For a group that claims to be the "brights", you would think the materialists would blow the competition away. However, in debate after debate that I see, that's not the case at all. When it comes to applying the laws of logic, the theist position tends to come out ahead. Notice how the atheist in the video could not articulate a position on why there is no God.
I'm a bit irritated with this debate. I am an atheist, but feel that all main points made by the atheist were either fallacious or downright stupid. He is unable to defend himself because, frankly, he doesn't know what he's talking about. William Lane Craig made a few fallacies, one being an equivocation fallacy on the definition of atheism. All ideologies and viewpoints here were misrepresented, in my opinion. Not a very good debate. :/
@kaixjin I have a question for ya. Isn't Atheism just a little boring? I grew up in a home that was "Godless". My parents thought the concept was stupid. I went through a bible bashing phase in my early 20's cause it's easy to do. I've since become "spiritual" with a belief in a higher power. The whole "we die and that's it" just wasn't working for me. I'm not really sure what I converted to, all I can say is that I'm spiritual with some sense that this life just ain't the end...
@BlongBlarble " Isn't Atheism just a little boring? " No, Atheism is freeing the mind and thinking rationally and using common sense. You had smart parents. Its easier to believe in religion than to reject it. The mind can be weak and thats where religion comes in. Although we would like to believe in a life after death, Its just not happening.
@CbandMaster May I ask you something? You obviously being an atheist and all.. Why shouldn't I steal your wallet, if I got away from it? I mean, there are no objective moral values. Right?
@CbandMaster. There is no right and wrong according to your worldview. Only socially acceptable, and socially unacceptable. This means that if your parents raised you in a good atheist manner, you would probably know what to do in certain situations. You would also, however, be taught that when it comes to it, there is no right and wrong.
@ghae1 " This means that if your parents raised you in a good atheist manner "
Why does this have anything to do with religion? But seeing as how you brought up religion, let me give you an example. I know people who say they are religious, and yet they commit crimes. Why do you think that is? Because their parents failed to bring them up correctly just as their parents probably failed them. Proper guidance, good family structure, good values & morals make a good person, not religion.
@clawedification Wow. Were you picking and choosing what you heard on this particular program? That's a rhetorical question because you were obviously doing that to come to your conclusion.
what i find ironic is it seems more like Craig didn't really debate michael....it seems A LOT more like the TV host kicked the atheist guys ass just by asking him questions
Michael Payton constantly interrupts William Lane Craig and William Craig exercises great patience and humility by allowing the rude and arrogant Michael Payton to constantly interrupt with his outspoken ludicrous oratories.
@Jehovahourgod You're wrong! Payton was having to deal with 2 protagonists including Coran. I think he aquitted himself very well. Funny that Coran justifies religion in terms of freedom of expression. This is a sure sign that the argument is essentially lost. You have obviopusly been brainwashed with this bulllshit. It is refreshing to see that intelligent people can stand up and resist the indoctrination. Craig, a professor of the unknowable. Belief against god is not arrogance.
Michael Payton is rude and obnoxious who constantly interrupts Michael Coren and William Lane Graig. Truly a egoistical man who I believe is a homosexual.
I believe Michale Payton is a homosexual, exercises immorality and does not want to believe in a judgmental God. Thus, this frees his own conscience to practice immorality without a judgmental God. Most atheists fall into this category. Christopher Hitchens is dying due to his own immorality of alcoholism and the defilement of the flesh my heavily damaging his own body by smoking cigarettes.
This guy is so dumb. Ha. He challenged Craig to prove where in Sartre he said that you have despair and subjectivity without God. Craig proved it. Then he disagreed with Sartre. Uh . . . In other words, Craig was right about Sartre. Yea, better change the point quick! To what? That you can ground morality atheistically because you can give reasons why you shouldn't do something? The whole freaking point is that you can't ground the 'reasons' objectively on atheism.
Look at those rationals for not resisting evil and then remember how the catholic church and large sections of islam colluded with hitler for a great part of the war saying how wrong they were. I call it the how sorry i was that i shagged your wife theory of morality. Clearly the host believes christian morality involves making sure you shaft people before apologising.
@strangetranceoffaith The Catholic Church did not collude with Hitler. It saved approximately 860,000 Jewish lives during WW2, more than all other efforts combined. Numerous priests and religious were sent to concentration camps. Get your facts straight.
@strangetranceoffaith Your ignorance is really showing. Pope Pius XII supported the attempted coup and also attempted to exorcise Hitler. Who are "they" exactly? Of course, locally the Catholic hierarchy's first instinct would be to try and protect the Catholic faithful in the event of Nazi retaliation in response to the failed coup, so declaring a celebration can be seen as a PR stunt. Pius XI also tried to mobilise support against Hitler for years and was ignored by the West.
@andyyyp2 In 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews from being deported to Germany. later also for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing, "Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused" Shira Schoenberg. You were saying?
@strangetranceoffaith 860,000 Jews saved in WW2 by the Catholic Church, interesting you have nothing to say about that? Pius did not condemn the Nazis directly because he did not want to precipitate mass retaliation against Catholics and Jews - this happened when the Netherlands Bishops spoke out. Had he been more explicit no doubt you would have alleged his pius platitudes endangered lives!
It strikes me that there need not be any fundamental morals from on high when we simply act the way we do because this is what we are. The potential for our behaviour is surely of the environment and our DNA, our experience and our enjoyment of others, etc..
The atheist guy is a complete noob idiot. Every single answer he gave was 'well that depends'. All he did was confuse himself more and more and create many false dichotomies. Craig is obviously very good at debating, while this does not make his claims 100% true, it certainly discredits the atheist. I have never heard a decent argument for the non existence of God, not anything that actually stands.
Billions of believers will defend and justify what ever chosen religion that help them make the most sense out of beeing alive and escape mortal fear. And whether these Gods exist or not, they has left it solely to their human creations to proove it. Believe it or not.
Why you shouldn't steal from him. IT DESTABILIZES SOCIETY. It will backfire and the rest of your time on earth will be worse. As people will treat others as they have been treated and you're one of the others.
By the way, relarerfhjk, there's no "repeated self-contradiction" in Hitchens saying there's no reason to believe, and then him saying he does not believe.
Your understanding of agnosticism / atheism is extremely skewed.
And you say I should have listened carefully to the argument.
@AR333 He repeatedly contradicted himself on which category of atheist he is, e.g verficationalist, agnostic etc (he didnt even get the question).
I'm having to teach you very basic philosophical ideas,you dont seem any more clued-up than poor Hitchens. Angosticism is not a belief, it is neutral.However, to affirm the non-existence of God is a belief that cant be proved.If I believe apples are round but you do NOT believe apples are round they are both beliefs without objective proof.
@VDMpeniel Oh you mean that debate where Hitchens had to repeat 3 times what his definition of atheism is? Where Craig kept trying to straw man it? The one that took place in a crowd which (this is noncontroversial) was heavily scaled on Craig's side? By the way, I don't seem to recall Craig addressing Hitchens's point about religion reverse-engineering arguments in its favor.
Answer to the ideas themselves that were used in debates, not simple-minded "X won, Y lost".
@AR333 "Hitchens had to repeat 3 times what his definition of atheism is"
If you knew philosophy,or just listened carefully to the arguments, you would know Hitchens got exposed by those questions,because he contradicted himself repeatedly, when challenged on what category of atheism he falls under,he first said he had no reason to believe (which would just make him agnostic) but then said he believed God does NOT exist which is itself a belief , and requires justification
@relarerfhjk I'm a philosophy major, time to go to school:
Craig said there "Would you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to which he said "I don't know if I would". This also came up in Craig vs Slezek where he had to be explained what Hitchens essentially said too: that if you proportion the claim (god) to the reasons supporting it, it does NOT stand. You're the one in dire need of philosophy if you think Craig's line can work for general existential statements.
@AR333 I dont believe you for a moment, no philosophy major would ever make such an egregious error. If you watch the debate again, you will see Hitchens stumbled when asked the question, then said "On some days..." as if he flip-flops between positions on different days of the week, then made an irrelevant speech about Bishop Wilberforce, before claiming,first, that he just saw no evidence to believe (agnosticism) then saying he belives God does NOT exist, which is a statement of belief.
@AR333 There is an explicit contradiction between the two positions. Not having evidence to either believe or disbelieve, leaves you with agnosticism, which witholds judgment until objective proof is available. Stating you believe God does not exist, without objective proof (and with considerable historical and scientific evidence that He does exist) is the complete opposite to agnosticism, which simply awaits evidence either way.
@relarerfhjk "Not having evidence leads you to agnosticism"
No it doesn't. It simply doesn't. The only people who propagate this nonsense are those who have deep commitments to non-verified claims. I don't know if I could say anything to get you to understand this. Should I cite scholarly sources? I am still in university so I am not a professional but I read this stuff day in day out: that's not how it works. Saying I saw butterflies in my backyard =/= saying I saw angels in my backyard.
Yes not having evidence leads to agnosticism, it doesn`t lead you to disbelief. There is a difference between not having evidence and having positive evidence of absense. IE I don`t believe in Santa Clause bc he fails to satisfy the condition that he should have been seen delivering christmas gifts at some point. What I mean is that Atheists need to show some positive claim or consequence of God that is not satisified and thus their view is justified.
@Jim1905 "Atheists need to show some positive claim or consequence of God that is not satisified and thus their view is justified."
Let's assume that prayers being answered and miracles occurring are sufficient evidence for the existence of a God. The fact that there's no experimental evidence to show that prayer works, and the lack of evidence of miracles occurring would be a couple reasons to reject the claim that a God exists.
Also there are other class of claims that we could never know and have no impact upon our daily lives; such as the geographics of a planet in a galaxy 8 billion light years away, it would be ludicrous for one to assert that one geography is correct and one is wrong, or that none are correct. However, God, or at least the theists God does not fall within this catagory, as we`ll certaintly all know at some point and can at least be proped on the logical level; though so could the example.
Finally, the only way atheism begins to even make some sense is if you accept their hidden assumptions or dogma: Naturalism. Only in a naturalist framework does refuting God become possible, but they are paralyzed by the very fact that it is impossible to prove naturalism in a naturalist framework, you simply have to assume it. There are also some major logical objections to Naturalism as well, starting with CS Lewis famous argument from reason.
@Jim1905 There's a scale of proportion that has to be made though with regards to evidence and belief. 1st, the claim of theism is a very bold claim. 2nd, I am not assuming naturalism, that is just false. Please do not make it seem like MY position is the presuppositionalist one. That goes to Christian apologetics, not us. While Craig says he does not belong in this camp, there is much in his book to suggest otherwise, ex: those who reject Christ are doing it willfully p36-37. THAT'S dogma.
Stop pretending to be agnostic when it suits you and atheists in your claims. If you make the claim, either positive or negative, you need to back it up. Christian Apologetics attempt to back up the positive with logical arguments but yes they have assumptions such as the supernatural. Atheists feel they don`t need to back up their negative claim by putting on agnostic clothing. It`s a clever form of rhetoric, that always keeps the attention off of them and on their opponents.
But when you really press the issue, it comes down to Naturalism or Scientism (there`s no evidence; as if God failed to satisfy some positive condition that could be measured or detected since he could not possibly lie outside of spacetime as that is impossible under the doctrine of Naturalism). They also suffer from the false preception that God is knowable, which is denied in Christianity. Epistimology does not dictate Metaphysics.
@Jim1905 I understand what you mean by saying "god is not knowable", but be serious. I mean christians don't believe in an Aristotelian god or a deistic god, but a personal god who they actually happen to know some of his characteristics. This further entails people who will come out and say "god wants x". Politicians do this, pastors do this, the Pope does this. So when I am told by christians what god wants, please do not come at me with the "no evidence either way, so you can't DISbelieve"
You see the key part in your claim, which you don't even seem to get that it is your key point, is when you say "historical and scientific evidence". That's the important part. You are coming into this thinking this is the case. I come as someone who does not think this is the case. So just, for the sake of argument, step on my side. If there NEVER WAS evidence, and present evidence stinks, you would conclude there is no reason to think this idea is any more credible than any other superstition.
This was the worst mockery of a debate I have ever seen. The moderator openly states his preference for one side before the debate even begins. They pitted a double PhD. against a grad student. Then the moderator continually interrupted the Atheist while allowing the Christian to blather on almost without end. Worst propaganda drivel ever presented. Christians can't have an honest open debate about the facts because the facts don't support them in the least. How did Judas die? Can't answer?
@TheAnubisDrake The moderator is asking the kid to explain his position and the kid doesn't have a position or details to support the position. I think the moderator is probing him frequently because he can't get a direct answer out him. If he could explain himself clearly like Craig can, the moderator wouldn't be all over him like he is. Craig can speak and carry his segment on his own. That's not a bias view but how moderators have to act in order to make a debate flow.
@TheAnubisDrake From the two accounts I have read Judas wither hung himself or threw himself off a cliff and died on the rocks below. I'm not sure what you were trying to have as a point by asking how Judas died. Historically it was one of these two ways described more than likely.
I agree this was not an even debate (few are evenly matched with Dr. Craig) but there are good debates to be found. It is not true that Christians can't have an honest debate. Look for them and you will find them.
@TheAnubisDrake lol Yet Dr. Craig has participated in many debates that was a fair pairing. He has debated double doctorates before in a fair setting. I agree that this particular debate was unfair. I wonder why the grad student agreed to debate the double doctorate? Maybe he thought that a Christian no matter how educated couldn't possibly pose a challenge.
let's say that it is decided by the majority of a society that the poor should be enslaved and have all human rights removed. Are they wrong for doing this if they determine it to be right?
It will truly be a glorious day when this young scientist realizes that God has been pursuing him throughout his life and finds meaning to his "reasons to be good simply because by the fact he feels a necessity to do so".
This was garbage. Two theists ganging up on some unprepared kid who didn´t even seem willing to debate and was obviously not a great speaker or debater. The host kept pressing him to disprove god or the moral argument when Craig really hadn´t made arguments for god himself. All he did was list his arguments by name and make an apologistic defense against the argument from evil. Yet they acted like he´d made great agruments for god already. Junk show.
@rokkvi1 All of the arguments Craig listed are in great detail in his written work as well as other debates he has participated in, and both the host and the opponent knew them very well. What advantage would there be to repeat them again? They have not been defeated in his other debates to ANY degree, as you will see if you watch them yourself.
NO atheist has an argument against God's existence because by it's very nature Atheism CANNOT produce one or else then they'd have to defend something.
@hayakain yes they exist in great detail, so do refutations of these arguments. Not everyone has heard the arguments or their objections, or the objections to their objections and so on, so that should answer your "What advantage would there be to repeat them again?" comment.
It´s YOUR opinion that nobody has refuted WLC´s arguments. You are flat out wrong that no atheist has an argument against god´s existence, regardless of whether you find these arguments valid or not.
@rokkvi1 I´ve watched 2 of his debates (vs Stenger and vs Slezak). IMO they both demolished Craig´s arguments. Not that a debate as such shows much. It´s better to research the material than to just watch a debate, although a debate can be a good starting point.
The burden of proof is Craig´s and he hasn´t shown god to exist. His teleological argument and cosmological argument start from physics, but by far the majority of physicists are atheists, especially the most successful ones.
@hayakain LOL again it´s your opinion they were shot down. Again WLC offers two arguments that he bases on physics, the teleological and cosmological arguments. If he was correctly referencing the physics and his reasoning was solid, almost all experts in the relevant fields of physics would be theists. They are overwhelmingly atheistic however, and the more successful they are, the more likely to be so. Why do you think that is?
@rokkvi1 Actually, no my opinion wasn't shot down.
And regardless of the NUMBER of believers/nonbelievers in any profession is irrelevant to the truth or lack thereof of their statements. Not to mention your statistics are INCREDIBLY wrong.
@hayakain I´m not sure you are able to read English properly. "it´s your opinion they were shot down" does not mean "your opinion was shot down". You also miss the point, which is the experts in the fields Craig is referencing in these two arguments being overwhelmingly atheistic, means the arguments hold no weight, although that in itself doesn´t mean the nonexistence of god.
@hayakain LOL on asking me to give you what you are asking for, which is an argument against god that you "haven´t already heard or seen shot down". I have no idea what arguments you have heard already or why you think they have been "shot down", yet you expect to claim victory outright if I can´t write one here. Do you seriously expect me to write down all possible arguments against god in here, just in the hopes of you saying "oh I haven´t seen that one shot down already, guess you win" ?
@rokkvi1 Then list one, please. You know as well as I do which arguments Craig has presented, and I have yet to see them refuted.
In order to state something contrary you have to actually STATE something in contrast.
And again, the number of people in a field holding one belief is irrelevant to whether or not the belief is true.
There MUST be arguments both FOR a differing view AND AGAINST the view they disagree with. YOU seem to have neither. You've got one more chance to answer my question.
@hayakain you really don´t understand much of what I´m saying. The majority of EXPERTS in a given field having a certain view of an ARGUMENT that is rooted in that exact field IS RELEVANT. Let me give an obvious example since you have such a hard time understanding it: If the vast majority of experts in the biomedical fields don´t buy into the argument that certain vaccinations cause autism, that would point to this not being true.
@rokkvi1 so on the same note the kalam and teleological arguments hold no weight with the experts on the big bang and the fundamental constants. If they would find the arguments valid they would be theistic, but that´s not the case. Thus the arguments are junk. Whether that is relevant to whether god exists is another matter.
Now you´ve ducked my question of where you can find the statistics proving me wrong on physicist being overwhelmingly atheistic.
@hayakain I seem to have neither? Really? Because I´ve been to busy making you look like an idiot here to give any must mean I don´t have any? Did you make any arguments FOR god already? I didn´t see any. It´s your opinion that Craig´s arguments haven´t been refuted. "You´ve got one more chance to answer my question" - or what? - you´ll go running to your religious buddies doing a victory dance claiming that yet again no atheist ever made any argument against the existence of god?
@hayakain I can list a few of them if you want. I´ve already argued why none of Craig´s arguments holds any weight, which was the point I wanted to make, not to go into a full length debate on the existence of god in a comments section of a youtube video. Here´s the list:
Arguments:
- that the attributes of god are logically impossible
- that the attributes of god contradict one another
@rokkvi1 I didn't need to make arguments FOR God, because Craig has kindly done so in his other videos, watch them if you need to.
Now, All of what you have listed have been covered in depth by - guess who- Dr. Craig as well, I remember specifically the attributes and the differing religions.
I suggest you go look those up for yourself, as I have, then come back and tell me WHAT is wrong with Craig's examination of those issues, rather than just telling me they're wrong. Offer evidence.
@hayakain LOL "offer evidence" like Craig has ever offered evidence. He has offered arguments, not evidence. Yes Craig has made counter arguments to agruments against god. Arguments have also been made against Craig´s arguments and his counteragruments and so on. It´s your opinion Craig´s agruments are right, that´s all. You can´t prove them to be. I could just as well tell you to read the various books and arguments against god as you telling me to read further on Craig.
@rokkvi1 Secondly listing different arguments do nothing to disprove the arguments Craig has made, perhaps you'd like to take one of his arguments and tell me what's wrong about it SPECIFICALLY, rather than setting up straw men and avoiding the real issue.
If you do not do as I ask, and reply in a way I have not asked for, I will decide I have wasted my time talking to you and the conversation will cease. :)
@hayakain LOL you asked me to list some and then say it does nothing. Yes it does nothing, just like Craig listing his arguments in the debate, but you asked me to do it. You want me to, in a comments section on a video, to thoroughly debunk each of Craig´s arguments and present proof against the existence of god too? How much time and space would that take? I´ve already told you why they don´t hold any weight.
@rokkvi1 all you´ve done is say Craig´s argument´s are right without further reasoning and telling me to read more Craig, which holds no more value than somebody saying they are wrong without reasoning and pointing you to read Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Stenger.
It´s not surprising how intellecutally inept you are, considering I looked at your profile and you´re a home schooled "art student" - LOL. No wonder you idolize a member of the Discovery Institute like Craig.
@hayakain and again, most historians don´t think the resurrection of Jesus is a proven fact, as Craig argues. So much for 3 of his arguments where the experts in the relevant fields don´t buy them. The other two are the moral argument and argument from personal experience. Craig says objective moral values are self evident and gives no argument to prove they exist. Plenty of people offer "personal experience" of other gods and of space aliens, elves, monsters etc.
I believe that Bill Craig and theism (specifically Christian Theism) have the better arguments and that the proposition that God exists is clearly more plausible than the proposition that God does not exist. Having said that, I was grateful for the congenial and respectful discussion between the two. If we can have discussions with our friends, family, co-workers, and so-forth while generating light rather than heat, all will be better off.
Wow, did they go out of their way to find a terrible pundit for the atheist side, or what? Those questions were all softball gimme's that should have been easy to hit right out of the park. They asked him to make an argument against theism and all he played was a weakly presented argument from evil and a deferal to burden of proof. I know born again Christians who could have made a better argument against God. Dr Craig is not an amateur bullshitter. Why trot out the amateur rationalist?
"There are reasons to be good." (4:03) But what is good? How do you know you're being good when good is not established? Is he saying we are good because we are good? That's begging the question.
The existence of God is a really great issue. It is a shame that people go through this without preparation. Just because you believe or disbelieve don't means that you are prepared to speak about.
Dr Craig was very good, the atheist not so...Michael Coren was better...
But there are other good atheists speakers like Peter Slezak, Doug Jesseph and Austin Dacey...much better than Dawkins and this kid.
Well, I'm a theist, but I can recognize a good atheist debater.
The bus campaign wasn't meant to imply that it was a trivial question, it was supposed to imply that it's a silly question to ask while there's no hard evidence.
Oh that poor kid! Please get off of the brights side. You are doing us no favors other than to prove the fact that there are as many idiots who don't believe in god as there are who do. YIKES!
Jean-Paul Sartre openly quotes Dostoievsky (If God did not exist, everything would be permissible) in Existentialism and Human Emotions and then goes on to say "That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to".
"He can’t start making excuses for himself." - The end of the quote that you conveniently left out.
He quotes Dostoievsky in his work, though you'd have to know precious little about his work, and existentialism in general to think that he is asserting any sort of helplessness or fear in the non-existence in god. You, literally, just need to read the paragraphs immediately following the one you quoted to see that.
@Mathenaut I am actually a advocate for Existentialist philosophy including atheists like Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger. I dont see how the ending quote that you just posted nullifies the very fact that he himself states that without god the world is left with subjectivity. Also if you read his literary works like Nausea the main character Roquentin experiences helplessness and anxiety once he discovers that the objective world is in fact meaningless
Additionally, Sartre sympathizes with the sense of loss in prying away from what is essentially an emotional and psychological crutch - but to say that the end run of Existentialist philosophy is misery and despair means that you haven't read very far into his work. That isn't the message of his brand of Existentialism.
@Mathenaut Sartre also states that it is this very "vertigo" like experience of ultimate freedom which is troubling and unpleasant, this feeling is precisely what causes people to hide behind a determinism and thus act inauthenticity(denying ones freedom).
Yes, being responsible for your own actions is a burden; and a heavy burden for some. A burden that many aren't strong enough to bear.
There is a very big difference between this kind of staunch realism and this silly notion that there is depression and despair without god because there is no hope without him.
You're essentially quote mining the guy past a point. Placing all sense of what is good and right in god, then realizing there is no god, can be depressing.
By your take of it, that'd be the whole of Sartre's philosophy in a nutshell, when the reality is that it barely scratches the surface. Fortunately, people familiar with his works know better.
@Mathenaut I am not saying that Sartre's entire philosophy is based on despair and anguish but those are common themes not only in his literary works like No Exit and Nausea but also in his treatises like Existentialism is Humanism and Being and Nothingness. I do not personally believe that objective morality can only exist with God, however Sartre clearly disagrees. His whole philosophy rests on the fact that there are no moral truths(human nature) except mans freedom(human condition).
Starte denies the traditional sense of objective morality outright, not that it is specifically contingent upon god. God is used as an excuse, a cop out, an escape from responsibility.
In no way does Sartre even humor, much less validate the concept of the christian god on the means that it is a comfortable idea. It's a lie, and breaking from that can be a painful experience.
@Mathenaut I suggest you read more Sartre, he even states "there is no human nature, since there is no god to conceive it". Here Sartre clearly rejects the idea of "objective morality" or as he calls it human nature, and that such conceptions can only be contingent when there is a God.
Firstly, 'human nature' is not 'objective morality', nor does he remotely imply that such a notion is contingent upon any concept of a god. You are pulling a bit much from his criticisms of a very particular yet popular concept.
@Mathenaut actually the quotes that I have presented clearly show that Sartre believed objective morality was contingent with God, I am sorry you refuse to accept it.
"he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself"
None of your quotes substantiate any of that. Sartre denied objective morality - particularly the christian brand of it. That is the most you've established - and that is well known from reading his works.
This sense that the christian's god is needed to substantiate objective morality is your own devising. It isn't even a valid assertion to boot.
@Mathenaut Existentialism is Humanism: "Nowhere is it written that the good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men".Here he quotes Dostoevsky and goes on to say "Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to.
You posted this same quote literally just a few responses ago. My objections still stand, as this sort of bland reposting doesn't contribute to the original dead point.
The only thing required is to read beyond the mined quote to know better of what he is saying.
@Mathenaut "If existence really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by reference to a fixed and given human nature. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. "
Human nature comprises objective morals and thus the very form of determinism that Sartre railed against in his works.
Instinct isn't morality. The fact that this distinction is made by some systems and not others denies any sense of objective morality that isn't substantiated.
@Mathenaut in this same book Sartre criticizes the 19th century secular ethics movement in France. These people claimed that God is a useless hypothesis, yet still believed that certain ethics be taken as having an a priori existence(in order for society and civilization to function) . Sartre "In other words nothing will change. We will find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made of God an outdated hypothesis".
@Mathenaut Sartre then goes on to say "The existentialist on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him(God); there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie".
The only reason that this atheist says there is objective morality in the world apart from God is because he believes there is....in other words there is nothing outside himself that holds him accountable to anything other than himself, therefore he has no argument for obective moral behavior apart for his own feelings or thoughts. This idea leads to chaos and immorality, which is why immorality is increasing in the world!
How do you come to the conclusion that you will get away with it? It is an unrealistic hypothetical to claim absolute knowledge of all consequences... we can only act on expectations of consequences.
There is only one God, and the whole world accepts the ample scientific evidence for his appearance and activities as fact.
The deluded atheist is in the extreme minuscule minority, and is on the exact same intellectual level as the lower animal in that they both fail to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence in favor of Theism that all human beings of normal intelligence on the planet understand easily.
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheist dogma™, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample logical and scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that one single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme minuscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
There are several Youtube features on my channel that provide scientific and logical evidence that atheist dogma™ promotes violence and killing by attempting to sidestep or degrade God's scriptural injunctions to be peaceful. Please watch:
@Purushadasa science is the number 1 enguine for atheism/agnosticism. the best scientists are nonbelievers BECAUSE of their superior understanding of the nature of reality. the more you learn about the world around you, the more likely it is to doubt the existence of god. pure and simple
@AgeOfReasonXXI The most intelligent man in each academic disicipline could arguably be a Christian. Care to exchange names? You couldn't be more full of nonsense.
The most uneducated, uninformed and easily defeated atheist opponent Craig has ever debated. Doesn't deserve to be on the same stage as William intellectually.
@richp860 bullshit. he made some very good points, it's too bad he's not as good in rethoric as craig is. and rethoric is all craig has going for himself
@AgeOfReasonXXI Deal with it, sir. Craig has dismantled the top-tier atheist proponents academia has to offer. This guy was WAY out of his league both educationally and intellectually. God is the far more reasonable answer to existence and no academic alive has claimed "victory" over William in arguing against that assertion. No rhetoric from him, just sound logic and philosophy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@richp860 no rethoric? there's nothing in his apologetics but rethoric. if his arguments are sound why are they dismissed as totally unconvincing by anyone who's not a believer and hence already comitted to the conclusion? craig's arguments are convincing only to people who want to be convinced and to no one else. deal with it...sir :)))
@richp860 "Craig has dismantled the top-tier atheist proponents academia has to offer. "
No he hasn't. He can't even substantiate the position that he holds. You praise Criag, but as I've challenged others to do, I'd like to see you point to ONE single point that he positively asserted in this discussion.
Too many people value Craig for being sophisticated, as opposed to any real substance in what he's saying.
@Mathenaut Explain how objective moral laws can exist without a moral lawgiver. Craig explains quite well why this is true and none of your cohorts can refute this. I cited one.. I'm waiting.
@richp860 "Explain how objective moral laws can exist without a moral lawgiver."
We'll just accept for the sake of argument that your 'objective' moral laws exist - overlooking your failure to demonstrate or define them (Craig's general argument is nothing but heavy emotional appeal).
There are a variety of secular means to derive moral consensus, from utilitarian methods to agreed upon basic values akin to Secular Humanism and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
@Mathenaut We'll just accept for the sake of argument that your 'objective' moral laws exist - overlooking your failure to demonstrate or define them. So... you are actually admitting that objective morality doesn't exist?
If that's true, then why should I adhere to any moral standard, especially if it's only been set down by mortal men such as myself? Wouldn't I be then simply obeying man's law as though HE is my God?
@Mathenaut That was complete and utter fuff. Right and wrong exist, whether you accept that by definition or example.. name an atheist scholar who disagrees by both criteria. You cannot.. God wins.
I like how you addressed my argument, raised solid points, and provided evidential examples. Oh wait, you just got butthurt and reasserted your opinion.
See:
ANY Relativist, ANY Nihilist, ANY Non-cognativist.
Additionally, even if such moral absolutism existed, it does not prove your god.
@Mathenaut Like I said, not a one of them has a viable explanation by either criteria, therefore I said exactly what I should have. Secondly.. if moral laws cannot exist without a moral lawgiver, then it most certainly points in that direction. What type of "proof" do you require? Something never comes from nothing and your secular scholars philosophical banter has failed miserable. All kinds of absolutes exist, so morality is certainly no exception. "My God" wins again.
You can say that they aren't viable until the moon turns blue, but until you actually raise a point against it, it's simply the fact that you don't agree. That establishes nothing but your opinion.
Secondly, you've yet to establish your laws, or why your god is necessary for said laws.
Thirdly, the 'something from nothing' caricature betrays how little you know of the scientific explanations.
Alot of absolutes don't exist. You've not proven anything. Your god...Fails, again.
@Mathenaut Operating under the assumption that objective moral law exists, we cannot have this without an objective moral law-giver - otherwise it wouldn't be objective at all. That's the argument, need I exhaust the details which men leagues above you are unable to refute? You're better off trying to argue against moral absolutes, which you will still fail miserably.
Also, my understanding of scientific explanations are rather sound.. something doesn't come from nothing.
This is hard to watch...that atheist guy is so awkward!!! Am I the only one that thinks that??
beto88keys 3 weeks ago
For a group that claims to be the "brights", you would think the materialists would blow the competition away. However, in debate after debate that I see, that's not the case at all. When it comes to applying the laws of logic, the theist position tends to come out ahead. Notice how the atheist in the video could not articulate a position on why there is no God.
mearokus 1 month ago
I'm a bit irritated with this debate. I am an atheist, but feel that all main points made by the atheist were either fallacious or downright stupid. He is unable to defend himself because, frankly, he doesn't know what he's talking about. William Lane Craig made a few fallacies, one being an equivocation fallacy on the definition of atheism. All ideologies and viewpoints here were misrepresented, in my opinion. Not a very good debate. :/
kaixjin 1 month ago
@kaixjin I have a question for ya. Isn't Atheism just a little boring? I grew up in a home that was "Godless". My parents thought the concept was stupid. I went through a bible bashing phase in my early 20's cause it's easy to do. I've since become "spiritual" with a belief in a higher power. The whole "we die and that's it" just wasn't working for me. I'm not really sure what I converted to, all I can say is that I'm spiritual with some sense that this life just ain't the end...
BlongBlarble 4 weeks ago
@BlongBlarble " Isn't Atheism just a little boring? " No, Atheism is freeing the mind and thinking rationally and using common sense. You had smart parents. Its easier to believe in religion than to reject it. The mind can be weak and thats where religion comes in. Although we would like to believe in a life after death, Its just not happening.
CbandMaster 3 weeks ago
@CbandMaster May I ask you something? You obviously being an atheist and all.. Why shouldn't I steal your wallet, if I got away from it? I mean, there are no objective moral values. Right?
ghae1 1 week ago
@ghae1 If you had a good upbringing with good structure and good morals, then you should know right from wrong, correct?
CbandMaster 6 days ago
@CbandMaster. There is no right and wrong according to your worldview. Only socially acceptable, and socially unacceptable. This means that if your parents raised you in a good atheist manner, you would probably know what to do in certain situations. You would also, however, be taught that when it comes to it, there is no right and wrong.
ghae1 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ghae1 " This means that if your parents raised you in a good atheist manner "
Why does this have anything to do with religion? But seeing as how you brought up religion, let me give you an example. I know people who say they are religious, and yet they commit crimes. Why do you think that is? Because their parents failed to bring them up correctly just as their parents probably failed them. Proper guidance, good family structure, good values & morals make a good person, not religion.
CbandMaster 1 day ago
This host jumps in way too much.
ParaDiseTellEm 1 month ago in playlist William Lane Craig on The Michael Coren Show
I pity the atheist guest. He was simply outclassed.
yumideb 2 months ago
Another rambling atheist caught up in his own flawed logic!
clawedification 3 months ago
@clawedification Wow. Were you picking and choosing what you heard on this particular program? That's a rhetorical question because you were obviously doing that to come to your conclusion.
avenuePad 1 month ago
The look on Craig's face from 0:12 to 0:17 says it all...
AgApE010 3 months ago
what i find ironic is it seems more like Craig didn't really debate michael....it seems A LOT more like the TV host kicked the atheist guys ass just by asking him questions
Falcondick69 3 months ago
This atheist has CLEARLY not thought out any of his beliefs to their logical conclusions... for lack of a better word he is ignorant.
tublet13 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
poor kid is out of his league.
reformedman 4 months ago
Great advert for not taking a (his) course in Cognitive Science!
Craig's expression at 3.51 !
billynotv 4 months ago
Michael Payton constantly interrupts William Lane Craig and William Craig exercises great patience and humility by allowing the rude and arrogant Michael Payton to constantly interrupt with his outspoken ludicrous oratories.
Jehovahourgod 6 months ago 10
@Jehovahourgod I agree! And i think all Christians should do the same, and not flip out.
bodom71 2 months ago
@Jehovahourgod You're wrong! Payton was having to deal with 2 protagonists including Coran. I think he aquitted himself very well. Funny that Coran justifies religion in terms of freedom of expression. This is a sure sign that the argument is essentially lost. You have obviopusly been brainwashed with this bulllshit. It is refreshing to see that intelligent people can stand up and resist the indoctrination. Craig, a professor of the unknowable. Belief against god is not arrogance.
bigguitar22 1 month ago
Michael Payton is rude and obnoxious who constantly interrupts Michael Coren and William Lane Graig. Truly a egoistical man who I believe is a homosexual.
Jehovahourgod 6 months ago
I believe Michale Payton is a homosexual, exercises immorality and does not want to believe in a judgmental God. Thus, this frees his own conscience to practice immorality without a judgmental God. Most atheists fall into this category. Christopher Hitchens is dying due to his own immorality of alcoholism and the defilement of the flesh my heavily damaging his own body by smoking cigarettes.
Jehovahourgod 6 months ago
I hate the guys face. What's with the eye brows lol.
plExEFile 6 months ago
This guy is so dumb. Ha. He challenged Craig to prove where in Sartre he said that you have despair and subjectivity without God. Craig proved it. Then he disagreed with Sartre. Uh . . . In other words, Craig was right about Sartre. Yea, better change the point quick! To what? That you can ground morality atheistically because you can give reasons why you shouldn't do something? The whole freaking point is that you can't ground the 'reasons' objectively on atheism.
slash20062006 6 months ago
This is a good answer on theist vs atheist morality: watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA
OrionVulcan 7 months ago
Look at those rationals for not resisting evil and then remember how the catholic church and large sections of islam colluded with hitler for a great part of the war saying how wrong they were. I call it the how sorry i was that i shagged your wife theory of morality. Clearly the host believes christian morality involves making sure you shaft people before apologising.
strangetranceoffaith 7 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith The Catholic Church did not collude with Hitler. It saved approximately 860,000 Jewish lives during WW2, more than all other efforts combined. Numerous priests and religious were sent to concentration camps. Get your facts straight.
andyyyp2 6 months ago
@andyyyp2 Is that why they declared a celebration when an assassination attempt on hitler failed?
strangetranceoffaith 6 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith Your ignorance is really showing. Pope Pius XII supported the attempted coup and also attempted to exorcise Hitler. Who are "they" exactly? Of course, locally the Catholic hierarchy's first instinct would be to try and protect the Catholic faithful in the event of Nazi retaliation in response to the failed coup, so declaring a celebration can be seen as a PR stunt. Pius XI also tried to mobilise support against Hitler for years and was ignored by the West.
andyyyp2 6 months ago
@andyyyp2 In 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews from being deported to Germany. later also for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing, "Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused" Shira Schoenberg. You were saying?
strangetranceoffaith 6 months ago
@strangetranceoffaith 860,000 Jews saved in WW2 by the Catholic Church, interesting you have nothing to say about that? Pius did not condemn the Nazis directly because he did not want to precipitate mass retaliation against Catholics and Jews - this happened when the Netherlands Bishops spoke out. Had he been more explicit no doubt you would have alleged his pius platitudes endangered lives!
andyyyp2 5 months ago
LOL, Craig's facial expressions when the fat kid speaks are comedy gold. Who the hell invited that smug little fucker?
dumbass22333 7 months ago
maybe the worst atheist debater in the world! lol
bfinkish 7 months ago
It strikes me that there need not be any fundamental morals from on high when we simply act the way we do because this is what we are. The potential for our behaviour is surely of the environment and our DNA, our experience and our enjoyment of others, etc..
unifiedreality 7 months ago
The atheist guy is a complete noob idiot. Every single answer he gave was 'well that depends'. All he did was confuse himself more and more and create many false dichotomies. Craig is obviously very good at debating, while this does not make his claims 100% true, it certainly discredits the atheist. I have never heard a decent argument for the non existence of God, not anything that actually stands.
satch500 8 months ago 11
Billions of believers will defend and justify what ever chosen religion that help them make the most sense out of beeing alive and escape mortal fear. And whether these Gods exist or not, they has left it solely to their human creations to proove it. Believe it or not.
Toggen62 8 months ago
Poor kid. He couldn't establish an argument let alone he was speaking almost the whole time..
danieljanca 8 months ago
LOL @ 4:07. WLC Facepalm
Fearnight 9 months ago
Why you shouldn't steal from him. IT DESTABILIZES SOCIETY. It will backfire and the rest of your time on earth will be worse. As people will treat others as they have been treated and you're one of the others.
codefusions 9 months ago
@codefusions so then, do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
JonLew1138 7 months ago
@JonLew1138
Yes. It's a good rule. Since it appeals to self interest, everyone can relate.
codefusions 7 months ago
By the way, relarerfhjk, there's no "repeated self-contradiction" in Hitchens saying there's no reason to believe, and then him saying he does not believe.
Your understanding of agnosticism / atheism is extremely skewed.
And you say I should have listened carefully to the argument.
AR333 9 months ago
@AR333 He repeatedly contradicted himself on which category of atheist he is, e.g verficationalist, agnostic etc (he didnt even get the question).
I'm having to teach you very basic philosophical ideas,you dont seem any more clued-up than poor Hitchens. Angosticism is not a belief, it is neutral.However, to affirm the non-existence of God is a belief that cant be proved.If I believe apples are round but you do NOT believe apples are round they are both beliefs without objective proof.
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
Heck that was abusive!!! poor kid, I feel sorry for him...There was no need for that!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
Leave it to a christian TV show to get a weak ass atheist to interview, get christoper hitchens and the there will be a debate.
gabbogabbo 10 months ago
@gabbogabbo the problem is that debate already had place and by his own words Hitchens loosed the argumentation!!
VDMpeniel 10 months ago
@VDMpeniel Oh you mean that debate where Hitchens had to repeat 3 times what his definition of atheism is? Where Craig kept trying to straw man it? The one that took place in a crowd which (this is noncontroversial) was heavily scaled on Craig's side? By the way, I don't seem to recall Craig addressing Hitchens's point about religion reverse-engineering arguments in its favor.
Answer to the ideas themselves that were used in debates, not simple-minded "X won, Y lost".
AR333 10 months ago
@AR333 "Hitchens had to repeat 3 times what his definition of atheism is"
If you knew philosophy,or just listened carefully to the arguments, you would know Hitchens got exposed by those questions,because he contradicted himself repeatedly, when challenged on what category of atheism he falls under,he first said he had no reason to believe (which would just make him agnostic) but then said he believed God does NOT exist which is itself a belief , and requires justification
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk I'm a philosophy major, time to go to school:
Craig said there "Would you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to which he said "I don't know if I would". This also came up in Craig vs Slezek where he had to be explained what Hitchens essentially said too: that if you proportion the claim (god) to the reasons supporting it, it does NOT stand. You're the one in dire need of philosophy if you think Craig's line can work for general existential statements.
AR333 9 months ago
@AR333 I dont believe you for a moment, no philosophy major would ever make such an egregious error. If you watch the debate again, you will see Hitchens stumbled when asked the question, then said "On some days..." as if he flip-flops between positions on different days of the week, then made an irrelevant speech about Bishop Wilberforce, before claiming,first, that he just saw no evidence to believe (agnosticism) then saying he belives God does NOT exist, which is a statement of belief.
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@AR333 There is an explicit contradiction between the two positions. Not having evidence to either believe or disbelieve, leaves you with agnosticism, which witholds judgment until objective proof is available. Stating you believe God does not exist, without objective proof (and with considerable historical and scientific evidence that He does exist) is the complete opposite to agnosticism, which simply awaits evidence either way.
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk "Not having evidence leads you to agnosticism"
No it doesn't. It simply doesn't. The only people who propagate this nonsense are those who have deep commitments to non-verified claims. I don't know if I could say anything to get you to understand this. Should I cite scholarly sources? I am still in university so I am not a professional but I read this stuff day in day out: that's not how it works. Saying I saw butterflies in my backyard =/= saying I saw angels in my backyard.
AR333 9 months ago
@AR333
Yes not having evidence leads to agnosticism, it doesn`t lead you to disbelief. There is a difference between not having evidence and having positive evidence of absense. IE I don`t believe in Santa Clause bc he fails to satisfy the condition that he should have been seen delivering christmas gifts at some point. What I mean is that Atheists need to show some positive claim or consequence of God that is not satisified and thus their view is justified.
Jim1905 9 months ago
@Jim1905 "Atheists need to show some positive claim or consequence of God that is not satisified and thus their view is justified."
Let's assume that prayers being answered and miracles occurring are sufficient evidence for the existence of a God. The fact that there's no experimental evidence to show that prayer works, and the lack of evidence of miracles occurring would be a couple reasons to reject the claim that a God exists.
djanheuser 8 months ago
@AR333
Also there are other class of claims that we could never know and have no impact upon our daily lives; such as the geographics of a planet in a galaxy 8 billion light years away, it would be ludicrous for one to assert that one geography is correct and one is wrong, or that none are correct. However, God, or at least the theists God does not fall within this catagory, as we`ll certaintly all know at some point and can at least be proped on the logical level; though so could the example.
Jim1905 9 months ago
@AR333
Finally, the only way atheism begins to even make some sense is if you accept their hidden assumptions or dogma: Naturalism. Only in a naturalist framework does refuting God become possible, but they are paralyzed by the very fact that it is impossible to prove naturalism in a naturalist framework, you simply have to assume it. There are also some major logical objections to Naturalism as well, starting with CS Lewis famous argument from reason.
Jim1905 9 months ago
@Jim1905 There's a scale of proportion that has to be made though with regards to evidence and belief. 1st, the claim of theism is a very bold claim. 2nd, I am not assuming naturalism, that is just false. Please do not make it seem like MY position is the presuppositionalist one. That goes to Christian apologetics, not us. While Craig says he does not belong in this camp, there is much in his book to suggest otherwise, ex: those who reject Christ are doing it willfully p36-37. THAT'S dogma.
AR333 9 months ago
@AR333
Stop pretending to be agnostic when it suits you and atheists in your claims. If you make the claim, either positive or negative, you need to back it up. Christian Apologetics attempt to back up the positive with logical arguments but yes they have assumptions such as the supernatural. Atheists feel they don`t need to back up their negative claim by putting on agnostic clothing. It`s a clever form of rhetoric, that always keeps the attention off of them and on their opponents.
Jim1905 9 months ago
@Jim1905 "but yes they have assumptions such as the supernatural."
Well, there you go. If you sincerely do not see the problem with this, no further discussion will help.
AR333 9 months ago
@AR333
But when you really press the issue, it comes down to Naturalism or Scientism (there`s no evidence; as if God failed to satisfy some positive condition that could be measured or detected since he could not possibly lie outside of spacetime as that is impossible under the doctrine of Naturalism). They also suffer from the false preception that God is knowable, which is denied in Christianity. Epistimology does not dictate Metaphysics.
Jim1905 9 months ago
@Jim1905 I understand what you mean by saying "god is not knowable", but be serious. I mean christians don't believe in an Aristotelian god or a deistic god, but a personal god who they actually happen to know some of his characteristics. This further entails people who will come out and say "god wants x". Politicians do this, pastors do this, the Pope does this. So when I am told by christians what god wants, please do not come at me with the "no evidence either way, so you can't DISbelieve"
AR333 9 months ago
You see the key part in your claim, which you don't even seem to get that it is your key point, is when you say "historical and scientific evidence". That's the important part. You are coming into this thinking this is the case. I come as someone who does not think this is the case. So just, for the sake of argument, step on my side. If there NEVER WAS evidence, and present evidence stinks, you would conclude there is no reason to think this idea is any more credible than any other superstition.
AR333 9 months ago
Little pudgester was clowned in every possible way. This interview was boring and pathetic.
MrDeppness 10 months ago
atheism < christianity
TheCzechnology 11 months ago
This chap, right, should have, right, elocution lessons, right.
Fleshious 11 months ago
Comment removed
stanfan27 1 year ago
Owned...
dex1391 1 year ago
This was the worst mockery of a debate I have ever seen. The moderator openly states his preference for one side before the debate even begins. They pitted a double PhD. against a grad student. Then the moderator continually interrupted the Atheist while allowing the Christian to blather on almost without end. Worst propaganda drivel ever presented. Christians can't have an honest open debate about the facts because the facts don't support them in the least. How did Judas die? Can't answer?
TheAnubisDrake 1 year ago
@TheAnubisDrake The moderator is asking the kid to explain his position and the kid doesn't have a position or details to support the position. I think the moderator is probing him frequently because he can't get a direct answer out him. If he could explain himself clearly like Craig can, the moderator wouldn't be all over him like he is. Craig can speak and carry his segment on his own. That's not a bias view but how moderators have to act in order to make a debate flow.
stanfan27 1 year ago
@TheAnubisDrake From the two accounts I have read Judas wither hung himself or threw himself off a cliff and died on the rocks below. I'm not sure what you were trying to have as a point by asking how Judas died. Historically it was one of these two ways described more than likely.
I agree this was not an even debate (few are evenly matched with Dr. Craig) but there are good debates to be found. It is not true that Christians can't have an honest debate. Look for them and you will find them.
imkluu 1 year ago
@TheAnubisDrake lol Yet Dr. Craig has participated in many debates that was a fair pairing. He has debated double doctorates before in a fair setting. I agree that this particular debate was unfair. I wonder why the grad student agreed to debate the double doctorate? Maybe he thought that a Christian no matter how educated couldn't possibly pose a challenge.
FatalKnight 1 year ago
let's say that it is decided by the majority of a society that the poor should be enslaved and have all human rights removed. Are they wrong for doing this if they determine it to be right?
Jman3000 1 year ago
Here by popular demand are some youtube video refutations of Craig´s arguments:
Kalam (scientific): watch?v=E5-2QUyI90A
Kalam (philosophical): watch?v=ULidyptqfFc
Teleological (scientific): watch?v=7Dmc_a_E5w0
Daniel Dennett refutes Craig: watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4
rokkvi1 1 year ago
Where did they find this kid? It is painful to listen to him.
jlangston23 1 year ago
It will truly be a glorious day when this young scientist realizes that God has been pursuing him throughout his life and finds meaning to his "reasons to be good simply because by the fact he feels a necessity to do so".
You don't find God in the Bible. God finds you.
tmirzaian 1 year ago
This was garbage. Two theists ganging up on some unprepared kid who didn´t even seem willing to debate and was obviously not a great speaker or debater. The host kept pressing him to disprove god or the moral argument when Craig really hadn´t made arguments for god himself. All he did was list his arguments by name and make an apologistic defense against the argument from evil. Yet they acted like he´d made great agruments for god already. Junk show.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 All of the arguments Craig listed are in great detail in his written work as well as other debates he has participated in, and both the host and the opponent knew them very well. What advantage would there be to repeat them again? They have not been defeated in his other debates to ANY degree, as you will see if you watch them yourself.
NO atheist has an argument against God's existence because by it's very nature Atheism CANNOT produce one or else then they'd have to defend something.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain yes they exist in great detail, so do refutations of these arguments. Not everyone has heard the arguments or their objections, or the objections to their objections and so on, so that should answer your "What advantage would there be to repeat them again?" comment.
It´s YOUR opinion that nobody has refuted WLC´s arguments. You are flat out wrong that no atheist has an argument against god´s existence, regardless of whether you find these arguments valid or not.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 I´ve watched 2 of his debates (vs Stenger and vs Slezak). IMO they both demolished Craig´s arguments. Not that a debate as such shows much. It´s better to research the material than to just watch a debate, although a debate can be a good starting point.
The burden of proof is Craig´s and he hasn´t shown god to exist. His teleological argument and cosmological argument start from physics, but by far the majority of physicists are atheists, especially the most successful ones.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 Then please, O wise one, give me one right now that I haven't already heard or seen shot down.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain LOL again it´s your opinion they were shot down. Again WLC offers two arguments that he bases on physics, the teleological and cosmological arguments. If he was correctly referencing the physics and his reasoning was solid, almost all experts in the relevant fields of physics would be theists. They are overwhelmingly atheistic however, and the more successful they are, the more likely to be so. Why do you think that is?
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 Actually, no my opinion wasn't shot down.
And regardless of the NUMBER of believers/nonbelievers in any profession is irrelevant to the truth or lack thereof of their statements. Not to mention your statistics are INCREDIBLY wrong.
Give me what I asked for, if you can.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain I´m not sure you are able to read English properly. "it´s your opinion they were shot down" does not mean "your opinion was shot down". You also miss the point, which is the experts in the fields Craig is referencing in these two arguments being overwhelmingly atheistic, means the arguments hold no weight, although that in itself doesn´t mean the nonexistence of god.
Prove me wrong on the stats if you can then.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@hayakain LOL on asking me to give you what you are asking for, which is an argument against god that you "haven´t already heard or seen shot down". I have no idea what arguments you have heard already or why you think they have been "shot down", yet you expect to claim victory outright if I can´t write one here. Do you seriously expect me to write down all possible arguments against god in here, just in the hopes of you saying "oh I haven´t seen that one shot down already, guess you win" ?
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 Then list one, please. You know as well as I do which arguments Craig has presented, and I have yet to see them refuted.
In order to state something contrary you have to actually STATE something in contrast.
And again, the number of people in a field holding one belief is irrelevant to whether or not the belief is true.
There MUST be arguments both FOR a differing view AND AGAINST the view they disagree with. YOU seem to have neither. You've got one more chance to answer my question.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain you really don´t understand much of what I´m saying. The majority of EXPERTS in a given field having a certain view of an ARGUMENT that is rooted in that exact field IS RELEVANT. Let me give an obvious example since you have such a hard time understanding it: If the vast majority of experts in the biomedical fields don´t buy into the argument that certain vaccinations cause autism, that would point to this not being true.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 so on the same note the kalam and teleological arguments hold no weight with the experts on the big bang and the fundamental constants. If they would find the arguments valid they would be theistic, but that´s not the case. Thus the arguments are junk. Whether that is relevant to whether god exists is another matter.
Now you´ve ducked my question of where you can find the statistics proving me wrong on physicist being overwhelmingly atheistic.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@hayakain I seem to have neither? Really? Because I´ve been to busy making you look like an idiot here to give any must mean I don´t have any? Did you make any arguments FOR god already? I didn´t see any. It´s your opinion that Craig´s arguments haven´t been refuted. "You´ve got one more chance to answer my question" - or what? - you´ll go running to your religious buddies doing a victory dance claiming that yet again no atheist ever made any argument against the existence of god?
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@hayakain I can list a few of them if you want. I´ve already argued why none of Craig´s arguments holds any weight, which was the point I wanted to make, not to go into a full length debate on the existence of god in a comments section of a youtube video. Here´s the list:
Arguments:
- that the attributes of god are logically impossible
- that the attributes of god contradict one another
- failed revelations
- falsehoods in scripture
- existence of non believers
- differing religions
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 I didn't need to make arguments FOR God, because Craig has kindly done so in his other videos, watch them if you need to.
Now, All of what you have listed have been covered in depth by - guess who- Dr. Craig as well, I remember specifically the attributes and the differing religions.
I suggest you go look those up for yourself, as I have, then come back and tell me WHAT is wrong with Craig's examination of those issues, rather than just telling me they're wrong. Offer evidence.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain LOL "offer evidence" like Craig has ever offered evidence. He has offered arguments, not evidence. Yes Craig has made counter arguments to agruments against god. Arguments have also been made against Craig´s arguments and his counteragruments and so on. It´s your opinion Craig´s agruments are right, that´s all. You can´t prove them to be. I could just as well tell you to read the various books and arguments against god as you telling me to read further on Craig.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 Secondly listing different arguments do nothing to disprove the arguments Craig has made, perhaps you'd like to take one of his arguments and tell me what's wrong about it SPECIFICALLY, rather than setting up straw men and avoiding the real issue.
If you do not do as I ask, and reply in a way I have not asked for, I will decide I have wasted my time talking to you and the conversation will cease. :)
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain LOL you asked me to list some and then say it does nothing. Yes it does nothing, just like Craig listing his arguments in the debate, but you asked me to do it. You want me to, in a comments section on a video, to thoroughly debunk each of Craig´s arguments and present proof against the existence of god too? How much time and space would that take? I´ve already told you why they don´t hold any weight.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@rokkvi1 all you´ve done is say Craig´s argument´s are right without further reasoning and telling me to read more Craig, which holds no more value than somebody saying they are wrong without reasoning and pointing you to read Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Stenger.
It´s not surprising how intellecutally inept you are, considering I looked at your profile and you´re a home schooled "art student" - LOL. No wonder you idolize a member of the Discovery Institute like Craig.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
@hayakain and again, most historians don´t think the resurrection of Jesus is a proven fact, as Craig argues. So much for 3 of his arguments where the experts in the relevant fields don´t buy them. The other two are the moral argument and argument from personal experience. Craig says objective moral values are self evident and gives no argument to prove they exist. Plenty of people offer "personal experience" of other gods and of space aliens, elves, monsters etc.
rokkvi1 1 year ago
I believe that Bill Craig and theism (specifically Christian Theism) have the better arguments and that the proposition that God exists is clearly more plausible than the proposition that God does not exist. Having said that, I was grateful for the congenial and respectful discussion between the two. If we can have discussions with our friends, family, co-workers, and so-forth while generating light rather than heat, all will be better off.
vincos1 1 year ago
Look at WLC's expression at 2:04 He's like "yes, yes little boy you got an argument? Bring it on!"
Zaphenath4 1 year ago
Dominated by Craig.
luke2thab 1 year ago
When this kid tries to make an arguement against WLC he gets a smile onh is face like 'Lmao this kid is so dumb'
koolio669 1 year ago
Godless and goodbye to you too idiot!!!
D20018200 1 year ago
i don't see how craig kept his sanity sitting across from such a flagrantly hypocritical idiot.
anewdayproductions 1 year ago
lol Will's smiley face when he's exposed to an objection is scary. Look at the start of this video.
oombuddah 1 year ago
Wow, did they go out of their way to find a terrible pundit for the atheist side, or what? Those questions were all softball gimme's that should have been easy to hit right out of the park. They asked him to make an argument against theism and all he played was a weakly presented argument from evil and a deferal to burden of proof. I know born again Christians who could have made a better argument against God. Dr Craig is not an amateur bullshitter. Why trot out the amateur rationalist?
jklarson66 1 year ago
At 2:05 it looks like Dr. Craig is thinking, "Aww, look how cute. He's finally going to have a point."
shutthesucka 1 year ago
"There are reasons to be good." (4:03) But what is good? How do you know you're being good when good is not established? Is he saying we are good because we are good? That's begging the question.
shutthesucka 1 year ago
LOL @ 4:46 william: "you hearin what im hearing? LOL"
ServantOfJesus 1 year ago
The existence of God is a really great issue. It is a shame that people go through this without preparation. Just because you believe or disbelieve don't means that you are prepared to speak about.
Dr Craig was very good, the atheist not so...Michael Coren was better...
But there are other good atheists speakers like Peter Slezak, Doug Jesseph and Austin Dacey...much better than Dawkins and this kid.
Well, I'm a theist, but I can recognize a good atheist debater.
zoppa83 1 year ago 35
@zoppa83
"Michael Coren was better..."
Coren was being an irritating prick by constantly butting in and clearly being on Craig's side. The poor atheist had to stand up against TWO idiots.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Comment removed
zoppa83 1 year ago
The bus campaign wasn't meant to imply that it was a trivial question, it was supposed to imply that it's a silly question to ask while there's no hard evidence.
chebob2009 1 year ago
0:15 - 0:18 Look at William Lane Craig. He's pissed
Capuano231 1 year ago
Oh that poor kid! Please get off of the brights side. You are doing us no favors other than to prove the fact that there are as many idiots who don't believe in god as there are who do. YIKES!
markp10311969 1 year ago
@markp10311969 I think you should join him too :)
ServantOfJesus 1 year ago
Man was that atheist debater weak or what.
glennster82 1 year ago
i love how WLC just looks at him like well.............. and has a smile on his face. lol Go WLC
gastrongman 1 year ago
That atheist didn't do very well... lmao
Internet7Nobody 1 year ago
the athiest danced around that question about morals.
pungadoo 1 year ago 2
Jean-Paul Sartre openly quotes Dostoievsky (If God did not exist, everything would be permissible) in Existentialism and Human Emotions and then goes on to say "That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to".
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
"He can’t start making excuses for himself." - The end of the quote that you conveniently left out.
He quotes Dostoievsky in his work, though you'd have to know precious little about his work, and existentialism in general to think that he is asserting any sort of helplessness or fear in the non-existence in god. You, literally, just need to read the paragraphs immediately following the one you quoted to see that.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut I am actually a advocate for Existentialist philosophy including atheists like Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger. I dont see how the ending quote that you just posted nullifies the very fact that he himself states that without god the world is left with subjectivity. Also if you read his literary works like Nausea the main character Roquentin experiences helplessness and anxiety once he discovers that the objective world is in fact meaningless
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
Subjectivity isn't despair, by a long shot.
Additionally, Sartre sympathizes with the sense of loss in prying away from what is essentially an emotional and psychological crutch - but to say that the end run of Existentialist philosophy is misery and despair means that you haven't read very far into his work. That isn't the message of his brand of Existentialism.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Sartre also states that it is this very "vertigo" like experience of ultimate freedom which is troubling and unpleasant, this feeling is precisely what causes people to hide behind a determinism and thus act inauthenticity(denying ones freedom).
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
Yes, being responsible for your own actions is a burden; and a heavy burden for some. A burden that many aren't strong enough to bear.
There is a very big difference between this kind of staunch realism and this silly notion that there is depression and despair without god because there is no hope without him.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Jean-Paul Sartre even admits that despair is a common theme in Existentialism." It is in anguish that we become conscious of our freedom"
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
You're essentially quote mining the guy past a point. Placing all sense of what is good and right in god, then realizing there is no god, can be depressing.
By your take of it, that'd be the whole of Sartre's philosophy in a nutshell, when the reality is that it barely scratches the surface. Fortunately, people familiar with his works know better.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut I am not saying that Sartre's entire philosophy is based on despair and anguish but those are common themes not only in his literary works like No Exit and Nausea but also in his treatises like Existentialism is Humanism and Being and Nothingness. I do not personally believe that objective morality can only exist with God, however Sartre clearly disagrees. His whole philosophy rests on the fact that there are no moral truths(human nature) except mans freedom(human condition).
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
Starte denies the traditional sense of objective morality outright, not that it is specifically contingent upon god. God is used as an excuse, a cop out, an escape from responsibility.
In no way does Sartre even humor, much less validate the concept of the christian god on the means that it is a comfortable idea. It's a lie, and breaking from that can be a painful experience.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut I suggest you read more Sartre, he even states "there is no human nature, since there is no god to conceive it". Here Sartre clearly rejects the idea of "objective morality" or as he calls it human nature, and that such conceptions can only be contingent when there is a God.
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
Firstly, 'human nature' is not 'objective morality', nor does he remotely imply that such a notion is contingent upon any concept of a god. You are pulling a bit much from his criticisms of a very particular yet popular concept.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut actually the quotes that I have presented clearly show that Sartre believed objective morality was contingent with God, I am sorry you refuse to accept it.
"he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself"
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
None of your quotes substantiate any of that. Sartre denied objective morality - particularly the christian brand of it. That is the most you've established - and that is well known from reading his works.
This sense that the christian's god is needed to substantiate objective morality is your own devising. It isn't even a valid assertion to boot.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Existentialism is Humanism: "Nowhere is it written that the good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men".Here he quotes Dostoevsky and goes on to say "Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to.
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
You posted this same quote literally just a few responses ago. My objections still stand, as this sort of bland reposting doesn't contribute to the original dead point.
The only thing required is to read beyond the mined quote to know better of what he is saying.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut "If existence really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by reference to a fixed and given human nature. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. "
Human nature comprises objective morals and thus the very form of determinism that Sartre railed against in his works.
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@VolkHeart2009
Instinct isn't morality. The fact that this distinction is made by some systems and not others denies any sense of objective morality that isn't substantiated.
Score one for relativism.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut in this same book Sartre criticizes the 19th century secular ethics movement in France. These people claimed that God is a useless hypothesis, yet still believed that certain ethics be taken as having an a priori existence(in order for society and civilization to function) . Sartre "In other words nothing will change. We will find ourselves with the same norms of honesty, progress, and humanism, and we shall have made of God an outdated hypothesis".
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Sartre then goes on to say "The existentialist on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him(God); there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie".
VolkHeart2009 1 year ago
The only reason that this atheist says there is objective morality in the world apart from God is because he believes there is....in other words there is nothing outside himself that holds him accountable to anything other than himself, therefore he has no argument for obective moral behavior apart for his own feelings or thoughts. This idea leads to chaos and immorality, which is why immorality is increasing in the world!
Craighill9 1 year ago
0:13-18 - sums up the disbelief that Craig has at just how uninformed this kid is.
YinHoNg 1 year ago
How do you come to the conclusion that you will get away with it? It is an unrealistic hypothetical to claim absolute knowledge of all consequences... we can only act on expectations of consequences.
funningincircles 1 year ago
There is only one God, and the whole world accepts the ample scientific evidence for his appearance and activities as fact.
The deluded atheist is in the extreme minuscule minority, and is on the exact same intellectual level as the lower animal in that they both fail to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence in favor of Theism that all human beings of normal intelligence on the planet understand easily.
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
Ravloma 1 year ago 2
@Ravloma "All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist..."
And every other religion that isn't yours.
Oh right...Forgot about the whole of the world outside of your faith. Well...It's there.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
I don't have to convince anyone, because the vast majority of intelligent human beings on the planet also know that Theism is in the right, and atheism is wrong.
The vast majority always has accepted Theism and rejected atheist dogma™, and the vast majority always will.
It is the atheist who must somehow, someday do some convincing, but as of this time, you fail.
Ravloma 1 year ago 2
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample logical and scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that one single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
atheist total fail
Ravloma 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme minuscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
Ravloma 1 year ago
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
Ravloma 1 year ago
There are several Youtube features on my channel that provide scientific and logical evidence that atheist dogma™ promotes violence and killing by attempting to sidestep or degrade God's scriptural injunctions to be peaceful. Please watch:
"atheist dogma™ claims nazis moral"
"atheist dogma™ = moral bankruptcy"
"hitler reacts: mankind rejects atheist dogma™"
"heroes of atheism: dahmer"
"atheist says rape is morally okay"
"darwin = hitler"
"heroes of atheism darwin to hitler"
Purushadasa 1 year ago 2
@Purushadasa science is the number 1 enguine for atheism/agnosticism. the best scientists are nonbelievers BECAUSE of their superior understanding of the nature of reality. the more you learn about the world around you, the more likely it is to doubt the existence of god. pure and simple
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI The most intelligent man in each academic disicipline could arguably be a Christian. Care to exchange names? You couldn't be more full of nonsense.
richp860 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Dr. Craig POWNED this insignificant, dumb little punk.
Purushadasa 1 year ago 3
The most uneducated, uninformed and easily defeated atheist opponent Craig has ever debated. Doesn't deserve to be on the same stage as William intellectually.
richp860 1 year ago
@richp860 bullshit. he made some very good points, it's too bad he's not as good in rethoric as craig is. and rethoric is all craig has going for himself
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Deal with it, sir. Craig has dismantled the top-tier atheist proponents academia has to offer. This guy was WAY out of his league both educationally and intellectually. God is the far more reasonable answer to existence and no academic alive has claimed "victory" over William in arguing against that assertion. No rhetoric from him, just sound logic and philosophy.
richp860 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@richp860 no rethoric? there's nothing in his apologetics but rethoric. if his arguments are sound why are they dismissed as totally unconvincing by anyone who's not a believer and hence already comitted to the conclusion? craig's arguments are convincing only to people who want to be convinced and to no one else. deal with it...sir :)))
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Cite something, please. You are yet to even spell rhetoric correctly, so..
richp860 1 year ago 2
@richp860 "Craig has dismantled the top-tier atheist proponents academia has to offer. "
No he hasn't. He can't even substantiate the position that he holds. You praise Criag, but as I've challenged others to do, I'd like to see you point to ONE single point that he positively asserted in this discussion.
Too many people value Craig for being sophisticated, as opposed to any real substance in what he's saying.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Explain how objective moral laws can exist without a moral lawgiver. Craig explains quite well why this is true and none of your cohorts can refute this. I cited one.. I'm waiting.
richp860 1 year ago
@richp860 "Explain how objective moral laws can exist without a moral lawgiver."
We'll just accept for the sake of argument that your 'objective' moral laws exist - overlooking your failure to demonstrate or define them (Craig's general argument is nothing but heavy emotional appeal).
There are a variety of secular means to derive moral consensus, from utilitarian methods to agreed upon basic values akin to Secular Humanism and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mathenaut We'll just accept for the sake of argument that your 'objective' moral laws exist - overlooking your failure to demonstrate or define them. So... you are actually admitting that objective morality doesn't exist?
If that's true, then why should I adhere to any moral standard, especially if it's only been set down by mortal men such as myself? Wouldn't I be then simply obeying man's law as though HE is my God?
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@Mathenaut That was complete and utter fuff. Right and wrong exist, whether you accept that by definition or example.. name an atheist scholar who disagrees by both criteria. You cannot.. God wins.
richp860 1 year ago
@richp860
I like how you addressed my argument, raised solid points, and provided evidential examples. Oh wait, you just got butthurt and reasserted your opinion.
See:
ANY Relativist, ANY Nihilist, ANY Non-cognativist.
Additionally, even if such moral absolutism existed, it does not prove your god.
.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Like I said, not a one of them has a viable explanation by either criteria, therefore I said exactly what I should have. Secondly.. if moral laws cannot exist without a moral lawgiver, then it most certainly points in that direction. What type of "proof" do you require? Something never comes from nothing and your secular scholars philosophical banter has failed miserable. All kinds of absolutes exist, so morality is certainly no exception. "My God" wins again.
richp860 1 year ago
@richp860
You can say that they aren't viable until the moon turns blue, but until you actually raise a point against it, it's simply the fact that you don't agree. That establishes nothing but your opinion.
Secondly, you've yet to establish your laws, or why your god is necessary for said laws.
Thirdly, the 'something from nothing' caricature betrays how little you know of the scientific explanations.
Alot of absolutes don't exist. You've not proven anything. Your god...Fails, again.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
@Mathenaut Operating under the assumption that objective moral law exists, we cannot have this without an objective moral law-giver - otherwise it wouldn't be objective at all. That's the argument, need I exhaust the details which men leagues above you are unable to refute? You're better off trying to argue against moral absolutes, which you will still fail miserably.
Also, my understanding of scientific explanations are rather sound.. something doesn't come from nothing.
richp860 1 year ago
@richp860 " we cannot have this without an objective moral law-giver - otherwise it wouldn't be objective at all."
That would not make it objective. Just the whims of the 'lawgiver'. Refuting your stance assumes that it is been proven. It has not.
Additionally...Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The case of your god is just special pleading, nothing proven.
Mathenaut 1 year ago