William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins (HQ) 4b/11

This is the 1998 debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter W. Atkins in high quality.

.....................................THE DEBATE.....................................
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR/AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Peter
• Atkins
• F.
• Buckley
• Atheism
• Theism

[SeaTurtle00]

How can a society be "based on evolution"? This is a bizarre statement in the extreme. Evolution is a scientific theory used throughout the world, not something you base a society on. It's intimately entwined with molecular and biological theory, and used in the development of many modern medicines (like flu vaccines), as well as in the Human Genome Project and forensic science. How does understanding chemistry and statistical analysis require you to be "closed minded and closed hearted"?

[SeaTurtle00]

That'd be unwise, since it's a scientific problem at issue. All "statistical improbability" arguments fall down under even the slightest scrutiny. Scientists trained in probability theory easily recognize that the assumptions are spurious or at best vague; for one they typically fail to take into account the basic chemical processes involved, underestimate mutation rates, and neglect the accumulative nature of modification through descent. Math needs to be grounded in reality to be of use here.

[Meltezz]

I expected to hear some good arguments from Mr Atkins conteracting Mr Craig allegations that the Universe has a purpose and was created by God, but all I heard was just completely empty words.

[urcorrect]

@philosophizer149 I don't believe morality is objective (in the strictest philosophical sense), nor do I necessarily believe in free will (depending upon what it truly means). And I doubt very much that I'm the first or only person to survive without such beliefs.

[philosophizer149]

@noodles321321 in a sense thats true but its the same issue with free will, we have no choice but to believe it exists. You cannot live your life under the belief that the morals you hold are subjective and illusory, just as you can't live your life under the belief that free will is illusory.

[philosophizer149]

@Onesideofyams If I'm not mistaken you are saying that because we can explain how the belief in God originates in society, then belief in God is irrational. This commits what is known as the genetic fallacy, which states that if you explain how something originates you therefore show that belief to be false. But that doesn't logically follow.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

Society could be based on evolution, the spreading of genes in traits in culture and varying traits among humans. The spread of genes and rising and falling of new cultures is dependent on human survival and genetic traits that are in all of us. In fact evolution is a part of anthropology, and has it's own field of evolutionary anthropology.

[philosophizer149]

@twoface4 I disagree, I don't think that by saying God did it, that we must simply leave it at that. Instead I think that saying God did it, should encourage us to find out more about this God, to test the theory, to seek more information, because if God does exist, it brings thousands of new questions into science. So this God of the gaps idea seems to be a bit narrow minded to me.

[matthewdoucette]

@SeaTurtle00 I think you read into it wrongly. Your confusing the fact of evolution, something that exists and happens naturally, with the scientific theory of evolution which is what explains how evolution happened. Whatever you were shooting for, neither of them is something we base societies on. I don't think he was getting at that. Rather, societies emerged with rules (morality being one of them) because of evolution, or rather what worked continued on, which guided our "evolution".