@MrSamySara Indeed, I am. what do you mean by Credulous?are you saying that you do believe in it(God) if not may i ask why?i can’t comprehend, what stance your taking here?And I do believe that there is evidence( arguments) that lead to the conclusion that there is a God(supernatural being that transcends our intellectuality)
@MrSamySara"The God Delusion" shouldn't he be able to defend the position he takes?and although craig is a philosopher if dawkin wants to refute that God exists, he should give some well substantiaten and articulated info to WLC. God won't be embarrased but on the counerinuitive side richard dawkins is and will stay like that. Because he doesn't want to go against a profound and renown philosopher--or on the other hand, he shouldn't say nothing and just study more
@MrSamySara hey samy,i had in mind that you were going to take that position but i was wondering, what is a debate? isn't a debate giving reasons or justification for the conclusion of an argument? if you want to take the position that God doesn't exist and shouldn't you be able to have some claims? if dawkins says that there is no God and actually takes the time to write a whole book on it
@estuchedepeluche Srry, have a question?, Can you please define what you mean by inept and sophomoric he is?? because to my knowledge he is one of the few most renown christian philosophers defending the christian faith. And if im well informed, dawkins( one of the best '' atheism apologists" is unwilling to debate with him. And if im well informed hes out there disclosing evidence for theism.Plus, he has also earned a phd in phil and theology so i believe he's not conceited not unsophisticated
@manyjessica1 Dawkins is an esteemed biologist. He is not educated in philosophy. It would be nearly impossible for anyone to debate Craig without philosophical training. What people don't seem to understand is that it is not religion that is winning these debates, it is the undeniably immense intelligence of Craig and his proficiency in philosophy. However it is easy to become disillusioned by Craig the moment he starts talking about his faith in the events of the bible.
@manyjessica1 Thanks for noticing my comment, I am actually quoting him, those are the words Dr Lane Craig uses when critiquing the character and intellect of people who don't agree with him, rather that refuting their arguments. BTW I am well aware of his credentials and publications, and also I attended the debate his sustained with evolution biologist Jose Francisco Ayala @ IU Bloomington. Though his style is impressive and dramatic, I was very underwhelmed by his arguments.
@migol1984 Have you not watched the video? Do you not get what this video shows? Ohhh of course not because that requires the ability to think rationally and your a christian.
@01ross10 well that's the thing, i don't see how this video paints wlc as retarded. maybe questionable in some thinking... but not retarded. how exactly does it show wlc as "retarded"? i don't see it. i don't mean to offend you so i don't see why you have to get all mad and shit.
@01ross10 you could've just said that. thanks... i've never even heard of deductive reasoning before. now i learned something. see how human beings can help each other by being nice and communicative? and this works anywhere! even on youtube! :)
@01ross10 ok, never mind... just looked up deductive reasoning. i do know what it means... i just never knew it had a name. but i can understand the argument against wlc now. i just didn't know what exactly you were disagreeing with him about.
well he should of added you all who has commented here too to those out in internet lol , do you really read your own comments after posting? you dont make sense at all
@01ross10 Really? Is that why atheists have trouble in debates with him? Is that why Dawkins was afraid for his reputation to debate him? Is that why he has two PhDs in philosophy and theology? Is that why he is a college proffesor and has his own scientist and has written many scholarly articles and books?...No good sir. His arguments are simply over your head. He may have an off argument here and there, as does everyone, but his logic is most of them is solid.
I have seen a few of his debates with Atheists and they have had no trouble showing his "arguments" (a term I use loosely) to be fallacious.
As for Dawkins not wanting to debate with him? I could only guess that he thought that Hitchens and Sam Harris had already effectively destroyed his points of view.
@01ross10 HA! What debates were you watching! Hitchens avoided most of Craig's arguments! That is a bold faced lie or a mere delusion. I must hear the counter points to Craig's 5 arguments. If you can't supply them, then they must not exist. So, go back and watch the Hitchens debate and this time LISTEN. Hitchens only addresses 2 or 3 of his points. If you think otherwise, prove it. Tell me what his counter points were.
Objective moral values do not exist. See Kohlberg and Piaget. Moral values have been shown to develop though social interaction.
True the universe has a cause, but it is a gross assumption to say that this cause is God.
Improbable events given enough time will happen.
The last two arguments are the weakest. There is no evidence that the christian faith is any more probable than other faiths therefore arguments from the bible and from individuals are not evidence for god.
@svenypoodles ok so by your argument premises 1) Moral values have been shown to develop though social interaction.2) Through Afghan Islamic social custom, men proliferate male pedophilia though bacha baz ... to conclude 3) Pedophilia has moral value. .... So let me get this straight by your argument you believe Pedophilia is moral? Your sick dude.
@athaskins 1) My personal morals say pedophilia is a vile act, and should be prevented. 2) Thank you for proving my point. Those pedophiles grew up in a society that condones pedophilia so they do not see it as immoral. They feel no remorse or guilt for their crime because to them it is not a crime. 3) To quote someone with true morals and intellect "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
The guy who made this video doesn't even understand philosophy...the premises are established and if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. It's philosophy....
I beg to differ. It's apparent that the channel owner understands the logic of Craig's arguments perfectly well. He is not making fun of the structure of Craig's argument. He is ridiculing the premises themselves since they are utterly without sound support. They are bald assertions & nothing more. In other words, at their core, Craig's premises are complete bullshit.
E.g. his premise that the universe had a cause. Physics tells us that the singularity that preceded the big bang was infintesimally small & immeasurably dense. Under such circumstances, time does not exist.
Meanwhile, all causation as we know it requires time, so to speak of the universe being "caused" is completely incoherent. Craig might as well just say the universe was "yahooed" into existence. In any case, it's all bullshit in the sense that it has no basis in reality.
@LetReasonPrevail1 Do you have idea how many times that premise has changed. Show me program that started with no information, the result of an explosion that created just one thing DNA with its very sense code. Every time information is lost you can end up with monsters because of faulty DNA and code.
You see, Craig is a master bullshitter, because he makes a living speaking about things with certainty of which he could not possibly know at all. His assertions have no basis in reality, that is to say, they have no basis in what we experience as existence. He tries to apply experience of known existence to unknown, potential existence
Well guess what, you can't do that without honestly allowing for that fact that anyone could posit anything & still be on par with his claims
If you think Craig has ever been at a "fine" point, let alone his "finest," then you may consider changing your name from "AbstractLogic" to "AbsentLogic."
I dream of a day when all the animals of faith sit dead deep underground covered in Bibles and Korans. Topped off with a trillion tons of pig slaughter. This mass of stinking dead flesh will eventually turn to petroleum and one day fuel the car of a Human Atheist while They go about their business in a clean peaceful world without war or disease or terror or child rape. Lets all hope for religicide soon. For the sake of Humans.
@ WLC - !: As far as we know, all the matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed, but transforms and reshapes itself when combined with other forces in the universe. Just because you're body, and subsequent being, are around for a short period of time, doesn't mean any of it was just poof'd into existence by an external creator. Just because we don't understand exactly what happened at the moment of this universe's formation, doesn't mean a god did it.
He is just a used car salesman working in a different field. I am not buying your old banger mister. I can clearly see that your arguments have too many miles on the clock.
He has been using the same argument for years. It does not matter what the subject is or the person he is debating he just gives his speach. No wonder Dawkins won't listen to him.
@gregrutz I think this is exemplary of the "inept" and "sophomoric" understanding and reasoning to which Craig refers. Does the age of an argument determine its validity? Has he in fact used this exact argument in response to unrelated questions in every speech and debate aired and unaired, known and unknown? Does Richard Dawkins really refuse to listen to him, ever? Is a proposition validated or invalidated with respect to whom it is delivered simply by the quantum of the margin?
@TheVentureCapitalist The point is Richard will no debate him. WHY? He heard him once, no need to debate him again, he is just going to say the same thing over and over.
WLC isn't a scientist. He isn't even notably outside of his little circle. It's just a publicity stunt that he picks at Dawkins, and it's a good thing that Dawkins isn't falling for it.
I'd sooner take that seriously when WLC addresses the many people that have demonstrated his arguments wrong.
@gregrutz everyone use the same argument all the time. Dawkins also keep using the same arguments and giving his speech.
Some people, when don't have arguments to respond, always accuse other of using the same arguments but those people actually do the exactly same thing - use the same arguments all the time.
I like how WLC's excuse for people not buying his crap is that 'everyone else is too stupid'. The way he trips over himself when trying to substantiate it is just hilariously bad.
Everything is contingent. Except 1 "Thing". A nickle in a mans hand is identifiable information (I.I.). Take it to the next level & so on. The nickle(I.I) is in the mans hand, the man (I.I.) is on the earth, the earth(I.I.) is in a solar system, the solar system (I.I.) is in a galaxy, the galaxy (I.I.) is in the universe. The universe (I.I.) is in the big-bang, the big bang(I.I.) is from the next "intelligent information" An intelligible universe came from an "intelligence" that had INFORMATION.
@Griptease2 What you are describing is intellectual bullying, the best defense is to 1. understand the wordage and/or 2. ask the individual to define the meaning. There are times when an obtuse word will be defined differently by those within the debate. Clarification of intent and meaning is paramount to good discussion, if the objective is to find truth, and not the desire to mislead, or to be right, or to "win".
@clint25n "Man this guy is good. Atheist, better go run and hide with your leader Richard..."
LOL... Ya, ya we know. But when its all said and done you know what is still missing??
The satisfactory justification for the Christian belief system. It cracks me up when you believers celebrate these supposed victories by Craig yet when the smoke clears his assertions have revealed NOTHING. There is no revelation of some objective truth...only intellectual dishonesty. Haha....some victory :(
@AbstractLogic1, why aren't you explaining HOW your scientific equations actually work, you keep saying that they are true, but you need to explain the HOW part of such scientific claims, how they apply to reality. You sound like you just pasted up some equations that you're not even an expert on and assume it proves an eternal universe. You just gave "other scientists" the benefit of the doubt (hid behind them) because you think they know everything. I know they don't prove an eternal universe.
I believe that scholars such as Mr. Craig who try, I say try, to convince everybody to debate on the logic that something does or does not exit when the physical aspect on the subject is absent from the beginning, is on the ultimate merry go round....
He doesn't understand the tyranny of reason affecting the limitations of the vehicle he is using (language) - very weak and he doesn't even know it.... his childlike exercise in logic is embarrassing, considering his arrogance.
It's sad that atheists have to resort to video editing to mix words and to take things out of context to make a theists look bad. Oh well I guess that's the only thing you have left.
"People cannot think logically" - - says WHO?? The idiot who thinks that Jesus raised from the dead!?!?! I think it is absolutely crucial that intellectual cowards who cannot ween themselves of religion like mr craig are contrasted. He is quite simply a threat to reason - he speaks of logic, but doesn't use any :-)
It is simply sad that an otherwise capable man like Mr. Craig (I choose not to call him Dr. because I do not consider his field of study, Theology, a "subject" at all - you can't be a doctor in a subject that doesn't exist) is able to delude himself so utterly. We should, really, in 2011, have owned up and recognized that science has simply blown religion out of the water. It is sad that he keeps going with his word-plays, which is all it really is...
Sweden is 85% atheist, if not more by now. Is "dr." craig suggesting there are no objective moral values in sweden? is he suggesting it's a total fucking chaos? what a fucking tool.
also, where does he even get the idea taht god must exist for objective moral values to exist? im an atheist and i find many of the 10 commandments (obviously not the god ones) perfectly fucking fit, due to SYMPATHY and UNDERSTANDING; not some invisible man in the sky who i never talk to, see, or hear.
@goofydog07 No Objective Morality does not mean that you're a horrible person dude. The only point that he's making is that morality is arbitrary i.e. you decide what is right by yourself. Even Dawkins has admitted this. The only time when this causes problems is when certain people take it to extremes, like the communists did here in asia.
@synal You, sir, are making an ass of yourself. Objectivity is the complete opposite to "deciding what is right by yourself". "Objective morals" infers that there are overarching morals which take presedence over your own SUBJECTIVE morals.
If people were "deciding what is right by themselves" it would be SUBJECTIVE morals.
Get it straight. You have the education of a primary student who's retarded, and homeschooled by a retarded teacher, who doesn't even show up to teach half the time.
@goofydog07 Nice red herring. And what does this have to do with the fact that there are many nice atheists despite the fact that they don't conform to a universal moral standard? Don't be stupid.
i think most atheists...if not all fail to see the real point of craigs arguments...they are not to provide concrete evidence of "this is GOD's trace evidence tha the left when walking here this is the proof!" it is more of the idea that christians shouldn't be ashamed of their religion or faith and that it isn't a stupid thing to believe in, but rather to show that there is enough reason to believe in GOD and your faith regardless of what an atheist tries to say about how the Theists are stupid
If William Lane Craig gets anywhere near the recognition from the general public that Richard Dawkins has, then I hope he believes in his heart what he's saying, and isn't only out there because he wants some attention and money.
If he gets his way, I think it could be a real problem for humanity. Just a massive step backwards.
But then, he could be right. He could be.
So, if he's fighting this fight,I hope he's doing it for the right reasons. But mostly I hope he's a fucking nutter.
1 If god does not exist objective moral values do not exist
2 Objective values do exist
3 Therefore god exists
Is a series of false premises and bullshit. The teachings of the bible are subjective values that have changed - slavery, killing others, genocide etc are found in the bible. It is secular humanism that created modern values - the rights of man, emancipation of slaves (helped by some Christians who finally noticed the immorally of it), woman's vote.
@ricko1111 The accounts of the actions of men are in the Bible. That doesn't mean the Bible condones such. To follow your logic, since you mentioned the latter, then you condone such actions. Secular humanism created modern values????? That's a new one. There isn't any value in secular humanism. It's whole selling point is to be devoid of values or any reason for existence. Live for yourself and that's it. Now THAT, is BS.
These arguments are infallible, and noone in these comments can put forth a logical rational opposing argument but rather just disregards them. That is ignorance.
@ivhoven INdeed, his arguments are infallible. Unverifiable, unfalsifiable arguments. If you had any basic knowledge of scientific philosophy you would know that what he is using as arguments is nothing more than petty pseudoscience.
His premises are based on theological philosophies which are simply made up theories that do not contain any grounded evidence or facts to begin with.
@nacho2354 I don't need to keep telling myself that. Any basic scientific philosophy book will tell me, or you for that matter.
You can keep acting like a smartass as much as you want; fact remains that the only people who dearly believe in what craig has to say are either blind fundamentalists or uneducated buffoons.
@joe80dmanizanerd I dont think it sucks to hear that i am easily inspired.What i do think that sucks, is that after so much evidence laying out that God exists people still balk that it is plausible evidence, and consequently treat it as a notion.
@manyjessica1 Evidence that God exists? That is a bit too vague. I'm assuming you're referring to the Abrahamic God. Agnostics for instance, don't argue against the existence of God, they are simply not satisfied with ancient claims of a credulous, illiterate, stupid, backwards society that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus rose from the dead. There is NO hard evidence "laying out". This is why they call it faith in the first place.
@manyjessica1 As I said, sucks to hear you're so easily convinced, Jessica. You obviously dont grasp the definition of evidence. There is NONE that supports god. If there was evidence of such a thing, scientists all over the world would be trying to be the first to prove his existence. Craig is a theologist, he uses theological theories to prove god. Theology by essence is metaphysical, like astrology. Please open your eyes and realize that this doesn't hold value.
@manyjessica1 Don't get me wrong, you can believe in god for all I care. I'm not even denying that a higher power might exist. However, don't go around bloating how there is so much evidence in favor of god - there isn't.
Again atheist come with their propaganda, just like the soviet union did. They bombarded the populace with lies and brainwashing. Presenting everything in their own bias. They never tried to inform. Will Craig on the other hand just argues from logic and is very informative at that.
If you have made up in your heart, that God is an impossibility, then indeed all Craigs arguments will fail from the start. The bar is in your own hands and you can set it as high as you will.
@shlukh Decisions take place in the brain not the heart. If you honestly think it's a matter of atheists needing to accept a "possibility." Then you haven't been listening to both sides of the discussion. It's not a matter of what's possible. It's a matter of what is.
We don't have any reason to believe that there is a god and as articulate as Dr. Craig may seem, his arguments are flawed and unconvincing to anyone taking them seriously.
So what you are saying is that you can only be convinced by Craig's arguments if you are willing to suspend your disbelief and not question his rather simplistic and outdated views.
@shlukh 20 people gave you thumbs up for stating the exact opposite of truth. What is this channel, a big circle jerk of people that have imaginary friends?
"If you have made up in your heart, that God is an impossibility, then indeed all Craigs arguments will fail from the start"
That's just making excuses. It's the classic rhetoric of a failed salesman: "Well, surely the reason you aren't convinced by my points are because you've already decided to reject them."
Yet one can believe in God and also have sufficient understanding of logic and reason (and science) to understand that Craig's arguments are embarrassingly fallacious.
@shlukh so atheists applying communist methods?Atheist never tried to inform? I wonder if you have ever taken the chance to go from B. Russell material all the way to Sam Harris. You got over a 100-year line of thinking based on solid logic. Yeah, brainwashing. How does any organized religion measures to the bar you are setting? Hurry to reply! The russians are coming.
"god does not come to existence" and "god came to existence" is equaly plausible statement. if people argue by stating by definition, god does not come to existence, it can be responsed by the term god, then, is not well defined. Because before defining such a everlasting existence, it needs to be proved that such existence is possible without refering to god. (otherwize it would be a cyclic argument and not well supported)
@DigitalDecadence because objective moral values do not exist. By definition, this would mean that there is somewhere out there an objective criteria for what is good or bad. However, if you look at evidence from nature and a variety of cultures, what is seen as good or bad is generally relative to the place and time. Ex: Eating pork is wrong to a Jew but not to a Christian.
@DigitalDecadence I say that it is "wrong" due to my rationale of putting myself in the metaphorical place of the child or their family, as most would who function at a high level of moral reasoning. However some would believe it is not wrong, some would believe that it is fun and others may believe it is justified. Notice, I am making a judgement which is not based on external rules or regulations as the religious would in the case of commandments. It is "wrong to me" but not as an absolute.
@DigitalDecadence I say that it is "wrong" due to my rationale of putting myself in the metaphorical place of the child or their family, as most would who function at a high level of moral reasoning. However some would believe it is not wrong, some would believe that it is fun and others may believe it is justified. Notice, I am making a judgement which is not based on external rules or regulations as the religious would in the case of commandments. It is "wrong to me" but not as an absolute.
@aristurtle1 Ok. Then you are saying that it's perfectly acceptable for people to murder children for entertainment - but you personally just don't like it. So whilst it's 'wrong' for you, it's 'right' for others. What you are describing is mere opinion, not a moral statement at all.
@badpanda84 Well in that case, you would have no right to say that someone who brutally rapes and murders your girlfriend because they didn't like her hat, has done anything wrong. I applaud your consistency, but I don't believe for a second you live this way. :)
@DigitalDecadence There is no such thing as objective moral value. When we say "x should be illegal" it is because we have determined it to be dangerous against ourselves, other and society. This has nothing to do with the supposed existence of god. You can even look at different cultures throughout the ages who have enforced certain laws based on the supposed wished of their god (not eating pork ) etc and you will see that these are relative to the culture (poor health conditions).
@DigitalDecadence Again we have to define these terms. There is the psychological theory of moral reasoning where individuals progress from thinking about whats good for "me" to listening to external laws (bible, parents) and then to thinking about whats best for all involved. In this case one may make the decision that killing of children is "wrong" based on their own reflections, etc but this process has nothing to do with a supernatural external being, nor does it require a belief in one.
@aristurtle1 Parents are not the same as God. Parents are just humans, as are you and I, whereas the Bible claims authority from God, a *transcendent* moral lawmaker. But moving on:
You seen to claim that killing children is immoral, but you say for your own reasons. Unfortunately this will lead to 'might makes right', as everyone has 'their own reasons' and they don't often agree, the Nazis killed millions of Jews, but they aren't immoral on your view, they merely act in an unpopular way...
@DigitalDecadence Essentially yes (on the Nazis). Morality is created by people. When you look at the morals of different cultures you will see that they reflect the conditions of that culture, often with the ideal of a "god" to enforce those laws. Ex: ancient Iceland which was fragmented by conflict had war gods, circumcision was also a sort of law, due to poor hygiene, justified by "god". To subscribe to the morality of a god you must be clear which one: Zeus?, Odin? The Christian god?
@aristurtle1 You are confusing 'is' with 'ought'. To say that something is a law, is to make a legal claim, not all of which are moral claims. In the example of circumcision that's just an 'is'. It may be 'good' to get circumcised, but it's not moral. Just like going for a run is good, but not moral.
The argument is God agnostic, it doesn't care which 'god' just that the being fits the definition - a maximally great being. I applaud your consistency, but I know you don't live like this.
@DigitalDecadence I am arguing that Craig's argument on morality to prove god's existence is incorrect, as he asserts that there is objective moral value. There is no objective moral value as that would mean that some concrete, true in all possible worlds morals exist "out there" in the same way that 2+2 equals 4. As I have demonstrates, morality is relative to cultures and time periods and is therefore not objective. In religion not being baptized/circ is seen as immoral due to divine order.
@aristurtle1 Well you are saying that culture and society dictate what is moral. The common term for this is, "might makes right" - whoever has the power to shape culture and society gets to choose the rules. In Nazi Germany the rules were, "Jews are non-humans and should be exterminated."
In our society our rules are a little better. But one wonders what the slippery slope holds for us.
@DigitalDecadence I am not attached to this idea of apriori objective morality the way that you and the religious are. I am not saying that a culture dictates what is moral, I am saying that a culture shapes what is viewed as moral. There is a difference between something seen as moral and something being moral as an absolute. Morality is an abstract subjective concept specific to cultures and individuals. I really dont get how this is supposed to have anything to do with gods existence....
@aristurtle1 I'm not talking about God/god atm, I'm trying to understand your view. Essentially I feel what I've said is correct, morality is subjective based on the time and people.
In which case the murder, rape, torture and abuse of over 6 million Jewish people wasn't immoral at any stage, not for the Nazis, OR, for the Jews...
@DigitalDecadence I get the feeling that you are arguing from a religious perspective, perhaps that morality is something given to man by god, via people who channel gods word. I then ask you how we know which god to follow, since all religion have very different views on morality. Should we follow the Christian god who;s morality involves refraining from killing and loving the enemy or the ancient Viking god who grants divinity to those who die in battle? Two very different moral codes..
@aristurtle1 No, I'm trying to understand your view and use your criteria and definitions - right now, this is all about you and your views! I'm not interested in God, the Christian or otherwise, as you don't believe in God, Christian or otherwise, so it's not pertinent to your view and position.
What I'm saying is drawn logically from your position. If you disagree please specify where and why.
@DigitalDecadence This conversation started when you questioned the fact that I discarded the argument of objective moral reality as false. My claim is that there is no such thing as objective morality and that this proposition rests on the presupposition that there is a supernatural "book" of rules that exists as true in all possible rules. Craig's moral argument is flawed in this way since the argument of causation does not proove gods existence, and the moral argument requires a god.
@DigitalDecadence The answer is because you grew up in a cultral that values human life
If you say grew up in say Ancient Sparta or in the time of the Vikings that would have been perfectly acceptable to murder children for fun ( and the Vikings acutally did that)
@badpanda84 This is essentially the genetic fallacy, you are attempting to explain whether an idea is right or not, by explaining it's origins. There is however no link between the truth of a statement, and the origin of that statement, so this is fallacious thinking on your part.
@DigitalDecadence Yes there is a link between the truth of a statement and the orgin of a statement.
Take scientology for instance - it orginated from a science fiction writer who claimed that starting a relgion is the best way to make money -- sure thast dosent meant it is false -- but he has very little credbility..
Explaining an idea orgins dosent prove it right or wrong -- but it dose affect its credbility
@DigitalDecadence Well yes -- the genetic fallacy is wrong ( ie there is no such thing)..
So its not fallicious thinking on my part...
I agree explaining a beliefs orginins dosent conclusively prove something right or wrong -- but it increases the likelyhood of it being right or wrong
"A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant."
At this stage I would hope you go on to teach the controversy. ;) All the best!
@DigitalDecadence "A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant."
yes but it orgin of a belief is relvant -- if it is a major factor or reason for a persons belief.
Seriously, I want to meet this guy in person. I can't tell if he's stupid or an awesome deceiver. I'm pretty sure I could get him to take a swing at me.
@wabbajack2 : I'm quite confident Dr.Craig would completely dismantle you in a debate without ever breaking a sweat or having the slightest desire to assault you. He seemed capable enough to make Hitchens look like a blithering idiot, and I'm quite certain Hitchens is a far more intelligent man than you.
@Kjell777Iverson sorry, but Dr. Craig has no clue what he's talking about. All his argument are based on unproven shaky theological philosophy which he uses as if they are factual claims. His philosophical "premises" are nothing more than irrational bollocks.
@Kjell777Iverson Craig couldn't handle a debate with a student at notre dame let alone the rest of us.
I didn't see the entire Hitchens debate, but I did see the Harris debate and WLC couldn't do anything more than repeat his non-qualified presupposition over and over again without arguing the merits of it.
Repetition is not winning, Harris wiped the walls with him.
The debate with Dawkins went even worse, he had to hide behind atheists have no proof.
@Kjell777Iverson He hardly made Hitchens look like an idiot at all, kiddo. His ENTIRE argument hinges on one giant appeal-to-authority fallacy. He's a joke.
Could this video actually get any worse? You've thrown stuff out of context, you displayed extremist religious views (Which by the way seem to be the only religious views that get any press in this day and age) And as for the diagram in 4:33 you're just being plain silly. Stereotypical mitigation at it's best that has unfortunately fooled millions of people from even researching this material themselves. I pray people aren't stupid enough to to take this video as face value.
THE FIRST QUESTION IS " DO YOU DERIVE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM GOD SIGNING " AND IF YOU DO SIR YOUR COVER IS BLOWN AND WE MUST ALL AGREE
THAT YOUR CASE IS VOID OF MERIT AND IS A MERE WAFFLING OF NONSENSE.
FULL OF SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING . IT IS A STORY TOLD BY AN IDIOT .
bujumbura101 5 hours ago
Comment removed
bujumbura101 5 hours ago
Gotta love WLC.. Something can't come from nothing, therefore it is totally possible that Jesus can be resurrected from the dead.. Kind of a leap..
muude 1 day ago
@MrSamySara Indeed, I am. what do you mean by Credulous?are you saying that you do believe in it(God) if not may i ask why?i can’t comprehend, what stance your taking here?And I do believe that there is evidence( arguments) that lead to the conclusion that there is a God(supernatural being that transcends our intellectuality)
manyjessica1 1 day ago
@MrSamySara"The God Delusion" shouldn't he be able to defend the position he takes?and although craig is a philosopher if dawkin wants to refute that God exists, he should give some well substantiaten and articulated info to WLC. God won't be embarrased but on the counerinuitive side richard dawkins is and will stay like that. Because he doesn't want to go against a profound and renown philosopher--or on the other hand, he shouldn't say nothing and just study more
manyjessica1 1 day ago
@MrSamySara hey samy,i had in mind that you were going to take that position but i was wondering, what is a debate? isn't a debate giving reasons or justification for the conclusion of an argument? if you want to take the position that God doesn't exist and shouldn't you be able to have some claims? if dawkins says that there is no God and actually takes the time to write a whole book on it
manyjessica1 1 day ago
I am appalled at how unsophisticated, inept and sophomoric William Lane Craig is!!
estuchedepeluche 4 days ago
@estuchedepeluche Srry, have a question?, Can you please define what you mean by inept and sophomoric he is?? because to my knowledge he is one of the few most renown christian philosophers defending the christian faith. And if im well informed, dawkins( one of the best '' atheism apologists" is unwilling to debate with him. And if im well informed hes out there disclosing evidence for theism.Plus, he has also earned a phd in phil and theology so i believe he's not conceited not unsophisticated
manyjessica1 2 days ago
Comment removed
MrSamySara 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manyjessica1 Dawkins is an esteemed biologist. He is not educated in philosophy. It would be nearly impossible for anyone to debate Craig without philosophical training. What people don't seem to understand is that it is not religion that is winning these debates, it is the undeniably immense intelligence of Craig and his proficiency in philosophy. However it is easy to become disillusioned by Craig the moment he starts talking about his faith in the events of the bible.
MrSamySara 2 days ago
@manyjessica1 Thanks for noticing my comment, I am actually quoting him, those are the words Dr Lane Craig uses when critiquing the character and intellect of people who don't agree with him, rather that refuting their arguments. BTW I am well aware of his credentials and publications, and also I attended the debate his sustained with evolution biologist Jose Francisco Ayala @ IU Bloomington. Though his style is impressive and dramatic, I was very underwhelmed by his arguments.
estuchedepeluche 1 day ago
Dr. William Lane Craig is the most well spoken retard I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.
01ross10 5 days ago
@01ross10 why is he a retard exactly?
migol1984 3 days ago
@migol1984 Have you not watched the video? Do you not get what this video shows? Ohhh of course not because that requires the ability to think rationally and your a christian.
01ross10 3 days ago
@01ross10 why do you seem upset?
migol1984 2 days ago
@migol1984 obviously because I haven't yet accepted jesus christ as my personal saviour right?
01ross10 2 days ago
@01ross10 i don't know. is that why? where is this going? i'm confused.
migol1984 2 days ago
@migol1984 Your confused......ok (pats head) its ok, run along ......this is just YouTube
01ross10 2 days ago
@01ross10 well, for being just youtube you sound really upset... but okay whatever.
migol1984 2 days ago
@migol1984 So you keep saying, but I assure you that this is all just a result of your confusion.
01ross10 2 days ago
@01ross10 well i'd stop being confused if you'd give me a straight answer and not resort to insults.
migol1984 2 days ago
@migol1984 You got a straight answer. But I'll spell it out for you.
The video is designed to show how retarded WLC is.
It shouldn't need explaining any further.
If you do require further explanation then I'm the one to do it for you, it's obvious and I don't want to explain the obvious to anyone.
Are we clear now?
Gr8 kthx bye
01ross10 2 days ago
@01ross10 well that's the thing, i don't see how this video paints wlc as retarded. maybe questionable in some thinking... but not retarded. how exactly does it show wlc as "retarded"? i don't see it. i don't mean to offend you so i don't see why you have to get all mad and shit.
migol1984 2 days ago
Look you seem to be a nice guy, your not offending me, the question you asked shouldn't need answering.
Don't be so sensitive dude it's just YouTube.
If you don't get the point of this video then either move on or research "deductive reasoning" and find out for yourself.
Wiki has a reasonable page on it
01ross10 2 days ago
@01ross10 you could've just said that. thanks... i've never even heard of deductive reasoning before. now i learned something. see how human beings can help each other by being nice and communicative? and this works anywhere! even on youtube! :)
migol1984 2 days ago
@01ross10 ok, never mind... just looked up deductive reasoning. i do know what it means... i just never knew it had a name. but i can understand the argument against wlc now. i just didn't know what exactly you were disagreeing with him about.
migol1984 2 days ago
well he should of added you all who has commented here too to those out in internet lol , do you really read your own comments after posting? you dont make sense at all
beulah10 5 days ago
Great plan. Chop up an intellectual argument and reconstruct it into something completely different to make the speak seem dumb.
ChestonORChezszun 5 days ago
@ChestonORChezszun The "arguments" are as intellectual as a bowl of cornflakes, it's a shame you don't see that. And I mean that in all sincerity.
01ross10 3 days ago
@01ross10 Really? Is that why atheists have trouble in debates with him? Is that why Dawkins was afraid for his reputation to debate him? Is that why he has two PhDs in philosophy and theology? Is that why he is a college proffesor and has his own scientist and has written many scholarly articles and books?...No good sir. His arguments are simply over your head. He may have an off argument here and there, as does everyone, but his logic is most of them is solid.
ChestonORChezszun 2 days ago
@ChestonORChezszun
I have seen a few of his debates with Atheists and they have had no trouble showing his "arguments" (a term I use loosely) to be fallacious.
As for Dawkins not wanting to debate with him? I could only guess that he thought that Hitchens and Sam Harris had already effectively destroyed his points of view.
01ross10 2 days ago
@01ross10 HA! What debates were you watching! Hitchens avoided most of Craig's arguments! That is a bold faced lie or a mere delusion. I must hear the counter points to Craig's 5 arguments. If you can't supply them, then they must not exist. So, go back and watch the Hitchens debate and this time LISTEN. Hitchens only addresses 2 or 3 of his points. If you think otherwise, prove it. Tell me what his counter points were.
ChestonORChezszun 1 day ago
Objective moral values do not exist. See Kohlberg and Piaget. Moral values have been shown to develop though social interaction.
True the universe has a cause, but it is a gross assumption to say that this cause is God.
Improbable events given enough time will happen.
The last two arguments are the weakest. There is no evidence that the christian faith is any more probable than other faiths therefore arguments from the bible and from individuals are not evidence for god.
svenypoodles 1 week ago
@svenypoodles ok so by your argument premises 1) Moral values have been shown to develop though social interaction.2) Through Afghan Islamic social custom, men proliferate male pedophilia though bacha baz ... to conclude 3) Pedophilia has moral value. .... So let me get this straight by your argument you believe Pedophilia is moral? Your sick dude.
athaskins 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@athaskins 1) My personal morals say pedophilia is a vile act, and should be prevented. 2) Thank you for proving my point. Those pedophiles grew up in a society that condones pedophilia so they do not see it as immoral. They feel no remorse or guilt for their crime because to them it is not a crime. 3) To quote someone with true morals and intellect "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
svenypoodles 1 week ago
Comment removed
svenypoodles 1 week ago
The guy who made this video doesn't even understand philosophy...the premises are established and if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. It's philosophy....
AugmentedMinor 1 month ago
I beg to differ. It's apparent that the channel owner understands the logic of Craig's arguments perfectly well. He is not making fun of the structure of Craig's argument. He is ridiculing the premises themselves since they are utterly without sound support. They are bald assertions & nothing more. In other words, at their core, Craig's premises are complete bullshit.
LetReasonPrevail1 3 weeks ago
E.g. his premise that the universe had a cause. Physics tells us that the singularity that preceded the big bang was infintesimally small & immeasurably dense. Under such circumstances, time does not exist.
Meanwhile, all causation as we know it requires time, so to speak of the universe being "caused" is completely incoherent. Craig might as well just say the universe was "yahooed" into existence. In any case, it's all bullshit in the sense that it has no basis in reality.
LetReasonPrevail1 3 weeks ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 Do you have idea how many times that premise has changed. Show me program that started with no information, the result of an explosion that created just one thing DNA with its very sense code. Every time information is lost you can end up with monsters because of faulty DNA and code.
tendele7 2 weeks ago
You see, Craig is a master bullshitter, because he makes a living speaking about things with certainty of which he could not possibly know at all. His assertions have no basis in reality, that is to say, they have no basis in what we experience as existence. He tries to apply experience of known existence to unknown, potential existence
Well guess what, you can't do that without honestly allowing for that fact that anyone could posit anything & still be on par with his claims
LetReasonPrevail1 3 weeks ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 Have you seen the BS you have written?
tendele7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If humans were created in the image of God, why aren't we invisible instead of looking like hairless monkeys?
a0eoj 1 month ago
I love all the comments who think this video is supporting Craig rather than making fun of him.
Paying attention fail.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 month ago 2
If you think Craig has ever been at a "fine" point, let alone his "finest," then you may consider changing your name from "AbstractLogic" to "AbsentLogic."
Dethenger 1 month ago
I dream of a day when all the animals of faith sit dead deep underground covered in Bibles and Korans. Topped off with a trillion tons of pig slaughter. This mass of stinking dead flesh will eventually turn to petroleum and one day fuel the car of a Human Atheist while They go about their business in a clean peaceful world without war or disease or terror or child rape. Lets all hope for religicide soon. For the sake of Humans.
699backstab 1 month ago
@ WLC - !: As far as we know, all the matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed, but transforms and reshapes itself when combined with other forces in the universe. Just because you're body, and subsequent being, are around for a short period of time, doesn't mean any of it was just poof'd into existence by an external creator. Just because we don't understand exactly what happened at the moment of this universe's formation, doesn't mean a god did it.
UPplRSick 1 month ago
How many years have the new atheists been in town and this is the best that apologists can do?
Tomasito261 1 month ago
@Tomasito261 Anything more would be excessive force! The so called "new atheists" have not really added anything to the conversation.
Patience1138 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tomasito261 Anything more would be excessive force! The so called "new atheists" have not really added anything to the conversation.
Patience1138 1 month ago
Snore............
gazthefunky39 2 months ago
He is just a used car salesman working in a different field. I am not buying your old banger mister. I can clearly see that your arguments have too many miles on the clock.
jgsouter 2 months ago
no one can ever prove jesus created miracles NO ONE
robotic99 2 months ago
There is only one reason for atheists to run from the belief of God....guess what....it has nothing to do with science!
runwithtruth 2 months ago
@runwithtruth You can't run from non-existance.
Mazz1420 2 months ago
@Mazz1420 If you do not exist...how are you posting your reply's?
runwithtruth 2 months ago
@runwithtruth My comment went right over your head kid, re-read it.
Mazz1420 2 months ago
@Mazz1420 no it didn't :-).....just thought you might give more thought to the One you just borrowed your last breath from.
jesuslady68 2 months ago
@jesuslady68 ....... Th-. Fuck it never mind
Mazz1420 2 months ago
He has been using the same argument for years. It does not matter what the subject is or the person he is debating he just gives his speach. No wonder Dawkins won't listen to him.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz I think this is exemplary of the "inept" and "sophomoric" understanding and reasoning to which Craig refers. Does the age of an argument determine its validity? Has he in fact used this exact argument in response to unrelated questions in every speech and debate aired and unaired, known and unknown? Does Richard Dawkins really refuse to listen to him, ever? Is a proposition validated or invalidated with respect to whom it is delivered simply by the quantum of the margin?
TheVentureCapitalist 2 months ago
@TheVentureCapitalist The point is Richard will no debate him. WHY? He heard him once, no need to debate him again, he is just going to say the same thing over and over.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz
WLC isn't a scientist. He isn't even notably outside of his little circle. It's just a publicity stunt that he picks at Dawkins, and it's a good thing that Dawkins isn't falling for it.
I'd sooner take that seriously when WLC addresses the many people that have demonstrated his arguments wrong.
Mathenaut 2 months ago
@gregrutz everyone use the same argument all the time. Dawkins also keep using the same arguments and giving his speech.
Some people, when don't have arguments to respond, always accuse other of using the same arguments but those people actually do the exactly same thing - use the same arguments all the time.
novaerense 2 months ago
@novaerense Arguments are great. Philosophers do it all the time.
They have no evidence and prove nothing. Just talk.
He still can't explain dinosaurs with feathers.
He still can't prove Jesus was God.
The universe has a cause, that is nice. So?
gregrutz 2 months ago
I like how WLC's excuse for people not buying his crap is that 'everyone else is too stupid'. The way he trips over himself when trying to substantiate it is just hilariously bad.
Mathenaut 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) If God does NOT exist, objective moral values do NOT exist.
2) Objective values DO exist.
3) God exists.
This is complete logical fail using a contrapositive. Add this to Craig's scoreboard.
1) Might be true
2) Is certainly not proovable to be true.
3) Is not required to follow 1) & 2)
adknerr 3 months ago
Everything is contingent. Except 1 "Thing". A nickle in a mans hand is identifiable information (I.I.). Take it to the next level & so on. The nickle(I.I) is in the mans hand, the man (I.I.) is on the earth, the earth(I.I.) is in a solar system, the solar system (I.I.) is in a galaxy, the galaxy (I.I.) is in the universe. The universe (I.I.) is in the big-bang, the big bang(I.I.) is from the next "intelligent information" An intelligible universe came from an "intelligence" that had INFORMATION.
bheadh 3 months ago
@Griptease2 What you are describing is intellectual bullying, the best defense is to 1. understand the wordage and/or 2. ask the individual to define the meaning. There are times when an obtuse word will be defined differently by those within the debate. Clarification of intent and meaning is paramount to good discussion, if the objective is to find truth, and not the desire to mislead, or to be right, or to "win".
Temptuous2112 3 months ago
WLC: People like Dawkins more? It's because the world is stupid, not me.
Mathenaut 3 months ago
Man this guy is good. Atheist, better go run and hide with your leader Richard.
clint25n 3 months ago
@clint25n "Man this guy is good. Atheist, better go run and hide with your leader Richard..."
LOL... Ya, ya we know. But when its all said and done you know what is still missing??
The satisfactory justification for the Christian belief system. It cracks me up when you believers celebrate these supposed victories by Craig yet when the smoke clears his assertions have revealed NOTHING. There is no revelation of some objective truth...only intellectual dishonesty. Haha....some victory :(
sammy2trees 3 months ago
If he sounds like an over confident retard at his finest i'd hate to see him at his worst.
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@AbstractLogic1, why aren't you explaining HOW your scientific equations actually work, you keep saying that they are true, but you need to explain the HOW part of such scientific claims, how they apply to reality. You sound like you just pasted up some equations that you're not even an expert on and assume it proves an eternal universe. You just gave "other scientists" the benefit of the doubt (hid behind them) because you think they know everything. I know they don't prove an eternal universe.
starsheild7 3 months ago
This guy is a sham.. That's it.
squallz13 3 months ago
Yeah, I'm shure he'd luuuurve to expose some young people to "rigorous argumentation"....
mmartini50 3 months ago
I believe that scholars such as Mr. Craig who try, I say try, to convince everybody to debate on the logic that something does or does not exit when the physical aspect on the subject is absent from the beginning, is on the ultimate merry go round....
915buck 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He doesn't understand the tyranny of reason affecting the limitations of the vehicle he is using (language) - very weak and he doesn't even know it.... his childlike exercise in logic is embarrassing, considering his arrogance.
mikestead 3 months ago
Comment removed
mikestead 3 months ago
Comment removed
mikestead 3 months ago
It's sad that atheists have to resort to video editing to mix words and to take things out of context to make a theists look bad. Oh well I guess that's the only thing you have left.
RyuSei00555 4 months ago
"People cannot think logically" - - says WHO?? The idiot who thinks that Jesus raised from the dead!?!?! I think it is absolutely crucial that intellectual cowards who cannot ween themselves of religion like mr craig are contrasted. He is quite simply a threat to reason - he speaks of logic, but doesn't use any :-)
Andersxman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is simply sad that an otherwise capable man like Mr. Craig (I choose not to call him Dr. because I do not consider his field of study, Theology, a "subject" at all - you can't be a doctor in a subject that doesn't exist) is able to delude himself so utterly. We should, really, in 2011, have owned up and recognized that science has simply blown religion out of the water. It is sad that he keeps going with his word-plays, which is all it really is...
Andersxman 4 months ago
Sweden is 85% atheist, if not more by now. Is "dr." craig suggesting there are no objective moral values in sweden? is he suggesting it's a total fucking chaos? what a fucking tool.
also, where does he even get the idea taht god must exist for objective moral values to exist? im an atheist and i find many of the 10 commandments (obviously not the god ones) perfectly fucking fit, due to SYMPATHY and UNDERSTANDING; not some invisible man in the sky who i never talk to, see, or hear.
goofydog07 4 months ago
@goofydog07 No Objective Morality does not mean that you're a horrible person dude. The only point that he's making is that morality is arbitrary i.e. you decide what is right by yourself. Even Dawkins has admitted this. The only time when this causes problems is when certain people take it to extremes, like the communists did here in asia.
synal 4 months ago
@synal You, sir, are making an ass of yourself. Objectivity is the complete opposite to "deciding what is right by yourself". "Objective morals" infers that there are overarching morals which take presedence over your own SUBJECTIVE morals.
If people were "deciding what is right by themselves" it would be SUBJECTIVE morals.
Get it straight. You have the education of a primary student who's retarded, and homeschooled by a retarded teacher, who doesn't even show up to teach half the time.
goofydog07 4 months ago
Comment removed
synal 4 months ago
Comment removed
synal 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goofydog07 Nice red herring. And what does this have to do with the fact that there are many nice atheists despite the fact that they don't conform to a universal moral standard? Don't be stupid.
synal 4 months ago
i think most atheists...if not all fail to see the real point of craigs arguments...they are not to provide concrete evidence of "this is GOD's trace evidence tha the left when walking here this is the proof!" it is more of the idea that christians shouldn't be ashamed of their religion or faith and that it isn't a stupid thing to believe in, but rather to show that there is enough reason to believe in GOD and your faith regardless of what an atheist tries to say about how the Theists are stupid
Falcondick69 4 months ago
If William Lane Craig gets anywhere near the recognition from the general public that Richard Dawkins has, then I hope he believes in his heart what he's saying, and isn't only out there because he wants some attention and money.
If he gets his way, I think it could be a real problem for humanity. Just a massive step backwards.
But then, he could be right. He could be.
So, if he's fighting this fight,I hope he's doing it for the right reasons. But mostly I hope he's a fucking nutter.
MikeAnd99RedBalloons 4 months ago
His logic is a fail.
1 If god does not exist objective moral values do not exist
2 Objective values do exist
3 Therefore god exists
Is a series of false premises and bullshit. The teachings of the bible are subjective values that have changed - slavery, killing others, genocide etc are found in the bible. It is secular humanism that created modern values - the rights of man, emancipation of slaves (helped by some Christians who finally noticed the immorally of it), woman's vote.
ricko1111 4 months ago
@ricko1111 The accounts of the actions of men are in the Bible. That doesn't mean the Bible condones such. To follow your logic, since you mentioned the latter, then you condone such actions. Secular humanism created modern values????? That's a new one. There isn't any value in secular humanism. It's whole selling point is to be devoid of values or any reason for existence. Live for yourself and that's it. Now THAT, is BS.
CiscoWes 4 months ago
if you get the full back drop from each clip, Will is very effective.
gkodekrakca 4 months ago
wow nice editing cant handle the truth much sorry guy but i feel pity for you
ftoruno100 5 months ago
I mean exactly, if there's a god, why ain't I rich???? That's my main question
ChuckaXr 5 months ago
These arguments are infallible, and noone in these comments can put forth a logical rational opposing argument but rather just disregards them. That is ignorance.
ivhoven 5 months ago
@ivhoven INdeed, his arguments are infallible. Unverifiable, unfalsifiable arguments. If you had any basic knowledge of scientific philosophy you would know that what he is using as arguments is nothing more than petty pseudoscience.
His premises are based on theological philosophies which are simply made up theories that do not contain any grounded evidence or facts to begin with.
joe80dmanizanerd 5 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd sure keep telling yourself that
nacho2354 5 months ago
@nacho2354 I don't need to keep telling myself that. Any basic scientific philosophy book will tell me, or you for that matter.
You can keep acting like a smartass as much as you want; fact remains that the only people who dearly believe in what craig has to say are either blind fundamentalists or uneducated buffoons.
joe80dmanizanerd 5 months ago
Yeah!!:) youre my inspiration william lane craig
manyjessica1 5 months ago
@manyjessica1 sucks to hear you're so easily inspired, jessica.
joe80dmanizanerd 5 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd I dont think it sucks to hear that i am easily inspired.What i do think that sucks, is that after so much evidence laying out that God exists people still balk that it is plausible evidence, and consequently treat it as a notion.
manyjessica1 2 days ago
@manyjessica1 Evidence that God exists? That is a bit too vague. I'm assuming you're referring to the Abrahamic God. Agnostics for instance, don't argue against the existence of God, they are simply not satisfied with ancient claims of a credulous, illiterate, stupid, backwards society that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus rose from the dead. There is NO hard evidence "laying out". This is why they call it faith in the first place.
MrSamySara 1 day ago
@manyjessica1 As I said, sucks to hear you're so easily convinced, Jessica. You obviously dont grasp the definition of evidence. There is NONE that supports god. If there was evidence of such a thing, scientists all over the world would be trying to be the first to prove his existence. Craig is a theologist, he uses theological theories to prove god. Theology by essence is metaphysical, like astrology. Please open your eyes and realize that this doesn't hold value.
joe80dmanizanerd 1 day ago
@manyjessica1 Don't get me wrong, you can believe in god for all I care. I'm not even denying that a higher power might exist. However, don't go around bloating how there is so much evidence in favor of god - there isn't.
joe80dmanizanerd 1 day ago
Again atheist come with their propaganda, just like the soviet union did. They bombarded the populace with lies and brainwashing. Presenting everything in their own bias. They never tried to inform. Will Craig on the other hand just argues from logic and is very informative at that.
If you have made up in your heart, that God is an impossibility, then indeed all Craigs arguments will fail from the start. The bar is in your own hands and you can set it as high as you will.
shlukh 6 months ago 21
@shlukh you fail at life
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 5 months ago
@shlukh Decisions take place in the brain not the heart. If you honestly think it's a matter of atheists needing to accept a "possibility." Then you haven't been listening to both sides of the discussion. It's not a matter of what's possible. It's a matter of what is.
We don't have any reason to believe that there is a god and as articulate as Dr. Craig may seem, his arguments are flawed and unconvincing to anyone taking them seriously.
TatsujinSan 5 months ago
@shlukh AMEN! Thank you! :-)
Devin82m 5 months ago
@shlukh
So what you are saying is that you can only be convinced by Craig's arguments if you are willing to suspend your disbelief and not question his rather simplistic and outdated views.
bustermk2 5 months ago
@shlukh 20 people gave you thumbs up for stating the exact opposite of truth. What is this channel, a big circle jerk of people that have imaginary friends?
trueleroix 4 months ago
@shlukh made up in your heart? your heart thinks? no wonder we disagree on this.
sagerbj86 4 months ago
@shlukh
"If you have made up in your heart, that God is an impossibility, then indeed all Craigs arguments will fail from the start"
That's just making excuses. It's the classic rhetoric of a failed salesman: "Well, surely the reason you aren't convinced by my points are because you've already decided to reject them."
Yet one can believe in God and also have sufficient understanding of logic and reason (and science) to understand that Craig's arguments are embarrassingly fallacious.
citizenghosttown 3 months ago
@shlukh so atheists applying communist methods?Atheist never tried to inform? I wonder if you have ever taken the chance to go from B. Russell material all the way to Sam Harris. You got over a 100-year line of thinking based on solid logic. Yeah, brainwashing. How does any organized religion measures to the bar you are setting? Hurry to reply! The russians are coming.
FloydMe81 3 months ago
@shlukh Wise man ! Well said!
Davieboii1 3 months ago
"god does not come to existence" and "god came to existence" is equaly plausible statement. if people argue by stating by definition, god does not come to existence, it can be responsed by the term god, then, is not well defined. Because before defining such a everlasting existence, it needs to be proved that such existence is possible without refering to god. (otherwize it would be a cyclic argument and not well supported)
hjnxyz 6 months ago
LOL thanks for the upload! The irony. Good ol' craig
LameCrippled 6 months ago
The argument at :35 has got to be the most moronic thing I have ever heard.
aristurtle1 6 months ago
@aristurtle1 Why?
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence because objective moral values do not exist. By definition, this would mean that there is somewhere out there an objective criteria for what is good or bad. However, if you look at evidence from nature and a variety of cultures, what is seen as good or bad is generally relative to the place and time. Ex: Eating pork is wrong to a Jew but not to a Christian.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 Ok well lets ask a question then, is murdering a child for fun, immoral - and why or why not?
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I say that it is "wrong" due to my rationale of putting myself in the metaphorical place of the child or their family, as most would who function at a high level of moral reasoning. However some would believe it is not wrong, some would believe that it is fun and others may believe it is justified. Notice, I am making a judgement which is not based on external rules or regulations as the religious would in the case of commandments. It is "wrong to me" but not as an absolute.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I say that it is "wrong" due to my rationale of putting myself in the metaphorical place of the child or their family, as most would who function at a high level of moral reasoning. However some would believe it is not wrong, some would believe that it is fun and others may believe it is justified. Notice, I am making a judgement which is not based on external rules or regulations as the religious would in the case of commandments. It is "wrong to me" but not as an absolute.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 Ok. Then you are saying that it's perfectly acceptable for people to murder children for entertainment - but you personally just don't like it. So whilst it's 'wrong' for you, it's 'right' for others. What you are describing is mere opinion, not a moral statement at all.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence "What you are describing is mere opinion, not a moral statement at all."
Exactly because you can't prove morals-- all morals are mere subjective opinions.
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 Well in that case, you would have no right to say that someone who brutally rapes and murders your girlfriend because they didn't like her hat, has done anything wrong. I applaud your consistency, but I don't believe for a second you live this way. :)
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence There is no such thing as objective moral value. When we say "x should be illegal" it is because we have determined it to be dangerous against ourselves, other and society. This has nothing to do with the supposed existence of god. You can even look at different cultures throughout the ages who have enforced certain laws based on the supposed wished of their god (not eating pork ) etc and you will see that these are relative to the culture (poor health conditions).
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 So you don't think killing small children for fun is immoral?
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence Again we have to define these terms. There is the psychological theory of moral reasoning where individuals progress from thinking about whats good for "me" to listening to external laws (bible, parents) and then to thinking about whats best for all involved. In this case one may make the decision that killing of children is "wrong" based on their own reflections, etc but this process has nothing to do with a supernatural external being, nor does it require a belief in one.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 Parents are not the same as God. Parents are just humans, as are you and I, whereas the Bible claims authority from God, a *transcendent* moral lawmaker. But moving on:
You seen to claim that killing children is immoral, but you say for your own reasons. Unfortunately this will lead to 'might makes right', as everyone has 'their own reasons' and they don't often agree, the Nazis killed millions of Jews, but they aren't immoral on your view, they merely act in an unpopular way...
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence Essentially yes (on the Nazis). Morality is created by people. When you look at the morals of different cultures you will see that they reflect the conditions of that culture, often with the ideal of a "god" to enforce those laws. Ex: ancient Iceland which was fragmented by conflict had war gods, circumcision was also a sort of law, due to poor hygiene, justified by "god". To subscribe to the morality of a god you must be clear which one: Zeus?, Odin? The Christian god?
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 You are confusing 'is' with 'ought'. To say that something is a law, is to make a legal claim, not all of which are moral claims. In the example of circumcision that's just an 'is'. It may be 'good' to get circumcised, but it's not moral. Just like going for a run is good, but not moral.
The argument is God agnostic, it doesn't care which 'god' just that the being fits the definition - a maximally great being. I applaud your consistency, but I know you don't live like this.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I am arguing that Craig's argument on morality to prove god's existence is incorrect, as he asserts that there is objective moral value. There is no objective moral value as that would mean that some concrete, true in all possible worlds morals exist "out there" in the same way that 2+2 equals 4. As I have demonstrates, morality is relative to cultures and time periods and is therefore not objective. In religion not being baptized/circ is seen as immoral due to divine order.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 So you agree that 'might makes right'?
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence Sorry, I dont understand what you are asking here... could you clarify?
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 Well you are saying that culture and society dictate what is moral. The common term for this is, "might makes right" - whoever has the power to shape culture and society gets to choose the rules. In Nazi Germany the rules were, "Jews are non-humans and should be exterminated."
In our society our rules are a little better. But one wonders what the slippery slope holds for us.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I am not attached to this idea of apriori objective morality the way that you and the religious are. I am not saying that a culture dictates what is moral, I am saying that a culture shapes what is viewed as moral. There is a difference between something seen as moral and something being moral as an absolute. Morality is an abstract subjective concept specific to cultures and individuals. I really dont get how this is supposed to have anything to do with gods existence....
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 I'm not talking about God/god atm, I'm trying to understand your view. Essentially I feel what I've said is correct, morality is subjective based on the time and people.
In which case the murder, rape, torture and abuse of over 6 million Jewish people wasn't immoral at any stage, not for the Nazis, OR, for the Jews...
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I get the feeling that you are arguing from a religious perspective, perhaps that morality is something given to man by god, via people who channel gods word. I then ask you how we know which god to follow, since all religion have very different views on morality. Should we follow the Christian god who;s morality involves refraining from killing and loving the enemy or the ancient Viking god who grants divinity to those who die in battle? Two very different moral codes..
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@aristurtle1 No, I'm trying to understand your view and use your criteria and definitions - right now, this is all about you and your views! I'm not interested in God, the Christian or otherwise, as you don't believe in God, Christian or otherwise, so it's not pertinent to your view and position.
What I'm saying is drawn logically from your position. If you disagree please specify where and why.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence This conversation started when you questioned the fact that I discarded the argument of objective moral reality as false. My claim is that there is no such thing as objective morality and that this proposition rests on the presupposition that there is a supernatural "book" of rules that exists as true in all possible rules. Craig's moral argument is flawed in this way since the argument of causation does not proove gods existence, and the moral argument requires a god.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence The answer is because you grew up in a cultral that values human life
If you say grew up in say Ancient Sparta or in the time of the Vikings that would have been perfectly acceptable to murder children for fun ( and the Vikings acutally did that)
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 This is essentially the genetic fallacy, you are attempting to explain whether an idea is right or not, by explaining it's origins. There is however no link between the truth of a statement, and the origin of that statement, so this is fallacious thinking on your part.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence Yes there is a link between the truth of a statement and the orgin of a statement.
Take scientology for instance - it orginated from a science fiction writer who claimed that starting a relgion is the best way to make money -- sure thast dosent meant it is false -- but he has very little credbility..
Explaining an idea orgins dosent prove it right or wrong -- but it dose affect its credbility
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 You are basically trying to say that the genetic fallacy is wrong... I mean, not much more to say here.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence Well yes -- the genetic fallacy is wrong ( ie there is no such thing)..
So its not fallicious thinking on my part...
I agree explaining a beliefs orginins dosent conclusively prove something right or wrong -- but it increases the likelyhood of it being right or wrong
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 From the Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant."
At this stage I would hope you go on to teach the controversy. ;) All the best!
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
@DigitalDecadence "A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant."
yes but it orgin of a belief is relvant -- if it is a major factor or reason for a persons belief.
badpanda84 5 months ago
@badpanda84 Sure it is, that's not what the fallacy says however.
DigitalDecadence 5 months ago
Seriously, I want to meet this guy in person. I can't tell if he's stupid or an awesome deceiver. I'm pretty sure I could get him to take a swing at me.
wabbajack2 6 months ago
@wabbajack2 : I'm quite confident Dr.Craig would completely dismantle you in a debate without ever breaking a sweat or having the slightest desire to assault you. He seemed capable enough to make Hitchens look like a blithering idiot, and I'm quite certain Hitchens is a far more intelligent man than you.
Kjell777Iverson 6 months ago 21
@Kjell777Iverson sorry, but Dr. Craig has no clue what he's talking about. All his argument are based on unproven shaky theological philosophy which he uses as if they are factual claims. His philosophical "premises" are nothing more than irrational bollocks.
joe80dmanizanerd 5 months ago
@Kjell777Iverson Craig couldn't handle a debate with a student at notre dame let alone the rest of us.
I didn't see the entire Hitchens debate, but I did see the Harris debate and WLC couldn't do anything more than repeat his non-qualified presupposition over and over again without arguing the merits of it.
Repetition is not winning, Harris wiped the walls with him.
The debate with Dawkins went even worse, he had to hide behind atheists have no proof.
AlphaDogmatist 4 months ago
@Kjell777Iverson He hardly made Hitchens look like an idiot at all, kiddo. His ENTIRE argument hinges on one giant appeal-to-authority fallacy. He's a joke.
jagovRUS 3 months ago
This is awesome. haha
niggaids 6 months ago
Is this a parody? If this is Craig's finest, then, well... it's not looking good for Christian philosophy.
Pomme843 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pomme843 " Is this a parody? "
- It's always hard to tell with Craig... he himself is a parody, let's be honest.
Roper122 6 months ago
And also, the catholic church is a farce, there are numerous videos on this.
lateralaus 6 months ago
Could this video actually get any worse? You've thrown stuff out of context, you displayed extremist religious views (Which by the way seem to be the only religious views that get any press in this day and age) And as for the diagram in 4:33 you're just being plain silly. Stereotypical mitigation at it's best that has unfortunately fooled millions of people from even researching this material themselves. I pray people aren't stupid enough to to take this video as face value.
lateralaus 6 months ago
If this guy would only take his own advice...
politicsthatmatter 7 months ago
Wow
USHOULDTHINK 7 months ago
@TeaPartier22
As a Christian, do you feel all aborted babies go to Heaven?
mrjholland1 7 months ago
0:10
I am just appalled when I listen to the stuff that some Creationists are spouting.
how infantile, and moronic.
I see that many Creationists just aren't really familiar with good, rigorous scientific process with regards to any matter,
and therefore, in order to feel superior, they attack the behaviour of
young Netizens, who are just here to have fun and do not form the major proponents of any side of the debate.
StarSpawn06 8 months ago