I was never a huge fan of the problem of evil, but I like how Stephen Law demonstrated you can tap dance around any philosophical problem with a little spin.
It is very easy to refute Craig: The Bible is Forged Fiction..so nothing he says ever happened..it is all Historical Fiction...there was no Empty Tomb or Rolling stones so no Resurrection 😅
@@BSFree-es5ml Well, if the proposition was that some god exists, then yes, Craig won by default, because Law refused to engage with the arguments for a generic god. However, if the proposition was about the existence of a Christian (good) god, then Law's affirmative case was not countered successfully by Craig.
Law seems to be agnostic about everything (at least in the cross examination for the Historical evidence of the resurrection, and the moral argument for God’s existence). It’s really frustrating that he never even tries to refute the cosmological argument. He straight up weaseled out of trying to refute that argument.
Bc the problem with WLC cosmology argument is he makes it sound so set in stone and factual. When you get real physicists in the room they admit we’ve only touched a tiny speck of what the information out there is. A lot of it depends on how quantum physics work, which is hardly understood at the moment. Craig presents it as if the physicists locked it up and there’s no alternatives because he takes those models that agree with his worldview. Law is a philosopher, not a physicist. So it’s not his thing to argue what math equation proves we have a god or not.
Well then he should say that. He shouldn’t just dismiss what he says and not answer it at all. I assume you’re not a physicist, and you know this. Why can’t he just say something to respond? It’s just frustrating when some scholars do that.
@@calebsayger5824 ya for sure. I love Stephen law and I think his evil god challenge is a fun philosophical idea. But I think in this debate he tried to keep away from that subject at all all possible, and WLC is so good at debate he points it out over and over.
@@claymanning2729 Law didn't even need to engage with it. Craig kept pointing out that he wasn't engaging to try and avoid this... but to no avail. Craig was trying to waste time and distract. He failed.
A shepherd needs lots of sheep. The sheep are ignorant of the shepherd's true motive. They think he cares about their welfare because he provides food.
Well, the shepherd does care about their welfare, that just isn't the end of his motivation usually. While the sheep and the atheists may not have any grounding to say what motivations are good or bad, the Christians can say that it is good to feed people, and by extension it is good to feed your sheep in order to feed people. The analogy doesn't even really apply, since in the literal and figurative case, a shepherd doesn't need more than one sheep to be a shepherd, and in the literal case you wouldn't expect the sheep to understand the shepherd's motives or have any though on his concerns, but in the figurative case with Christians, providing food that is needed to live would be a good reason to think someone cared for your welfare. We have other arguments for what end that care goes towards, but I've overresponded to an old post already. Hope this helps clarify the situation.
Yeah, they mentioned the Bible so many times in this video. WOW! I think I have the whole dang thing memorized. Don’t watch until the end, they literally read the entire Bible together around a campfire. So weird.
It seems that Stephen Law either deliberately ignored the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, knowing he couldn't give good arguments against it. To me, that's a tacit forfeit. Moreover, I'm sure that he understood what WLC meant when he said his arguments were "cumulative." I'm going to assume the best of him and assume that he willfully ignored the topic of the debate, which was, "Does God Exist?", as opposed to assuming that he didn't understand what the debate was about. Also, "That's irrelevant," and "I don't know," aren't counterarguments. This topic of the debate was apparent, so when I hear Law insist that WLC's arguments for the existence of a god are irrelevant, I interpret that as, "I didn't prepare for the debate," "I don't know how to refute your arguments," or "I'm going to ignore that argument."
Well then you fell for the trick. " That's irrelevant " is most definitely an effective argument. If an argument is irrelevant, then it is irrelevant, no matter how much you might like it not to be the case. Cumulative or not, it had absolutely zero impact on the Evil God Challenge. Law not only rendered it useless, he did not need to address it in any way. It really is astounding to see people still try to pretend that Law was ignoring the point of the debate. Even Craig understood that the Kalam was irrelevant, but he had no other choice. Rather than under-preparing, Law had prepared so well that he easily dismissed the Kalam, and Craig had no choice other than to just complain and hope that some people in the audience missed the fact that the Kalam was no longer relevant. Sadly your entire post just demonstrates that you were taken in.
@@BSFree-es5ml you cannot argue the existence of evil or good--let alone the existence of a god--without acknowledging objective moral values. Law never defined the foundation for objective moral values. Ignoring the KCA is a tacit acceptance of it. He did not refute it. Instead, he went onto a different argument: Can a good god exist? By default, Law accepts the plausibility of the existence of a god and took the argument into the realm of whether that god is good or evil. I have no problem with him doing that, but I have a problem with the strange logic that this means he refuted God's existence. I think you're just upset that that's where Law took the argument. If you skip over the KCA and don't address it, then you have conceded that part of the cumulative argument.
@@kristoffersevillena7657 _you cannot argue the existence of evil or good--let alone the existence of a god--without acknowledging objective moral values_ - Well you can, but regardless, we were discussing the Kalam…. Are you agreeing that it’s irrelevant? _Law never defined the foundation for objective moral values_ - He didn’t need to the Evil God Challenge doesn’t care. But one thing at a time, you’re distracting from your mistake about the Kalam.
_Ignoring the KCA is a tacit acceptance of it_ - Nope, it is declaring it irrelevant. - _He did not refute it_ - Why would he? It’s irrelevant.
_Instead, he went onto a different argument: Can a good god exist?_ - Oh I see, you really don’t understand at all. God must be good. That is Craig's definition. There is no other options.
_By default, Law accepts the plausibility of the existence of a god and took the argument into the realm of whether that god is good or evil_ - Nope. God must be good, or he is not God. No one was arguing that God exists but he might be evil.
_I have no problem with him doing that, but I have a problem with the strange logic that this means he refuted God's existence_ - Because you don’t understand it. It’s OK, I can explain again. It wasn't strange logic at all. You're under the impression that he was arguing that God might be Evil. That is not what he was saying at all.
_I think you're just upset that that's where Law took the argument_ - Why would I be upset that he won?
_If you skip over the KCA and don't address it, then you have conceded that part of the cumulative argument_ - And if you explain how it is irrelevant, then it is irrelevant. It is no longer a factor…at all. You can't declare the Kalam important if you don't understand the argument being made.
We seem to be talking past each other. I stand by what I originally said, and I can't amplify it any further than I already have: 1. The topic of the debate is, "Does God Exist?" Not, "Does a Good God Exist?" 2. The KCA is the first part of a cumulative argument because you have to first posit the reasonableness of a god existing in the first place. (Law skips over this, and I can't only assume he does so because he cannot refute it, not because it's irrelevant.) 3. If you want to debate whether god is good or not, you have to first establish that it is reasonable that a god can even exist and then agree what objective moral values are. 4. And again, I think it's unbecoming of a philosopher to say "That's irrelevant," when you present an inductive argument for the existence of a god. That's unacceptable in circles of logic. i.e. "Here's my inductive argument for why I believe a god exists." Rebuttal: "That's irrelevant." Ummm...excuse me, but, again, it must seem I'm boring you, but the topic is "Does God Exist?" You seem to be willfully ignoring what I'm saying, and we're just talking in circles. This is all I have left to say.
No, he debated the existence of Craig's god. It's not a matter of what god could be like, he MUST be like that or he is not god. It seems you completely misunderstood what he was saying.
Craig gave 3 arguments against the evil god challenge 1) believers don't say that god is good by sampling the world. RESPONSE: that's just a strawman. Stephen never said that, and it's not part of the evil god challenge 2) You can't run the problem of evil without assuming that objective values exist. But objective values exist only if god exists. RESPONSE: you can run the problem of evil without talking about "evil" but just about suffering. Craig acknowledged that this is right. So this objection has been refuted by Craig himself. 3) Skeptical theism: we can't know if god has reasons to permit evil in the world. RESPONSE: This defense works for an evil god as well. So you can't refute the existence of an evil god on the base of the good stuff in the world. Craig agrees on this. But now he is left with the puzzle of explaining why god is good. He has only one argument for that: the moral argument. Stephen asks an argument to support premise 1 of the moral argument. Craig was never able to give any good reason to support premise 1. At best, we are left with agnosticism regarding the moral properties of god. But, in other situations, Craig admitted that we can rule out the existence of an evil god on the base of the good stuff around us. If you accept that, then clearly, the good god is refuted. Craig spent too much time repeating that his case is cumulative. But it's an obvious fact that he doesn't have any cumulative case for the moral properties of god. So, if I can rule out a good god, monotheism is surely defeated. Now, you might think that maybe a neutral god exists. OK, but nobody cares about that. People want to believe in a good god. Destroy the good god hypothesis and religion is over.
I think you missed his point. Law believes in objective moral values and Law was trying to incite suffering and Craig said fine but…it still does not make anything objective without God. Of course, that is correct.
@joshwatson5561 Law said two things: 1) Craig moral argument is flawed. There can be objective values without god 2) even if there are no objective morality values, I can still run the problem of evil, talking about suffering
Without getting into an online debate.:.who has the time. He never showed why Craig’s argument was flawed and he believes in objective moral values as evidenced by his past literature. Craigs worldview accounts for it better which is why Law was trying to go a different direction.
@joshwatson5561 he gave a powerful objection to craigs moral argument. The fact that to support premise 1, Craig needs to refute all possible atheist-friendly explanations of objective moral values. Otherwise, the arguments is unsound. Also he said that, even if the moral argument is sound, it's not a reply to the problem of evil. Because if you combine the problem of evil with craig moral argument, you reach the conclusion that objective moral values don't exist. Stephen said that he doesn't believe so, but if there's an argument, you gotta change your mind. Craig was very weak during this debate
@@aradais1087 To each their own, I found Law to be off topic and not addressing the points made by Craig. The evil God was a distraction as Law was spinning a straw man. The problem of evil was addressed many times and Law and evidently you did not like the answer. There are no contradictions to a good God and evil existing when infused with free agents. Craig used the moral argument to show that Law's own beliefs were inconsistent with his worldview and pointing to atheist friendly views does not help because that does not get you to objective to which is what Law believed at the time.
@@BSFree-es5ml You and your guy got slapped and are so dazed you think you’re still in the fight when the ref has already declared a nock out to Law. Or the Monty python knight who, despite losing all his limbs, thinks he’s still beating his opponent. 🤣🤣🤣
Does God exist ? A great many people, including Willy, have worked on this question. Yet, despite all that effort, we are still asking the question ! Why ?
Because of stubbornness and pride. The existence of God is a meta-question. It's not your usual math problems. Ultimately, it is by our free will that we come to God. Apologetics does not "prove" God, but rather give evidence for the existence of God, and show that atheism is unintelligible. After that, it's up to man to accept God in good will. It's the only reasonable faith.
@@lupinthe4th400 Are you stubbornly refusing to believe in Zeus ? Or is it pride that stops you looking for the cause of lightning ? Use your intelligence. Lightning must have a cause !
The atheist was going so off topic. 90% of his arguments were about GOD not being good. He was trying to get people to engage emotionally rather than logically. Craig did a wonderful job not getting upset and staying on topic to the debate. Craig avoided the emotional traps and addressed the points wonderfully. Craig is a true mental and verbal judo expert in my opinion.
Wrong. At no point was Law arguing that God wasn't good. He was arguing that God does not exist. Because he must be good to be God. Craig actually agreed with this. Anyone who thinks he didn't has no understanding of what the debate was about. Craig lost badly btw.
@BSFree-es5ml his argument was that because humans do evil stuff and there is suffering and GOD doesn't stop them (like strike them dead), that makes him evil. I hate to break it to you, but god is not the one doing those things, and if he were to strike down anyone doing evil, there wouldn't be anyone left. For example, your children go and murder someone. Does that mean you are guilty and in danger of prosecution also?
@@toxicfuture2357 _Is god willing to stop evil, but not able? Then he is impotent._ _Is god able to stop evil, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._ _Is god both willing and able to stop evil? Then whence comes evil?_ _Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?_ (Epicurus' Riddle)
@punnet2 (1) GOD is not the one doing the evil. (2) GOD protects and provides for his church. Being a follower of Jesus comes with a lot of blessings includingthe strength to endure. I understand the fact that having never having problems would lead to a soft character and lack of wisdom. Because of hardships, we appreciate the good things. If everything was perfect, Joy and peace, we would be emotionally empty on earth as it stands. (3) If you believe Jesus is the son of GOD and his sacrifice was enough. GOD will begin to refine your character, and character development can only come from mistakes and hardships. If you distance yourself from GOD, he will distance himself from you. It might seem cruel at face value, but nobody enjoys the process it's the outcome that's worth it.
@@toxicfuture2357 So it sounds like your version of god is _"able to stop evil, but not willing."_ Also, with the alternative evil god hypothesis, one could say: *"god is not the one doing the good...because of the good things, we appreciate the evil things...if everything was evil, suffering and hardship, we would be emotionally empty..."*
The problem is, a good god doesn't create evil. A good god is all good, and those who act against him actualize evil. but an evil god must create good because there is goodness in the world. But if he did, then he wouldn't be an evil god, at least not wholly evil. can there be a god, in a world with objective morality, that holds both cards? I don't think so. They're opposites. A good god would despise the opposite, if the opposite were truely wicked from its viewpoint, which evil is, and the sane thing applies to an evil God. If there is objective evil, and a God is fully that evil, can it act contrary to itself and its nature? Sure, it could permit goodness, but not actualize it. The evil god hypothesis fails because there is a problem, where the atheist thinks that A good God can or would create evil. Not only that but an evil god assumes evil can exist for its own sake. In actuality. Evil is just perversion of good.
Nope, wrong again. Let's reverse your statement.. _An Evil God is all Evil, and those who act against him actualize Good_ See? Simple. You can't argue that a Good God doesn't create evil, but an Evil God must create good. Try again.
@BSFree-es5ml but the good in the world isn't actualized by humans. The objective property of beauty and the objective values of morals are simply actualized by humans, like evil is. And good isn't a perversion of evil.
@@ethanrichard4950 _but the evil in the world isn't actualized by humans_ _The objective property of uglimness and the objective values of morals are simply actualized by humans, like good is. And evil isn't a perversion of good_ As the saying goes... I could do this all day. You can't claim that Good only comes from your God, and Evil only from Humans. But it doesn't matter anyway, because the same argument applies in reverse. If a Good God has to allow evil to be actualized, then an Evil God has to allow Good. That is the point.
@BSFree-es5ml You don't actualize an objective truth. No, a good god needn't allow evil. He will soon destroy it. And there will be none. The evil god does more than allow good, he creates it/is it. This hypothesis fails to disprove God, and doesn't answer the best two arguments for God, the cosmological and moral argument.
@@ethanrichard4950 _No, a good god needn't allow evil. He will soon destroy it. And there will be none.The evil god does more than allow good, he creates it/is it_ Again, nonsense. You can't have it both ways. If you dismiss evil for as good God, then you have to dismiss good for an evil God. You just keep repeating the same mistake.
@@BSFree-es5ml I'm declaring that atheists are in denial. The "simple" cell screams for an explanation that natural causes can't provide. So, yes, I do believe that every human knows full well that God exists. The alternative is foolishness.
He did argue that God doesn't exist. You didn't understand the Evil God Challenge. I wouldn't laugh while you advertise the fact that you missed the point.
@@BSFree-es5ml Oh I understood it very well but its a ridiculous argument. Proving that an evil God doesn't exist only increases the likelihood that a good God does exist... next 🤦🏾♂️
@@ysycotik No, you've completely missed the point. I'll explain. Proving that an Evil God doesn't exist proves that Good God doesn't exist, for the same reasons. They are symmetrical. You can't have it both ways. And since God must be good otherwise he is not God, then this is proving that God doesn't exist. Interestingly, at first you said that he was saying that if God exists he could be evil. Now you change to proving that " an Evil God doesn't exist " It's hard to tell whether you actually don't understand, or whether you're pretending not to.
@@BSFree-es5ml Evil God argument from an Atheist still fails when there are no objective moral in that worldview. What is objectively good or evil? you nor any other atheist can define this it just becomes a matter of opinion. Also you claim Evil God and Good God are symmetrical. Says who yourself? Is this a fact or an opinion and what is your evidence for this claim?
@@ysycotik Wrong again. The Evil God Challenge doesn't care about your definition of evil, that's up to you. It still works either way. You can try to run the Moral Argument if you like, but it has no effect on the Evil God Challenge. If you don't understand about them being symmetrical, that tells me that you didn't listen to the argument. Which makes sense since you thought it was about God existing but being evil. How could they not be symmetrical? You see, the argument is much more sophisticated than you first thought.
WLC is so cringe. Presents 5 arguments, so Steven has to present his own and 'disprove' his 5. Steven doesn't address one of them, so WLC claims it must be true. Absolutely pathetic to claim victory by Gishgalloping.
There’s a bizarre pattern I’ve noticed over time. Atheists usually hate and trash talk people like William lane Craig. And theists usually hate and trash talk people like Aron ra. What’s interesting is, theists and atheists have their dislikes. But why is it that the disliked theists like Craig are nice, calm, gentlemen… and the disliked atheists like Aron ra are smug insulting misanthropes?
He trots out the same spiel word for word every time. The minute he's forced off script, he's shaky - the Shelly Kagan debate shows this. It's why no one debating him should ever follow him down those well-rehearsed avenues, as Stephen doesn't here. It's a trap.
@@davidrobinson5180 what does Craig's work outside of this debate have to do with this debate and the limited amount of time people have to make their points and counter arguments?
The problem is, a good god doesn't create evil. A good god is all good, and those who act against him actualize evil. but an evil god must create good because there is goodness in the world. But if he did, then he wouldn't be an evil god, at least not wholly evil. can there be a god, in a world with objective morality, that holds both cards? I don't think so. They're opposites. A good god would despise the opposite, if the opposite were truely wicked from its viewpoint, which evil is, and the sane thing applies to an evil God. If there is objective evil, and a God is fully that evil, can it act contrary to itself and its nature? Sure, it could permit goodness, but not actualize it. The evil god hypothesis fails because there is a problem, where the atheist thinks that A good God can or would create evil. Not only that but an evil god assumes evil can exist for its own sake. In actuality. Evil is just perversion of good. But the hypothesis doesn't answer Craig's objection
@@jackfrost90999 Huh? Craig was demolished. He spent most of his time desperately trying to use the Kalam after it had been rendered useless. Especially from a debate standard Craig lost.
@@BSFree-es5ml except the kalam wasn't rendered useless? this is probably the worst i've seen an atheist do against craig, Law has no substantive argument against the moral argument and he pretty much conceded that a creator was more plausible than no creator but that the creator could have just as likely been a bad one, and the discussion wasn't about whether if god exists is he good, it was about whether god exists or not and Law not only didn't provide any good argument for atheism which he is required as the burden of proof lies on him just as equally as he didn't present himself as agnostic. Craig stuck to the specific arguments for god existence in hope that Law would rebuttal and law refused to rebuttal and went off on his own tangent, again i ask you not just defend the person you agree with and look at the debate from an objective position i'm willing to admit when the person i agree with lost the debate it happens, but this wasn't one, craig clearly and easily walked all over him and law didn't put up much a fight
@@jackfrost90999 Let's cut to the chase because you clearly didn't understand what was being said... " the discussion wasn't about whether if god exists is he good, it was about whether god exists or not " Wrong. The discussion was 100% about whether God exists. You completely missed the point. God cannot exist and be bad... because then he is not God. All the claims you make are nonsense, because you have just demonstrated that you didn't understand argument at all. Sorry.
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/1.gif)
I was never a huge fan of the problem of evil, but I like how Stephen Law demonstrated you can tap dance around any philosophical problem with a little spin.
This wasnt even a debate. Law ran away from Craig. Embarrassing for Law.
Law ran away from the deistic arguments, but annihilated the Christian god. I can refute the rest of deistic argument if you want? The Kalam etc...
It is very easy to refute Craig:
The Bible is Forged Fiction..so nothing he says ever happened..it is all Historical Fiction...there was no Empty Tomb or Rolling stones so no Resurrection 😅
It is highly improbable God exists and more probable people make up 39:48 Stories and historise them..God is a weak argument for anything
Law ran away with the debate. Agreed.
Hands down easy winner
@@BSFree-es5ml Well, if the proposition was that some god exists, then yes, Craig won by default, because Law refused to engage with the arguments for a generic god.
However, if the proposition was about the existence of a Christian (good) god, then Law's affirmative case was not countered successfully by Craig.
Law seems to be agnostic about everything (at least in the cross examination for the Historical evidence of the resurrection, and the moral argument for God’s existence). It’s really frustrating that he never even tries to refute the cosmological argument. He straight up weaseled out of trying to refute that argument.
Bc the problem with WLC cosmology argument is he makes it sound so set in stone and factual. When you get real physicists in the room they admit we’ve only touched a tiny speck of what the information out there is. A lot of it depends on how quantum physics work, which is hardly understood at the moment. Craig presents it as if the physicists locked it up and there’s no alternatives because he takes those models that agree with his worldview.
Law is a philosopher, not a physicist. So it’s not his thing to argue what math equation proves we have a god or not.
Well then he should say that. He shouldn’t just dismiss what he says and not answer it at all. I assume you’re not a physicist, and you know this. Why can’t he just say something to respond? It’s just frustrating when some scholars do that.
@@calebsayger5824 ya for sure. I love Stephen law and I think his evil god challenge is a fun philosophical idea. But I think in this debate he tried to keep away from that subject at all all possible, and WLC is so good at debate he points it out over and over.
@@claymanning2729 Law didn't even need to engage with it.
Craig kept pointing out that he wasn't engaging to try and avoid this... but to no avail.
Craig was trying to waste time and distract.
He failed.
A shepherd needs lots of sheep.
The sheep are ignorant of the shepherd's true motive.
They think he cares about their welfare because he provides food.
Well, the shepherd does care about their welfare, that just isn't the end of his motivation usually. While the sheep and the atheists may not have any grounding to say what motivations are good or bad, the Christians can say that it is good to feed people, and by extension it is good to feed your sheep in order to feed people. The analogy doesn't even really apply, since in the literal and figurative case, a shepherd doesn't need more than one sheep to be a shepherd, and in the literal case you wouldn't expect the sheep to understand the shepherd's motives or have any though on his concerns, but in the figurative case with Christians, providing food that is needed to live would be a good reason to think someone cared for your welfare. We have other arguments for what end that care goes towards, but I've overresponded to an old post already. Hope this helps clarify the situation.
@@paulaaron4821
Perhaps I made a mistake in my analogy.
A shepherd prefers to have lots of sheep.
And you know why.
@@paulaaron4821
In my village there are three churches.
Two of them have been abandoned because there aren't enough sheep !
"Because the bible tells me so or someone in the bible tells me so"
You spelled God wrong.
Yeah, they mentioned the Bible so many times in this video. WOW! I think I have the whole dang thing memorized. Don’t watch until the end, they literally read the entire Bible together around a campfire. So weird.
It seems that Stephen Law either deliberately ignored the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, knowing he couldn't give good arguments against it. To me, that's a tacit forfeit. Moreover, I'm sure that he understood what WLC meant when he said his arguments were "cumulative."
I'm going to assume the best of him and assume that he willfully ignored the topic of the debate, which was, "Does God Exist?", as opposed to assuming that he didn't understand what the debate was about.
Also, "That's irrelevant," and "I don't know," aren't counterarguments. This topic of the debate was apparent, so when I hear Law insist that WLC's arguments for the existence of a god are irrelevant, I interpret that as, "I didn't prepare for the debate," "I don't know how to refute your arguments," or "I'm going to ignore that argument."
Well then you fell for the trick.
" That's irrelevant " is most definitely an effective argument.
If an argument is irrelevant, then it is irrelevant, no matter how much you might like it not to be the case.
Cumulative or not, it had absolutely zero impact on the Evil God Challenge.
Law not only rendered it useless, he did not need to address it in any way.
It really is astounding to see people still try to pretend that Law was ignoring the point of the debate.
Even Craig understood that the Kalam was irrelevant, but he had no other choice.
Rather than under-preparing, Law had prepared so well that he easily dismissed the Kalam, and Craig had no choice other than to just complain and hope that some people in the audience missed the fact that the Kalam was no longer relevant.
Sadly your entire post just demonstrates that you were taken in.
@@BSFree-es5ml you cannot argue the existence of evil or good--let alone the existence of a god--without acknowledging objective moral values. Law never defined the foundation for objective moral values.
Ignoring the KCA is a tacit acceptance of it. He did not refute it. Instead, he went onto a different argument: Can a good god exist? By default, Law accepts the plausibility of the existence of a god and took the argument into the realm of whether that god is good or evil. I have no problem with him doing that, but I have a problem with the strange logic that this means he refuted God's existence.
I think you're just upset that that's where Law took the argument. If you skip over the KCA and don't address it, then you have conceded that part of the cumulative argument.
@@BSFree-es5ml it's only irrelevant if the topic wasn't "Does God Exist?"
@@kristoffersevillena7657
_you cannot argue the existence of evil or good--let alone the existence of a god--without acknowledging objective moral values_
- Well you can, but regardless, we were discussing the Kalam…. Are you agreeing that it’s irrelevant?
_Law never defined the foundation for objective moral values_
- He didn’t need to the Evil God Challenge doesn’t care. But one thing at a time, you’re distracting from your mistake about the Kalam.
_Ignoring the KCA is a tacit acceptance of it_
- Nope, it is declaring it irrelevant.
-
_He did not refute it_
- Why would he? It’s irrelevant.
_Instead, he went onto a different argument: Can a good god exist?_
- Oh I see, you really don’t understand at all. God must be good. That is Craig's definition. There is no other options.
_By default, Law accepts the plausibility of the existence of a god and took the argument into the realm of whether that god is good or evil_
- Nope. God must be good, or he is not God. No one was arguing that God exists but he might be evil.
_I have no problem with him doing that, but I have a problem with the strange logic that this means he refuted God's existence_
- Because you don’t understand it. It’s OK, I can explain again. It wasn't strange logic at all. You're under the impression that he was arguing that God might be Evil. That is not what he was saying at all.
_I think you're just upset that that's where Law took the argument_
- Why would I be upset that he won?
_If you skip over the KCA and don't address it, then you have conceded that part of the cumulative argument_
- And if you explain how it is irrelevant, then it is irrelevant. It is no longer a factor…at all.
You can't declare the Kalam important if you don't understand the argument being made.
We seem to be talking past each other. I stand by what I originally said, and I can't amplify it any further than I already have:
1. The topic of the debate is, "Does God Exist?" Not, "Does a Good God Exist?"
2. The KCA is the first part of a cumulative argument because you have to first posit the reasonableness of a god existing in the first place. (Law skips over this, and I can't only assume he does so because he cannot refute it, not because it's irrelevant.)
3. If you want to debate whether god is good or not, you have to first establish that it is reasonable that a god can even exist and then agree what objective moral values are.
4. And again, I think it's unbecoming of a philosopher to say "That's irrelevant," when you present an inductive argument for the existence of a god. That's unacceptable in circles of logic. i.e. "Here's my inductive argument for why I believe a god exists." Rebuttal: "That's irrelevant."
Ummm...excuse me, but, again, it must seem I'm boring you, but the topic is "Does God Exist?"
You seem to be willfully ignoring what I'm saying, and we're just talking in circles. This is all I have left to say.
Craig broke the Law with this beating:)
Which argument for Christianity stood?
Craig did suffer an awful beating. Agreed.
@@BSFree-es5ml You passed reading comprehension school:)
@@uppercumberlandrams9824 Sure did. Not only that, I understood this debate.
Better than most it seems.
I do not refute the resurrection.@@BSFree-es5ml
It seems that law completely misunderstood what the debate was about.. instead of debating the existence of God he debated what God could be like
No, he debated the existence of Craig's god.
It's not a matter of what god could be like, he MUST be like that or he is not god.
It seems you completely misunderstood what he was saying.
Craig gave 3 arguments against the evil god challenge
1) believers don't say that god is good by sampling the world.
RESPONSE: that's just a strawman. Stephen never said that, and it's not part of the evil god challenge
2) You can't run the problem of evil without assuming that objective values exist. But objective values exist only if god exists.
RESPONSE: you can run the problem of evil without talking about "evil" but just about suffering. Craig acknowledged that this is right. So this objection has been refuted by Craig himself.
3) Skeptical theism: we can't know if god has reasons to permit evil in the world.
RESPONSE: This defense works for an evil god as well. So you can't refute the existence of an evil god on the base of the good stuff in the world. Craig agrees on this.
But now he is left with the puzzle of explaining why god is good.
He has only one argument for that: the moral argument.
Stephen asks an argument to support premise 1 of the moral argument. Craig was never able to give any good reason to support premise 1.
At best, we are left with agnosticism regarding the moral properties of god.
But, in other situations, Craig admitted that we can rule out the existence of an evil god on the base of the good stuff around us.
If you accept that, then clearly, the good god is refuted.
Craig spent too much time repeating that his case is cumulative. But it's an obvious fact that he doesn't have any cumulative case for the moral properties of god. So, if I can rule out a good god, monotheism is surely defeated.
Now, you might think that maybe a neutral god exists. OK, but nobody cares about that. People want to believe in a good god. Destroy the good god hypothesis and religion is over.
I think you missed his point. Law believes in objective moral values and Law was trying to incite suffering and Craig said fine but…it still does not make anything objective without God. Of course, that is correct.
@joshwatson5561 Law said two things:
1) Craig moral argument is flawed. There can be objective values without god
2) even if there are no objective morality values, I can still run the problem of evil, talking about suffering
Without getting into an online debate.:.who has the time. He never showed why Craig’s argument was flawed and he believes in objective moral values as evidenced by his past literature. Craigs worldview accounts for it better which is why Law was trying to go a different direction.
@joshwatson5561 he gave a powerful objection to craigs moral argument. The fact that to support premise 1, Craig needs to refute all possible atheist-friendly explanations of objective moral values. Otherwise, the arguments is unsound.
Also he said that, even if the moral argument is sound, it's not a reply to the problem of evil. Because if you combine the problem of evil with craig moral argument, you reach the conclusion that objective moral values don't exist. Stephen said that he doesn't believe so, but if there's an argument, you gotta change your mind.
Craig was very weak during this debate
@@aradais1087 To each their own, I found Law to be off topic and not addressing the points made by Craig. The evil God was a distraction as Law was spinning a straw man. The problem of evil was addressed many times and Law and evidently you did not like the answer. There are no contradictions to a good God and evil existing when infused with free agents. Craig used the moral argument to show that Law's own beliefs were inconsistent with his worldview and pointing to atheist friendly views does not help because that does not get you to objective to which is what Law believed at the time.
Law made a fool of himself Psalm 14:1
How? By winning the debate?
You wish!
@@cogitoergosum3433 Nah, I know. It's in the video above if you'd like to watch.
@@BSFree-es5ml This looks like for all the world that you’ve been hit by a champion punch and have no idea what hit you or where it came from! lol!
@@BSFree-es5ml You and your guy got slapped and are so dazed you think you’re still in the fight when the ref has already declared a nock out to Law.
Or the Monty python knight who, despite losing all his limbs, thinks he’s still beating his opponent. 🤣🤣🤣
Does God exist ?
A great many people, including Willy, have worked on this question.
Yet, despite all that effort, we are still asking the question ! Why ?
Because of stubbornness and pride. The existence of God is a meta-question. It's not your usual math problems. Ultimately, it is by our free will that we come to God. Apologetics does not "prove" God, but rather give evidence for the existence of God, and show that atheism is unintelligible. After that, it's up to man to accept God in good will. It's the only reasonable faith.
@@lupinthe4th400
Are you stubbornly refusing to believe in Zeus ?
Or is it pride that stops you looking for the cause of lightning ?
Use your intelligence. Lightning must have a cause !
@@tedgrant2 good argument. Thanks.
It takes courage to perform atheism in a place full of Christians like this.
Perform non belief?
I don't like how people bring up that other people agree with them, and expect that to mean something.
Craig does it all the time.
@BSFree-es5ml Yeah, it usually means you are wrong when most people agree with you lmao
Low is too low in debates.
In his books he is much better.
Bill is equally mistaken and misleading in all his stuff
The atheist was going so off topic. 90% of his arguments were about GOD not being good. He was trying to get people to engage emotionally rather than logically. Craig did a wonderful job not getting upset and staying on topic to the debate. Craig avoided the emotional traps and addressed the points wonderfully. Craig is a true mental and verbal judo expert in my opinion.
Wrong.
At no point was Law arguing that God wasn't good.
He was arguing that God does not exist.
Because he must be good to be God.
Craig actually agreed with this.
Anyone who thinks he didn't has no understanding of what the debate was about.
Craig lost badly btw.
@BSFree-es5ml his argument was that because humans do evil stuff and there is suffering and GOD doesn't stop them (like strike them dead), that makes him evil. I hate to break it to you, but god is not the one doing those things, and if he were to strike down anyone doing evil, there wouldn't be anyone left. For example, your children go and murder someone. Does that mean you are guilty and in danger of prosecution also?
@@toxicfuture2357
_Is god willing to stop evil, but not able? Then he is impotent._
_Is god able to stop evil, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._
_Is god both willing and able to stop evil? Then whence comes evil?_
_Is god neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?_
(Epicurus' Riddle)
@punnet2
(1) GOD is not the one doing the evil.
(2) GOD protects and provides for his church. Being a follower of Jesus comes with a lot of blessings includingthe strength to endure. I understand the fact that having never having problems would lead to a soft character and lack of wisdom. Because of hardships, we appreciate the good things. If everything was perfect, Joy and peace, we would be emotionally empty on earth as it stands.
(3) If you believe Jesus is the son of GOD and his sacrifice was enough. GOD will begin to refine your character, and character development can only come from mistakes and hardships. If you distance yourself from GOD, he will distance himself from you. It might seem cruel at face value, but nobody enjoys the process it's the outcome that's worth it.
@@toxicfuture2357
So it sounds like your version of god is _"able to stop evil, but not willing."_
Also, with the alternative evil god hypothesis, one could say: *"god is not the one doing the good...because of the good things, we appreciate the evil things...if everything was evil, suffering and hardship, we would be emotionally empty..."*
The problem is, a good god doesn't create evil. A good god is all good, and those who act against him actualize evil. but an evil god must create good because there is goodness in the world. But if he did, then he wouldn't be an evil god, at least not wholly evil.
can there be a god, in a world with objective morality, that holds both cards? I don't think so. They're opposites. A good god would despise the opposite, if the opposite were truely wicked from its viewpoint, which evil is, and the sane thing applies to an evil God.
If there is objective evil, and a God is fully that evil, can it act contrary to itself and its nature? Sure, it could permit goodness, but not actualize it.
The evil god hypothesis fails because there is a problem, where the atheist thinks that A good God can or would create evil.
Not only that but an evil god assumes evil can exist for its own sake.
In actuality. Evil is just perversion of good.
Nope, wrong again.
Let's reverse your statement..
_An Evil God is all Evil, and those who act against him actualize Good_
See? Simple.
You can't argue that a Good God doesn't create evil, but an Evil God must create good.
Try again.
@BSFree-es5ml but the good in the world isn't actualized by humans.
The objective property of beauty and the objective values of morals are simply actualized by humans, like evil is. And good isn't a perversion of evil.
@@ethanrichard4950
_but the evil in the world isn't actualized by humans_
_The objective property of uglimness and the objective values of morals are simply actualized by humans, like good is. And evil isn't a perversion of good_
As the saying goes... I could do this all day.
You can't claim that Good only comes from your God, and Evil only from Humans.
But it doesn't matter anyway, because the same argument applies in reverse.
If a Good God has to allow evil to be actualized, then an Evil God has to allow Good.
That is the point.
@BSFree-es5ml You don't actualize an objective truth.
No, a good god needn't allow evil. He will soon destroy it. And there will be none.
The evil god does more than allow good, he creates it/is it.
This hypothesis fails to disprove God, and doesn't answer the best two arguments for God, the cosmological and moral argument.
@@ethanrichard4950
_No, a good god needn't allow evil. He will soon destroy it. And there will be none.The evil god does more than allow good, he creates it/is it_
Again, nonsense.
You can't have it both ways.
If you dismiss evil for as good God, then you have to dismiss good for an evil God.
You just keep repeating the same mistake.
Every human knows that God exists. This includes Stephen Law.
Nope.
@@BSFree-es5ml It's obvious.
@@terminat1 Yes it is... obvious that you're wrong in this case.
Just declaring that other people are lying is the worst possible argument.
@@BSFree-es5ml I'm declaring that atheists are in denial. The "simple" cell screams for an explanation that natural causes can't provide. So, yes, I do believe that every human knows full well that God exists. The alternative is foolishness.
Everyone is an atheist till they go to a funeral
I thought Atheists were supposed to argue that God doesn't exist... not that if it exists, it could be evil. 😂🤦🏾♂️
He did argue that God doesn't exist.
You didn't understand the Evil God Challenge.
I wouldn't laugh while you advertise the fact that you missed the point.
@@BSFree-es5ml Oh I understood it very well but its a ridiculous argument. Proving that an evil God doesn't exist only increases the likelihood that a good God does exist... next 🤦🏾♂️
@@ysycotik No, you've completely missed the point.
I'll explain.
Proving that an Evil God doesn't exist proves that Good God doesn't exist, for the same reasons. They are symmetrical.
You can't have it both ways.
And since God must be good otherwise he is not God, then this is proving that God doesn't exist.
Interestingly, at first you said that he was saying that if God exists he could be evil.
Now you change to proving that " an Evil God doesn't exist "
It's hard to tell whether you actually don't understand, or whether you're pretending not to.
@@BSFree-es5ml Evil God argument from an Atheist still fails when there are no objective moral in that worldview. What is objectively good or evil? you nor any other atheist can define this it just becomes a matter of opinion.
Also you claim Evil God and Good God are symmetrical. Says who yourself? Is this a fact or an opinion and what is your evidence for this claim?
@@ysycotik Wrong again.
The Evil God Challenge doesn't care about your definition of evil, that's up to you.
It still works either way.
You can try to run the Moral Argument if you like, but it has no effect on the Evil God Challenge.
If you don't understand about them being symmetrical, that tells me that you didn't listen to the argument. Which makes sense since you thought it was about God existing but being evil.
How could they not be symmetrical?
You see, the argument is much more sophisticated than you first thought.
WLC is so cringe. Presents 5 arguments, so Steven has to present his own and 'disprove' his 5. Steven doesn't address one of them, so WLC claims it must be true. Absolutely pathetic to claim victory by Gishgalloping.
There’s a bizarre pattern I’ve noticed over time. Atheists usually hate and trash talk people like William lane Craig. And theists usually hate and trash talk people like Aron ra.
What’s interesting is, theists and atheists have their dislikes. But why is it that the disliked theists like Craig are nice, calm, gentlemen… and the disliked atheists like Aron ra are smug insulting misanthropes?
As a contender it has to be a counter attack, man
If no videos or books of Craig's were available, you might have a point.
He trots out the same spiel word for word every time. The minute he's forced off script, he's shaky - the Shelly Kagan debate shows this. It's why no one debating him should ever follow him down those well-rehearsed avenues, as Stephen doesn't here. It's a trap.
@@davidrobinson5180 what does Craig's work outside of this debate have to do with this debate and the limited amount of time people have to make their points and counter arguments?
Stephen Law seems awkwardly unconvinced by his own world view.
A sign of a great philosopher
Whereas Craig is smugly closed to the possibility that he might be wrong.
@@punnet2 paradigmatic of the skeptic vs religious dialectic
What? His view that's Craig's god doesn't exist.
Seemed pretty convinced to me.
@@Roper122 Yes that one.
Craig didn't perform too well in this one.
The problem is, a good god doesn't create evil. A good god is all good, and those who act against him actualize evil. but an evil god must create good because there is goodness in the world. But if he did, then he wouldn't be an evil god, at least not wholly evil.
can there be a god, in a world with objective morality, that holds both cards? I don't think so. They're opposites. A good god would despise the opposite, if the opposite were truely wicked from its viewpoint, which evil is, and the sane thing applies to an evil God.
If there is objective evil, and a God is fully that evil, can it act contrary to itself and its nature? Sure, it could permit goodness, but not actualize it.
The evil god hypothesis fails because there is a problem, where the atheist thinks that A good God can or would create evil.
Not only that but an evil god assumes evil can exist for its own sake.
In actuality. Evil is just perversion of good.
But the hypothesis doesn't answer Craig's objection
How so? If you disagree with him thats ok, but from a debate standard he wiped the floor with Law
@@jackfrost90999 Huh? Craig was demolished.
He spent most of his time desperately trying to use the Kalam after it had been rendered useless.
Especially from a debate standard Craig lost.
@@BSFree-es5ml except the kalam wasn't rendered useless? this is probably the worst i've seen an atheist do against craig, Law has no substantive argument against the moral argument and he pretty much conceded that a creator was more plausible than no creator but that the creator could have just as likely been a bad one, and the discussion wasn't about whether if god exists is he good, it was about whether god exists or not and Law not only didn't provide any good argument for atheism which he is required as the burden of proof lies on him just as equally as he didn't present himself as agnostic. Craig stuck to the specific arguments for god existence in hope that Law would rebuttal and law refused to rebuttal and went off on his own tangent, again i ask you not just defend the person you agree with and look at the debate from an objective position i'm willing to admit when the person i agree with lost the debate it happens, but this wasn't one, craig clearly and easily walked all over him and law didn't put up much a fight
@@jackfrost90999
Let's cut to the chase because you clearly didn't understand what was being said...
" the discussion wasn't about whether if god exists is he good, it was about whether god exists or not "
Wrong.
The discussion was 100% about whether God exists. You completely missed the point. God cannot exist and be bad... because then he is not God.
All the claims you make are nonsense, because you have just demonstrated that you didn't understand argument at all.
Sorry.