Loading...

Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist?

1,483,776 views

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jan 27, 2011

April 4, 2009 - Craig vs. Hitchens Debate from Biola University.

  • Category

  • License

    • Standard YouTube License

Comments • 92,874

ayube wahdan
I find it hilarious how people in the comment section believe that they can make one of the debaters look stupid when they could never compete intellectually with either of the people within the debate.
View all 58 replies
Hide replies
jordan w
Dr. Craig's arguments: 1. Cosmological argument- no reason to believe premise one, causes are temporal and exist when material exists. Causes do not apply to nothing in a timeless setting. Premise two is not a proven fact, only appeal to authority (borde guth vilenkin model). The whole notion of creatio ex nihilo (with or without a god) is absurd to me anyhow. 2. Teleological argument- arguably the best argument from theists, but one of the assumptions is that the fine-tuning was place in mind for us. No reason or evidence for this. As much as Craig hates it, the multiverse is a very plausible and very heavily thought out theory which would prove this argument worthless. 3. Objective morality argument- this starts with the assumption that: 1. Objective morality can only come from an authority, otherwise it is not "objective" (semantics plays heavily in this game) 2. Objective morality exists (therefore God exists). And yet, Craig is unable to prove OM does exist. So, he uses an unproven assumption to provide evidence for something he can't prove, yet which he is trying to prove in the first place. Not taboo for dr Craig, as all of these arguments attest to. 4. Resurrection- So much appeal to authority on this one, but I won't get into that. The reasons pointing towards the probability that the story was just a myth are overwhelming. Jesus was a polarizing figure to those in the area, and wether or not it was Jewish to believe means nothing when considering the ease at which a person will change slightly their view when confronted with a powerful message. Sacrifice and resurrection were extremely commonplace in the pre-Judea mythical realm. The Jesus story was no more special, and Craig fails to provide the concrete evidence for the pure skeptics and their visions of the risen Christ. Not here-say. 5. This, as Craig admits, is not an argument. But I see what he is attempting. What he is telling people is: reason, logic, evidence, arguments don't matter in this discussion. If his arguments completely fail, it's not because there is no God because, of course there is. He says so. No, it is because he is a bad defender of God. You have to ultimately go on faith. Pure belief in something without evidence. This is the game we are playing. God is fluid enough yet rigid enough to be whatever I (that is, Craig) say he is. The bible can mean something literal in one sense (the sin of homosexual acts), and yet something metaphorical or symbolic in another (of course the earth isn't flat and Adam and Eve weren't real, they are just neat little Jew stories from God). God can be as unfalsifiable as I want him to be according to whatever disputation atheists have on him. And, of course, atheists much provide evidence or arguments for the nonexistence of God (proving a negative, much like disproving fairies). Ultimately we are left with two God of the gaps arguments, with very poor logic, two appeals to emotion, and one appeal to authority argument with no real evidence to back it up.
View all 75 replies
Hide replies
StevioooSvN
Why does Christopher Hitchens seem so evasive in this debate?
View all 397 replies
Hide replies
rahul shinde
William Lane Craig wins !!!
View all 22 replies
Hide replies
Allen Worrell
It's amazing how William Lane Craig continues to try to shift the burden of proof over to the person who isn't making the claim.
View all 415 replies
Hide replies
Ryan Lynch
I cringed so hard when Craig said that Christians are eager and able to follow scientific evidence whereas atheists are not willing to not change their beliefs based on scientific evidence. The exact opposite is true.
View all 143 replies
Hide replies
WorldWar2ismylastnam
Hitchens seriously got spanked... beaten like a miserable dog is probably the best analogy.
View all 20 replies
Hide replies
William Strumfels
Craig's bottom line argument for a god seems to be.... He thinks it to be true , it cant be any other way..... so its true
View all 65 replies
Hide replies
Trueincarnate
Craig is insane! He believes in Objective Morality yet thinks the genocide of the Canaanites was justified. So apparently it is objectively moral to decimate entire groups of people now.
View all 170 replies
Hide replies
Sarcipious A
knock knock --"Who is it?" -"It's me, Jesus. Let me in." --"Why do you want in?" -"I want to save you."... --"Save me from what?" -"From what I'll do to you if you don't let me in.
View all 299 replies
Hide replies
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...