YouTube home #ProudToBe


William Lane Craig: Is God a Delusion? Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford October 2011





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Nov 7, 2011

Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to defend his book The God Delusion in public debate with William Lane Craig. The invitation remained open until the last minute. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. Craig then gave a lecture to a capacity audience on the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book and responded to a panel of academics. The event, which was chaired by atheist Prof. Peter Millican, was part of The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 sponsored by UCCF, Damaris & Premier Christian Radio.

For more information please visit:

Comments • 5,054

Stan Lee
William Lane Craig is a very versatile, intelligent, and rare mind. He's awesome! I'm glad I found this!
View all 4 replies
Sick Only
+Fabian Tschopp Well, boo hoo...
Fabian Tschopp
+MrJeter693 No, he is not. Smart enough to make his nonsense sound convincing and confusing. Not smart enough to realize there is no god.
Hide replies
Damian Tharcisius
Its funny how many angry, bitter, resentful atheists and anti theists are roaming these forums.
+Damian Tharcisius Only logical. Moronic arguments and statements should get any reasonable person to be even a little angry.
David Eubanks
I have yet to see Dawkins in a serious one on one debate with Dr. Craig. So lets craft an argument to prove why Dawkins was MIA from a very important debate in his own backyard. 1. If Dawkins won't show for this important debate there must be an explanation. 2. If Dawkins has a plausible explanation it will be highly probable that it couches several adolescent put downs of Craigs arguments. 3. Since Dawkins feels the need to use name calling and inflammatory language in a non debate scenario then this means his arguments are weaker and he is left with only name calling and infantile school yard tactics. Instesd of arguments that hold there own in a true debate. 4. Therefore knowing he has the weaker position, and is tired of name calling; decided to just stay home and watch the T.V. Well according to this premise Dawkins will never show up for a one on one debate with the most comparable Dr. Craig. What a shame that would be a very satisfying debate to behold.
David Eubanks
Usually when you open with a disclaimer the reality is you are being that which you are dismissing. Whether Dr.Craig contradicts himself or not the debate would still be very satisfying. Dawkins' positions are weak and contradictory. His philosophical positions are elementary and have drawn criticism from good atheist philosophers and scientists. Dawkins' understanding of theology is no better than a first year seminary student. He resorts to gross carciture rather than good scholarship. If you will reread my statement you will find that I never insulted Dawkins' personally I only take exception with his work. When one resorts to name calling (like ass hat) it is a debating truth that the one calling names feels they have the weaker position. 
Not trying to be a dick, but I've honestly heard Craig say one thing and then contradict himself with the very next sentence. Dr. Craig is an ass hat.
brad cummings
junk DNA isnt junk DNA. William lane craigs points are clear and consice who are these guys? they act like academic superstars but its easy to see none of them are the sharpest tools in the shed.
+brad cummings indeed, over the last few years, geneticists have discovered all sorts of "switches" in DNA that turn sections off or on, making "junk" into active sections, etc. Instead of being junk, we now are beginning to understand that it's an even more dizzyingly complex and layered system of code than we ever imagined. It's incredible that the professional scientist is so dismissive of the implications and wonder of his own science. He doesn't really get in there and deal with any actual arguments either. The physicist is just as bad, the cosmic bounce? Bounce once or twice? If it bounced less than an infinite number of times than it still have a beginning, wow... that was a waste of time, it proved nothing. If it supposedly did bounce, then what of the wasted mass through heat decay and "lost" energy over time to to entropy? It's been fairly well established that our universe's mass vs acceleration cannot support a coming crunch which could facilitate another bounce, so if we did bounce, we're not going to ever do so again (at least it looks that way, the most respected astrophysicists agree, the crunch is old hat and never had good proof but was always the stubborn infinite universe materialists refusing to give up). Thus we DID have a beginning and before it, no universe existed.  Infinite negative numbers are okay therefore the past is infinite? Wow. Infinite negative number regresses are just as impossible as positive number regresses, because, if the time experienced (the events in concurrence) is REAL and not just theoretical (in math, like finance, negative numbers aren't REAL numbers, it's not just measuring back to a real past, since that's not a negative number, it was positive and only SEEMS negative now because it's past, but it's not a time deficit, like my credit card balance, that's a deficit, it could theoretically be infinite, it can't really be because I can't spend that much, but mathematically, it could be so by virtue of hacking the bank so that I never run out of debt. That's just it, it's a math equation for potentiation, I have potentially infinite debt)... but there can't be an infinite past because the past isn't potential the future is, the past happened and things that happened were definite concrete things and can't have happened infinitely, there can't be an infinite past "nows" in this chronology. Theoretically you could have an infinite concurrent "now"s in a multiverse, but there's no reason to postulate this.
Covenantal Apologetics
I absolutely love listening to Dr. Craig speak. Truly brilliant!
Tyler Durden
This guy just gives off creepy vibes
Antario Woods
brother craig truly is an inspiration
  WLC”The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating   means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.i don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent  circumstance that I’m in  and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the  evidence if I could get the correct picture would support  what the witness of the holy spirit tells me”
+Ray G. Penner no, actually no one who is sane could ever say that they have a strong feeling as an adult tha they know for certain santa is real, no one, even in santa mythos-lore thinks that you can have a real abiding sense of santa or that he lives in your heart, that he will make himself known in your soul etc. Christianity does concerning God. Santa also isn't the sort of being that is described as noncorporeal infinite entity that is all places, knows all things and has infinite power and created the universe. Santa is instead only aware of all the behavior of children (whether naughty or nice), is only one place at a time, and only has as much power as is needed to make toys, monitor behavior and visit a billion places on the globe in one night. At most that would make Santa into a very weak angel or a genie with a very narrow focus. Not even same ballpark. As such Santa is somewhere you can see him if he's real, should be able to be seen traveling (since he's in a flying sleigh), and should be able to be caught delivering presents... or at least invisibly making presents appear. Thus Santa can be demonstrably proven to be fake, makes no claim to make him existence known in the mind, and no amount of searching will render evidence to support such inner knowing and faith. Yet with God, the knowing is claimed and experienced by millions, and various philosophers and scientists over the centuries have found the cumulative evidence for divine creation, and the claims and life of the historical Jesus to be quite compelling, not because they are blind tenets, but because the cumulative case taken in seriousness is a real thing that children who believe in santa won't even know how to assess or research, but grown men and women do and are inspired by. yeah... agree or don't, but it's not the same.
Ray G. Penner
A kid who believes in Santa Claus could say exactly the same thing.
Adina Soy Yo
the religious assertion is not that god created the universe. the religious assertion is that we BELIEVE that god created the universe. our assertion is faith based because we believe it, doesn't know it >atheists often are saying the "lack of belief" in religious affirmations >the first religious affirmation is that we believe that a god or gods exist >if you don't believe this affirmation is obvious that you can not believe that god or gods are the creator of the universe the answer to the question "how the universe come into existence?" has just two answers 1) an eternal conscious person like god created it 2) a natural process created the universe doesn't exist a third option, not a real one you have the option to remain non-committed to either, a neutral position. but if you declare yourself an atheist, you commit yourself to the second group, who believe that a natural process created the universe, because you reject to believe the first premise, that god or gods may exist and then you are an atheist-believer because you cannot prove that a natural process created the universe your believe is faith based because you have faith that one day science will be able to prove the natural process that created the universe. atheism is a faith based belief system
No replies
jon keene
+dorel bencze jesus' taught that we should accept the kingdom as little children. he also taught that we can know him and that the testimony of his spirit is greater than scientific evidence. i didn't provide you with verses because of the work to find them, but if you want the verses that point to these statements i can provide you with them.
Adina Soy Yo
+Theologos i'm an agnostic theist i believe that the existence of god is unknown and cannot be known still, i believe without having proof, that god exists also i believe that this god is the christian god. my assertion is that "i believe without evidence that god is the creator of the universe" i have reasons to believe this for example the impossibility of an infinite numbers of past events. but this not prove anything obviously i can't accept such an argument as yours "You believe first that God exists, then you put your trust (faith) IN Him." yes, but your believe don't comes from knowledge, if you don't have a justified true believe that god exists, is just a belief without proof. if you say: i'm justified to believe that a god exist or i know that god exists you has to provide proofs. and the proof can't be: the bible say so (that god exists)
Hide replies
Craig does not debate. He has a standard well-rehearsed set piece speech which he never deviates from regardless of who is being debated. He only debates very specific questions with a very specific format that allows hime to make his key points and set pieces. He has a team and minders who he works with and rehearses his responses to typical points that his opposition will make. His team analyses the books and writings of whoever he is debating and they spend lots of time preparing him almost like a presidential candidate. They rehearse likely opportunities for cutting remarks and humourous put downs. He has been doing this for years and it is as disgraceful as it is disreputable. That he can get away with this merely proves the Ancient Greeks were correct in their disdain for sophistry and their understanding of the dangers of its skilled practitioners.
View all 18 replies
Kostas Spiliotopoulos
+Michael Beauharnois We haven't yet seen in the water under the ice in Europa. The point is….If in our solar system containing 8 planets we have chances finding life imagine in the UNVRS containing trillion in the power of trillion planets. 
Michael Beauharnois
How do you "almost" find life?  We found traces of water.  Water and life are not synonymous considering that amino acids require nitrogen and carbon as well as oxygen and hydrogen.
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...