Now look, the greatest proof that Jesus did no miracles and was no GOD is that the Romans had the guts to crucify him. If he really did shit like that, nobody would dare touch him let alone crucify. Jesus failed to convince even the superstitious jews and myth-hugging Romans. His only followers were some fishermen. Really. That`s an all powerful GOD. He is short by some standards.
@Sakib241 That's hard to say, I mean in Salem they burned people they thought were Witches, you'd think IF they thought they were real Witches they would have been scared to try such a thing.
the theist wins hands down , the atheist had no answers , as a atheist he actually admitted that there is a possibilty that god does exist, he now is an agnostic lol
@bestinfadel That's a cute little opinion, but you've completely missed the point of dare I say it, the entire debate. If I asked you to provide evidence against the existence of the tooth fairy; you couldn't. So I win, and the tooth fairy exists, right? Use your brain... think.
As much as cringe whenever i see ANY debate involving a christian, i have to give this to Dr. Craig. He did a fine job aside of the Jesus and "christian god" gobbledygook. If only Christians can do as well when Christianity ITSELF is the topic. I saw a debate with Dr. Craig "was jesus god or man", he had to reference Avataar the movie to show a being with dual natures can exist, i almost died of humiliation FOR the guy.
The fact is that you can not use God as an agent of objective morality because the christian God dosn't have any. We know, he said, child rape and slavery are wrong, but the bible condones slavery and says absolutely nothing about child rape, ether for or against. If the only proof of what God stands for is the bible then it is reasonable to assume that God is ok with slavery and completely indifferent to child abuse and so DOES NOT represent objective morality.
Mr. Craig not once but twice blatantly ignores Mr. Slezak's response that science cannot prove that something does not exist. We also have no proof that unicorns, fairies, centaurs, or boogie men do not exist. I suppose Mr. Craig believes in those too.
First realize your a sinner...Believe in your heart God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, confess him as Lord, ask him to forgive your sins (repent of them), wash you in his blood, and make you his child. Read and obey the Gospel, it has the power to save your soul.
So his arguement is to ignore the rules of nature about the ressurrection, and assume that god exists and can raise people from the dead, and therefore, if you assume god exists and can raise jesus from the dead, than this explination becomes more probable. AHAHAHAHA!!!
So how does a god arbitrarily positting absolute morality lend anymore validity or .... MORALITY to an act than if that act was just simply deduced by human observation? Why is it neccessary for christians to have a BASIS for morality for morality to have meaning? If an absentee god can give an idea a deeper meaning simply by being associated with that idea, then shouldn't WE be just as capable of giving an idea a deeper meaning by associating ourselves with it? Isn't this just semantics???
so according to this dude, if an alien comes to analy probe and or rape me, if i were to explain to this alien that a magical being who rose from the dead whose existence I posit from an ancient book probably doesn't want anyone to rape, the alien would listen to me and put the probe away?
I am "agnostic" about Thor in the same way I am agnostic about Yahweh. Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty does not allow me to say definitively that either of these ideas do not exist. So I guess I am an agnostic. However, there are degrees of agnosticism. A true agnostic would say the existence and non-existence of Yahweh are equally probable. For me the probability of Yahweh is much, much, less than 50% . I would say the probability that Yahweh exists is more like .0000000000000000000005%.
Rape is wrong for us because the moral zeitgeist of our society finds it abhorrent. Our society therefore punishes those who practice it. Only the religious claim the right to arbitrarily overturn society's moral rules because they are "chosen" to have a connection with a supernatural being. To me, this is the height of hubris.
You're confusing objective moral values with human fallibility. Human behavior may be relative but that does NOTHING to disprove the existence of objective moral values.
i was just making the point that dr. craig is entirely wrong about saying that jesus being dead is an estabilished fact. i wasn't assuming you were a christian.
"God raised Jesus from the dead" that means God exist!
Didn't Graig forget that he supposedly should be proving that God exist in the 1st place and that's why he brought the resurrection as an argument not the the way around!?
jesus spent 4 hours on the T(no crosses were used in crucifiction), where it usually took days for one to expire. secondly nails where not commonly used. so jesus would have had one superficial wound on his side. and medical science at the time was not very good at determining death, hence many people rose from the dead. only most of them were considered witches, evil etc. even just a few centuries ago people were declared dead and burried alive. why not jesus.
lol backgammon is also spamming stupidity here lol im sure he is finding more fools to agree with lol he talks like no one crushed this moron ever?? what a dumb ass do more research backgammon and get a brain lol that is simply the reason why craig is doing this! its for morons like u buy it!
Are you kidding? You must be because the atheistic arguments are clearly destroyed here. Logic and facts clearly point to an eternal and very powerful being.
I have never seen an atheist crushed and this guy is a very intelligent atheist. Mr Craig just owned him like I would own my nephew if we were to argue foreign policy.
Dr. Craig is saying: The proof that God exists are miracles that can only be proofed by the existence of God. This is called a circle argument and is a non scientifical (read false) way of debating.
@chewwy2905 slavery in the bible was more like slavery out of debt, kind of like you and I are slaves to credit cards and loans, that's why even slaves had slaves back then and you would work of your debt
slavery in the contemporary meaning was brought about by Charles Darwin and his book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. One of the underlining argiments was that whites had out evolved blacks
Kjordan,you see what is happening here? Atheists hope that by posting in rapid fashion with no evidence at all to prove that their man won,that they can either crowd your posts so that no one will notice or see them,or they are actually trying to convince themselves that their man won.Face it guys your"magic universe just popped up" Atheist got spanked, and to tell you the truth,i will never spank my kids that hard even though i wont spare the rod because this kind of spanking should be illegal.
It truly amazes me. Youtube atheists all seem to be the same. They call us fools even if they are the ones whose arguments, reasonings and proofs get crushed. It's either they don't know the definition of the word "fool", or believing something on mere faith is appropriate only if you believe there is no God .
In order to continue to be athiests, they now have to believe that nature is tricking them by making it seem as if a higher power exists. This requires way too much faith for me. It really takes more faith to be an atheist.
It's the same thing with the theory of evolution. Despite all the thumpings and rantings by biased atheistic scientists, we found soft T-rex tissue which is hard evidence of the fact that dinosaurs are recent creatures. This contradicts evolution. That's amazing when considering that these scientists try hard to hide contrary evidence and explain everything to fit anti-god and anti-bible theories. The fact is that the truth MUST seep out :)
A cogent and intelligent debate. This is the first theist I have heard give and take from a scientific basis and actually get the better of the supposed critical thinking atheistic community. Current scientific thinking is that the Universe has a beginning and therefore the age old atheist argument that the universe has always been here is as easy to believe as that an outside power that transcends space and time has always been here. Now atheists are backpeddling.
so the age of miracles was in an age where there were no recording or evidential devices available. And now suddenly as video cameras and microphones are invented, the age of miracles is over? Bahahahaha
did he pay atention at all he just stated that there are coltures that by to day standerd would be inmoral. and evan in the bible there are statements that would be inmoral, like you should stone to death anyone who works on the sabith
The theist sets himself up with his own argument. Let´s say the rapist aliens believed in a god, but didn´t believe humans had souls? Then they´d be fine with doing to us what we do to animals. Religious people don´t believe in animals having souls and humans readily use animals for their needs in ways that would be considered immoral if done to other humans.
What is the absolute morality of an omnipotent god, supposedly the author of the laws, making cancer, genocide etc. happen?
There is no evidence that supports the bible as Historical fact. Any historian would tell you this, any archeologist would tell you this.
The absence of evidence supports this, because there -should- be evidence that he did. He existed on this planet, and should have left evidence of his existence behind.
There were numerous scholars who would have written about such a man at the time if he indeed existed, and a complete lack of other physical evidence.
Well, why not? His irrational need for a moral absolute is rather child like.
He's absolutely right, a superior Alien race might decide to rape or farm us, and there might not be anything we could do about it.
I agree this would be bad for us, but would that make it not true if it did happen?
This is within the laws of nature. Our morals are beneficial for -us- as a species, not as individuals, or as something that would control another species. Sorry, but that's how it is.
I think morals comes from intelligence. The more intelligent an individual the more likely they will have morals so I don't buy the extra terrestrial argument. High intelligence have to come with some kind of moral base or they'd kill each other off.
Extra terrestrials won't exist if there is no universe & since the universe can't exist without a creator God & God can't exist without a creator we don't exist. We are just a proud & arrogant non-existing jerks watching videos online & commenting whatever we like to on which it doesn't even exist. Sounds crazy, stupid & sarcastic huh?? I know it should b'coz you exist & i exist too!!
May be you should be the one taking Prozac in full dose because i'm not under depression but you seem to. You failed to grasp what i was trying to say, didn't you? You probably went under depression after reading my comments. Try to get started with low dose of Prozac & if your condition doesn't improve slowly increase the dose until side effects appears. If you're a heart patient be careful . Also Prozac can lead to panic attack which can lead to suicide...be careful!!
In the Bible, God commands the rape of the Amalekite women - "kill all the men, women, babies and animals...except for the young women who have not known a man, keep them for yourselves..." to do with what they will. We all know what that refers to. God commanded it, it's good. God commanded genocide, it's good. God commanded Abraham to slit his son's throat, it's good. Lot was saved from Sodom AFTER he offered his daughters up to be raped by a mob! Come on guys....
God was testing Abraham's faith in Him but when Abraham passed the test, God stopped him from killing his own son...Thereafter God blessed Abraham even more than before!!
We are the only "animals" on the planet with the ability to self-reflection. That is why we have morals. It is due to that reason, why rape is wrong for humans.
Evidence of personal feelings to prove a god exists is the weakest form of evidence. If it held any weight we'd have a hard time keeping people in insane asylums. Craig states an obviously wrong definition of Atheism. "'I don;t believe God exists's', That is not atheism." Um yes it is. Agnostic is not knowing one way or the other. You are neutral. It's easy to say you can disprove a topic when you provide your own definition of what the topic actually means. Weak sauce Craig...weak sauce.
""'I don;t believe God exists's', That is not atheism." Um yes it is"
Ummm, No it's not. Atheism is properly defined, both traditionally as well as presently in philosophy as the positive belief that there is no God. The statement above isn't expressing a positive one but a negative claim and Craig recognizes the technically incorrect nature of this statement. Atheist themselves always seem to confuse the two when there is in actuality an important difference.
He calls the statement agnostic which is not having a set opinion but rather no siding one way or the other. And in the end Atheism means you don't hold to the existence of any god. Word it in the positive or the negative he's correcting grammar, not substance. The sauce stands.
I mean who is being more correct? I'd even go as far as say who is being more honest? Saying that "I don't believe in any gods" and "I believe there are no gods" is so different that one should be considered Agnostic? Such attempts at relabeling I find a childish tactic and it did nothing to strength Craig's position.
Can you clarify that point, I dont understand. 1) "I dont have the belief that God exists"
(Negative Atheism)
2) "I believe God doesnt exist."
(positive Atheism)
Is that right?
1) asserts that you dont personally believe there is a God but maybe a God actually exists. And 2) asserts a more certain claim that there is no God. Is that right?
But according to the justified true belief account a belief must be true to believe it and 1) sounds like there is doubt in the belief so not true. right?
You stated it correctly here. (1) is consistent with agnosticism (not that there isn't a God) and (2) is more properly in line with traditional definitions of Atheism (the BELIEF that there is no God).
A belief doesn't necessarily have to be true in order to believe it. You can believe it but you're right that it wouldn't be considered justified in most (not all) circumstances. But (1) is just a position, so it's not necessarily false because we don't have the justifying reasons here.
Actually 'Atheism' is a DISBELIEF in the existence of a deity or deities. Since Atheism is the norm it takes a belief to state the existence. Atheism disagrees with the belief.
It's not. I'm sorry but the standard definition of Atheism is the "Belief that there is no God". Depending on where you put the negation makes all the difference. The disbelief in a deity is consistent with Agnosticism. Atheism, however, is not agnosticism.
"According to the most usual definition, an Atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God" (Encyclopedia of philosophy)
I got mine from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm assuming your not referencing the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "the denial of the existence of God." Either way, neither the definitions I have provided nor the one you did must imply 'belief'.
Well the definition I provided does imply belief. And no, I wasn't using the SEP. It's so strange how dictionaries and even some philosophy encyclopedia confuses the two terms and not understand the important difference. J.J.C Smart even says elsewhere that Atheism is the belief that there is no God, but can't seem to recognize any difference when he writes the other definition in the SEP.
Let me say this. Would you agree that someone who BELIEVES there is no God is still an Atheist?
By definition I think it would still stand for an Atheist for BELIEVE means 'to hold an opinion' and the opinion of all atheists is that the belief is the existence of god(s) is incorrect. I would also say it would be a clumsy definition as it misrepresents what the atheist is doing which is rejecting an idea, not proposing one.
The focus is Craig's mislabeling of his opponents view as Agnostic in a childish attempt to suggest he's misguided in his own views.
"and the opinion of all atheists is that the belief is the existence of god(s) is incorrect."
Exactly!! That's precisely why Atheism is not just a "disbelief" in God. If you're going to claim that Theism is incorrect then that is a claim to knowledge, and therefore requires justification by the rules of justification theory. Since as you said, all Atheists hold to such an opinion (or belief) that theism is incorrect, they therefore have a BELIEF that God does not exist. -Cont
So in actuality Craig was correct when he said that Dr. Slezak's statement was just a position of Agnosticism, rather than Atheism. Now of course Dr. Slezak is an Atheist, but Craig was just correcting a particular statement he made about Atheism.
So bottom line is Atheists do propose something. They propose that belief in God is, as you said "incorrect". If Atheism was just a disbelief, then babies, dogs, cats, and even rocks would be Atheists which is ridiculous. (2)
"and therefore requires justification by the rules of justification theory." That is to say if A makes a claim, and B then casts doubt on it, A's next move would normally be to provide justification. But Theism holds the position of A. Atheism would have no opinion on theism if it were not first proposed. Atheism requires no 'knowledge'. Everyone is born an atheist. It is the default. It merely does not accept the proposition presented by theism...(cont)
Since Atheism is the dafault it requires no proposition.
At absolute best Craig has caught Slezak on proper terminology but he might as well call him a popsicle rather than Agnostic. An Agnostic is a person who holds the view that the reality of God is unknown and probably unknowable. To suggest Slezak's words say he is Agnostic is either clumsy or dishonest.
And 'yes' ... babies are Atheists. Religious belief systems must be taught.
"Since Atheism is the dafault it requires no proposition."
Again both the standard and traditional definition of Atheism is the belief that there is no God, despite claims to the contrary. You trivialize Atheism when you say babies and rocks are Atheists. Yet the vast majority of people think Atheism to be a world view. All of this redefining of Atheism still leaves us asking whether or not God exists. Your "new" definition of Atheism disqualifies you from answering that however.
"Nope, atheism is the lack of belief in any god, Atheism is the lack of belief in a specific God."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "According to the most usual definition, an Atheist is a person WHO MAINTAINS THAT THERE IS NO GOD"
But, no, I guess the encyclopedia is just wrong, and you're right.
Even if Atheism was such a belief, many Atheists (like Dr. Slezak in this video) make the claim that God doesn't exist. Those who claim that bring on their share of the burden of proof.
"At absolute best Craig has caught Slezak on proper terminology but he might as well call him a popsicle rather than Agnostic."
First of all Dr. Craig didn't call Dr. Slezak an agnostic. He said his statement of "I don't have a belief in God" is properly agnosticism. And I would have to agree with him. That statement is more in line with agnosticism than true Atheism.
Your logic is convoluted and misplaced. If you have no knowledge on the topic then your not in any position to say whether or not Theism is false. But you said it yourself before, Atheists hold that Theism (the existence of God/Gods) is "incorrect". That is a claim of knowledge and again therefore requires justification, like it or not. You seem to be desperately trying to shirk your burden of proof here. You trivialize Atheism here when you say that babies and rocks are Atheists. They are not.
uhm... you do relize your an *atheist too, right? you disbelieve in all other religions and god(s) which have ever existed, for the exception of your own. O.o you are not an **Atheist though, because you believe in a religion specifically of a single God. How do you give the religion that you have chosen any certainty of truth over any and all other religion??
Nope, again you are being intellectually dishonest. the theist makes the statement that "X " God exists, then provides his evidence for said Belief, the Atheist only rejects the said evidence. In this the Atheist does not claim any knowledge what so ever, he simply dismisses the evidence provided by the theist.
No, an Atheist makes the claim that there is no God. That is how it is defined in academia today, like it or not. If Atheism is just the lack of belief, then babies, germs, rocks and every other inanimate object is an Atheist, which is absurd. Even Richard Dawkins himself recognizes that an Atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God. I'm continually surprised at how so many Atheists like to cling to this new definition of Atheism, all because they want to avoid the burden of proof.
Which is why Dr. Craig says claims Dr. Slezak is defending agnosticism not atheism, which he is. In greek atheist means "A" negative "theist" god, the belief of the NON existence of god. Agnostic means "A" negative "gnostic" knowledge - or one who does not know if god exists. A clear cut difference you atheists (or...agnostics?) need to understand. This is an argument of definition and origin of the word - both which say what I just said.
WHEN will you (and other apologists) learn that atheism is not a thing, same like aUFOism is not thing. You have a positive claim on one side, and a negative on the other. Not two positives.
If you say that atheism is a positive belief, and that you have to prove your "beliefs", then you
have to prove your afairyism. You must prove that fairies don't exist.
One more thing, 9:33 - really?!?! Then we are on neutral grounds about: fairies, Santa Claus, dwarfs,...
Craig still provides no evidence that objective moral values exist. He cites child abuse, cruelty and slavery...but there are or were times and cultures that had no issues with this things. The bible itself says nothing against slavery and even condones it's practice. If Objective Moral values exists then Slavery would have always been frowned upon.
People don't stop and evaluate why they follow every moral rule they follow, it's not pragmatic. It could get you hurt doing that. We learn very early what works well in society and what doesn't. Craig implies this way of thinking comes from outside culture and society. He uses the fact that we don't usually stop and exhamine why we have the ethical values we do. He mislabels universally accepted values as "absolutes". He's also saying we are incapable of establishing moral codes which is
"Craig still provides no evidence that objective moral values exist."
No he just doesn't provide the sort of hardcore, overly restrictive scientific proof you're looking for. The moral argument is based on our intuitions, and why should we totally ignore them when it comes to moral values, something to which it's impossible to put in a test tube. This type of verificationism you're espousing would make moral values that we all find meaningful absolutely unmeaningful, which is unthinkable.
"which is unthinkable." You see you enter with a bias. You want a specific answer because you really don't want to even think about an alternative. Lets look at the evidence against Objective Morals. If we look at current time we have cultures all over the world with different Moral vales. Example-North America-rights for women, gays and protection of children from harm. Hardcore Muslim countries-gays are killed, women have few rights, female children killed if they have sex..& that's just a few
...So we see there are LARGE differences in moral values today and even more so when we look back in history...When Slavery was widespread, when wars were more prolific, when the chances dying by an act of violence was much much higher. My overall point is this. IF Objective Moral values exist then you have two things. 1) The same moral values through geography and 2) the same moral values through history. But since you don't have either the what is your basis for claiming they exist?
I agree, intuition is not a good argument for morality. Also,
1) Do morals exist cos God says so or are morals independent of God? If the former, then we follow morals out of obedience and the value of the moral is dependent on God's choosing. So if God decides that killing is OK, then its morally OK to kill people. If the latter, then we dont need God to have morality as it exists independently of God, in fact this also limits gods power, & God knows all objective morals cos hes all-knowing
Now look, the greatest proof that Jesus did no miracles and was no GOD is that the Romans had the guts to crucify him. If he really did shit like that, nobody would dare touch him let alone crucify. Jesus failed to convince even the superstitious jews and myth-hugging Romans. His only followers were some fishermen. Really. That`s an all powerful GOD. He is short by some standards.
Sakib241 7 months ago
@Sakib241 That's hard to say, I mean in Salem they burned people they thought were Witches, you'd think IF they thought they were real Witches they would have been scared to try such a thing.
littlebit19801 3 weeks ago
well done Craig, objective morals don't exist.
saintpine 1 year ago
the theist wins hands down , the atheist had no answers , as a atheist he actually admitted that there is a possibilty that god does exist, he now is an agnostic lol
bestinfadel 1 year ago
@bestinfadel That's a cute little opinion, but you've completely missed the point of dare I say it, the entire debate. If I asked you to provide evidence against the existence of the tooth fairy; you couldn't. So I win, and the tooth fairy exists, right? Use your brain... think.
wownov83 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wownov83 can you provide evidence that god dosent exist
bestinfadel 11 months ago
Bible never says rape is wrong. Or child abuse or slavery. FAIL...
setmedic 1 year ago 2
As much as cringe whenever i see ANY debate involving a christian, i have to give this to Dr. Craig. He did a fine job aside of the Jesus and "christian god" gobbledygook. If only Christians can do as well when Christianity ITSELF is the topic. I saw a debate with Dr. Craig "was jesus god or man", he had to reference Avataar the movie to show a being with dual natures can exist, i almost died of humiliation FOR the guy.
NATURALboredKILLER 1 year ago
Craig is so clever.
CyprusHot 1 year ago
The fact is that you can not use God as an agent of objective morality because the christian God dosn't have any. We know, he said, child rape and slavery are wrong, but the bible condones slavery and says absolutely nothing about child rape, ether for or against. If the only proof of what God stands for is the bible then it is reasonable to assume that God is ok with slavery and completely indifferent to child abuse and so DOES NOT represent objective morality.
ItsDennyBaby 1 year ago 2
Mr. Craig not once but twice blatantly ignores Mr. Slezak's response that science cannot prove that something does not exist. We also have no proof that unicorns, fairies, centaurs, or boogie men do not exist. I suppose Mr. Craig believes in those too.
zoen23 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
First realize your a sinner...Believe in your heart God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, confess him as Lord, ask him to forgive your sins (repent of them), wash you in his blood, and make you his child. Read and obey the Gospel, it has the power to save your soul.
HedeenJeff 1 year ago
So his arguement is to ignore the rules of nature about the ressurrection, and assume that god exists and can raise people from the dead, and therefore, if you assume god exists and can raise jesus from the dead, than this explination becomes more probable. AHAHAHAHA!!!
hamsalad13610 2 years ago
I see sooo many comments from atheist responding this videos ,that I feel already better about the world :D
ktstrf 2 years ago
History helps:
Raping women during or after wars --> generally morally acceptable in the ancient times (as women were considered war prey back then)
Burning women to death for lying --> generally morally acceptable in the middle ages (witchcraft trials)
Enslaving other humans, who look differently --> generally morally acceptable until the 19th century (slavery in the US)
I ask myself what "godly eternal objective values" Dr. Craig is talking about...
BeNNzuFG 2 years ago
So how does a god arbitrarily positting absolute morality lend anymore validity or .... MORALITY to an act than if that act was just simply deduced by human observation? Why is it neccessary for christians to have a BASIS for morality for morality to have meaning? If an absentee god can give an idea a deeper meaning simply by being associated with that idea, then shouldn't WE be just as capable of giving an idea a deeper meaning by associating ourselves with it? Isn't this just semantics???
aburling7 2 years ago
so according to this dude, if an alien comes to analy probe and or rape me, if i were to explain to this alien that a magical being who rose from the dead whose existence I posit from an ancient book probably doesn't want anyone to rape, the alien would listen to me and put the probe away?
BillKiernan 2 years ago
I am "agnostic" about Thor in the same way I am agnostic about Yahweh. Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty does not allow me to say definitively that either of these ideas do not exist. So I guess I am an agnostic. However, there are degrees of agnosticism. A true agnostic would say the existence and non-existence of Yahweh are equally probable. For me the probability of Yahweh is much, much, less than 50% . I would say the probability that Yahweh exists is more like .0000000000000000000005%.
daleshankins 2 years ago
a much smaller number han that
brownbigb 2 years ago
See Numbers. Rape is morally acceptable and commanded by GOD so long as you are a Midianite.
daleshankins 2 years ago
Rape is wrong for us because the moral zeitgeist of our society finds it abhorrent. Our society therefore punishes those who practice it. Only the religious claim the right to arbitrarily overturn society's moral rules because they are "chosen" to have a connection with a supernatural being. To me, this is the height of hubris.
daleshankins 2 years ago
Was salvery always considered morally wrong in this country? No.
Did God change his mind about what was morally correct?
Malorie001 2 years ago
You're confusing objective moral values with human fallibility. Human behavior may be relative but that does NOTHING to disprove the existence of objective moral values.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
rape and murder are certainly not immoral in the bible, as they are quite common.
brownbigb 2 years ago
I'm not a Christian. Anyway that is irrelevant.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
i was just making the point that dr. craig is entirely wrong about saying that jesus being dead is an estabilished fact. i wasn't assuming you were a christian.
brownbigb 2 years ago
What in God's name are you blathering about?
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
nothing in god's name. hard to do that in the name of a nonexixtent entity :)
brownbigb 2 years ago
"God raised Jesus from the dead" that means God exist!
Didn't Graig forget that he supposedly should be proving that God exist in the 1st place and that's why he brought the resurrection as an argument not the the way around!?
lol
CruSaD3Rs 2 years ago
jesus spent 4 hours on the T(no crosses were used in crucifiction), where it usually took days for one to expire. secondly nails where not commonly used. so jesus would have had one superficial wound on his side. and medical science at the time was not very good at determining death, hence many people rose from the dead. only most of them were considered witches, evil etc. even just a few centuries ago people were declared dead and burried alive. why not jesus.
brownbigb 2 years ago
I dont recall any part of the bible that claims that child abuse is wrong, or chils mulesting....
where do these ideas come from? it must be from other sources, I would say they are made by humas.
amigojapan 2 years ago
All the posters below this comment are clearly idiots.
ThePariahGame 2 years ago
lol backgammon is also spamming stupidity here lol im sure he is finding more fools to agree with lol he talks like no one crushed this moron ever?? what a dumb ass do more research backgammon and get a brain lol that is simply the reason why craig is doing this! its for morons like u buy it!
3L3M3NTO 2 years ago
Are you kidding? You must be because the atheistic arguments are clearly destroyed here. Logic and facts clearly point to an eternal and very powerful being.
kjordon1 2 years ago
Excellent Mr Craig. You are the first theist I've seen who actually crushed the arguments of an intelligent and educated atheist.
kjordon1 2 years ago
I have never seen an atheist crushed and this guy is a very intelligent atheist. Mr Craig just owned him like I would own my nephew if we were to argue foreign policy.
I must get his book now
:))))))))))))
backgammonnn123 2 years ago
Listening to him talk about the supposed death of a human thousands of years ago like it was last week is absolutely ridiculous.
SomaXu 2 years ago
Dr. Craig is saying: The proof that God exists are miracles that can only be proofed by the existence of God. This is called a circle argument and is a non scientifical (read false) way of debating.
vdv69 2 years ago
6:14: WHY do we need a god to give us the "moral absolute" of slavery being wrong?? Read the bible - slavery is absolutely okay!
chewwy2905 2 years ago 2
@chewwy2905 slavery in the bible was more like slavery out of debt, kind of like you and I are slaves to credit cards and loans, that's why even slaves had slaves back then and you would work of your debt
slavery in the contemporary meaning was brought about by Charles Darwin and his book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. One of the underlining argiments was that whites had out evolved blacks
pixelspillover 1 year ago
it really hurts to listen to that religious retard
Cromwell523 2 years ago
Of course it hurts since he crushed the arguments of the struggling atheist. It hurts to know your belief is wrong doesn't it?
kjordon1 2 years ago
lol. did we see the same video?
Cromwell523 2 years ago 2
Kjordan,you see what is happening here? Atheists hope that by posting in rapid fashion with no evidence at all to prove that their man won,that they can either crowd your posts so that no one will notice or see them,or they are actually trying to convince themselves that their man won.Face it guys your"magic universe just popped up" Atheist got spanked, and to tell you the truth,i will never spank my kids that hard even though i wont spare the rod because this kind of spanking should be illegal.
backgammonnn123 2 years ago
It truly amazes me. Youtube atheists all seem to be the same. They call us fools even if they are the ones whose arguments, reasonings and proofs get crushed. It's either they don't know the definition of the word "fool", or believing something on mere faith is appropriate only if you believe there is no God .
kjordon1 2 years ago
In order to continue to be athiests, they now have to believe that nature is tricking them by making it seem as if a higher power exists. This requires way too much faith for me. It really takes more faith to be an atheist.
kjordon1 2 years ago
It's the same thing with the theory of evolution. Despite all the thumpings and rantings by biased atheistic scientists, we found soft T-rex tissue which is hard evidence of the fact that dinosaurs are recent creatures. This contradicts evolution. That's amazing when considering that these scientists try hard to hide contrary evidence and explain everything to fit anti-god and anti-bible theories. The fact is that the truth MUST seep out :)
kjordon1 2 years ago
A cogent and intelligent debate. This is the first theist I have heard give and take from a scientific basis and actually get the better of the supposed critical thinking atheistic community. Current scientific thinking is that the Universe has a beginning and therefore the age old atheist argument that the universe has always been here is as easy to believe as that an outside power that transcends space and time has always been here. Now atheists are backpeddling.
hudget 2 years ago
so the age of miracles was in an age where there were no recording or evidential devices available. And now suddenly as video cameras and microphones are invented, the age of miracles is over? Bahahahaha
2etribution 2 years ago 2
did he pay atention at all he just stated that there are coltures that by to day standerd would be inmoral. and evan in the bible there are statements that would be inmoral, like you should stone to death anyone who works on the sabith
leorama77 2 years ago
morals comes from natural selection...
93alvbjo 2 years ago
Bing bing bing! That's true.
Apjooz 2 years ago
The theist sets himself up with his own argument. Let´s say the rapist aliens believed in a god, but didn´t believe humans had souls? Then they´d be fine with doing to us what we do to animals. Religious people don´t believe in animals having souls and humans readily use animals for their needs in ways that would be considered immoral if done to other humans.
What is the absolute morality of an omnipotent god, supposedly the author of the laws, making cancer, genocide etc. happen?
rokkvi1 2 years ago 3
There is no absolure objective moraility. Societies reach a consensus of relative morality.
hopokuk 2 years ago 2
There is no evidence that supports the bible as Historical fact. Any historian would tell you this, any archeologist would tell you this.
The absence of evidence supports this, because there -should- be evidence that he did. He existed on this planet, and should have left evidence of his existence behind.
There were numerous scholars who would have written about such a man at the time if he indeed existed, and a complete lack of other physical evidence.
The evidence we have contradicts it.
carrotsan 2 years ago 10
@carrotsan by "such a man" do you mean Jesus? I think you are reaching with your statements.
semitope 7 months ago
Well, why not? His irrational need for a moral absolute is rather child like.
He's absolutely right, a superior Alien race might decide to rape or farm us, and there might not be anything we could do about it.
I agree this would be bad for us, but would that make it not true if it did happen?
This is within the laws of nature. Our morals are beneficial for -us- as a species, not as individuals, or as something that would control another species. Sorry, but that's how it is.
carrotsan 2 years ago
I think morals comes from intelligence. The more intelligent an individual the more likely they will have morals so I don't buy the extra terrestrial argument. High intelligence have to come with some kind of moral base or they'd kill each other off.
GoogleVideoMan 2 years ago
"Extra terrestrials do it"
What a blithering idiot. It is to be expected, however. Christianity has no basis in fact, no grounding in reason, and no moral compass.
judoyodan 3 years ago
Extra terrestrials won't exist if there is no universe & since the universe can't exist without a creator God & God can't exist without a creator we don't exist. We are just a proud & arrogant non-existing jerks watching videos online & commenting whatever we like to on which it doesn't even exist. Sounds crazy, stupid & sarcastic huh?? I know it should b'coz you exist & i exist too!!
amitpetra 2 years ago
I suggest you start cutting the Prozacs in half.
judoyodan 2 years ago
May be you should be the one taking Prozac in full dose because i'm not under depression but you seem to. You failed to grasp what i was trying to say, didn't you? You probably went under depression after reading my comments. Try to get started with low dose of Prozac & if your condition doesn't improve slowly increase the dose until side effects appears. If you're a heart patient be careful . Also Prozac can lead to panic attack which can lead to suicide...be careful!!
amitpetra 2 years ago
Sounds like the voice of experience.
judoyodan 2 years ago
In the Bible, God commands the rape of the Amalekite women - "kill all the men, women, babies and animals...except for the young women who have not known a man, keep them for yourselves..." to do with what they will. We all know what that refers to. God commanded it, it's good. God commanded genocide, it's good. God commanded Abraham to slit his son's throat, it's good. Lot was saved from Sodom AFTER he offered his daughters up to be raped by a mob! Come on guys....
prospero811 3 years ago
God was testing Abraham's faith in Him but when Abraham passed the test, God stopped him from killing his own son...Thereafter God blessed Abraham even more than before!!
amitpetra 2 years ago
If God does exist, then there still are no objective moral values.
prospero811 3 years ago
We are the only "animals" on the planet with the ability to self-reflection. That is why we have morals. It is due to that reason, why rape is wrong for humans.
suneku78 3 years ago
Also,
2) You can be an atheist and still believe in morals.
3) morals, like kant, are derived from logical axioms, so you dont need a god to have objective morals.
I happen not to believe in morality as being justifiable though I hope i find some one day :P
giant2rabbit3 3 years ago
Evidence of personal feelings to prove a god exists is the weakest form of evidence. If it held any weight we'd have a hard time keeping people in insane asylums. Craig states an obviously wrong definition of Atheism. "'I don;t believe God exists's', That is not atheism." Um yes it is. Agnostic is not knowing one way or the other. You are neutral. It's easy to say you can disprove a topic when you provide your own definition of what the topic actually means. Weak sauce Craig...weak sauce.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
""'I don;t believe God exists's', That is not atheism." Um yes it is"
Ummm, No it's not. Atheism is properly defined, both traditionally as well as presently in philosophy as the positive belief that there is no God. The statement above isn't expressing a positive one but a negative claim and Craig recognizes the technically incorrect nature of this statement. Atheist themselves always seem to confuse the two when there is in actuality an important difference.
Not such a weak sauce after all
Christianjr4 3 years ago
He calls the statement agnostic which is not having a set opinion but rather no siding one way or the other. And in the end Atheism means you don't hold to the existence of any god. Word it in the positive or the negative he's correcting grammar, not substance. The sauce stands.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
I mean who is being more correct? I'd even go as far as say who is being more honest? Saying that "I don't believe in any gods" and "I believe there are no gods" is so different that one should be considered Agnostic? Such attempts at relabeling I find a childish tactic and it did nothing to strength Craig's position.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
Can you clarify that point, I dont understand. 1) "I dont have the belief that God exists"
(Negative Atheism)
2) "I believe God doesnt exist."
(positive Atheism)
Is that right?
1) asserts that you dont personally believe there is a God but maybe a God actually exists. And 2) asserts a more certain claim that there is no God. Is that right?
But according to the justified true belief account a belief must be true to believe it and 1) sounds like there is doubt in the belief so not true. right?
giant2rabbit3 3 years ago
You stated it correctly here. (1) is consistent with agnosticism (not that there isn't a God) and (2) is more properly in line with traditional definitions of Atheism (the BELIEF that there is no God).
A belief doesn't necessarily have to be true in order to believe it. You can believe it but you're right that it wouldn't be considered justified in most (not all) circumstances. But (1) is just a position, so it's not necessarily false because we don't have the justifying reasons here.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Actually 'Atheism' is a DISBELIEF in the existence of a deity or deities. Since Atheism is the norm it takes a belief to state the existence. Atheism disagrees with the belief.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
It's not. I'm sorry but the standard definition of Atheism is the "Belief that there is no God". Depending on where you put the negation makes all the difference. The disbelief in a deity is consistent with Agnosticism. Atheism, however, is not agnosticism.
"According to the most usual definition, an Atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God" (Encyclopedia of philosophy)
Christianjr4 3 years ago
I got mine from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm assuming your not referencing the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "the denial of the existence of God." Either way, neither the definitions I have provided nor the one you did must imply 'belief'.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
Well the definition I provided does imply belief. And no, I wasn't using the SEP. It's so strange how dictionaries and even some philosophy encyclopedia confuses the two terms and not understand the important difference. J.J.C Smart even says elsewhere that Atheism is the belief that there is no God, but can't seem to recognize any difference when he writes the other definition in the SEP.
Let me say this. Would you agree that someone who BELIEVES there is no God is still an Atheist?
Christianjr4 3 years ago
By definition I think it would still stand for an Atheist for BELIEVE means 'to hold an opinion' and the opinion of all atheists is that the belief is the existence of god(s) is incorrect. I would also say it would be a clumsy definition as it misrepresents what the atheist is doing which is rejecting an idea, not proposing one.
The focus is Craig's mislabeling of his opponents view as Agnostic in a childish attempt to suggest he's misguided in his own views.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
"and the opinion of all atheists is that the belief is the existence of god(s) is incorrect."
Exactly!! That's precisely why Atheism is not just a "disbelief" in God. If you're going to claim that Theism is incorrect then that is a claim to knowledge, and therefore requires justification by the rules of justification theory. Since as you said, all Atheists hold to such an opinion (or belief) that theism is incorrect, they therefore have a BELIEF that God does not exist. -Cont
Christianjr4 3 years ago
So in actuality Craig was correct when he said that Dr. Slezak's statement was just a position of Agnosticism, rather than Atheism. Now of course Dr. Slezak is an Atheist, but Craig was just correcting a particular statement he made about Atheism.
So bottom line is Atheists do propose something. They propose that belief in God is, as you said "incorrect". If Atheism was just a disbelief, then babies, dogs, cats, and even rocks would be Atheists which is ridiculous. (2)
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"and therefore requires justification by the rules of justification theory." That is to say if A makes a claim, and B then casts doubt on it, A's next move would normally be to provide justification. But Theism holds the position of A. Atheism would have no opinion on theism if it were not first proposed. Atheism requires no 'knowledge'. Everyone is born an atheist. It is the default. It merely does not accept the proposition presented by theism...(cont)
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
Since Atheism is the dafault it requires no proposition.
At absolute best Craig has caught Slezak on proper terminology but he might as well call him a popsicle rather than Agnostic. An Agnostic is a person who holds the view that the reality of God is unknown and probably unknowable. To suggest Slezak's words say he is Agnostic is either clumsy or dishonest.
And 'yes' ... babies are Atheists. Religious belief systems must be taught.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
"Since Atheism is the dafault it requires no proposition."
Again both the standard and traditional definition of Atheism is the belief that there is no God, despite claims to the contrary. You trivialize Atheism when you say babies and rocks are Atheists. Yet the vast majority of people think Atheism to be a world view. All of this redefining of Atheism still leaves us asking whether or not God exists. Your "new" definition of Atheism disqualifies you from answering that however.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"Atheism is the belief that there is no God"
Nope, atheism is the lack of belief in any god, Atheism is the lack of belief in a specific God.
The point is that there is no "Belief" in atheism, the theist believes" X" the atheist states in response that he/she does not except the statement.
jakrum 3 years ago
"Nope, atheism is the lack of belief in any god, Atheism is the lack of belief in a specific God."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "According to the most usual definition, an Atheist is a person WHO MAINTAINS THAT THERE IS NO GOD"
But, no, I guess the encyclopedia is just wrong, and you're right.
Even if Atheism was such a belief, many Atheists (like Dr. Slezak in this video) make the claim that God doesn't exist. Those who claim that bring on their share of the burden of proof.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"At absolute best Craig has caught Slezak on proper terminology but he might as well call him a popsicle rather than Agnostic."
First of all Dr. Craig didn't call Dr. Slezak an agnostic. He said his statement of "I don't have a belief in God" is properly agnosticism. And I would have to agree with him. That statement is more in line with agnosticism than true Atheism.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Your logic is convoluted and misplaced. If you have no knowledge on the topic then your not in any position to say whether or not Theism is false. But you said it yourself before, Atheists hold that Theism (the existence of God/Gods) is "incorrect". That is a claim of knowledge and again therefore requires justification, like it or not. You seem to be desperately trying to shirk your burden of proof here. You trivialize Atheism here when you say that babies and rocks are Atheists. They are not.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
@christianjr4
uhm... you do relize your an *atheist too, right? you disbelieve in all other religions and god(s) which have ever existed, for the exception of your own. O.o you are not an **Atheist though, because you believe in a religion specifically of a single God. How do you give the religion that you have chosen any certainty of truth over any and all other religion??
REZJT 3 years ago
Nope, again you are being intellectually dishonest. the theist makes the statement that "X " God exists, then provides his evidence for said Belief, the Atheist only rejects the said evidence. In this the Atheist does not claim any knowledge what so ever, he simply dismisses the evidence provided by the theist.
jakrum 3 years ago
No, an Atheist makes the claim that there is no God. That is how it is defined in academia today, like it or not. If Atheism is just the lack of belief, then babies, germs, rocks and every other inanimate object is an Atheist, which is absurd. Even Richard Dawkins himself recognizes that an Atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God. I'm continually surprised at how so many Atheists like to cling to this new definition of Atheism, all because they want to avoid the burden of proof.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Which is why Dr. Craig says claims Dr. Slezak is defending agnosticism not atheism, which he is. In greek atheist means "A" negative "theist" god, the belief of the NON existence of god. Agnostic means "A" negative "gnostic" knowledge - or one who does not know if god exists. A clear cut difference you atheists (or...agnostics?) need to understand. This is an argument of definition and origin of the word - both which say what I just said.
MiracleOfRealism 3 years ago
Stop shifting the burden of proof.
WHEN will you (and other apologists) learn that atheism is not a thing, same like aUFOism is not thing. You have a positive claim on one side, and a negative on the other. Not two positives.
If you say that atheism is a positive belief, and that you have to prove your "beliefs", then you
have to prove your afairyism. You must prove that fairies don't exist.
One more thing, 9:33 - really?!?! Then we are on neutral grounds about: fairies, Santa Claus, dwarfs,...
raoskaos 2 years ago
Craig still provides no evidence that objective moral values exist. He cites child abuse, cruelty and slavery...but there are or were times and cultures that had no issues with this things. The bible itself says nothing against slavery and even condones it's practice. If Objective Moral values exists then Slavery would have always been frowned upon.
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
People don't stop and evaluate why they follow every moral rule they follow, it's not pragmatic. It could get you hurt doing that. We learn very early what works well in society and what doesn't. Craig implies this way of thinking comes from outside culture and society. He uses the fact that we don't usually stop and exhamine why we have the ethical values we do. He mislabels universally accepted values as "absolutes". He's also saying we are incapable of establishing moral codes which is
owheydusoapsk 3 years ago
not what it looks like to me. I would say the Old and New Testaments are attempts at codifying the morals values as they were evolving then.
owheydusoapsk 3 years ago
"Craig still provides no evidence that objective moral values exist."
No he just doesn't provide the sort of hardcore, overly restrictive scientific proof you're looking for. The moral argument is based on our intuitions, and why should we totally ignore them when it comes to moral values, something to which it's impossible to put in a test tube. This type of verificationism you're espousing would make moral values that we all find meaningful absolutely unmeaningful, which is unthinkable.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"which is unthinkable." You see you enter with a bias. You want a specific answer because you really don't want to even think about an alternative. Lets look at the evidence against Objective Morals. If we look at current time we have cultures all over the world with different Moral vales. Example-North America-rights for women, gays and protection of children from harm. Hardcore Muslim countries-gays are killed, women have few rights, female children killed if they have sex..& that's just a few
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
...So we see there are LARGE differences in moral values today and even more so when we look back in history...When Slavery was widespread, when wars were more prolific, when the chances dying by an act of violence was much much higher. My overall point is this. IF Objective Moral values exist then you have two things. 1) The same moral values through geography and 2) the same moral values through history. But since you don't have either the what is your basis for claiming they exist?
sfehrenbach 3 years ago
I agree, intuition is not a good argument for morality. Also,
1) Do morals exist cos God says so or are morals independent of God? If the former, then we follow morals out of obedience and the value of the moral is dependent on God's choosing. So if God decides that killing is OK, then its morally OK to kill people. If the latter, then we dont need God to have morality as it exists independently of God, in fact this also limits gods power, & God knows all objective morals cos hes all-knowing
giant2rabbit3 3 years ago