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.
Man, this shows how deaf some atheist are. For once can any atheist ADDRESS his claim instead of coming up with claims that are irrelevant to the conversation? I've seen so many atheist in the debates and in the comments fail to address the claims he has stet up and if you think I'm wrong why don't you debate Dr. Craig. If he's so easily refuted then why hasn't he been refuted in a debate yet? Stop hiding behind your computer copying and pasting off websites and be the "hero" for the atheist.
The topic of the debate was ambiguous: "Is goodness without God good enough?"
Craig interpreted that as meaning "Can you have objective morality without a God?" which is quite a leap.
Krutz interpreted it as meaning "Can you develop a sense of morality (being defined here as what is its generally agreed definition) without belief in God".
Both of them should have taken a step back and agreed on what the topic was.
Dr. Craig's whole argument that If there is a god then it follows that there is such a thing as objective morality is wrong.
An all powerful god without morals could create a universe and then let things run themselves without said god's intervention (leaving things free/undecided, being all powerful includes being able to do that since it includes everything) with eventual humans evolving with their morality.
@Newtonip Absolutely right. This has been the problem with these debate the whole time.
movingdragons 1 month ago
Man, this shows how deaf some atheist are. For once can any atheist ADDRESS his claim instead of coming up with claims that are irrelevant to the conversation? I've seen so many atheist in the debates and in the comments fail to address the claims he has stet up and if you think I'm wrong why don't you debate Dr. Craig. If he's so easily refuted then why hasn't he been refuted in a debate yet? Stop hiding behind your computer copying and pasting off websites and be the "hero" for the atheist.
Diachi26 5 months ago
WOW...I'm so impressed.
MrNoelJMIS 6 months ago
Craigs face at 3.35 too funnnyyyyy, poor craig looool
verboo799 6 months ago
Those who desagree with Dr. Craig should debate him.
jefersontorres 6 months ago
3:30 - 3:50: Well, maybe nor Freud neither Nietzsche would say that...
jefersontorres 6 months ago
no QandA?
SuperMarco7 1 year ago
@ElasticGiraffe
The topic of the debate was ambiguous: "Is goodness without God good enough?"
Craig interpreted that as meaning "Can you have objective morality without a God?" which is quite a leap.
Krutz interpreted it as meaning "Can you develop a sense of morality (being defined here as what is its generally agreed definition) without belief in God".
Both of them should have taken a step back and agreed on what the topic was.
Newtonip 1 year ago
Dr. Craig's whole argument that If there is a god then it follows that there is such a thing as objective morality is wrong.
An all powerful god without morals could create a universe and then let things run themselves without said god's intervention (leaving things free/undecided, being all powerful includes being able to do that since it includes everything) with eventual humans evolving with their morality.
Newtonip 1 year ago
Where is the rest of this debate? There is suppose to be a Q&A part.
poisionarrowclean 1 year ago