W L Craig, P S Williams vs. A Copson, A Ahmed - Cambridge Union Society God Debate, Oct 2011

The motion for this debate was "This House Believes that God is not a Delusion". It took place before a packed house at the Cambridge Union Society on 20th October 2011, as a part of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith Tour 2011.

Proposing the motion were William Lane Craig and Peter S.Williams.
Opposing the motion were Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson.

For more information on the Reasonable Faith Tour see http://www.bethinking.org/craig

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William Lane Craig
• Peter S. Williams
• Arif Ahmed
• Andrew Copson
• Reasonable Faith Tour
• UCCF
• Damaris
• Premier Christian Radio
• Cambridge
• Cambridge Union Society
• debate
• apologetics
• philosophy
• God
• Christianity
• Jesus
• atheism
• delusion
• Kalam cosmological argument
• Moral argument
• Fine tuning
• Ontological argument
• Resurrection
• Stephen Hawking
• Richard Dawkins
• Peter Millican
• Peter Atkins
• Stephen Law
• God Delusion

[eternallord]

I'm glad there are no objective moral values.. Putting something through a long process to figure out what may be best and leaving it open to interpretation, review, and debate is far better than stoning people for adultery- forever

[FeignofCordor]

Thank you for this upload I shall share it:)

[bahdahdoop]

I know this comment is beneath the subject matter but that chick sitting in the background of Copson is smoking hot

[fjoo]

Ridicules motion. It's impossible to disprove god, and it has never been proven that someone is deluded as it is a psychological condition and does not deal with proofs.

[dannyevans89]

@Mentat1231, I know that, you didn't see why I put up this syllogism, read my reply in context of what mouthyweasel posted.

[Mentat1231]

@dannyevans89

The first premise is fallacious. You'd have to already believe the conclusion in order to accept it. Textbook question-begging.

[dannyevans89]

@mouthyweasel

1. If your syllogism is not false then objective moral values do not exist.

2. At least one objective moral value exists.

3. Therefore your syllogism is false :)

now finding the fallacy is something that you can do by yourself! Then find the mistake in Christian syllogism in the moral argument.

[karmaran]

@Birdieupon "Gods are similar to us" it's not the core of Andrew's argument. It's just a small part of it. Moreover, similar doesn't mean that they are identical to us. They are not... he just says that they resemble us in some ways (because we create them), but not every way. They are gods, after all. The argument is more like: as time passed, gods rose and fell. Then why the umpteenth god should be the real one (against so much evidence)? He is just the more popular, that's it.

[Birdieupon]

@Mentat1231

I like his lisp "mor-wality"!

[Birdieupon]

@karmaran

You haven't watched the video in full then, have you? Craig explicitly explains how Andrew's argument - about Gods being similar to us - works with polytheism but not monotheism, because the nature of the necessary, timeless, space, immaterial, transcendent being is UNlike us!