A debate between renowned Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig and prominent humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz at Franklin & Marshall College discussing whether God is necessary for...
A debate between renowned Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig and prominent humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz at Franklin & Marshall College discussing whether God is necessary for a sound foundation for morality.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
While I'm a christian and basically agree with Craig, his statement that 'Gods' moral nature is expressed to us in the form of divine commands' would be a great argument, if ALL of God's commands in the bible were moral. They're not. God commanded women to be stoned to death, babies to be murdered. He ordered people to have spears run through them. If God's commands in the bible were always moral, we probably wouldn't even be having this debate.
outside of that, Craig stated his arguments brilliantly. Kurtz is the by-product of 21st. Century Schizoid Philosophy... prophetic words from King Crimson, if I do say so myself
lol...he makes atheism as if something is not eternally meaningful...then it ain't meaningful! our lives are temporary here and earth is, but still we have meaning even if it is temporary.
And I don't care what you think of his Kalam. The point of me bringing it up was to show you that he became academically famous because of it, not because of his "rhetorical devices". In other words, his argument received attention from professional philosophers precisely because of it's substance. If it didn't have some substance than his argument would have been ignored by them
Sorry, but I do actually believe his arguments based on their merits, despite how hard that may be for you to accept
Oh please......as if I base my beliefs on his rhetorical devices. If that were so, then I'd also be an atheist since many atheists (like Dawkins, Hitchens etc) use tons of rhetoric when they speak. And I didn't say others are just as bad. I said Craig is BETTER than most of the others whom I'm guessing you won't equally criticize since you're being a hypocrite and obviously are only interested in picking on the theist.
Where did I insult you? I did no such thing. For all the talk on Craig's supposed arrogance you sure do make a lot of condescending rhetorical remarks. You're being very hypocritical.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
They're not.
God commanded women to be stoned to death, babies to be murdered. He ordered people to have spears run through them.
If God's commands in the bible were always moral, we probably wouldn't even be having this debate.
our lives are temporary here and earth is, but still we have meaning even if it is temporary.
Why don't we go hog wild and talk about which worldview offers objective beauty, or objective taste in interior decoration?
You can go free, Mr Manson. After all, I once stole a candy bar. Who am I to judge?
(Pardon the sarcasm. It's a family heirloom.)
Sorry, but I do actually believe his arguments based on their merits, despite how hard that may be for you to accept
You're now welcome to the last word; my point has been made.