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





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 • 92,304

Carlyle's Picks
I have to say the thing about getting morality from what benefits society, well how can you support homosexuality? If we all had sex with same sex, then we would be extinct. So that makes homosexuality immoral based on the standard of getting morality from what benefits society. NOTE: I've found that many people seem to get clouded with emotion when debating things like this. For example. Many will read what I wrote and once they read "So that makes homosexuality immoral ", thier brains will blank out everything else and they go into defensive mode and try to prove me wrong that homosexuality is immoral. Problem is, that was not my point of position. I'm challenging a suggested system of establishing morality.  An appropriate/rational response would be to agree with me and say: "Yes, that system of establishing morality IS flawed" Or, you could prove the flaw in the morality system I'm challenging is not a flaw by saying something like: "Actually society is corrupt and would benefit from being eradicated" However, to respond in defense of homosexuality when it's not being challenged in the first place is to let a massive human flaw be revealed yet again. Our capacity for emotion very often clouds our judgement and capacity for logic and reasoning. This is why we have been killing each other for centuries.
View all 299 replies
Hide replies
Im at around 20 mins and Im already in pain, he pretty much just said its preposterous for the big bang to be something that can be supported then gives no reason at to why a creator makes more sense. There is also a trend of saying unrelated or incorrect things to make the atheist argument seem wrong by misrepresenting it to absurd amounts
View all 20 replies
Hide replies
I'm an atheist, but even I became a bit frustrated at how Hitchens repeatedly misinterpreted Craig's argument on morality. Hitchens seemed to get stuck on the notion that Craig was claiming that people can't be good without God. This really wasn't what Craig was claiming at all. His argument was that to even discuss moral evaluations like "good" in an objective sense, you need an objective standard of morality—which can't be supplied by naturalism alone (as Hume showed definitively). Hitchens takes for granted an assumption about what "morality" means and explains that atheists can be moral and Christians can be immoral, but he doesn't address how that assumed standard of morality might be proven objectively. One can point out (correctly) that certain propensities such as communal altruism likely developed in humans because they increased our evolutionary fitness, but this only describes a fact about the universe. That these propensities did develop in humans does not in itself prove that therefore "increases evolutionary fitness" is the proper standard of right and wrong action. Craig wants to know how the path to objective morality bridges the is-ought gap for atheists who believe that morality is in fact objective. Whether or not this critique is a good one, we ought to at least state his position accurately rather than misinterpret it the way Hitchens does here.
View all 29 replies
Hide replies
National Pornographic
People reject God for emotional reasons rather than intellectual reasons
View all 7 replies
Hide replies
Bits of Pulp
Someone should post a video where the Family Feud [X] pops up every time William Lane Craig commits a fallacy.
View all 391 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 60 replies
Hide replies
Ben Cheevers
Let me just sum up all the bullshit William Lane Craig's arguments including the medieval Kalam argument and the Teleological argument: I have a small mind and can't imagine otherwise, it's pure fallacy. I'm so much more intelligent (and have a much better personality) than a professor at Biola with a fake phd or a phd in bullshit, either way it's a bane not a boon.
View all 2 replies
Hide replies
Hitchens is embarrassingly evasive, everyone that can logically think knows this and that he lost. Take the Cross-Examination just to see how evasive he was. Q: What justification do you have that God doesn't exist? A: The justification otherwise lacks magnificence Q: Out of Atheism, Agnosticism, or the view if verificationism, which one do you take to? A: Agnosticism is evasive Q: Do you agree that morality on Atheism doesn't exist A: Maybe ;-;
View all 397 replies
Hide replies
I think wlc won but I like hitchens, he's kinda funny for some reason.
View all 64 replies
Hide replies
Alan Heath
Nine minutes into this and still nothing has started.....
View all 7 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...