Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs Austin Dacey 3/14

Three and a half thousand people gathered in the Elliott Hall of Music on the campus of Purdue University to witness this intellectual collision of two major competing worldviews in American culture: Atheism and Theism. This is the entire debate (including introductions and Q&A) between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Austin Dacy from 2004. Enjoy

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Does
• God
• Exist
• Theism
• Atheism
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Austin
• Dacy

[Eirikofs]

Oh, wow. He said that atheists deem it as morally acceptable to rape someone. Holy fucking shit, what an asshole. Just because we think the reason we are philantropic and caring towards our fellow humans is mutual survival and existence, does not mean we think raping someone is acceptable. We are just saying that the reason we think it is not acceptable is Darwinistic and grounds in the general survival of the pack.

[Christianjr4]

@Eirikofs

Nowhere did Dr. Craig say that atheists deem it morally acceptable to rape someone. He said that on the atheistic, naturalistic worldview, there are no objective moral values. As a consequence of this then there is nothing objectively wrong with raping someone. By the same token, there is nothing objectively right about fairness, equality and self worth. The point is, on atheism, you can not have objective values because such values are contingent on the arbitrary process of evolution

[Eirikofs]

@Christianjr4 00:47 "The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as wrong as the man who says 2+2 = 5" implying atheists find it acceptable in some way. We do not. I am an atheist, and I do not believe in objective moral truths. If evolution took a different course, morals would not be those we know of today. Approximately 200 000 years ago, the human race (or its predecessor, to be accurate) fought over who had the right to lead, and often times to death.

[Christianjr4]

@Eirikofs

How does that quote you just provided imply that atheists find it acceptable? If anything, it implies the opposite. Michael Ruse, an agnostic, is clearly alluding to the fact that such actions like rape possess a certain absolute wrongness to them that anyone, non-theists included, can recognize. And you're statements on evolution are absolutely correct. That's precisely why objective moral values can't exist. In essence, you're basically agreeing with Craig's fundamental point there.

[havvyweponsman]

Does Dr. Craig really have to give an opening statement anymore? You'd think he could just show up and say, "Oh, the usual."

[groswirth]

"Deep down we know objective moral values exist." Wow such a rational argument.

[MrProtuber]

@havvyweponsman  loL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[samcarr6]

4:20 that look that Craig does to the right and down when he says "the simple fact is" is a clear sign of lack of confidence; he doesn't believe what he's saying.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@Christianjr4 Isn't "objectively wrong" just a fancy way of saying "very, very wrong"?

[greekmanos]

"for those who listen God becomes an immediate reality in their lives" isn't this the definition of a delusion? I would demand a very high salary to say this rubbish, I bet Craig is already rich by now.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@theBartone9119 Well moral is dependant on minds and we get morals from our minds. If there is such a thing as objective morals, it would be from an objective mind and the only objective mind that could exist is the highest conceivable mind. A more interesting question is, what evidence is there of objective morals? I don't have any.

[Eirikofs]

@Christianjr4 I heard it like this: If you do not believe that rape is objectively wrong, and rather think that we have evolved to survive by not raping and murdering, then you must think that rape and murder is not morally unacceptable. I may have misunderstood him. But to say that I'm agreeing with Craig when I say I absolutely do not believe in god and that there are no god given moral senses of right and wrong? I thought that was exactly what he argued against.