildedStar I think the way they handshaked had nothing to do with body language about Craig feeling he had lost the debate. Actually I think he won it, although he was in a more comfortable position: people resort to God precisely because they need moral absolutes. Harris was very good at exposing the contradictions between a loving God and evil, but did not provide an ontological ground for moral absolutes. That was the topic at hand. The "worst state for everyone" really doesn't work.
aaantunes 2 months ago
Harris did so much better against Craig than Hitchens...
Floortjahh 2 months ago
The emergent mind escapes the mundane materialist view of this universe and enterprises in a quantum leap into other worlds. in which, like fish out of water, we are experience a liberty unrestrained by naturalism, and dwelling on the boundaries of a higher supreme authority of God, The thought itself, let loose from nature to unlimited outcomes,is Divine,and a sharing in God. Sam Harris wants to offer a methodological naturalism expectation of no free will, no new universe, no mystery
CarmineFragione 2 months ago
i hate people like "dr" william craig
he is societal scum, honestly.. someone needs to institute capital punishment for willfully swindling and deceiving others with bullshit claims and unsound logical arguments with the smug air this parasite delivers it. "again this is not the topic of this debate" what a pasty faced coward! he is obviously either too afraid or unable to actually do what he came there to do, DEBATE!
JuanchoMan 2 months ago
THUMBS UP IF YOU FOUND YOURSELF FAST-FORWARDING THROUGH MOST OF CRAIG'S REBUTTALS
justsomebroad2 2 months ago
William Lane Craig got his ass kicked.
comingatchu 3 months ago
it's interesting that so far, the "four horsemen" when debating William Lane Craig, tend to stray away from the arguments at hand. William Lane Craig, in my opinion, called out Sam Harris on that exact accusation.
But Sam Harris is brave to face William Lane Craig, and I admire him for that (nothing more: his arguments were so elementary, it was frustrating).
countrydp 3 months ago
@countrydp really? I found Craig arguments so tautological and empty to be almost annoying.
Harris, on the other hand, missed a chance to make a point with those pressing him about the "universal objectivity" of his morality: that it doesn't really matter.
It doesn't matter if you can't define "universal" moral truths, cause that's not what the society needs. What the society needs is in fact a *relative*, not absolute, set of moral truths that can be applied for the maximum community's benefit.
TucoBenedictoPax 2 months ago
Comment removed
countrydp 2 months ago
Comment removed
countrydp 2 months ago
Comment removed
countrydp 2 months ago
Ok! This debate was, I think, one-sidedly pointless. For one, Craig's point states that without a god, we cannot have any objective morality. So in order to test such a hypothesis, either in a physical experiment of a thought experiment, one would have to create god, either physical (deus ex machina) or mental. Creating physical god would be a waste of time and resources though but a mental god would ultimately be grounded in one's own preferences or in other words entirely subjective...
shade9592 3 months ago
@shade9592 Now I don't agree with Harris entirely on his argument that good depends merely on well-being. I think that we haven't yet studied neurology, psychology and sociology enough to have come up with a sound basis on which we can ground objective morality. That being said, I think Harris's argument for the basis of objective morality on human/sentient well-being could just be a good place to begin if we are to know of any objective morality.
shade9592 3 months ago
The last question is the nail in Craig's coffin. Even if god exists, even if he is the ultimate good, even if his commands are supposed to be the objective moral foundation - there is zero consensus among theists as to what those commands are. Craig claims there is, but that's a blatant lie: you have only to look at Christian teachings on issues of sex: masturbation, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, contraception are all called mortal sin by some, minor by some, and praiseworthy by others.
Eventsbyresonance 3 months ago 8
@Eventsbyresonance COnsensus on a topic by a majority doesn't define that topic, like for example all academics agreeing that the earth was flat some hundred years ago didn't make the earth flat. The Bible is clear on all those subjects you listed, regardless of how christians try to fit them into their own paradigms. Christians are unperfect people just like everyone else, so its better to look to the Bible directly.
evanom2 3 months ago
@evanom2 first - first, Pythagoras figured out the earth was flat in the 6th century BCE. There was a never a time when "academics" had a consensus of the earth being flat. But besides that, I am aware that the bible is pretty clear on SOME of those topics, I have read it. But "god" is a lousy communicator if his eternal word (the bible) can be interpreted in so many different ways. The fact that those who teach god's morality can't agree on what god is telling us shows how impractical it is
Eventsbyresonance 3 months ago
@Eventsbyresonance You're approaching the Bible as if it is a work of man. No other book in history has been compiled by over 30 writers from different backgrounds in a timespan of 1600 years with hundreds of prophecies that have not failed once. The existence of this book is in itself impossible, yet there it is. Have you ever once considered that maybe God isnt a "lousy communicator", rather you're a "lousy listener"? Atheist pride themselves as openminded. Are you openminded enough for this?
evanom2 3 months ago
@evanom2
Actually the Bible isn't clear on those topics, especially the original, untranslated version of the bible. It is more like reading metaphorical proverbs than what the English translated Bible portrays. If the Bible was "god's word", then it would be crystal clear where there is absolutely no question. So much so that slavery in since "Jesus" would be a clear moral violation or acceptability. Instead Christianity allows for wiggle room for morality to suit society.
nidodson 3 months ago
@nidodson But the Bible IS clear (on those topics). Sure there are metaphors and proverbs, but laws and instructions are never in these categories. You either obey them or you don't. Here's the thing: the bible is an interactive book, first and only in its kind. The reason it isn't "crystal clear" is because it isn't for everyone (please read Mat.13:10-17). It's God's book and He reveals. The question is, are you willing to learn?
evanom2 3 months ago
@Eventsbyresonance
Dr. Harris, and apparently you, are missing the issue of the debate.As Dr. Craig astutely points out,Dr Harris is continually introducing red herrings in order to distract from his faulty premise of there not being an OBJECTIVE source for 'morality' in the Athiest world view. Whether there is 'concensus' on the subject of Thiesm is not whats being debated, but whether Athiest have a OBJECTIVE basis to deem ANYTHING 'good' or 'moral' without an objective authority. They don't.
MsPROOFthatGODexists 4 weeks ago
@. Eventsbyresonance nah its worse than that... it means that the westboro baptist church is true! literal interpretations of the bible FTW!
snoweyeball 1 week ago
I heard nothing from Sam that was on topic...He constantly strayed to argue against the Holy Bible or in some fashion ridicule it. An illustrative example of what the debate was MEANT to be about. If you travel to every corner of the planet, it will be morally wrong for a man to rape a 2 week old little girl. Saying thats a repugnant act doesnt fit in the atheistic world of subjective moral relativism. I feel safe saying, zero theistic faiths in the world have a problem saying thats evil.
tonysshadow 3 months ago
@tonysshadow only because it so happens we have no historical examples of (mono)theistic commanding a man to rape a 2 week old. But in Islam, on can marry and have sex with a non-consenting pre-teen girl. It's fine for WLC to say God's commands are good, but he doesn't explain how we are supposed to know his commands - he completely sidesteps the issue. But we know his answer even if he doesn't say = the bible. Thus Sam is completely right to point out that which WLC wants us to ignore.
Eventsbyresonance 3 months ago
I would probably say even many theists would agree Sam won that debate if they were being honest with themselves. In my opinion, not only were Sam's points pretty solid, but also Craig dodged many argument with either verbose incoherent babble, false claims about what Sam said or just dismissing arguments in terms of scope.
urcritic 3 months ago
@DeaconCliff
I'm in the U.S. and here the christian are extremely dogmatic. .We are supposed to be the melting pot of society,but you can't even get elected in this country unless your a christian. .Christian are constantly standing in the way of social progress by their views mainly on holy wars,homosexuality and abortion.
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100
what are their views on Holy Wars? Wars pertaining to Israel?
DeaconCliff 3 months ago
@DeaconCliff
It all depends on the christians vs.muslims and the muslims vs. jews conflicts and wars.. If we can stop all these insane wars about whose invisble man in the sky is better.I swear its like three kids fighting over whose daddy could beat up the other kids except there's more at stake . .If we can educate people on how divisive religions are and how there's no evidence for any religion.Then yes I can see in 10 years the world being alot more peaceful.
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100
So you see what's going on in the Middle East (mostly) as central to alot of our problems in the world? How are the Christians in your country? Where I am from, (I am from Canada) Christians do alot here for the community. How are the Christians where you are from? Or are you also in the Middle East?
DeaconCliff 3 months ago
How can anybody use any so called "holy book" as words from GOD...when wrote them?
okarab 3 months ago
@Deaconcliff
You are mistaken.Our levels of greater morality is becoming higher and higher.I definitely see a lack of parents not raising there children with proper respect,but humanities moral compass is much greater than it was in the past.Per capita there is less murder,rape,torture,sexism,racism,and bigotry in the world. .You should not look at christian mythology for morality.The christians ancient text is full of evil and hate.Their version of god condones slavery,rape,murder,and genocide
0019josh7100 3 months ago
@0019josh7100
interesting thanks for sharing. 10 years from now, say in 2021-22, do you see a world where we as people are more at peace with each other? I find with me personally, reasons to be concerned. I see 2021 as being a more dangerous time to be alive. Your thoughts?
DeaconCliff 3 months ago
Harris does an excellent job of pausing after most of his important points or statements to allow the audience time to let what he's said sink in and think the point over for themselves.
kalsolarUK 4 months ago
@kalsolarUK - Harris is a skilled communicator. It just speaks to the confidence that he has in what he's saying.
MrKeenoRossi 4 months ago
Based on a scientifical conclusion, noone won nor loose the debate. We all gained knowledge. Though I have to say, imagining an invisible entity that dictates all that happens is really not for me...
binhonz 4 months ago
I can't understand why Dawkins do not wants to debate Craig. He is a joke. Mr. Dodge Master, but still...
SonDudu2 4 months ago
@SonDudu2 He doesn't debate those who defend genocides of the Old Testament
Apotheosis275 4 months ago
@SonDudu2 Clearly, he sent his pitbull in stead.
Inb4Reach 5 days ago
I think Harris is basicly stating the obvious. Morality is subject to the opinion of the concious beings who abide by the said moral values thus meaning the foundation of morality is humanity.
theELUSIV 4 months ago 13
@theELUSIV obvious to anyone except the wilfully blinkered theist sadly.
kalsolarUK 4 months ago
@theELUSIV Harris' claim is that morality is OBJECTIVE. Not only that, he said that what is moral is utilitarianism by definition. That's a point he's not willing to argue. Since science can help us realize utilitarianism, thus science gives us objective morals.
YouTodayKing 1 month ago in playlist More videos from d7urban
@theELUSIV whihc would then make Morality null in void because it does not really matter. Morality just becomes "on our word". This is moral because WE say it is, we made it up, not because it actually is, this is the problem.
Shadowlooker12 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@theELUSIV
...Humans are often guilty of INhumane things, therefore, if Dr. Harris contention is that the 'foundation of morality is humanity', then that would mean that our morality is subject to being INhumane. That doesn't quite work out.
MsPROOFthatGODexists 4 weeks ago
@MsPROOFthatGODexists Well yes thats pretty obvious, you stated the morality based on humanity doesn't quite work out, how is that relevant to the premise being ture or false? Your asserting that morality should be or is objective yet in reality it is observed as being completely subjective.
theELUSIV 3 weeks ago
Harris won the debate.
vashcerom 4 months ago 4
It is actually possible to derive right and wrong with fatalism, because even if we are chemically programed to do something it could still be seen as wrong in society given that it goes against the victim and denies him his right to life. You could also go further into it by speaking about the persons motives because it could still be called wrong from that point as well, even if it was chemically mandated it would still be more on other aspects that result in guilt.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
If you feel Craig won this debate, you must conclude he did so by use of infallible logic and reasoning in his discussion. If that is the case, then what you should be able to do is go back to the beginning of the debate and insert the word "zeus" when he invokes the word "God" and be equally as logical and reasoned and Harris's case should hold no water against Zeus either.
If however, you find that you cannot do that, then you need to be honest with yourself and ask why that is.
AlphaDogmatist 4 months ago
Comment removed
AlphaDogmatist 4 months ago
2:47 from Craig is painful....moronic!!
statickk14 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
During this debate here, Harris was pathetic to say the very least. Harris was completely ignorant of the arguments and was obviously so outclassed that he merely resorted to sophomoric and ignorant diatribes to give the illusion of competency to his core group of village idiot fanboys and fangirls. It was like a dog returning to his own vomit to lap it up time and time again.
lexidart 4 months ago
Was anyone else about to rip their hair out if Craig said "...a sound foundation for moral ..." one more time ???
jmdnarri 4 months ago 2
Although I think Sam Harris won the debate, I think Craig did a fantastic job of showing exactly why opponents find him intimidating. He was well spoken, articulate, and I find his level of investigation into how to win an argument pretty impressive.
Note that I'm not saying his arguments were valid; they weren't. However, arguing theology is all about obfuscating the truth in order to confuse the opponent, and convince the audience, and Craig is certainly a master at this, and it showed.
chiachuck 5 months ago 34
@chiachuck
I have a question I would like to ask Sam Harris or any other atheist. Would you agree that our level of morality and ethics is becoming lower and lower? I ask this (I am a Christian BTW) because both my wife and I work with youth. My wife is a teacher, and I work with youth in conflict with the law. Anyway, we were talking on the topic some time ago at how the respect for authority by our youth is so non existent, it is actually scary. We didn't think of discussing 'morals'... cont
DeaconCliff 3 months ago
pt 2 ...but considering that also, I would have to say there is clearly reason for concern. Are you concerned about our modern day morality, and our morality of future generations? I love kids, and would love to have my own one day, but back in my mind is the understanding that this world is becoming increasingly harder to grow up in. IE, there are more temptations and evil to draw kids into a destructive direction. Do you have any of these concerns of the future?
Thanks in advance.
DeaconCliff 3 months ago
@DeaconCliff Honestly, I believe that the history of human morality fluctuates. The only real moral lesson I think is necessary to humankind is the "golden rule". The earliest civilized societies were based on altruistic sensibility, but this is not constant. America is at a point where the combination of limited resources, and intellectual laziness has created an almost narcissistic environment, which brings about all kinds of bad side effects.
chiachuck 3 months ago
@DeaconCliff I would argue that humans are getting better and better wrt human well being in most fronts. Consider the history of humanity! It is a tough world, and it always has been, but for huge tracks of people , it has never been better to be alive...in the history of humanity....for the common man. We have a long way to go though and many problems to work on. this will be accomplished when we accept that human welfare is the ground and goal of morality.
adstanra 3 months ago
@adstanra
here is the problem I have with what you are saying. The person who simply does not care about anyone else but himself and his own welfare. If you tell him some of the things he is doing is morally wrong, he looks at you as if you have 2 heads and tells you to .........................fill in the blanks............. Even if he is not necessarily breaking any law, but doing those things that are not good and best for humanity, and simply does not care what have to say.
DeaconCliff 3 months ago
@DeaconCliff well ,that would be fine if we were solitary beings, but we are not. This is why morality is an issue that relates to groups of finite conscious beings and a landscape of happiness/suffering. we naturally are concerned about psychopaths, because we recognize that they they take away from society's well being, not to mention their own...
adstanra 3 months ago
@adstanra most of us are born with a conscience that allows us to negotiate the moral landscape with others...some are born without a conscience, through some sort of screw up of brain development. Even if we were all born without a conscience, we would still have to work together , because this would still maximize our happiness and minimize our suffering.
adstanra 3 months ago
@chiachuck Yep, Craig is a master debater and a cunning linguist ;) (sorry, couldn't resist)
Eventsbyresonance 3 months ago
Comment removed
dopejoel 1 month ago
Comment removed
dopejoel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chiachuck You're right. William Lane Craig is really good at making a pretzel look like a straight line. What he is basically saying in this debate is that, "Yes, I agree that a morality system which is grounded on subjective preferences and arbitrary whim is bad, but I think I've proven that morality is objective when I say that we should all base our morality on the subjective preferences and arbitrary whims of a self contradictory entity called God."
dopejoel 1 month ago
So, who won the debate?
jdtrickster4 5 months ago
don't fuck with Sam Harris! Craig was piss poor.
bearwoodcarpentry 5 months ago
Haha! Love the dude behind at 0:45. Lol
stur734 6 months ago
@stur734 Ah, poor guy, he even had his notebook with him. Super prepared, but just one ape to late. That ryhmed
Inb4Reach 5 days ago
Comment removed
stur734 6 months ago
a very interesting debate. i thoroughly enjoyed it. personally i don't think either of them proved that they have an objective grounding for morality, though i do think that craig stuck to the actual topic of the debate more than harris...
g2thaz 6 months ago
Let me explain Craig's trap for everyone. He says, I am right about my two points until Sam deals with them. This is ridiculous. Even if Sam doesn't deal with them, it does not make Craig right. Unfortunately, this is always the same basis that Craig uses in all of his debates. As I have said before, when you realize that someone is ridiculous in their arguments, you don't give them merit by responding to it. As soon as you point this out, Craig's entire show falls apart.
ja1doyle 7 months ago
Comment removed
ja1doyle 7 months ago
Craig's childish attempt to throw Sam under the bus by misquoting Sam really turned me of to Craig. You know what I'm talking about. When Craig said that Sam said that all Craig's friends are psychopaths. This is such a typical christian thing to do, and I only hope that others point it out the same way I do.
ja1doyle 7 months ago
I don't know about anyone else, but it sure does look to me as if objective morality is a pipedream. Is there anything in this World that shows there is such a thing? Everything, and I mean everything, points to subjective morality being what exists, and objective morality as what we would wish. Do I like the idea that people who I regard as immoral can lead privelidged lives? No, but because I wish for it to be different doesn't mean I'm gonna put on my rose-tinted spectacles.
russellrummage 7 months ago
Is it weird to someone else that Sam Harris never addressed his own deterministic beliefs? He claims that we have no free will, but that we also have moral duties. That is logically impossible, which Craig points out. Yet he never addresses it the ENTIRE debate
lonehunter65 7 months ago
Did he just say that atheism says we are just machines without free will? Wow, I didn't know that there was one person who fully understands physics, chemistry, and their function in biology. He didn't even realize it, but he just made a statement claiming he has comprehensive knowledge about how a human brain, the most complex object known in the Universe I might add, works. How typically Christian....errmmm, I mean arrogant. Actually, they are synonyms.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage That's Sam Harris's belief. Thats why he brought it up
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Fair enough, I must have missed that. But I am surprised, as "fate", if you like, is more of a classical definition of spacetime, as in the whole of spacetime exists. All of space, and all of time, just exist, with the future already existing, we just haven't got there yet. Whereas the most popular interpretation of quantum physics describes spacetime being perpetually built from moment to moment. But anyway, I'm not debating this with you personally, just happens to be my reply
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Right. There's the view that all of time is equally real and that we are just experiencing it at a certain point. And there is the view that the past really is the past objectively, not just from our point of view, and there really is an objective present and future. Either could possibly be true, but without any evidence to the contrary I see no reason to reject our experience of objective present. But then the question comes, if time exists, how could it exist without a god?
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 For me, it depends what kind of God you're talking about. I can accept the deist position, you may have noticed I'm a big science geek too. So I honestly can see why a designer is posited, reality's too majestic. But that requires a sentient being, and it just doesn't feel right to me, more like humanity imposing itself onto nature. Now if God IS physics, a sort of pantheist God, that seems more reasonable. But gods of religions just seem ridiculous...but what do I know? (nothing)
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Ok, so you have no problem with the idea of a God? Just with the Christian, or any other religion's god?
What if there was significant evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead after claiming to be god? Would that be reason enough to persuade you that the Christian God exists?
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 The only evidence that would convince me was if I was with him, then saw him die, and I mean properly dead with no chance it's a coma, and later saw him rise again. At which point I would still be skeptical, I would quiz the hell out of him rather than just drop down with awe. For such claims I would require zero doubt and to see it first hand. So unfortunately no evidence available today could convince me of that. I'm atheist but can see deism, theism I don't think I ever will.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Then you have obviously hardened your heart to God. It's sad but one day your going to have to answer for why you didn't believe, even with the incredible evidence of creation around you. I pray that God will soften your heart to the truth.
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 I haven't hardened myself to God, there are many ways I could be converted, I just demand more proof than believers. I don't see existence itself as any proof for a deity. Yes, it's magnificent and mindblowing, but it doesn't mean that a personal God exists does it? I've said I'm open to the idea of a deistic God, but that actually unprovable. A theistic God could easily come to me and show its existence, but apparently I'm unworthy. Why's that? I lead a relatively good life
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage You just admitted that if you saw the resurrection yourself, you would still be skeptical. There is plenty of proof for a theistic God. In the historical and scientific accuracy of the scriptures and the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
A theistic god has shown you its existence. You've heard of Jesus right?
"I lead a relatively good life." That's relative. Compared to perfection? no, we've all lead horrible lives.
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Well of course I'd be skeptical, only a gullible person would accept it without question. I won't pretend that I'm knowledgable about scripture, but I'm of the impression that for every correct statement, there's another wrong one. Not the definition of omniscience to me, and no argument claiming metaphors will do either. I've heard of Jesus, but I haven't met him, so I maintain I've no good reason to believe. I choose to use my time researching fundamental physics over theology.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage So you admit that you don't know much about Jesus at all. You won't even investigate an opportunity that could possibly save your life for all of eternity? Even if it's a .0001% chance it's still worth checking out if it has that possibility. And I promise there is much more of a 'chance' than that. The evidence for the resurrection is incredible.
Someone once put it like this to me "I'd rather believe and find out i was wrong, than not believe and find out I was wrong."
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Well I went to a state religion school, so until I was about 11 I wasn't even given the suggestion there was no God. But I'm aware of Pascal's wager which you are forwarding. If you want my honest answer, then if the God you believe in exists, I have a complaint. Why would it treat our lives like a game, a test? Doesn't seem compassionate to me, let alone worthy of praise. The evidence is sketchy at best, so why are we bestowed intelligence, then punished for persuing it?
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage If you heard the fine tuning argument you know how rock solid the evidence is.
God does NOT make life a game. God made us perfect in the beginning. But out of our own self-developed sinful nature we messed up, and now the world is fallen. God is the epitome of perfection, and anything imperfect cannot be in his presence. So he made hell 'away form his presence'. He does not wish anyone to go there. But anyone who is not made perfect by christ, can't be in his presence.
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Well for the fine tuning argument, the anthropic principle may not be satisfactory (even for me) but it has a very good point. Is the Universe tuned for life or is life tuned to the Universe? I go for the latter, just like flight is tuned from aerodynamics, not aerodynamics for flight. I have no answer, but I don't see the answer from God as satisfactory at all. Again though, this is a deistic point and I've conceded that. I still maintain that God creating hell isn't praise worthy
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage I see your point. But one anthropic constant (speed at which the big bang happened) if changed even slightly, the universe would have collapsed in on itself. Life would not have been possible. A lot of the constants are like this one.
Ok so your ok with the deistic god, you just need evidence for a theistic god? And I explained him creating hell above ^^. Also, he is a just God and if he did not punish injustice, then he would be unjust and imperfect. and not praiseworthy
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 I know how finely tuned the Universe is, but I really don't see why sentience is invoked to explain it. It's a thoroughly human notion, which is why I distrust it. Just as common sense tells us the World is flat and we're the centre of the Universe. But this is philosophical speculation of a deistic and inconsequential God. Ok you have a good point about creating hell. But an omniscient God would surely know that most of his supposedly loved creations will end up in hell, no?
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Sentience is needed by definition, based on the cosmological argument. All of nature came into existence at the time of the big bang. So the cause of the big bang must be something OUTSIDE of nature! (the definition of supernatural). The big bang must have had a supernatural cause by definition, and this is greater evidenced by the anthropic constants how intelligent, careful, and great a designer this supernatural cause must have been.
Running out of room, ill answer hell Q next
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Well I have to disgree with the sentience argument too. Scientists take too much of a leap with the big bang than they should. All the big bang says is that the Universe was hotter and denser in the past, less space. That's it, to even say there was a time zero is to take a leap beyond what we actually know. Besides, many cosmologists are coming to the conclusion that the big bang may not even be the start, just the start of this iteration of the Universe. Sentience isn't vital.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage That would just put the question off one more step. When was this 'hotter and denser' universe created? Who/What made it? The universe cannot be infinite in the past. We can grasp the idea of an infinite past abstractly, but concretely it really is an impossibility. Infinity cannot have an end, and today would be the 'end' of the past infinity, so the universe can't have had a past infinity. A timeless, materialess, supernatural, being had to have created the universe.
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 For your second post:
1 - nobody (!) knows
2 - nobody knows, plus it's an assumption in itself that it needed making in the first place
3 - As for infinity, well I'm no mathematician so will try not to say too much. But we know of infinities inside infinities inside infinities...etc. But our spacetime is a closed system, finite. Beyond that nobody knows.
And your last sentence is just an assumption. I have a million ideas, but what's true? I'm happy playing safe, thanks.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Nope, no assumption. At the big bang time, material, and nature were created. So the cause has to be timeless, materialess, and supernatural. That's just from the scientific evidence. Huh, sounds a lot like the biblical God? Strange...
1. it wasn't
2. i know
3. Past infinity is impossible. Which refutes your entire 'hotter and denser' theory.
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Yes, assumption. We can map the big bang phase to within a few nanoseconds until our equations from General Relativity reach zero...well, actually infinity, but you know what I mean. But that is an assumption, following GR beyond its limits. So we DON'T know the Universe had a beginning, we assert it from a theory we know isn't universal & doesn't work subatomically. For point 3; Our spacetime is finite, yes. But time is part of this system, for beyond...who knows?
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage time, material, and nature are all interdependent. If one did not exist, neither did the others.
Of course we can't KNOW, the way your defining it. But we don't really KNOW anything, nothing can be proven in that way. I can't even PROVE that I really exist. But all the evidence points to a God, that much we do know.
My advice to you is to pray and ask God to reveal himself to you. Don't expect an angel or anything lol, but reveal to your heart. It might be worth a try!
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Well time and material are nature. But you can prove you exist, I see you then I know you exist. Could be an illusion? Then affect something around me that others can attest, this conversation is doing quite well in that regard. So I believe you exist. Where's God? Never seen him, heard him or seen anything effected by him. Only got inferences and crazy ancient tales. Well for me that's not good enough, especially when apparently it's the most important decision one can make....
russellrummage 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 ...& let's not forget; you're arguing for Christianity. What makes you so sure the Hindu's aren't correct? For exactly the same reason as you disagree with me, but you can't use the same arguments with them. Even harder for you to say the Jews or Muslims are wrong, as your faiths are one and the same at a fundamental level, other than Jesus. So I look upon all these possibilities and say, "I'll stick to the natural World in all its glory, thanks". I don't need nor want supernatural
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Because when I look at the evidence I see a need for a mono-THEistic god. The cause can not be a part of nature, because nature was created. So that rules out pantheism. It must be one God, because this cause must be infinite. There can't be 2 infinite beings, or they would be the same thing. So that brings us down to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. There is tons of historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Look up a WLC debate on it. That is why....
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 I would agree with some of your thinking here Lone...in the same vein, how do you suppose we keep our individual consciousness in heaven? How is it possible, logically, for God to think, create in spacetimelessness? It is space and time that confers individuality, and character. Space and time create dualistic notions like good and bad. This is why Hindus and Buddhists have a concept that "God" is ONE...and that our individual consciousness is a mere illusion of the ego.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra God is able to 'think' because he is a mind/soul When the bible says 'we are made in his image' it means that we have a mind (aka soul). We are a soul that uses a body to function. Look up Dualism to know what I am talking about. That is why God can exist and 'think' in a timeless, spaceless 'place' so to speak. Because a mind is not material, so time has no effect on it. Hindus are actually pantheist I believe. But yeah I think your on the right track in your last sentence.
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65 Thinking is a process that occurs in time. You have no reference to even contemplate a mind thinking or acting or creating outside of space and time. This is completely incoherent, yet Theists speak about it all the time. It is space and time that affords minds and individual consciousness.In space timelessness there is no separation...so how do you think souls can exist separately from one another-maintain individual consciousness? what would separate me from you?
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra Does thinking have to occur in time? We don't know. We know that space, material, and time are all interdependent. But a Mind is spaceless, timeless, etc.. So for all we know it is possible to 'think' outside of time. And I think you are correct, outside of space-time souls could not exist separately. That is why I believe in one God. We were created in space-time.
You ask good questions, that I don't think we will fully know the answers to, until after this life.
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65 "outside of space-time souls could not exist separately'.....so do souls just amalgamate into god at death....? aso, I don't how you can say that minds are "outside " of time...this is incoherant. Thinking, as we know it involves processibng of information...how does that work in space timelessness? A mind is simply our awareness of brain activity. There is no mind without brains
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra This is where I disagree with you. I believe we are souls/minds that USE our brain to function. In fact the Bible says we will receive new bodies, so it possible that you are right. Again I encourage you to look into Dualism. The 'mind' is not simple awareness of brain activity. When I say 'mind' i do not mean 'brain', it IS incoherent to think material brains exist outside of time. But immaterial 'minds' (aka souls) could exist outside of time.
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65 i have read about dualism. I fail to see any reason to believe that minds are separate from brains. I could turn your mind off completely by stopping brain activity with a small injection of propofol. See how minds change with age,trauma, disease, drugs. Personality changes, emotions change,thoughts change.How was your mind before you were born? Thinking requires time...one thought leads to the next....and are composed of emotions as well. Minds=consciousness of brain activity
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra Yes BRAINS change, we see that all the time. But that doesn't mean the MIND has changed. Think about it, if were simply all materiel (no mind) then why would we have consciousness? Our brain would just be a bunch of chemical reactions, that we can't control. We couldn't be morally responsible for anything. Consciousness is evidence for a MIND (aka soul). We are not simply robots controlled by random chemical processes. I think it is perfectly rational to think we have a mind.
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65 I disagree with you. There is simply no logical,rational, evident reason to think of minds as existing outside a brain --or outside of space and time. Our brains are composed of atoms, molecules and physiological processes, that confer consciousness. Stop these activities and you will demonstrably stop consciousness. Where was your mind before you were born?...All mind activity...thinking, consciousness, identity, logic, memory, emotion require brains in space and time.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra If brains change...in what way does your mind NOT change....your thinking changes, your personality changes, your reasoning ability changes, your emotions change, your memory changes....in what way does your mind stay the same?....what do you mean by mind anyway...does it confer anything at all...about the same it confers onto your consciousness that it did before you were born? you have reduced mind to nothing.
adstanra 6 months ago
@adstanra Your confusing the functions of a brain and a mind. The mind uses the brain, that much is obvious. But if there was no mind, then we would not have consciousness, we could not love, we could not detect beauty, etc. We would essentially be robots controlled by random chemical processes. As for changes, I certainly think that our minds were created along with our brains so there would not be a "before brain" state. But that is not a reason to think our minds will die alongside our brains
lonehunter65 6 months ago
@lonehunter65 You are making baseless assertions. Damage certain areas of the brain and your capacity to rationalize, to appreciate beauty, to love, to maintain consciousness, to discern reality, to socialize with other people will be lost, because these things are functions of the brain: everything that makes us...well, us! Individual minds can logically only exist in space and time.Anyway, Paul and Jesus understood the kingdom as existing in space and time, with bodies.You "sleep" until then.
adstanra 6 months ago
@lonehunter65 ....Look, I know I may come across as a skeptic for skeptic's sake, but I'm not. I'm not saying don't believe your hand when it's infront of your face, I'm saying we know so little, even about things we claim to know. So the possibilities are ironically infinite. You forward one possibility without any real evidence other than assertions derived from the human psyche. I'm open to things such as causality actually only being valid within this system, we're inside trying to look out.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage oh and maybe you should start being skeptical of your skepticism ;)
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@russellrummage I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Saying that scientists take too big of a leap with the big bang is just a silly thing to say. We know how fast the universe is expanding, therefore, we know that if you were able to rewind time, we can certainly conclude that everything in the universe was in one small spot. Besides, name one cosmologist, one without subjective thoughts of a silly god, that thinks it didn't happen.
ja1doyle 7 months ago
@ja1doyle You've missed my point, I'm not saying the Universe wasn't in a small spot, I'm saying that we don't actually know if this spot came from nothing, because we don't. It's the obvious conclusion, but it's actually just a claim, nothing more. The spot could have always been there for all we know, and many cosmologists are coming up with hypotheses in which the spot didn't spontaneously "exist". All I'm saying is there are things we assume to be true that we we don't actually know for sure
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Yes, I am familiar with Penrose. He thinks that there could have been a universe before ours. There is very little evidence to support it however, although, he is a smarter man than I. I understand your having a problem with the big bang coming from nothing, even though they call it a singularity. I know that I have have heard an idea in quantum mechanics, that states that nothing may actually be something, but I don't think that this has been fully worked out either.
ja1doyle 7 months ago
@ja1doyle Exactly, nothing has been fully worked out and that's all I'm saying. The Big Bang is presented as a closed package, whereas it only describes the evolution of our Universe from a singularity, of which we know nothing about. I haven't a problem with something from nothing, but the idea assumes that's what's happened. I'm happy wondering about it all with all the infinite possibilities but facts are what ground us and we all easily read more into what the facts actually are.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@ja1doyle ...cont. Look, I'll go with what the cosmologists say but the models may not get everything right,. Some things are proven & others are assumed within the model, such as time-zero. One scientist is Roger Penrose who has an interesting hypothesis about a cyclic Universe, where at maximum entropy there is no physics so spacetime's meaningless resulting in our massive dead Universe being a singularity again. Watch 'Horizon - What happened Before the Big Bang?' if you can for others too.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Of course God knew that many people would end up in hell. But that was by their own choice! Should God have taken away Heaven for all of the people who did place their trust in him, just so the ones who rejected him could stay away from Hell? The people who end up in Hell choose their own fate. Thanks be to God that he is providing such a glorious and wonderful place as Heaven for the ones who do believe in Him! I encourage you to read Revelation 21, to understand Heaven more!
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 Well it just leads me to wonder; what's the point of this little test? I can think of many ways he could have just enlightened us, and given another existence where belief in him doesn't come with the risk of eternal torture for getting it wrong. And that's with VERY sketchy evidence for his existence. Why bestow us with intelligence and punish us for persuing it? And sorry, but I'm not gonna buy the fallen creation story at all. Humanity punished for two primitive peoples mistake.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage It is not a 'test', as you say. Yes he could have stripped us of our free will, and made us worship him, but then we would just be robots. He gave us free will, and we have abused it.
He does not punish us for pursuing intelligence. Anyone honestly and objectively examining the evidence will see that God exists.
We are not punished for 2 peoples mistakes. We all would have made the same decision. Can you honestly say you have never lied/cheated? Injustice requires punishment
lonehunter65 7 months ago
@lonehunter65 When I talk of the test, I'm not talking about free will as such, just that he chooses to hide himself. I'm a fan of his work, and research as much as I can, so because I find it fascinating that it all seems a self-regulatory system and hasn't a need for a deity (which seems more magical to me) I'm gonna get tortured for eternity? Well then, even if he exists I'm not gonna shower him with praise for being so callous. Existence doesn't show he is good, quite the opposite and petty.
russellrummage 7 months ago
@russellrummage Hasn't the need for a deity?? That's where I disagree. We could not have been there in the first place, without a deity.
Again God is just and sin must be punished. He does not want to punish you, so he gave an alternative: Accept Jesus as your savior and have your sins payed for by him! But either way your sins MUST be payed for.
lonehunter65 7 months ago
Its fair to say that Craig adhered himself to the topic. Unfortunately, he gave us absolutely no evidence to support his idea, that if there were no god, we would have no morals. Now, he can babble about how gods command is where these morals came from, but unless you can prove that a god exists, his claim, as Dawkins would say, is spectacularly stupid.
ja1doyle 7 months ago 16
@ja1doyle he said there would be no foundation by which you could make the claim, but morals don't adhere to logic and the concept of validating there foundation until certain axioms about them are made, two separate world views, two separate viewpoints about what was a solid foundation, we almost all experience a sense of morals and the source of them cannot be proved hence it is irrelevant until the source is proven hence debate was useless.. Harris seemed to realize this and talk about other
themagicglass 7 months ago
@themagicglass What exactly are you trying to say. My point was that Craig cannot prove the existence of a god, therefore, his points about how without a god, we would have no morals, is ridiculous. Harris is not going to fall into Craig's trap, because he understood Craig's premise the same way I did. When you realize that someone is being ridiculous in their arguments, you don't give them merit by responding to the same stupid argument.
ja1doyle 7 months ago
@ja1doyle
For something to exist it either 1) is infinite 2) was created or 3) created itself.
There's no evidence the universe is created, or of a "multiverse", or that the universe constantly expands/contracts.
Since atheists don't believe the universe was created, by logical necessity, they are saying it created itself. That is spectacularly stupid.
Either provide evidence of the universe creating itself or STFU.
Prologicful 6 months ago
@Prologicful First of all, there are folks out there, such as: theist, deists, agnostics and the like, who also, not only believe that the universe came into existence through an event called the big bang, but know it to be a fact. This is common knowledge to those who take science seriously, whether they are religious or not. To say that the universe was "created', would be a leap of faith that I am not willing to take. Creation of the universe is a claim, unsupported by fact.
ja1doyle 6 months ago
@Prologicful get real buddy. You have no evidence for a space timeless being. The universe is governed by impersonal forces...no God required. By logical necessity, nothing comes from nothing, so there must exist some primordial stuff out of which the universe arose. You assert some incoherent being magically created the stuff from nothing (with a wand?). Atheists assert that the primordial stuff contained the necessary condition for every subsequent event (which is what we find).
adstanra 6 months ago
@Prologicful "There's no evidence the universe is created, or of a "multiverse", or that the universe constantly expands/contracts."
-3 points, the latter two are false. There is some evidence of a possible multiverse as well as quite a bit of evidence of expansion/contraction. You are making false claims and dressing it up as fact. And your moronic "stfu" comment just shows your lack of maturity and reason. So what we have is a lying troll, who peppers lies with truth, and insults others.
starcrafter13terran 5 months ago
@ja1doyle
"Unfortunately, he gave us absolutely no evidence to support his idea, that if there were no god, we would have no morals." - A naturalistic framework logically entails a feelingless universe. If there is no God, then the question of "why do I even feel negatively towards rape or murder" is meaningless, because it is purely brain chemistry to dictates how we react to such actions. That is something that Dr. Craig did comment on in the debate, though not as direct.
BassP86 5 months ago
@BassP86 I stand by my comment. Morals come from inside a person. This is why a person should feel negatively towards rape and murder. What could be more natural than that? Go ahead and talk to a person who has killed and raped someone, then come back and tell me how you feel! Otherwise, feel free to agree with Craig.
ja1doyle 5 months ago
@ja1doyle
"Morals come from inside a person." - You're missing the point here. I'm not saying that no one on earth has such feelings towards rape. I'm saying our feelings towards rape are the reality, but the worldview in question HAS to be able to account for why human beings even have such feelings. Naturalism does NOT account for this, because naturalism entails something completely different from what REALITY tells us. The problem is with the WORLDVIEW, not reality itself.
BassP86 5 months ago
@ja1doyle I think he did give us evidence to support his idea. And I think that Harris utterly failed to account for how, if we are nothing more than biochemical machines without free will, there could be a moral standard beyond human opinion.
patrckhh20 4 months ago
@patrckhh20 without human opinion morals dont exsist...it's that simple.
theELUSIV 4 months ago
Craigs ontological ground for morality is basically God command theory.....he just hopes that God's nature is to command those things that naturally enhance our well being. Harris pointed out that revelation has not helped in our struggle for morality. We can easily improve on so-called revelation from the iron age...with reason and the basic assumption that all humans naturally wish to be happy and avoid suffering.
adstanra 7 months ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 8 months ago
Excluding the misinformed opinions of philosophically illiterate laymen, simpletons and trolls, this was quite a spectacular debate win for William Lane Craig. The professional philosophical community at least are generally agreed on this point.
Sam Harris was so dejected and demoralised by the end, he knew fully well how poorly he fared, even in the context of low expectations of his performance. Dawkins next, I hope.
Calenfeyn41 8 months ago
@Calenfeyn41 this was an easy victory for Sam Harris who destroyed WLC. WLC's argument is based upon founding morality upon a vague incoherent spacetimeles being that no one really knows about, but wave a holy book. Harris gives a practical real basis for morality that stems ultimately from the laws of physics and our fundamental nature to be happy and not suffer. WLCs god does not equal "God is love" in my book...so we have no basis for consensus,other than our mutual wellbeing anyway.
adstanra 7 months ago
While you watch this, you might be able to picture your head inside a toilet bowl. I wouldn't tell you to picture what you'd see inside the toilet bowl, but as you can possibly imagine what sounds you'd hear once that toilet was flushed and what the suction on your head might feel like, then you know what it's like to listen to Dr. Craig speak. I enjoy playing snake when it's his turn to talk. (press pause, then start.. then the up & right arrows simultaneously)
xxxHYPNOTISTxxx 8 months ago