Is God a Delusion? 12/12

[TheIconodule]

I feel embarressed to be a New Zealander, but I thank God I am a Christian. Dr Craig did a wonderful job defending the truth of God, whereas the opponent only engaged in rhetoric and quite frankly didn't even touch upon the central topic of the deabte.

[Birdieupon]

How much did Bill Cooke positively, absolutely SUCK in this debate? He literally gave up half way through (no, wait a minute, he refused to debate the existence of God from the very beginning and chose to blabber on about God being a "barrier" instead). This debate was like watching William Lane Craig pull the wings off a fly. His brief exchange with Ray Bradley, in the Q&A, contained more food for thought than the entire debate (plus all the food that must have made Mr Cooke's waist line, lol)!

[GENESISaFigment]

Craig, won. Hands down.

[Jesusmetalhead]

ah, another win for Craig

[MrGrandDragon]

babies die and people live...

What you expect all to live for infinity?

Isn't that what Heaven provides us for?

[noddyguitar]

What is the mechanism by which unconditional love ie love asking nothing in return evolved what value is it to the survival of the fittest?There is no evidence that your awareness of your existence can be explained by an illusion created by the brain.Who is deluded?Noone?If you deny your own existence why communicate with other non existent selves?Do you think that a complex computer experiences feelings and awareness because it has a programme that makes it appear to?

[ginganz13]

The mechanism you speak of exists & is very well understood.

There is a mountain of evidence that self awareness is created in the brain. The reasons you don't want to acknowledge them are too obvious.

Computers are fundamentally different to the brain - the analogy is void. However I know that dogs have awarness and feelings but I have yet to meet one that holds god responisble for it.

[noddyguitar]

There is no evidence self awareness is created in the brain.The reasons i dont want to acknowledge them is that i am a scientist who studyied palaentology and zoology and the reasons you suggest are simply not scientifically sound.What is the difference between an advanced computer and the brain why cant the scientists produce life or consciousness?ALL living entities have awareness that includes dogs ants horses flowers etc but they do not necessarily understand God.The atheist has awareness

[ginganz13]

The evidence of the brain creating self awareness was demontrated to a bunch of kids at the RI christmas lectures for gods sake! if you can seriously deny this well known phenomena there is no point talking to you - you should join the flat earth scoiety.

[noddyguitar]

enlighten me

[ginganz13]

Susan Greenfield - RI Christmas lectures - you can get them online.

There's even a bit with a surgeon stimulating a conscious patients brain directly - a technique used regularly limit damage in delicate procedures.

Funny when they took the lid off there was no sign of your invisible friend...

[noddyguitar]

I,m not saying that the brain does not affect the mind and the self You can stimulate the brain and it will have consequences on the mind and awareness but there is someone aware of it

[bradoo1678]

i called them uo and they sai he couldn't fit in there

[noddyguitar]

You are aware that the body you have now is different from your baby body and that the matter has gone into the dirt you are aware that your mind has changed and yet you are aware that you can remember things in the past when your body and mind was different it was the same you who was there when your mother held you in her arms you exist but all the matter in your body has changed.The matter that makes up the brain changes every three days.Who is aware of the mind and tries to control the mind?

[ginganz13]

'dirt' is an interesting adjective - The 'process' for remembering different stuff despite the molecular 'changing of the guard' - you are assuming that those molecules are all different - a human abduction.

If your invisible friend is in control why bother?

[noddyguitar]

The molecular contingent of the matter in the brain is renewed every three days.The matter making up the brain cells is continuously changing.Dr Wilder Penfield the greatest brain surgeon of our times concluded that there was a non material self.Just because God is in control it doesnt mean he doesnt give me a shere of control myself and freewill.I bother because i have free will and feel compassion and love if i didnt exist i wouldnt bother

[ginganz13]

All the matter in the brain is 'molecular' they do change but not all of them are changed THAT frequently.

The conclusions of a surgeon who has been dead for 43 years don't stand for much in an area where our understanding changes so rapidly.

If your Omniscent, omnipresent 'god' is in control then you have no free will - your fate is allready known by this 'god' & is a foregone conclusion.

[noddyguitar]

I,m sorry but all the matter in the brain DOES change THAT rapidly.Just because

God is Omniprescent and Omniscient it doewsnt mean you dont have freewill/You can change your destiny you have that choice but God is not so DAFT that He doesnt know what you will choose.Still you do have freewill which is more than the atheists illusion that you dont have freewill but it is just a socially conditioned brain reacting to the environment.All the best

[ginganz13]

It's a VERY simple logical point - if the outcome is allready known there cannot be a choice by definition.

The other very pertinent point is positing 'god' as an explanation explains precisely nothing.

[noddyguitar]

You have the VERY simple logical point wrong.You have a choice but the outcome is known simple

[ginganz13]

Choice requires 2 or more possible outcomes - if the outcome is allready known it is inevitable - it is not a choice.

This is not surprising as it is one of the main reasons religion was contrived, to give the illusion of choice about dying.

"you can have any colour you like as long as it is black" and that is a choice? Yeah right.

[noddyguitar]

Choice does require two different outcomes you can choose to love someone or kill them it is your choice and the effects will be different it is within your power therefore you are responsible and held accountable for your actions.This in no way clashes with the fact that God knows which way you are going to choose.He leaves it up to You but He knows.You can choose WHATEVER you want that is free will what will you choose?

[gigi4123]

Well, not really. It depends on what definition you use for free will. And the usual definition that people use is incompatible with God's omniscience. If God exists, then there is only one choice and that is made by God, at the moment of creation. Our choices are just an illusion, because God chooses "what you want", since he created you.

[hexusziggurat]

@gigi4123 choice by way of theism is not illusory. what is illusory about it? It would more likely be the case that theists adopt a more self-ownership of their actions b/c they understand there is consequences not just here in this world...but for their souls as well.

[Domzdream]

Yes. exactly. What person who KNOWs for certain that there is a god, who runs his regime with heaven and hell...who the hell would want to end up there. SHit, if I was to find out he/she/it exists, the first thing I'd do is believe. And grovel like christians do. But there is no proof, so I'd rather wank to good porn rather than waste my time whispering to something even christians cannot get right. SO many dicotomies and division. All a waste of time.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream 60 to 80 years of a terminal body life devoted to understanding we have sin & working towards forgiveness & understanding for an eternal paradise that is uncomprehendable to human quantification seems a very SMALL "waste of time" as you put it. Paying homage to the creator is a small price to pay to understand His love & the gifts He bestowed.

[Domzdream]

Forgiveness for WHAT??!!! For sins I didn't commit. Sir, again, I am not insulting your intelligence, please understand, but I am insulting the things which you believe in which are nonsensical, self-refuting, philosophically devoid and self-capsizing.

Then there is the conundrum of god and his love and hell. If you truely loved something you made, whilst making the most evil and torturous device atthe same time delivering these lines of forgiveness and love (which to me sounds absolutely ...

[Domzdream]

...psychotic) then having to give it a choice- love me or else. Dude, that's NOT a choice. It's blackmail. But it gets worse! Having to love something you cannot taste, touch, feel, hear, see, anything...It's NUTS!

Then sweet and apparently omnibivolent god puts this little bundle of a creation into his torturous device forever because it couldnt find this god and thus couldnt find the love for this it/him/her. That's sadism at best. You are worshiping a sadist.

That's not love man. No way.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream do you love by taste? do you love by hearing? do you love by seeing? do you love by touching? do you love by feeling...yes! Love is emotional...it is not tangible. Love can have many examples of dedication through action. One thing for certain I have learned...you cannot love another until your heart is free from the chains of hate. I do like that there are reprocusions in society for people who transgress & for parent-child relationships as well..why is it so difficult for spiritual?

[Domzdream]

Yes, but loving all those things you've mentioned is through constant and mutual actions, thus affirming the word 'love'.

When christians throw around the word 'love' it literally makes me want to stab the screen with my marker pen. Love is an emotion which is generated through constant and mutual (as I said) communication. That's why I do not believe in love at first sight, rather, lust.

[hexusziggurat]

@Domzdream "as God loves is to love without reason, w/o thought of return, w/o bound. It's to desire the best for others, not to decide what is best for them. It is to desire happiness for others w/o necessarily knowing what will make them happy. It means helping others reach their potential, but not running their lives. It means being involved in others' lives while keeping our own self interest out of it, being willing to suffer great loss rather than use the other person for our own benefit."

[hexusziggurat]

@ginganz13 we already see examples of choice. You think God should've sent out a buffet of choices & different methods to reach heaven to appeal to our self-indulgent approach to life? Wouldn't that put humanity in the driver's seat for how things "ought" to be? The road to heaven is narrow, the road to hell is wide. That IS CHOICE. Just b/c one chooses to live in the way that is expected to lead to hell,why fight it, grab your sunscreen & rejoice in your 80 years of debauchery & denial! Choose!

[gigi4123]

Pretty cool debate. I mostly disagree with dr. Craig's arguments, but, in this case, he probably won the debate, because the question was "Is God a delusion?". I don't think the belief in God is a delusion (although many religious people may be deluded), since there isn't any proof of inconsistency with such a belief. Every person has the right to believe in what he or she wants. The problems are caused by the people who want to impose their subjective truth to others.

[ginganz13]

There is more hard evidence for the existence of voices inside a schizophrenics head than there is for a 'god' who is supposed to have created 'everything'. The only reason it escapes being defined as a "false Belief" (delusion) is mass consensus.

Admit to believing any other equally preposterous story with no evidence and you would be medicated in no time.

[gigi4123]

I agree that religious beliefs are treated preferentially, because of mass consensus, but that doesn't mean every believer is deluded. There are all sorts of other things, like different kinds of bias, low level of education, etc, that can make a non-deluded person believe some really improbable things. I think it depends a lot on the type of god / creator you believe in (how many and how wild are the assumptions you have to make, in order for that god / creator to seem plausible).

[ginganz13]

If their belief is false then by definition they are deulded, they escape the stark defnition because of the impossible task of proving the non existence of god. Given the weight of actual evidence for a 'gods' existence, what we can say is that belief in god(s) is almost certainly delusional.

Frailty of perception deludes everyone at some point, no amount of mitigation can make a falsehood true.

[noddyguitar]

If there is no God everything isillusory

why are the voices in a schizophrenics head more illusory than an atheists so called morality.What right do you have to medicate such a person in either case it would simply be brain activity Why cant i medicate you for not believing in the evidence for the existence of God

[ginganz13]

Simple - you have no evidence for your claims, never did have and are very very unlikely to ever have any.

It is the same argument the religious used to lock Galileo up & the trend is for religion to continue to be erroded in this way.

You can't medicate me because laws based on evidence and real results say medication should only be used on people who see things everyone else cannot see...

[noddyguitar]

An intelligent person is able to discriminate between a fictional story and a transcendental truth the teachings of Jesus are not simply material and illusory but can be realised as reality beyond the temporary activity of the brain

[ginganz13]

Show me one.

[noddyguitar]

You are aware of your existence and have the capability to love neither of these experiences is created by a particular brain state

[ginganz13]

3 Assertions -

The 1st is not really relevant. (so what?)

The 2nd you make without evidence.(so what?)

The 3rd is ridiculous - the evidence that the whole illusion is 'brain based' is overwhelming - even Craig wouldn't serisouly deny it.

Go on - show me one.

[necr0sys]

..The point of Christianity is that we have to reach out to God in faith...Yes there is arguable scientific and historical evidence as depicted in this debate that He does exist, but as a Christian I can tell you now that we only experience Him wholly by taking that leap of faith and giving him a chance in our lives. God waits for us to want to find him, he wants us to WANT to know him. And once you do this with a true seeking heart, I promise you your life will be changed.

[necr0sys]

God was not disproved in this debate, nor was he proven to be real, although I must say that it lay much in favour of what Dr Craig had to say. If people had to find hard scientific evidence that the 'Christian God' really does exist...we would have no choice BUT to believe in him. That is not the point of Christianity or why Jesus died and was resurrected...

[josephdc22]

Thank you very much for sharing these videos in Youtube.

[TheManGadoosh]

Yep

[jakes3052]

Does anyone agree, that regarless of they were right or wrong in their arguments, that Bill Cooke was out debated and outclassed as a debator?

[mellielli]

I agree he wasn't the best choice to represent atheism. But I also feel there is little anyone, even the best debator, could do to convince the poor indoctrinated masses that they do not need a supernatural power to be happy and have a meaningful life. I'm not an atheist by the way, I'm a pantheist/polytheist, I just don't think gods should meddle with our lives.

[ThaGMan51]

Watch William Lane Craig's debate with John Shook. Craig gets destroyed.

[Schischmischrox]

Bill Cooke may have been out debated in terms of not really putting a logical case for God being a delusion but William Lane Craig, no matter how confident his speech, did nothing to further the case in favour of God. He just sounded good. His arguments are actually not logical at all and not very deep. They are just pleasing assumptions that appease one's desire to find a reason to believe - gathering whatever story fits that desire rather than truely testing the evidence.

[arcadia700]

I like Cooke's humor but he just didn't make solid points to refute that belief in God is not delusional. Craig simply established that belief in God does have logical bases (logical arguments do sound good--so that takes care of half of the rhetorics). Cooke simply argued that there are alternatives to belief in God.

[optimusADELS]

weird how they finished it on Cooke's last argument.

[fooby]

Craig dodges a lot more balls than he catches. For one nobody is defending a position called "atheism" as Craig defines it. (No God exists). Fine Craig, I'm an "agnostic", but your following points still don't work. There is no reason to believe:

1. Everything that exists has a beginning.

2. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

3. That cause is a person(!?).

4. That person is Yahweh/Jesus. (!?).

Please justify why I should agree to any of those points, and why one would imply the next.

[OverusedChewToy]

Craig is very ,very good at rhetoric, but that's about it.

Debates don't exactly say anything. "Winning" a debate is simply being the most convincing, not the most sound.

Also, to those saying that barely anybody changes their position on these kinds of things, the New Zealand census from 2001-2006 showed 26.17% increase in the number of people indicating no religion.

Either people are dropping religion and not theism, or, most likely, they're changing their position on the issue.

[arcadia700]

This issue isn't decided thru democracy.

Nonetheless the Bible speaks of a narrow road that leads to salvation, which (relatively) few people find and of a wide road that leads to destruction, on which many walks. So I find the numbers not surprising.

[OverusedChewToy]

I wasn't arguing for naturalism based on majority. I was refuting the contention that noone changes their mind on these issues.

There are abundant non-fallacious reasons to accept naturalism, or even non-naturalistic atheism.

[arcadia700]

Ok, got you loud and clear.

I agree with you that yes, people do change their minds on these issues.

In fact, I will be willing to change my own mind in case I come across convincing arguments showing that my belief in God is delusional and unfounded. Peace!

[OverusedChewToy]

The burden of proof is on you to find convincing reasons to believe in god, or occam's razor cuts her out of ones ontology.

In the meantime, some arguments against the supernatural (which includes god):

Argument from Methodological naturalism:

Basically, natural methods of inquiry (science, social science, etc.) that explain the world in natural terms have been incredibly successful so they will probably be successful in accounting for the rest of the world.

[OverusedChewToy]

Argument from physical minds:

-All mental activity so far discovered has been physical or at least relies upon the physical (supported by cognitive science, neuroscience,philosophy of mind).

-Therefore, all minds are dependent upon the physical.

-Therefore, a disembodied mind cannot exist.

-Therefore, god does not exist (because god is a disembodied mind)

[OverusedChewToy]

A final one:

The argument from unneccessary evils:

-Unneccessary evils happen all the time

-A good god would not allow unneccesary evils to occur

-Therefore, a good god cannot exist

-Therefore, god does not exist (only good god, not malevolent or stupid god :P)

[arcadia700]

I think the premise (conclusion?)"all minds or mental activities are dependent upon the physical" is debatable.

For one, the term 'so far discovered' that you used imply that there may still be other mental activities to be discovered yet. What if there is in deed a mental activity not dependent on the physical. Secondly, the term 'physical' can include things not perceivable to the human faculties..(eg. radio waves are physical but we don't perceive them w/o instruments).

[OverusedChewToy]

"What if there is in deed a mental activity not dependent on the physical. "

An appeal to possibility is exactly what does not refute an induction.

"the term 'physical' can include things not perceivable to the human faculties..(eg. radio waves are physical but we don't perceive them w/o instruments)."

So? Physical things may be insensible in what would intuitively be deemed a "Direct" sense, but they're still different from ontologically dualistic notions of mental substance.

[arcadia700]

Yes you did use inductive reasoning-the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support

the conclusion but do not(necessarily) entail it; i.e.they do not ensure its truth

(wikipedia).So my appeal to possibility wasn't really intended to refute your conclusion outright,rather it showed its weakness.Weakness,because you observed particular truths (all mental activities SO FAR DISCOVERED are..)and established them as universal truth (therefore all minds are...).

[arcadia700]

I deal a bit with statistics and I'm not comfty to say that what is true of the sample is true of all.

Let's analyze the physical mind argument:

All mental activity so far discovered has been physical or at least relies upon the physical

Comment: Does this rule out the existence of mental activity that is not physical or does not rely on the physical? NO. Just because a thing is undiscovered doesn't make it inexistent.

--->cont..

[OverusedChewToy]

Inductive reasoning ALWAYS implies a probability of failure (no matter how small), as does Abduction. I know this. It still doesn't mean that the argument is refuted. If it was the case that all inductive and abductive arguments could be refuted with an appeal to possibility like you have done, then we would literally have no knowledge. Welcome to global skepticism.

If you do not like global skepticism, then stop appealing to possibility "its possibly wrong!"

[OverusedChewToy]

"Comment: Does this rule out the existence of mental activity that is not physical or does not rely on the physical? NO. Just because a thing is undiscovered doesn't make it inexistent."

Take that objection and apply it to any universal induction and you'll see its fruitlessness.

[OverusedChewToy]

"I deal a bit with statistics and I'm not comfty to say that what is true of the sample is true of all."

So you're not comfortable with scientific ontology. Lol. Right.

The more minds that're physical (or dependent upon) that we find, the stronger my argument gets. It's already very strong and it's getting stronger by the second. No appeal to "Well, you POSSIBLY COULD discover a nonphysical mind" will serve to refute it, only the actual discovery of a nonphysical mind.

[OverusedChewToy]

"So my appeal to possibility wasn't really intended to refute your conclusion outright,rather it showed its weakness."

Well that's a feeble response. You should still be convinced by the argument.

That's the weakness of ALL sound argument that actually brings new knowledge (deduction is certain but it only ever restates its premises in its conclusion.)

[arcadia700]

Perhaps the most basic proof I can site to justify belief in God is life itself..you, me, the world around us..). Where did we all come from? Ok you might say we and higher life-forms evolved from lower life forms and lower life forms originated from the many elements concocted in a favorable way to produce life. But where did they come from? What's the ultimate beginning of the many beginnings? Love to hear from you again..= )

[OverusedChewToy]

Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Bang, before then (if there is a before!), no idea.

I don't know what came "Before" the big bang, no one does, not even the most enlightened physicist (at present).

But the conclusion "I don't know" doesn't mean "god did it". You need positive evidence for god, or it remains a sparse outlying possibility at best (especially due to a natural hypothesis being the more likely truth behind the matter).

[supermariofj]

There is actually. Logically, and thus far, theoretically (however ironic) in the field of science.

[RationalMan16]

Oh my, this was painful. =(

Why did you upload this? If you're a secular organization, why upload a debate in which the atheistic side gets beaten?

[ginganz13]

Because the God Squad would'nt do the same?

Because the arguments are so well known that this debate has become more of a test of memory than evidence.

Because language means that you have more chance of winning a car crash.

Because you cannot defeat a true tautology when one side sees not losing as a 'win'.

Mostly because its easier to make excuses for the things you have learned rather than 'unlearn' them.

[DeusMerdaeEst]

I must have missed something. Where did he get beaten? Was it when he said that the biblical god is only one of thousands of gods and that Craig rejects all of them but one? Of was it were Craig explained that something can not come out of nothing, except, how convenient, god itself?

[RationalMan16]

Well, Cooke made some very interesting points, but it seemed to me that he was kind of dodging Craig's points. He never really tackled them head on.

I agree with Cooke all the way, I just wish he would have ripped Craig to shreds. >:D

[tenneral]

I fear that this is a debate which will never be resolved. If you are a theist, you will find that Dr Craig won the argument on every point: atheists will find for Cooke. There is a curious mind-set in humans which is almost immovable on this topic and I think that sudden conversions from one side to the other are all the more remarkable. As a full convert of this sort myself, am I a freak? Don't answer that - I can guess your answer!!

Thanks so much for posting the series. 5*

[MrNoseFeatures]

You hit the nail directly on the head there my friend. I am a full convert of that sort too (atheism -> Christianity) and I know exactly what you mean.

[jt7887]

that was not even a debate, Craig presented a good argument and no counterargument/refutation was given.

[RedlandsCRC]

Dr. Craig was the clear winner in this debate.

[williamlunn1]

oh no! thats terrible. Thanks so much for videoing it! we can relive it again and again!

[williamlunn1]

HI.. Thanks for uploading the debate :). But its not all here? are the rest of the questions coming? thanks

[NZARH]

Sorry - thats it for the questions though we did try, tape ran out and the hard drive recorder crapped out - nevermind they are only $1200 each.......

[ginganz13]

Why does the omnipotent creator of the universe always need more money?

[ginganz13]

Nevermind clicking the thumbs down ya cowards -

Why does God need Money?

[grandconjunct]

One of the atheist commenters mentioned that "God was like Santa Clause for Adults", but in an Infinite number of Mulitverses every conceivable being must necessarily exist, including a Santa Clause in at least one of the universes, So atheists should not Knock santa, Besides this would leave atheists with nothing to sing about on Christmas.

[ginganz13]

God by Craig Lanes own admission isn't a conceivable being....

[BassP86]

HAHAHAHA!!! Brilliant. Grandconjunct, would you mind if I quoted you on that as a reference for my apologetics presentation material?

[elroy2112]

Craig creamed Cooke

[berettaNZ]

Why isn't the whole debate available? I only see parts 1, 2, 3, and 12.

[NZARH]

It takes a while to upload 525MB of files & then for You Tube to process the video clips. The whole series will be published by the evening of 21/6/08. A this point I will create a playlist that will allow the whole debate to play seamlessly.

Patience please.

[Christianjr4]

OK cool! Cause I'm having so much trouble figuring out the order of this debate. A playlist would be great. Thx for uploading.

[berettaNZ]

Ah, OK, it's coming. Thanks. :)

[fantasy0coach]

He is very busy God, and that's just dealing with humans....what with the trees, planets, sun, weather, bacteria, 15 billion species, volcanoes, sin, gays, abortionists, scientists.....and to have to constantly note down for eternal judgement all actions.......oh well I suppose he has 15 trillion previously dead souls up there in heaven to take notes and cook for him.