I don't want to sound like an apologist, I'm an atheist and just expressing something that is a current thing in my life. I just want to point out that this domain of unquestionable answers is not limited to the religious. In the secular corner, you could define stigmatized as exactly that. Things about which you are not supposed to be curious, or expressing skepticism will alienate you. This, I think, is a problem on both sides of such questions and I don't have such a good answer for how to better tackle it besides better more open conversation, compassion and some awareness of one's bias. Now the real meat of what I've been thinking about recently is the issue that within groups, people will often agree on things like "be skeptical, have open conversations, talk with those you disagree with" and kind of romanticize it. The reality, however, means kind of shitty things. You surely don't want to waste your time listening to a flat-earther or a fascist. You don't want to contradict your friends on what your groups perspective is on covid regulations, or be the one to really dive into the numbers behind drug addiction to contradict society's made up mind.
@@thaDjMauz The opening comment is nothing more than a slogan. And although there is nothing in the comment to tell what side he takes, the theist or the atheist, I'd certainly guess the latter. It is so typical of the smug atheist and the comment could likely be applied more to the followers of atheism than theism. In a representative clip, "Isn't God no Better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? or a 'Special Computer'?" where Dr. Craig debates the late Lewis Wolpert, Wolpert accepts all of Craig's assertions of the characteristics of God, but can't bring himself to use the word God. For him, it is nothing but reasonable to accept the characteristics of God but to use that title is beyond the pale. Talk about an answer that can't be questioned. Wolpert just won't allow himself (nor will his community) to name what he intellectually has no response to. A similar thing happened with the late Sir Fred Hoyle. He just couldn't bring himself to acknowledge the Big Bang happened.
@@enterpassword3313 glad he used hundreds of actual references from scholars, scientists, physicists to back up his claims to shut all these dumb non belief claims up. So simple but who is too high on RUclips🤣
@@Shalim_Kamran A question poorly made has no obligation to be answered. Every question Hitchens didn't answer outright, he had reasons for criticizing in their premise. It wouldn't do him any good to answer a question he doesn't think has the basis to be asked.
@@Shalim_Kamran Most of Craig's questions were not asked in good faith, as a way to provoke discussion. Most were "the god I believe in says so because that's how I personally interpret the writings of various, sometimes unknown, men from multiple millennia ago, so you can't disprove my beliefs." Hitchens addresses this during his time speaking.
@@metanoia29 Hitchens doesn't believe in God, therefore has no reason to judge anyone with the morality that Christianity brings up, but he continues to say that God is not a good God, for the following reasons. 1. He's not a good father because he doesn't respect our privacy, (he compares God with humans while he did that, and he can't do that because God and man are clearly different. Of course he has to watch his Creation 24/7 because how else will he know if humans are sinning or not?) 2. He doesn't care if his Creation dies brutality or not. (Which is absolute BS because he won't bring animals back to life simply because they were meant to be alive. God will not break his own rules even though he can, and also animals are not the magnum opus of God, so it won't matter if they die or not, after all humans now have the ability to bring some of the extinct animals back to life, so God's not worried for it because humans can bring them.) 3. He didn't care about early homo sapiens because they don't know what was going on in the world. (That's how humans would've learned and evolved into what we are today.) Now he also goes on to judge the Old Testament, and says that God was exceptionally cruel during that time period. My answer to that is that God, as well as being impassioned, is also the Bringer of justice. Also the question to whether God exists or not, is also easy to answer. If there is a possibility that God exists, then He probably does exist. It's called the ontological explanation of whether God exists or not, I suggest you research into this. Another argument of his, is that "If God already made humans imperfect, how can they reach perfection?" The truth is, that God did not make humans imperfect, and he made them perfect in every way. What kind of an artist intentionally makes his masterpiece imperfect? It was Adam's sin that made humans imperfect, and I reckon you already know why, you already know how the downfall of Humanity happened. I've already made this comment very long, so I'll end it here. May God help you understand that He loves you, and wants to save you and many others.
This is a good one. QA section is good. Part where they go back and forth in free form is great. The occasional comedic comments are great. Nice listen
It was nice to see two people with very different views have a cordial debate. Whatever side you are on, formats like this are a good thing for humanity. Being able to work together in a positive way despite differences is pretty cool.
I watched Craig debate a oneness Christian named Dale Tuggy who was very condescending and arrogant. I agree with you. We can debate without being jerks.
This was one of the most insufferable debates l have watch. I struggled to watch to the end…and most often fast for award when Craig was speaking. I could not listened to his nonsense and felt really sad that so many minds were being destroyed by this Fundamentalist religion. I feel sadden about the future of America.
@@malonesinclaire9201 I feel sad for those who only listen to those who they agree with. Being in an echo chamber is what has America where it is now. You can't fast forward life and only have the desired results that satisfy you.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 nah. Atheists and evolutionists don't have a real leg to stand on. They borrow from a Christian world view and have to bend it to fit their narrative and usually just come off as arrogant and pompous jerks. At least this one was tolerable.
@@Beyond_trade Quit being triggered. You said a dumb comment, so people call your comment dumb lol. Even most religious people are fine with separation of church and state.
@jpgrygus you do realise you've heard descriptions of Hell from the opposing faction right? What if Hell is actually a great place, and your God is set on making up stories about Hell to dissuade people from wanting to go there. I'm sure North Korea makes America out to be a hellish country, but in reality it's not that bad of a place. So how do we know that isn't happening to Hell? Logical inconsistency at it's finest
@@GuillermoCampos-jw1zj hes not resting in peace. whether he belives in the afterlife or not doesn't matter one bit....its still there. if I don't believe in gravity could I jump off a skyscraper and survive? chances are Hitchens ended up somewhere very very hot.
Still one of my favs. I play this once a month for years now. My kids and all their friends love this one and end up sitting down. Clear Audio makes all the difference. 👍
@@kevinadamson5768 He listens to it every month and it clearly makes hitch look bad so I'd bet that he's a bible thumper who uses this debate is reinforcement for damage control over feeling like a retard from atheists usually plowing theists into the dirt in debates
Feels like these guys are speaking two different languages, funny thing is I can understand both but can't reconcile it in my headheart either.❤ Thanks for the value.
Hitchens knows who he is trying to convince and it wasn't Craig, and so far it has worked. American population in 1970 was 90% Christian, now in 2023 it is 63%. Facts and evidence cannot be sugar coated 😊 Pointing out where someone is starting is irrelevant in this debate for those who will hear the arguments and change thier minds is the audience and those watching.
Interesting observation. It might be because Craig thinks he can convert Hitchens, or at least, plant a seed. While Hitchens, knowing he will not convince Craig, appeals to the crowd instead.
@@razony I know right. Evolutionists fear so much admitting what they believe and teach for they have so much to lose. "Science" institutes and colleges threaten like bullies not to teach creation, "or ELSE."
@@razonythe same can be said on the opposite side. You believe what atheists say but not tons of actual evidence because you choose not to. If you don't believe then don't. You will never not prove God. You may say I can't prove God but when you can't even come to a conclusion without borrowing from our beliefs that's very telling. Also you're saying every part of our bodies on down to laminin that's shaped like a cross and holds our bodies together came out of nowhere sounds logically insane
@CeeJay611 You missed it. I'm not an Atheist. They are just as wrong. I do not believe in the 'biblical' God. That God is a manmade God made in the likeness of an evil man. There is a Divine source of everything that is of Love & Light. Look at the veridical evidence of NDE'S. The millions of them. Christianity is a scam from day one and it's time to WAKE UP from this deception. What Christians are doing is wasting their time here in this body/earth with the fear of believing in this religion. Your wasting away your lives in this mess of a religion. WAKE UP!
I don’t think so, as a proponent of Hitchens I think he made mildly contentious arguments , which did prank a punch nonetheless , with respect to Craig , I don’t think anything is off the table if you believe in the supernatural, it’s very easy to find unfalsifiable justifications for preposterous ideologies , you can just make up rhetoric which is exegesis in essence but just barely consistent with logic. I think it is the theists burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a supernatural dimension , not to defend what hasn’t been established, in other words begging the question
@@khanyisaqhuba6659well that’s cool but in a debate one side takes the affirmative and one side takes the negative or aff and neg. The structure of a debate demands that both sides partially bare the burden of proof. Especially when the topic of the debate is worded in such a way.
Anyone who can think logically knows that you can't prove something doesn't exist. If I say I've seen blue unicorns and ask you to prove that it isn't the case, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If faith were proven, it would be science, but we have over 10,000 known gods and most of them are obsolete thanks to science. Yet there are still enough stupid people who continue to think that a Bible is proof of something. It's no coincidence that people who are better educated are more likely to become atheists.
Uma das pessoas mais articulosas que eu já vi na vida. Hitchens era, sem dúvidas, um homem de outro nível. Ácido, engraçado, irônico, sarcástico... único.
@@charles3788 he was wrong about how paciified the masses are by those in power.... the ape masters have co-opted ancient fairytales and peddled them to vulnerable and needy people, keeping them a nice docile herd
@@charles3788 something something burdon of proof etc etc. Can you prove it though? Also which god? Do you wear fabrics? Should parents stone unruly children to death? Was it okay for Muhammad to marry a 7 year old? Any such questions
Well he clearly laid out his reasoning to coming to the conclusion of creationism. His reasons for why it seems to be more likely. What his opponent did was say, “I don’t think you’re right” and gave no justification for statements like such.
Because that’s the athiest position you have the stance that such thing doesn’t exist so by definition you should have some type of proof of some kind or atleast some type of objective reasoning not just “religion bad because religious people have done bad things in name of religion”
@@Lolzzz483 Eh not really, religion is bad because religious scriptures has those words and religious apologists will simply say "out of context" or "misinterpreted" to dismiss it.
@joeturner9219 No, because he does exactly what Hitchens accuses, that he attempts to retroactively squash and contort all new discoveries into his pre-existing belief system. Religion originally made very vast claims about the universe that were ignorant of what is now considered common knowledge - ignorance of germ theory, cosmology, plate tectonics, evolution etc. For example the religious were adamant that the Earth was the centre of the universe, until they were compelled to accept that it is not. And since science continues to make significant discoveries about the true nature of the universe, people like Dr Craig have the reductive argument: "see, that's even more evidence for how wonderful our god is". Dr Craig makes similar attempts in this debate to co-opt scientific fact into his pre-existing belief system. For example he quotes Saint Augustine and claims that 6-day Creationism isn't necessary nor is the belief of a universe that's only a few thousand years old. So he claims you are free to disregarding a fundamental part of the Old Testament as merely a guideline or allegory. Creationism was Church doctrine for a very long time, until it was disproven, and now Christians like Dr Craig attempt to co-opt things that Christianity previously rejected. As Hitchen says in another debate, "they are getting nearer to the truth all the time".
So if it is so insanely unlikely and improbable for things to evolve on their own then isn't that still saying that there's a chance they could? And if the sheer size of space is so mind-boggling that we can barely even comprehend it then wouldn't that suggest that maybe we are that one extremely improbable chance of it happening on its own out of such vastness and so many failures of it not happening? Cuz even the Christians just said for it to happen on its own it is so so improbable like one out of one with so many zeros so maybe there's one with so many zeros places in space for it to happen and it didn't happen in any of them except that one chance did happen right here on Earth. So really it seems like they kind of are saying that it did happen on its own. Nobody is doubting the vastness of space and if they are saying it is highly unlikely but still likely then the vastness of space give us that one unlikely chance the opportunity to actually be real all on its own
@@justanotherguy9300 But his son also says that for he who believes nothing is impossible. If that's true where are those believers? Why aren't they stopping us from killing ourselves over him? Why aren't they in hospitals curing children who lay there sick with cancer or any other disease?
These debates should be structured so that you can only make one point in a single buttal. Not constant time and variable number of points, but single point and variable time. The moderator would need to be properly trained for this but ideally the debaters would know how to make one point at a time.
This country isn’t open to debates like this anymore, unfortunately. We should return to this sort of culture of debate, or we will cease to be a peaceful, rational society.
Christopher Hitchens is simply inspirational to listen to. His delivery, vocabulary and verbal intelligence remind how basic my communication skills are ;)
I guess he is if you agree with him. He comes across as twisted and angry if you don't agree with him. I fail to hear him make a coherent argument against the existence of God. He just makes an argument against his own interpretation of something that no one believes.
Craig believes in the witnesses (a few women ) that Jesus was not in the grave and presents that as evidence, but when Christopher asked about the verse that claims every grave in Jerusalem was opened during the resurrection, he throws that out of the window, despite the fact that no witness could ever confirm that.
He doesn't throw it out the window. He just doesn't find it to be relevant to the actual argument he's putting forward. The argument starts with facts which have strong support from historiographical methodology. It then offers the resurrection as the best explanation of the facts. The empty tomb is one of the most well-established facts following the death of Jesus, so then one needs to explain why the tomb was empty, not merely dismiss it because other details in the story might be less historically supported. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg " The empty tomb is one of the most well established facts..." Really" I wonder why people are still debating this " well established fact" thousands of years later
@@kal22222 People also debate whether the earth is flat. Whether or not something is debated "thousands of years later" doesn't imply anything about the strength of the evidence. - RF Admin
@Chris Cuomo yes, the most lazy explanation also. It's the most arrogant of positions thinking it's all done for us. Yet, for the vast majority of history, life has been an incredible struggle and people tended to die young. Only for advances in science we now have the ability to live longer and more comfortable lives. Are you referring to the same bible that says demons are a cause of disease? Seriously?
@Chris Cuomo Dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. Eventually, all the nearby galaxies would be beyond the observable horizon and we would only see the stars of our own galaxy
Incidentally, Dr. Craig is still getting what atheism is wrong 15 years after Christopher very carefully and very thoroughly corrected him on it. Even going so far as to preface his correction with, "I really wish you'd get this bit right."
@@TheEntity-k7g Atheism is the name for when people find themselves unconvinced by the claims of a religion. It's really pretty simple but Dr. Craig is still getting it wrong.
The world is a worse place for removing ANY AND ALL mention or general moral teaching of Christ from every institution, most specifically the removal from school. Whether you are a believer or not of the finer details of the BIBLE, I dont see how anyone could argue that morality was at its core and had subdued MANY of the sin and lonliness that has poisoned our society in such an overwhelmingly quick time.
@@TheNobleLoyalist I have never needed a belief of a god, any god take your pick, to tell me that I shouldn’t be a arsehole. I have met many lovely people that believe in a god and many who don’t. I have met many arseholes and generally horrible people that believe in a god and some who don’t. If you choose to have faith that is all good and well but don’t use that faith to tell me that you are somehow more better than me. The Catholic Church has committed and still commits horrendous crimes against children and seek to cover up the vile acts their priests perpetrate, they helped hide nazis after the war, never a good look. My argument has always been, if children weren’t taught about religion or a god until they were of an age were their minds aren’t as easily led, say 14, not from school or parents etc and were then told there is an imaginary being that has never been seen, ever, that there is zero proof that this being exists or has existed. That he made a Virgin pregnant and his son turned water into wine, walked on water, was crucified and then rose from the dead and we know this because of a book that was written by illiterate primitives that tells you to own slaves, kill and many other atrocities. Tells you that a man parted a sea, another built a boat because he was told by a voice that there’d be a flood and a male and a female of every species of animal on earth including penguins and polar bears found their way to his boat and survived. A book that has been changed many times. Tell them this when they are 14 and see how many would believe the utter nonsense of any religion, a small child’s brain is easy to manipulate, fortunately I saw through the nonsense when I was a child, my parents never really bothered with religion, I don’t know what their thoughts were but it did me no harm. I got in trouble at school for not bowing for prayers and singing hymns etc but I didn’t care. I have grown to be a honest and hard working man that cares deeply about many things. I’m know what is right and wrong and I have manners. Last year my dad died from cancer, he died an horrific death, a man that worked his arse off all of his life, loved and looked after his family, never had a bad word for anyone and kept himself to himself, what kind of god would sit back and watch a man die in that way, wasting away, unable to raise his arms, unable to stand? If there is a god and that is the type of sick, warped being he is then I’d rather not bother anyway. What god would allow his priests to rape children? What god would allow evangelists to rob people of their money while they live in luxury? Do those unfortunate enough to be born in a country where they have a different god get sent to hell through no fault of their own? If you wish to believe in an invisible cloud wizard with zero proof of its existence then crack on, I’ll continue with my life believing in science and things I can see and that can be proven.
@@TheNobleLoyalist In school facts should be taught, not claims. I remember how religion was taught to me from first to fourth grade as if it was undisputed fact (this was 1986 to 1990), luckily a couple of years later I started thinking for myself and quickly realized, that everything in the old testament was just the desperate attempt of mankind to explain a world they couldn't understand - that's why it appears so ridiculous nowadays whereas the new testament is already not be taken seriously as there are four gospels that are so different that they just cannot be true. As for the morality of the bible, for me personally there is just way to much incest, rape and human sacrifice in there to use this book as a moral compass. In other words, I would never send my child to school where the bible is taught and I am glad that where I live religion is no longer a subject in public schools.
All the "holiness" aside, I wish at least one religious book had at least one statement that helped advance science. Eg: I created light and it's the fastest thing in the universe. I created microbes and until you discover antidotes, you shall die young.
About 800 years ago Jewish theologians came up with the concept for a constantly expanding and cooling universe. Pulled straight from scripture. They didn't need to be modern readers with knowledge of the Big Bang to make this interpretation. It appears the main scientific theory held today is quite old indeed.
Actually, the Bible did! At the time all the other religious lore inferred that a god created things within creation and never creation itself. The Bible said that God created everything
@@fatstrategist You're ignorant. According to the Hindu texts, Brahma set into motion the creation of the universe. However, he doesn't interfere in the affairs of the universe.
All is for the best, believe in what we’re told. Blind man in the market, buying what we’re sold. Believe in what we’re told, until our final breath. While our loving watchmaker loves us all to death.
Just because it might not have been god doesn’t mean it wasn’t be a agnostic if you say you don’t know but to be a athiest is literally just religion on the opposite side of the same spectrum it’s a theology you have a strong conviction in something without one single thread of proof offer a better explanation
2:05:30 Kid - my purpose in life is to serve god. What is your purpose in life as an atheist? Hitchens - i prefer not to answer the question Wlc - my purpose in life is not to serve god but to glorify him. Mr hitchens what purpose in life can you have when you believe in a universe will die a cold death. Hitchens - wait a minute.....
Dr. Craig: spouts logical fallacies, complete BULLCRAP, and mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of Hitchens’ points. Also Dr. Craig: CLEARLY the weight of evidence falls in favor of Christianity! How embarrassing is this guy hahaha
@@jays1de How convenient. Actually Craig gave four arguments (if i recall correctly) for the existence of God. 1. Kalam Cosmological argument 2. Fine tuning argument 3. Moral argument 4. Historical argument for the resurrection
@@jays1de what specifically is unconvincing about those four arguments? If a person is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give us free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. Badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. Evil is a parasite, not an original thing. C. S. Lewis
I love this debate. Craig just presented his usual word salad & endless assertions, while Hitch calmly and rationally debunked most of Craig's nonsense.
Wow...how interesting perspectives hey... I thought Craig mopped the floor with Hitch...amazing... well, at least Hitch will KNOW by now...whether he was right or...wrong.
Hitch for the win! 💖💖💖 Thank you for sharing though, and I have to say it's extremely big of you. Not many on the apologist side would post such a strong case for atheism. I'm rather pleasantly surprised. May Odin's blessings enrich your loins. 💝👍
How can Craig be such a seasoned debater on religion and still have absolutely no idea what atheism is. Atheism is NOT a belief in the slightest, so saying "atheism is not true" just shows his ignorance of the oposing side. I'm still yet to see a religious debater have any kind of integrity
2:20:20 that’s exactly the kind of question you want to ask these God believers. I would’ve loved to have heard Craig’s response to that, see how he would’ve justified that horror and suffering to have went on and been allowed and somehow part of God’s plan. "The joy and pain that we receive must be what we deserve I was brought up to believe" - Neil Peart
The answer to that question is simple. Free will, if God stopped people from doing evil, then everything based on Christianity and Jesus's message would be false. God does not intervene into peoples bad decisions, they choose the bad decisions. So everyone has a decision to do bad and good and God will not stop the bad people otherwise he is unjust.
@@0mniVerse777 That’s absolutely retarded to believe that. There is no God first of all. The point is not about the evildoer having free will, it’s about the innocent victim’s unnecessary suffering, FOR 25 YEARS. By that logic, you’re implying that God cares more about protecting his own brand than intervening and stopping an innocent person from suffering because otherwise humanity will suddenly not have freewill. So better to let the evil human torture the innocent human for 25 years in the name of freewill because it’s better if he has the choice to do evil or do good than it is to just have God, who could’ve stopped the suffering, but didn’t because if he did, it would be unjust and contradict his own rules?What sense does that make? You’re implying that God is real and has the ability to intervene with people doing evil on their own freewill but doesn’t because he wants them to be able to have the choice to do evil, even though they know better, as long as God doesn’t have to intervene, it’s okay because then God is always right because he doesn’t have to answer to all the evil in the world that he allows. He doesn’t have to take responsibility for that because it’s not his fault technically because he gave us all freewill and we chose against him. That says a lot for the innocent victim, doesn’t it? Let’s make it all about the guy who chose evil and not about the innocent person being tortured just to set an example about God’s opinion on us having freewill. This has nothing to do with the evil person who tortured her and her son, it’s all about her as a victim. This is about the victim. What justification could be made for her suffering? It’s impossible to make any and preposterous to assume that her suffering is not in vain because she will be safe in the afterlife and her perpetrator will be punished also in the afterlife, so in that case, God will just let her suffer and get tortured in the REAL world for 25 years.
@@realtruth2817 What did Neil do, or God do? I’m assuming you mean Neil. Neil didn’t literally say that. He wrote it in a song called "BU2B." It’s pretty much sarcasm. He’s saying he was brought up to believe all this nonsense that Christianity teaches and the notion that all the good and bad in the world is justified and deserving one way or the other according to God’s divine plan. The other verse sums it up as well: "All is for the best, believe in what we’re told. Blind man in the market, buying what we’re sold. Believe in what we’re told, until our final breath. While our loving watchmaker loves us all to death."
@@0mniVerse777that's a cop out that Christians always use. If God was a truly loving God, rather than a sadistic bastard, then he'd intervene occasionally.
This is false. Dr. Craig uses the same methods of historiography as modern scholars and applies those methods to the New Testament texts independent of any considerations of divine inspiration. What we find is that the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical data. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrgDid all the graves open up too? Did anyone see this? What did the risen dead look like? Could they talk? Eat? Sleep? Poop? Have babies? Or did they just crawl back into the ground once the point was made? I need to know if I am descended from a walking corpse. Don’t you?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Respectfully, what scholarly "methods of historiography" demonstrate that Jesus practiced "exorcisms" and commanded the forces of darkness?
At 2h10m: The reason for legislating morality is an effort to make earth like heaven and being like God is to share his will and he shared the will to make earth like it is in heaven.
@@MrGreensweightHist the NAP is a pipe dream. Hey bro, let him do heroin or crack. It’s his prerogative. So what if they’re shitting in the streets or dancing around naked. They aren’t harming anyone. Mind your business. Right?
A brilliant man would have offered proper philosophical refutations and premises to support atheism being more logically sound than theism. Hitchens failed in this regard.
Craig has the insight of a well spoken 12 year old. I wouldn't say unread, but he's certainly misread and misunderstood a whole lot of basic logic. It's remarkable he has any following at all.
Engaging in ad hominem attacks and derogatory comments diminishes the integrity of the discussion. Resorting to insults reveals a lack of substantive counterarguments and undermines the credibility of your stance. Let us rise above such tactics and focus on the strength of our ideas and the merit of our reasoning.
@johnnyreb5982 it's not a tactic. I'm just pointing out a total lack of value. And often times yes, I agree, but Craig's childish and totally unsubstantiated claims over and over again, delivered with a straight face, as if he were saying something remotely valid or sound, are so tiresome on this subject. I can't understand why he is even considered for debate. So, like you, I'm arguing for good debate.
"the cause of space and time must be personal because the cause must be beyond space and time... and a mind is the only thing that fits that description" - when I heard that I spilled coffee on my desk 🤣How does a mind fit that description, if all the minds we've observed are tied to physical brains? The mind is what the brain does; it's an emergent property of physical material, a collection of processes and brain states. So why a mind? What does it have to do with the cause of the universe? What is the link? That part always goes unexplained. It would be like saying that the cause of the universe must be "wetness outside of space time" because all water in the universe is wet, or that the cause must be photosynthesis because all plants do it. What's the justification of taking this characteristic of some carbon-based life forms and slap it on some imaginary explanation? This just confirms that theists have a propensity to anthropomorphize everything. "The cause of everything must have this feature of ours because we're so damn special"
You assume consciousness is materialistic. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Secondly, the propensity to anthropomorphism is legitimate, certainly if you subscribe to the notion of neo darwinist evolution. Thirdly, to extrapolate using logic is perfectly legitimate. As for your fallacious 'whataboutism'...meh.
It's actually a simple argument. Because "mind" cannot actually be explained via materialism. You're presupposing it already has been as a collection of cells that make a brain and create the mind. But the point being made here is, what is the only known cause of design? It's mind. We are evaluating an inference to the best known cause. The ONLY known cause for design that we currently know of, is mind. Therefore it follows logically that if we find evidence of design from that macro, i.e. the fine-tuning of the universe and all it's impossible variables, to the micro, in even the most "simple" cell with the information bearing properties of DNA and the protein machines that operate within a cell via incalculable complexity, then we can infer a mind was responsible for it as it's the only known cause.
Christopher Hitchens' recital of a litany of colourful tirades in this exploration of DOES GOD EXIST, in a captivating sonorous voice, is enthralling. I enjoyed his ingenuity in his masterful crafting.
Not that my opinion matters at all, and you can speak how you damn well please, but using simpler words and better syntax will communicate ideas more effectively than carpet bombing people with vocab.
@@dancahill9585 People like you make us in the agnostic/atheist community look bad. Please miss me with that cringe superiority shit. If you were honest with yourself you'd understand that the only reason you believe what you believe is because you were born in the right place at the right time. No need to muddle the discourse with toxicity.
I've come across this debate and it amazes me how Hitchens never proposes alternative options for the creation of the world, life and morals etc. He only attempts to disprove or discredit the Christian stance without giving a reasonable or coherent replacement for the questions debated. Also, it's obvious that Hitchens doesn't understand the bible, it's context or who Jesus is. He may have read the bible but reads with a harden heart and with presumptions grounded in antagonism. He uses humor, charm and sarcasm to mask his lack of substance in his arguments.
No one understands the Bible, that's why there's innumerable denominations. Just different interpretation of something that is unreasonable and incoherent for which there is no reasonable replacement without more knowledge of the universe.
You have to be a fool to believe the Bible is the written word of a supreme being. I cannot believe anyone can believe such nonsense. Why did he show himself to Bronze Age peasants in the Middle East and not the humans to the east that could read or write? He chose a group of people over others. It’s all just so obvious and laughable
How is the Bible "unreasonable" and "incoherent" yet without a "reasonable replacement" due to our lack of knowledge of the universe? What incredibly poor reason.
I listened to the opening arguments that god exists, that were labelled by the speaker as ample evidence he exists, and I'm not at all convinced he exists. The debate was over at that point.
Yes, there was no credibility behind his assertions. Christopher could have wiped the floor with him, but clearly showed more respect than usual and didn't need to go full out to handle this debate.
Craig and he's using of words like "fact, true" It's like "fact number one: Voldemort lost his powers after he killed Harry's parents, fact number two..."
Backing into belief car salesman-like versus walking firmly forward with evidence-empirical based perspectives. I provided five arguments as to why Santa Claus exists. You haven’t proved Santa Claus doesn’t exist. 😂 Ah, and a vehicle of the “Anglo-American”.
Um not really. Basically he made the point that it's like tinkerbell. If you believe she lives! Evidence is an occasional convenience. It was a first attempt but shouldn't be guiding us after a few thousand years.
I've always thought that.If this dude makes planets and stars and shit why would they give a feck about us and why send your son down in human form to be tortured to 'death'?
Yeah also if he can condemn us 4 just d sin of one man den y didn't he just find another good man & 4give us cos of dat person but he instead decided 2 sacrifice his son 2 himself 2 4give us 4 a sin of simply eating from a fruit he made available
When you start asking questions the whole thing falls apart. The answers to those questions are never good. It's either speculation or anything idk it's in God's hands.
Just apologist 'gotcha' shit on one side, including the 'mY cOnTeNtIoNs aRe' and the intentional false definition of atheism... And on the other side, coherent, logical, and eloquent argumentation. RIP Hitch. It's embarrassing that this is even considered a debate.
It is essential to approach discussions with respect and open-mindedness, rather than resorting to dismissive and derogatory language. Dismissing an entire side of the debate as "apologist 'gotcha' shit" and suggesting that only one side possesses coherent, logical, and eloquent argumentation oversimplifies the complexities of any debate. Debates thrive on the diversity of perspectives and the exchange of ideas. Each side brings their unique insights, experiences, and arguments to the table. By engaging in substantive discussion, we have the opportunity to challenge and refine our own beliefs while gaining a deeper understanding of opposing viewpoints. Labeling the entire debate as embarrassing based on personal biases undermines the spirit of intellectual inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Instead, let us encourage respectful dialogue, rigorous analysis, and the pursuit of knowledge, ensuring that debates are conducted with fairness, open-mindedness, and a commitment to understanding.
look, if brother hitch could dissuade even a 'baker's dozen' of the audience at each of these events to turn away from this ridiculous gobbledegook, it is time well spent in the service of advancing the human condition.
>The Christian God is defined by mainstream Christianity as being all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, and all just. Yet even a cursory reading of the bible reveals a God who is cruel, unjust, tyrannical, unloving and eternally vengeful. Ergo, the Christian God does not exist by reason of self-contradiction. >An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God, by definition, cannot create evil or permit evil to exist in the world. And yet, evil exists. Ergo, God, as he is defined by mainstream Christianity, does not exist on the grounds of self-contradiction. >The law of conservation of matter and energy states that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but neither can be created or destroyed. Ergo, the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. God is unnecessary by the Principle of Parsimony. >The natural histories of religions are well-documented. The behavioral causes of religions are well-known. There is no evidence that gods and religions are the products of anything other than human ingenuity and imagination. Ergo, atheism is rational and skeptically unassailable.
Craig makes my skin crawl, but it is, after all, just an argument on God's existence. It does exemplify that the Christian is one with deceit. Even Joel Osteen said that"Sometimes, we have to lie for God"! It is amazing how much human beings can stomach dishonesty before we say "no more"!
Joel Osteen is a fake Christian who does not believe in nor preach the Gospel of the Bible. Nowhere does God ever say to lie for Him. In fact every one who did had bad things happen in spite of doing so. Abraham and Isaac are two easy examples
You're assuming lying and dishonesty are somehow worse than truth and honesty. There's no difference in the two from a moral perspective if you're an athiest. Just like picking candy... it's up to your personal taste.
On what basis can you actually say that Joel Osteen ripping off the members of his church is immoral? Isn't he just a shining example of Darwinism where the strong survive? Why does the fact that Joel Osteen takes advantage of people for his personal gain disgust you? On what grounds? Did he take advantage of you?
The absolute best part is at 2:18:45, a 3 second snapshot of Hitchens non-verbal communication while Craig is is rambling on about Jesus suffering on the cross to 'explain' why the problem of evil is not a valid argument against theism is priceless.
It's really difficult to listen to Craig say that grape is ok in an atheistic world view. If he truly believes that he should totally stay a Christian.
@@Questioning_Godhe’s basically implying that Craig thinks since there’s no God, us humans have no morality, but that’s bullshit, we can clearly tell right from wrong without the Bible telling us so, In fact, Ironically, the Bible literally tells people to stone a woman to death if she had been deflowered, the Bible is a terrible book when it comes to morals, we know rape is wrong because of the terrible psychological and emotional harm it causes a person who was a victim to it.
@Questioning God I don't understand the question (I hope). I don't like a lot of things about rape. The thing I don't like most is that it's non-consensual. I hope you mean something else.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the argument. The point isn’t that we theists think it is automatically okay under atheism. The point is that atheists don’t have any solid recourse when declaring it not okay. Only subjective opinions, which reduce the rhetorical power of the argument against rape to that of your preference of pizza topping. Consent is thrown out as some kind of magic word that is supposed to satisfy the objection, and everyone is so afraid of looking rapey that they don’t think to critically assess this standard. But consent is not objectively offered. It’s a thing that we hold on to; that we made (assuming God doesn’t exist). Point being, if person A consents to rape person B, but person B does not consent, and morality is purely a product of our own minds, then why does person A lose? They consent, don’t they? Isn’t it a tie? Why is person B not consenting more important than person A consenting? If a prisoner doesn’t consent to being moved from their cell, does the guard just say “oh well, guess I can’t do anything”? And if you’re just going to say “well duh, rape is harmful,” then ask person A. He doesn’t think so.
@@aprylvanryn5898 where is your foundation for consent structured upon if we are living in an uncaused and unguided universe from which we randomly evolved into humans?
I think they would fall instantly in love with each other and start frenching on stage -clasping each other’s butts frantically. By all that’s holy and unholy-please don’t let those two illogical men get together. There’s not enough KYjelly for that to occur.
I love dialogues like this...both speakers are sound seekers...much respect! However, Dr Craig was outstanding I must say...unlike most religious arguments
Irrelevant. A few dissenting priests does not negate the OVERWHELMING support by teh churches as a whole. All it does is illustrate the lack of consistency
@@MrGreensweightHist Easy on the capitals buddy. You mean that people under threat of violence were coerced into submission? That is sooo weird, eh? You can't even keep your genitals covered, so you are not in a position to criticize. I think its great that you take your kids to Pride events. Hopefully, they will be gay and we won't have to worry about your genes getting back into the pool! Win-win scenario bro.
I love how the first guy started by saying "we arent here to debate old testament ethics" then literally tries to use "no God, no objective morality" as an argument for Gods existance lol. Aside from the hypocrisy, that doesnt even remotely count as evidence of literally anything; so why even waste time talking about it. Christian apologists simply do not understand how logic works. Im not trying to be rude, its true. It goes without saying that Hitchens clearly "won" this debate. Although thats not even really fair because he was the only one actually debating the topic 😂
Lol where does objective morality come from then? You claim the universe has no higher purpose. Therefore it has no higher moral value. Pretty simple. Atheists are subconsciously piggybacking off of religious dogmas. Then pretending they only care about cold hard science. Yea sure dude.
Hi! I love that you as an atheist mentioned objective morality. Would you like to explain the basis for objective morality from an atheistic perspective? I would love to hear it
@@RealDianaGarcia I literally said nothing about it aside from the fact that he brought it up... There is no objective morality; certainly not as ordained by a God (or else religious people today should champion stoning women, slavery, rape, etc). Morality is derived from personal experience and your own feelings. Nothing more. That's why there are so many different systems of morals across the globe; past and present.
@@RedBishopGaming ah, then I completely misunderstood, thanks for clearing it up. To us the existence of God is tied to objective morality, if you don’t believe in objective morality (as in your case) then that’s not a problem, but that is the reason he said no God, no objective morality. So if an atheist does believe in objective morality, he will have to explain where his foundation for that believe is, if there is no God. That’s why we think that atheist don’t know how to think logically, not trying to be rude, it’s just the truth.
I noticed that. But not just that, he started by saying we aren’t here to discuss Biblical inerrancy / provenance. Then goes on to make claims about resurrection which literally come exclusively from the NT.
Winning and losing are one organic globule from which we extract what we need. --White Men Can't Jump. You obviously have a lot staked upon a WLC win. By all means, claim away, friend.
People are good at creating stories and fictional characters. That includes all the 'gods' of the past. I'm pretty sure christians don't believe in Zeus or Thor, so christians are in fact ATHEISTS with respect to all the 'gods' they don't believe in. They just need to cross out one more fictional character and join the rational club. Christianity, islaam and the other major religions today just happen to be the latest human inventions that stuck around, and there is zero reason to think that they are any different than all the other made up religions of the past. Religion serves a purpose which is control and power.
I find myself extremely lucky to be alive in this time. Through technology I am able to watch two men that i greatly respect in a civilized debate even after sadly one of them has passed. I am a Christian and I love the Lord my God but the brilliance of Mr Hitchens cannot be overlooked. In my opinion though Dr Craig is on a level that is difficult to attain. Mr Hitchens was at the very least elated to debate Dr Craig going by his facial and vocal expressions. As usual though, reading some of the comments by atheists reinforces my theory that most atheists do not just merely deny God's existence but are offended by the very idea.
Low Bar Bill? Ok.. I don't rate him very highly and I don't think too many actual philosophers rate him either. Not offended at all by the idea of a god (still waiting for some actual proof) it's more to do with the religious always banging on about how we'll pay when we're dead or some other religious demand on how we think/act. 1 WLC; There's no good argument that Atheism is true". It's NOT a truth claim. Most of the time it's NOT a claim it's usually just the rejection of the claim "There is a God". No philosophy involved.. 2 WLC; "There are good arguments that Theism is true". If there was EVIDENCE then no argument is needed..
At least we have a reason to be offended To be a Christian means you think all the suffering such as starvation and torture and poverty are all justified and not just justified but justified by a being who has the power to halt all suffering with a single thought
@@iveseen1 or maybe he thought anybody who critiques the artwork is too flakey to and self-absorbed to pay attention anyway. Honestly, you guys are great together. Best of luck lovebirds!
@@truthisaquestion Yes, l seem to think by the comment the book hadn't been read.The cover certainly isn't a criterion for assessment ,as many bibles just show a plus sign emblazoned on a black cover....The love bird sarcasm was funny though ...cheers.m
I still think its strange the leap Craig always makes. The kalam only says the universe had a beginning, nothing else. Where does he get a personal creator from?
@GodSoLoved.Yeshua that's a nice assertion or thought. But I see no good reason to believe that. How do you respond to the outsiders test of faith. Equally, I'd guess you believe God to be a necessary being. So, where is the contradiction in the not god worldview?
@@johnferguson8794be already outlined his reasoning at minute 20 In short 1 Since the big bang didn't happen in a place but rather was the expansion of space itself 2 Then the Cause of it can't be a material entity This leaves us with limited options 1abstract objects like numbers 2 platonic forms 3 a mind 3Of the three options only number three has causal capacity The leap from 2 to three can't be questioned As It follows basic logic However if you want To refute the second deduction You need to refute the premise on scientific grounds (Note I am more of a philosophy guy than a physics guy so my only criterion for judging Craig's premises is what I find on popular websites like NASA science)
@kiroshakir7935 I appreciate the response. My issue is we can have some necessary concrete object at the end of a casual chain. Like the amplituhedron or some 11D membranes...who knows. The mind hypothesis just feels like an adhawk insert.
@@joemildner5667 So you believe ALL gods exist? I'd love to see your evidence for that? I know you uneducated folk are big on claims but it's the evidence you lack.
@@surfsnow1371 No, it is simple, but more complicated for darwinian apes. There is one God, or better said for you, our universe and our life has sense, reason, in logical terms there is a Principle behind our existence, people call it god - so, what you call gods, are different interpretations of this principle. You may believe that our world and our life are organised in this way or you do not believe. This is your choice, or your education, or your experience. And it is completely idiotic to argue with primitive like Dawkins about the topic, he cannot understand it like an ape cannot understand art, for instance - for an ape there is no evidence that something like art exists. Lizards cannot care about their children, they are not capable - this is the case of materialistic brain. He who believes in the existence of God, so, he who believes that our existence is based on some principle, he can see lot of evidence for this existence in the nature, how we can exist or cooperate better, etc. Considering materialistic, aka "scientific" evidence, the best prove provided Dawkins himself: He told once "there is evidence, that my wife loves me". Today he is divorced. This is your "evidence" and your "science" - do acknowledge that alchemy is part of science? I am sure not.
His arguments are pure poetry. It is SUCH a pleasure to hear him thinking out loud with words that fairly sing with truth and conviction. What a remarkable man and intellect. His intellectual discipline is simply unsurpassed.
Notice that Craig, when viewed, is not listening to a word Hitchens says. I suggest he dares not in case he is forced to argue logically. Hitchens' points are entirely logical. Craig's are pure dogma.
“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.” ― Bertrand Russell
A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. ' “ 'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't.
Hitchens is just an angry sweaty drunkard. You think his British accent makes him sound intelligent but he doesn’t provide any kind of argument other than “I don’t like God”.
@@MartinHindenes no….they really didn’t. Craig and all his apologists have no actual facts to site….only contrived logic, and then when that fails, preaching and quoting scripture. May as well quote from Lord of the Rings. Just another book making extraordinary claims with zero evidence to back them up. Not a single story outside any of the world’s bibles can be corroborated outside of their bibles. That’s pretty telling.
I dont understand how a man can stand up in front of thousands of people and talk about how the universe was conceived rather than being compelled to explain how his God is right while the other 10,000 are wrong. How he could possibly know anything instead of speaking with such confidence in his folly.
He did In reference to his resurrection argument Sadly this type of argument requires lengthy presentation And it doesn't matter whether you are a proponent of the minimal facts approach like Dr Craig Or the maximum data approach And yes the resurrection of Jesus may very well be the most credible miracle claim ever It's not a joke In fact, world-renowned atheist Antony Flew once said, “The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
The topic was: "Does God exist?" not: "Does the Christian God exist?" Therefore, Craig doesn't need to "explain how his God is right while the other 10,000 are wrong." He just needs to explain how A God is right, not particularly the Christian one.
Craig's arguments are pathetic and demonstrate a naive and unsophisticated understanding of rationality and logic. "Atheism" makes no claims about universal origins, so arguing "what else can it BE?" is pointless and for Craig to think otherwise is a clear demonstration of his unsophisticated understanding of rationality. As an atheist I don't know how the universe started, I make no claims for objective or subjective morality and I don't know that something can't come from nothing (the one and only example of that hypothetically happening was the big bang, so our only example demonstrates that something CAN come from nothing, but this is not my claim, it's a humorous aside). All I believe, as an atheist, is that theists think "god did it" but can't seem to demonstrate it... AND THAT'S ALL! Dismantling our position would only require you to demonstrate that your god exists - any other argument is useless and OBVIOUSLY SO to anyone with even a vaguely rational mind. Craig's use of probabilities is just dishonest and, besides, and once again, irrelevant. Truth is unaffected by poorly assembled probabilities. Besides, how is magic ever a probable, or "more probable", cause of anything? None of Craig's arguments hold up to even cursory examination. His qualifications suggest he is an intellect to be reckoned with, yet he provides the same childish crap that people with none of his qualifications or experience are perfectly able to think up. It's embarrassing for him, honestly. To dismantle the atheist position, he only need demonstrate that his god exists. The theist position requires no dismantling as it isn't even "mantled" to begin with! Honest atheists need only see sufficient evidence for whichever god a particular theist thinks "did it" and they will no longer be atheists. Our position is only a reaction to the theist position and doesn't stand independently. If nobody was claiming a god existed, atheists wouldn't exist. I'm aware that Hitchens does not require my help, but the childish mindset of the WLC is utterly frustrating to listen to and I need to vent on a long train journey!
@@matthewstokes1608 nobody but religious zealots claim this. Absolutely NOBODY in the science world actually believes that everything came from nothing.
If infinity is just an idea, then how come god does not have an age and was, is and will be here forever? Does this contradiction not apply? Just a thought
If you take the literal metaphysical description of G-d in the Bible, G-d is light, he is the father of Lights. And if you understand the characteristics of Light you would know that time does not matter to Light. Hence G-d being light and eternal makes absolute sense.
It's called special pleading and is the usual endgame of apologist arguments. "This thing can't be possibly be true, therefore god.", "But you just said this thing can't possibly be true and even if you had a god, it would be true of god.", "Well it's not true of god, because god is god."
I would rather have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned.
So, how much are you able to question your skepticism? Are you free to be skeptical of skepticism?
damn bro, you really owned him. "You aren't skeptical about your desire to be skeptical"
I don't want to sound like an apologist, I'm an atheist and just expressing something that is a current thing in my life. I just want to point out that this domain of unquestionable answers is not limited to the religious. In the secular corner, you could define stigmatized as exactly that. Things about which you are not supposed to be curious, or expressing skepticism will alienate you. This, I think, is a problem on both sides of such questions and I don't have such a good answer for how to better tackle it besides better more open conversation, compassion and some awareness of one's bias.
Now the real meat of what I've been thinking about recently is the issue that within groups, people will often agree on things like "be skeptical, have open conversations, talk with those you disagree with" and kind of romanticize it. The reality, however, means kind of shitty things. You surely don't want to waste your time listening to a flat-earther or a fascist. You don't want to contradict your friends on what your groups perspective is on covid regulations, or be the one to really dive into the numbers behind drug addiction to contradict society's made up mind.
@@thaDjMauz
The opening comment is nothing more than a slogan.
And although there is nothing in the comment to tell what side he takes, the theist or the atheist, I'd certainly guess the latter. It is so typical of the smug atheist and the comment could likely be applied more to the followers of atheism than theism.
In a representative clip, "Isn't God no Better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? or a 'Special Computer'?" where Dr. Craig debates the late Lewis Wolpert, Wolpert accepts all of Craig's assertions of the characteristics of God, but can't bring himself to use the word God. For him, it is nothing but reasonable to accept the characteristics of God but to use that title is beyond the pale. Talk about an answer that can't be questioned. Wolpert just won't allow himself (nor will his community) to name what he intellectually has no response to.
A similar thing happened with the late Sir Fred Hoyle. He just couldn't bring himself to acknowledge the Big Bang happened.
You just watched an hours long debate where answers were questioned and your response is that lazy slogan? Wow, lmao.
Debate starts at 12:55. You’re welcome
Oh...uhhh.....thanks.
Much love brother
TYFYS
@@bm359 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What debate?😈
Kudos to Craig for keeping the comment section open. Most apologists shut it down.
He knows there are enough gullible and naive people to accept his excuses and contradictions, and enough who wont understand hitchens reasoning
@@enterpassword3313 as the scarlet witch says “what reasoning?”
@@enterpassword3313 glad he used hundreds of actual references from scholars, scientists, physicists to back up his claims to shut all these dumb non belief claims up. So simple but who is too high on RUclips🤣
@@markk1021 its pretty simple, which part did you not understand?
@@m7m746 um... what? You think wlc has actual evidence to back up his belief?
This was a well structured and respectful debate, and hardly any question dodging. Very enjoyable to watch.
Christopher did dodge a lot of questions
@@Shalim_Kamran A question poorly made has no obligation to be answered. Every question Hitchens didn't answer outright, he had reasons for criticizing in their premise. It wouldn't do him any good to answer a question he doesn't think has the basis to be asked.
@@Shalim_Kamran Most of Craig's questions were not asked in good faith, as a way to provoke discussion. Most were "the god I believe in says so because that's how I personally interpret the writings of various, sometimes unknown, men from multiple millennia ago, so you can't disprove my beliefs." Hitchens addresses this during his time speaking.
@@CharlieQuartz If they were poorly made, then you could possibly answer them right? I humbly request of you to answer at least 2 questions.
@@metanoia29 Hitchens doesn't believe in God, therefore has no reason to judge anyone with the morality that Christianity brings up, but he continues to say that God is not a good God, for the following reasons.
1. He's not a good father because he doesn't respect our privacy, (he compares God with humans while he did that, and he can't do that because God and man are clearly different. Of course he has to watch his Creation 24/7 because how else will he know if humans are sinning or not?)
2. He doesn't care if his Creation dies brutality or not. (Which is absolute BS because he won't bring animals back to life simply because they were meant to be alive. God will not break his own rules even though he can, and also animals are not the magnum opus of God, so it won't matter if they die or not, after all humans now have the ability to bring some of the extinct animals back to life, so God's not worried for it because humans can bring them.)
3. He didn't care about early homo sapiens because they don't know what was going on in the world. (That's how humans would've learned and evolved into what we are today.)
Now he also goes on to judge the Old Testament, and says that God was exceptionally cruel during that time period. My answer to that is that God, as well as being impassioned, is also the Bringer of justice. Also the question to whether God exists or not, is also easy to answer. If there is a possibility that God exists, then He probably does exist. It's called the ontological explanation of whether God exists or not, I suggest you research into this. Another argument of his, is that "If God already made humans imperfect, how can they reach perfection?" The truth is, that God did not make humans imperfect, and he made them perfect in every way. What kind of an artist intentionally makes his masterpiece imperfect? It was Adam's sin that made humans imperfect, and I reckon you already know why, you already know how the downfall of Humanity happened. I've already made this comment very long, so I'll end it here. May God help you understand that He loves you, and wants to save you and many others.
Wow, I can't believe this December it will be 10 years since Hitchens died. How time flies. May he rest in peace.
So 10 years ago he finally discovered if God exist or Not. 100% proof too.
@@StallionFernando He already knew before that.
God is a fictional character, based on earlier fictional characters.
Without faith in Christ for forgiveness of sins he wont be resting in peace. Read PERSON OF INTEREST by J Warner Wallace......
@@7ruijorge Wrong, and J Warner Wallace is not a credible source.
@@MrGreensweightHist anyone filled with the Holy Spirit is a credible source. Go read the book.....pride will stop you.....but persist past it.
This is a good one. QA section is good. Part where they go back and forth in free form is great. The occasional comedic comments are great. Nice listen
Hitchens: "the genital mutilation club is exclusively religious"
Well that didn't age well
Its kind of a cult isn’t it?
Depends how you stretch the definition
😭😭😭😭
I’m circumcised, and not because I’m Jewish. It’s not a big deal.
@@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime Its a useless and barbaric procedure, and you didnt have a say in the matter.
Craig: "You redefine atheism to mean a sort of A...theism.. Or non-theism..."
Christopher: "... that's what it means...
I think the back and forth section was wonderful. I think it should have lasted longer.
It was nice to see two people with very different views have a cordial debate. Whatever side you are on, formats like this are a good thing for humanity. Being able to work together in a positive way despite differences is pretty cool.
I watched Craig debate a oneness Christian named Dale Tuggy who was very condescending and arrogant. I agree with you. We can debate without being jerks.
This was one of the most insufferable debates l have watch. I struggled to watch to the end…and most often fast for award when Craig was speaking. I could not listened to his nonsense and felt really sad that so many minds were being destroyed by this Fundamentalist religion. I feel sadden about the future of America.
@@malonesinclaire9201 I feel sad for those who only listen to those who they agree with. Being in an echo chamber is what has America where it is now. You can't fast forward life and only have the desired results that satisfy you.
What are you on about.. Hitch destroyed Craig..
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 nah. Atheists and evolutionists don't have a real leg to stand on. They borrow from a Christian world view and have to bend it to fit their narrative and usually just come off as arrogant and pompous jerks. At least this one was tolerable.
Just seems like a better time where two people could have a polite debate without someone getting cancelled one way or another.
Its because religion is not in power
@@Beyond_tradeThat’s a dumb comment , even by internet standards
@@DaveS859 believe me you're not living in a religious society thats hell on earth
@@DaveS859 because you can't defy "god" or his "authorities" on earth
@@Beyond_trade Quit being triggered. You said a dumb comment, so people call your comment dumb lol. Even most religious people are fine with separation of church and state.
"before mister hitchens succeeds in launching a religious war among christians..." might be the best transition ive ever heard from a host so gooood
Very Christian-like.
Brilliant debater, RIP Christopher, you will never be forgotten.🌷🌹
forgot him already. dont worry, Im sure he's enjoying hell.
@jpgrygus you do realise you've heard descriptions of Hell from the opposing faction right? What if Hell is actually a great place, and your God is set on making up stories about Hell to dissuade people from wanting to go there.
I'm sure North Korea makes America out to be a hellish country, but in reality it's not that bad of a place. So how do we know that isn't happening to Hell?
Logical inconsistency at it's finest
How can he rest in peace. If by his own beliefs an afterlife does not exist than he has cease to exist for ever he’s gone his memory and conscious
@@GuillermoCampos-jw1zj hes not resting in peace. whether he belives in the afterlife or not doesn't matter one bit....its still there. if I don't believe in gravity could I jump off a skyscraper and survive? chances are Hitchens ended up somewhere very very hot.
@@wallstreet_auu are a delusional lunatic
Hitchens makes a great and prescient point about the rise of russian nationalism and the rebirth of the Russian Orthodox church.
So? That's very good for Russia.
Still one of my favs. I play this once a month for years now. My kids and all their friends love this one and end up sitting down. Clear Audio makes all the difference. 👍
And what's your conclusion?
@@kevinadamson5768 He listens to it every month and it clearly makes hitch look bad so I'd bet that he's a bible thumper who uses this debate is reinforcement for damage control over feeling like a retard from atheists usually plowing theists into the dirt in debates
Feels like these guys are speaking two different languages, funny thing is I can understand both but can't reconcile it in my headheart either.❤ Thanks for the value.
Your heart is not where you need to reconcile this.
@@tomrecane6366 my headheart?
You have that in common with the late Norm McDonald.
Don't try and tell me that isn't David Lee Roth.
😋👍
😂 Spot on
😂😂😂 hahahahahahahhaha
Lmfao😂
I saw Scott Bakula
William always looks directly at Hitchens, but Hitchens for the most part looks at the crowd.
Yeah, con artists often learn the tricks and try to use them to fool gullible people.🤤
@@mbrum3230 If not every day.😜
Hitchens knows who he is trying to convince and it wasn't Craig, and so far it has worked. American population in 1970 was 90% Christian, now in 2023 it is 63%. Facts and evidence cannot be sugar coated 😊 Pointing out where someone is starting is irrelevant in this debate for those who will hear the arguments and change thier minds is the audience and those watching.
Interesting observation. It might be because Craig thinks he can convert Hitchens, or at least, plant a seed. While Hitchens, knowing he will not convince Craig, appeals to the crowd instead.
@@mbrum3230 spot on. And some of them are theists
We miss Hitchens.
But I am sure he does not miss you.
@@joemildner5667 you are a very intelligent person. Congratulations!
Do you ?
@@clorofilaazul Hugo, I only try to speak in language darwinian apes are capable to understand.
@@joemildner5667 kinda diffcult to miss someone when you are dead
"Believe it if you can, I can't stop you. Believe it if you like, you're welcome."
clever....but only some got it in the audience....
So many will believe in what they are told to believe in without question. Fear is evil excuse to make one believe. 'Believe or ELSE.' Utterly evil!
@@razony I know right. Evolutionists fear so much admitting what they believe and teach for they have so much to lose.
"Science" institutes and colleges threaten like bullies not to teach creation, "or ELSE."
@@razonythe same can be said on the opposite side. You believe what atheists say but not tons of actual evidence because you choose not to. If you don't believe then don't. You will never not prove God. You may say I can't prove God but when you can't even come to a conclusion without borrowing from our beliefs that's very telling. Also you're saying every part of our bodies on down to laminin that's shaped like a cross and holds our bodies together came out of nowhere sounds logically insane
@CeeJay611
You missed it. I'm not an Atheist. They are just as wrong. I do not believe in the 'biblical' God. That God is a manmade God made in the likeness of an evil man. There is a Divine source of everything that is of Love & Light. Look at the veridical evidence of NDE'S. The millions of them. Christianity is a scam from day one and it's time to WAKE UP from this deception. What Christians are doing is wasting their time here in this body/earth with the fear of believing in this religion. Your wasting away your lives in this mess of a religion. WAKE UP!
I enjoyed the debate. Both of them defended their positions extremely capably and cordially.
I don’t think so, as a proponent of Hitchens I think he made mildly contentious arguments , which did prank a punch nonetheless , with respect to Craig , I don’t think anything is off the table if you believe in the supernatural, it’s very easy to find unfalsifiable justifications for preposterous ideologies , you can just make up rhetoric which is exegesis in essence but just barely consistent with logic. I think it is the theists burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a supernatural dimension , not to defend what hasn’t been established, in other words begging the question
@@khanyisaqhuba6659well that’s cool but in a debate one side takes the affirmative and one side takes the negative or aff and neg. The structure of a debate demands that both sides partially bare the burden of proof. Especially when the topic of the debate is worded in such a way.
Anyone who can think logically knows that you can't prove something doesn't exist. If I say I've seen blue unicorns and ask you to prove that it isn't the case, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If faith were proven, it would be science, but we have over 10,000 known gods and most of them are obsolete thanks to science. Yet there are still enough stupid people who continue to think that a Bible is proof of something. It's no coincidence that people who are better educated are more likely to become atheists.
Uma das pessoas mais articulosas que eu já vi na vida.
Hitchens era, sem dúvidas, um homem de outro nível.
Ácido, engraçado, irônico, sarcástico... único.
I agree
His jokes is the only thing that he have. No argument just jokes for people to laugh and applaud.
@@polduran if you haven't graduated high-school than please do not misrepresent the man with multiple degrees' argument.
Hopefully his personality doesn’t send you straight to hell.
Así es la verdad.
Hitchens was truly an interesting man.
and WLC is truly a nut
Well, he was wrong about God lol
@@charles3788 he was wrong about how paciified the masses are by those in power.... the ape masters have co-opted ancient fairytales and peddled them to vulnerable and needy people, keeping them a nice docile herd
@@charles3788 something something burdon of proof etc etc. Can you prove it though? Also which god? Do you wear fabrics? Should parents stone unruly children to death? Was it okay for Muhammad to marry a 7 year old? Any such questions
You couldn't be more right.
THIS WAS A GOOD DEBATE!!!!!
thanks, bot.
Why Dr Craig acts that, if Hitchens cannot disprove the existence of something outside of time and space, that must mean it exists? It's bizarre
Where did you get that as Dr. Craig's approach? It's not. - RF Admin
Well he clearly laid out his reasoning to coming to the conclusion of creationism. His reasons for why it seems to be more likely. What his opponent did was say, “I don’t think you’re right” and gave no justification for statements like such.
Because that’s the athiest position you have the stance that such thing doesn’t exist so by definition you should have some type of proof of some kind or atleast some type of objective reasoning not just “religion bad because religious people have done bad things in name of religion”
@@Lolzzz483 Eh not really, religion is bad because religious scriptures has those words and religious apologists will simply say "out of context" or "misinterpreted" to dismiss it.
I think you just grossly misrepresented his argument
The awesome Hitchens
Awful.
During debates, WLC avoids the bible like the plague.
His scientific babble is annoying
It's understandable, actually. Because if he doesn't avoid Bible it will be easier for Hitchens to make counter argument.
La evita por que el debate no es sobre la biblia, es sobre la existencia de Dios, genio.
@joeturner9219 No, because he does exactly what Hitchens accuses, that he attempts to retroactively squash and contort all new discoveries into his pre-existing belief system. Religion originally made very vast claims about the universe that were ignorant of what is now considered common knowledge - ignorance of germ theory, cosmology, plate tectonics, evolution etc. For example the religious were adamant that the Earth was the centre of the universe, until they were compelled to accept that it is not.
And since science continues to make significant discoveries about the true nature of the universe, people like Dr Craig have the reductive argument: "see, that's even more evidence for how wonderful our god is".
Dr Craig makes similar attempts in this debate to co-opt scientific fact into his pre-existing belief system. For example he quotes Saint Augustine and claims that 6-day Creationism isn't necessary nor is the belief of a universe that's only a few thousand years old. So he claims you are free to disregarding a fundamental part of the Old Testament as merely a guideline or allegory. Creationism was Church doctrine for a very long time, until it was disproven, and now Christians like Dr Craig attempt to co-opt things that Christianity previously rejected.
As Hitchen says in another debate, "they are getting nearer to the truth all the time".
@joeturner9219no it’s because he can’t take refuge in science when his beliefs do not allow him to haha
It is indeed true that the wise has been blinded from the wisdom of God.
So if it is so insanely unlikely and improbable for things to evolve on their own then isn't that still saying that there's a chance they could? And if the sheer size of space is so mind-boggling that we can barely even comprehend it then wouldn't that suggest that maybe we are that one extremely improbable chance of it happening on its own out of such vastness and so many failures of it not happening? Cuz even the Christians just said for it to happen on its own it is so so improbable like one out of one with so many zeros so maybe there's one with so many zeros places in space for it to happen and it didn't happen in any of them except that one chance did happen right here on Earth. So really it seems like they kind of are saying that it did happen on its own. Nobody is doubting the vastness of space and if they are saying it is highly unlikely but still likely then the vastness of space give us that one unlikely chance the opportunity to actually be real all on its own
Love this
If god exists, and if god says he loves us, why won't he tell us which religion to believe? Why is he allowing us to kill each other over him?
Humans free will is why that is
@@justanotherguy9300 But his son also says that for he who believes nothing is impossible. If that's true where are those believers? Why aren't they stopping us from killing ourselves over him? Why aren't they in hospitals curing children who lay there sick with cancer or any other disease?
@Johan B. Well religion is another argument, I'm not Christian myself so I can't argue for Jesus, but my comment was strictly about God
@@justanotherguy9300 Me neither.
@@justanotherguy9300 r u of d opinion dat men do ds killings by dia own freewill & dat freewill was given by a God?
These debates should be structured so that you can only make one point in a single buttal. Not constant time and variable number of points, but single point and variable time. The moderator would need to be properly trained for this but ideally the debaters would know how to make one point at a time.
This country isn’t open to debates like this anymore, unfortunately. We should return to this sort of culture of debate, or we will cease to be a peaceful, rational society.
We’ve already ceased “to be a peaceful, rational society.” Your profile picture is proof of that, assuming it’s unironic.
That ended with ronald reagan and newt gingrich. RWNJ's play by different rules now. Rules for thee...none for me.
I think we ceased to be a peaceful, rational society the moment Donald Trump took the stage.
Debates like this happen all the time. Stop getting all your information from RUclips.
Christopher Hitchens is simply inspirational to listen to. His delivery, vocabulary and verbal intelligence remind how basic my communication skills are ;)
I guess he is if you agree with him. He comes across as twisted and angry if you don't agree with him. I fail to hear him make a coherent argument against the existence of God. He just makes an argument against his own interpretation of something that no one believes.
He won't be d saying anything like this in hell.
Craig believes in the witnesses (a few women ) that Jesus was not in the grave and presents that as evidence, but when Christopher asked about the verse that claims every grave in Jerusalem was opened during the resurrection, he throws that out of the window, despite the fact that no witness could ever confirm that.
He doesn't throw it out the window. He just doesn't find it to be relevant to the actual argument he's putting forward. The argument starts with facts which have strong support from historiographical methodology. It then offers the resurrection as the best explanation of the facts. The empty tomb is one of the most well-established facts following the death of Jesus, so then one needs to explain why the tomb was empty, not merely dismiss it because other details in the story might be less historically supported. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Stupid admin.. biased as hell... There is no god .. what is god .. your weakness?
He doesn’t find it relative to the argument, but it is.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg " The empty tomb is one of the most well established facts..." Really" I wonder why people are still debating this " well established fact" thousands of years later
@@kal22222 People also debate whether the earth is flat. Whether or not something is debated "thousands of years later" doesn't imply anything about the strength of the evidence. - RF Admin
Hitchens: "Physics is not an ideology". Questioner: "I think that would be subjective" - What? Is this the level we are at?
@Chris Cuomo we don't know, therefore God, simples
@Chris Cuomo yes, the most lazy explanation also. It's the most arrogant of positions thinking it's all done for us. Yet, for the vast majority of history, life has been an incredible struggle and people tended to die young. Only for advances in science we now have the ability to live longer and more comfortable lives. Are you referring to the same bible that says demons are a cause of disease? Seriously?
@Chris Cuomo Dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. Eventually, all the nearby galaxies would be beyond the observable horizon and we would only see the stars of our own galaxy
@Chris Cuomo how can that be lazy? Please explain
Unfortunately, yes, this is where theists, those who invariably invoke "the leap of faith" are. "Leap of faith"? Faith in what, faith in whom? 😂!
Craig having a very difficult time understanding what atheism is.
Atheist have a hard time understanding what atheism is lol 😅
@@TheEntity-k7gAbsolutely true.
Incidentally, Dr. Craig is still getting what atheism is wrong 15 years after Christopher very carefully and very thoroughly corrected him on it. Even going so far as to preface his correction with, "I really wish you'd get this bit right."
@@TheEntity-k7g Atheism is the name for when people find themselves unconvinced by the claims of a religion. It's really pretty simple but Dr. Craig is still getting it wrong.
Dr. Craig is only pretending not to understand what atheism is. It's a debate tactic that allows him to take on a straw man.
The world is a worse place for not having Christopher Hitchens in it.
The world is a worse place for removing ANY AND ALL mention or general moral teaching of Christ from every institution, most specifically the removal from school.
Whether you are a believer or not of the finer details of the BIBLE, I dont see how anyone could argue that morality was at its core and had subdued MANY of the sin and lonliness that has poisoned our society in such an overwhelmingly quick time.
@@TheNobleLoyalist I have never needed a belief of a god, any god take your pick, to tell me that I shouldn’t be a arsehole. I have met many lovely people that believe in a god and many who don’t. I have met many arseholes and generally horrible people that believe in a god and some who don’t.
If you choose to have faith that is all good and well but don’t use that faith to tell me that you are somehow more better than me.
The Catholic Church has committed and still commits horrendous crimes against children and seek to cover up the vile acts their priests perpetrate, they helped hide nazis after the war, never a good look.
My argument has always been, if children weren’t taught about religion or a god until they were of an age were their minds aren’t as easily led, say 14, not from school or parents etc and were then told there is an imaginary being that has never been seen, ever, that there is zero proof that this being exists or has existed. That he made a Virgin pregnant and his son turned water into wine, walked on water, was crucified and then rose from the dead and we know this because of a book that was written by illiterate primitives that tells you to own slaves, kill and many other atrocities. Tells you that a man parted a sea, another built a boat because he was told by a voice that there’d be a flood and a male and a female of every species of animal on earth including penguins and polar bears found their way to his boat and survived. A book that has been changed many times. Tell them this when they are 14 and see how many would believe the utter nonsense of any religion, a small child’s brain is easy to manipulate, fortunately I saw through the nonsense when I was a child, my parents never really bothered with religion, I don’t know what their thoughts were but it did me no harm. I got in trouble at school for not bowing for prayers and singing hymns etc but I didn’t care. I have grown to be a honest and hard working man that cares deeply about many things. I’m know what is right and wrong and I have manners.
Last year my dad died from cancer, he died an horrific death, a man that worked his arse off all of his life, loved and looked after his family, never had a bad word for anyone and kept himself to himself, what kind of god would sit back and watch a man die in that way, wasting away, unable to raise his arms, unable to stand? If there is a god and that is the type of sick, warped being he is then I’d rather not bother anyway. What god would allow his priests to rape children? What god would allow evangelists to rob people of their money while they live in luxury? Do those unfortunate enough to be born in a country where they have a different god get sent to hell through no fault of their own?
If you wish to believe in an invisible cloud wizard with zero proof of its existence then crack on, I’ll continue with my life believing in science and things I can see and that can be proven.
He's probably in an even worse place. Unless he changed at the end. I pray he did.
@@TheNobleLoyalist In school facts should be taught, not claims. I remember how religion was taught to me from first to fourth grade as if it was undisputed fact (this was 1986 to 1990), luckily a couple of years later I started thinking for myself and quickly realized, that everything in the old testament was just the desperate attempt of mankind to explain a world they couldn't understand - that's why it appears so ridiculous nowadays whereas the new testament is already not be taken seriously as there are four gospels that are so different that they just cannot be true.
As for the morality of the bible, for me personally there is just way to much incest, rape and human sacrifice in there to use this book as a moral compass.
In other words, I would never send my child to school where the bible is taught and I am glad that where I live religion is no longer a subject in public schools.
I miss him so much
How I miss the clarity of Christopher Hitchens.
All the "holiness" aside, I wish at least one religious book had at least one statement that helped advance science.
Eg: I created light and it's the fastest thing in the universe.
I created microbes and until you discover antidotes, you shall die young.
About 800 years ago Jewish theologians came up with the concept for a constantly expanding and cooling universe. Pulled straight from scripture. They didn't need to be modern readers with knowledge of the Big Bang to make this interpretation. It appears the main scientific theory held today is quite old indeed.
Actually, the Bible did! At the time all the other religious lore inferred that a god created things within creation and never creation itself. The Bible said that God created everything
@@fatstrategist You're ignorant. According to the Hindu texts, Brahma set into motion the creation of the universe. However, he doesn't interfere in the affairs of the universe.
All is for the best, believe in what we’re told.
Blind man in the market, buying what we’re sold.
Believe in what we’re told, until our final breath.
While our loving watchmaker loves us all to death.
William Lane Craig ... by now I feel I could do the debate for him myself ^^
Doesnt make sense that just because you dont understand or know how the universe got created, that it must be a god
He cited the relevant evidence of mathematicians and physicists to answer that question
Just because it might not have been god doesn’t mean it wasn’t be a agnostic if you say you don’t know but to be a athiest is literally just religion on the opposite side of the same spectrum it’s a theology you have a strong conviction in something without one single thread of proof offer a better explanation
2:05:30
Kid - my purpose in life is to serve god. What is your purpose in life as an atheist?
Hitchens - i prefer not to answer the question
Wlc - my purpose in life is not to serve god but to glorify him. Mr hitchens what purpose in life can you have when you believe in a universe will die a cold death.
Hitchens - wait a minute.....
"I am not going to straw man atheism!"
"I will now instantly straw man atheism, and scientific rigour!"
Exactly. Craig knows what he's doing. It's debate strategy --- he forces his opponent to spend half his time addressing the straw man issue.
Not going to strawman atheism... By immediately starting shifting the burden of proof and misrepresenting science.
Dr. Craig: spouts logical fallacies, complete BULLCRAP, and mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of Hitchens’ points.
Also Dr. Craig: CLEARLY the weight of evidence falls in favor of Christianity!
How embarrassing is this guy hahaha
hitchens arguments are quite compelling; while craig makes too many assumptions, particularly those he attributes to the non-theist side.
Could you give me one good argument that he gave in favour of the non existence of God?
@@Questioning_God i could, but it is up to those who claim the positive to offer good arguments. craig doesn't do that.
@@jays1de
How convenient.
Actually Craig gave four arguments (if i recall correctly) for the existence of God.
1. Kalam Cosmological argument
2. Fine tuning argument
3. Moral argument
4. Historical argument for the resurrection
@@Questioning_God and yet, i remain unconvinced. if God does exist, and He is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, why then does evil exist?
@@jays1de what specifically is unconvincing about those four arguments?
If a person is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give us free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. Badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. Evil is a parasite, not an original thing.
C. S. Lewis
I love this debate. Craig just presented his usual word salad & endless assertions, while Hitch calmly and rationally debunked most of Craig's nonsense.
Wow...how interesting perspectives hey... I thought Craig mopped the floor with Hitch...amazing... well, at least Hitch will KNOW by now...whether he was right or...wrong.
@@ShalomEntirety1 Craig doesn't even really have any arguments, all he's doing is quoting people. It's idiot-whispering.
@@turboepicgamedump7501 so is the dead dude...😉
@@ShalomEntirety1 Listen to the video, Craig wins the quotes quota by a landslide. He's in automaton mode.
@@turboepicgamedump7501 if you say so😉
Hitch for the win! 💖💖💖 Thank you for sharing though, and I have to say it's extremely big of you. Not many on the apologist side would post such a strong case for atheism. I'm rather pleasantly surprised. May Odin's blessings enrich your loins. 💝👍
How can Craig be such a seasoned debater on religion and still have absolutely no idea what atheism is.
Atheism is NOT a belief in the slightest, so saying "atheism is not true" just shows his ignorance of the oposing side.
I'm still yet to see a religious debater have any kind of integrity
False, athiest is the disbelief that God exists, which logically means they believe there is no God.
2:20:20 that’s exactly the kind of question you want to ask these God believers. I would’ve loved to have heard Craig’s response to that, see how he would’ve justified that horror and suffering to have went on and been allowed and somehow part of God’s plan.
"The joy and pain that we receive
must be what we deserve
I was brought up to believe"
- Neil Peart
Neil’s 19 year old daughter killed 1 hour after leaving home for college. Allegedly, supposedly.
What did he do to cause that?
The answer to that question is simple. Free will, if God stopped people from doing evil, then everything based on Christianity and Jesus's message would be false. God does not intervene into peoples bad decisions, they choose the bad decisions. So everyone has a decision to do bad and good and God will not stop the bad people otherwise he is unjust.
@@0mniVerse777 That’s absolutely retarded to believe that. There is no God first of all. The point is not about the evildoer having free will, it’s about the innocent victim’s unnecessary suffering, FOR 25 YEARS. By that logic, you’re implying that God cares more about protecting his own brand than intervening and stopping an innocent person from suffering because otherwise humanity will suddenly not have freewill. So better to let the evil human torture the innocent human for 25 years in the name of freewill because it’s better if he has the choice to do evil or do good than it is to just have God, who could’ve stopped the suffering, but didn’t because if he did, it would be unjust and contradict his own rules?What sense does that make?
You’re implying that God is real and has the ability to intervene with people doing evil on their own freewill but doesn’t because he wants them to be able to have the choice to do evil, even though they know better, as long as God doesn’t have to intervene, it’s okay because then God is always right because he doesn’t have to answer to all the evil in the world that he allows. He doesn’t have to take responsibility for that because it’s not his fault technically because he gave us all freewill and we chose against him. That says a lot for the innocent victim, doesn’t it? Let’s make it all about the guy who chose evil and not about the innocent person being tortured just to set an example about God’s opinion on us having freewill. This has nothing to do with the evil person who tortured her and her son, it’s all about her as a victim. This is about the victim. What justification could be made for her suffering? It’s impossible to make any and preposterous to assume that her suffering is not in vain because she will be safe in the afterlife and her perpetrator will be punished also in the afterlife, so in that case, God will just let her suffer and get tortured in the REAL world for 25 years.
@@realtruth2817 What did Neil do, or God do? I’m assuming you mean Neil. Neil didn’t literally say that. He wrote it in a song called "BU2B." It’s pretty much sarcasm. He’s saying he was brought up to believe all this nonsense that Christianity teaches and the notion that all the good and bad in the world is justified and deserving one way or the other according to God’s divine plan.
The other verse sums it up as well:
"All is for the best, believe in what we’re told.
Blind man in the market, buying what we’re sold.
Believe in what we’re told, until our final breath.
While our loving watchmaker loves us all to death."
@@0mniVerse777that's a cop out that Christians always use. If God was a truly loving God, rather than a sadistic bastard, then he'd intervene occasionally.
Craig uses the Bible to prove the Bible, which is ridiculous.
This is false. Dr. Craig uses the same methods of historiography as modern scholars and applies those methods to the New Testament texts independent of any considerations of divine inspiration. What we find is that the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical data. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg this "finding" couldn't possibly be tied to a preconceived notion on your part, right?
@@ReasonableFaithOrgDid all the graves open up too? Did anyone see this? What did the risen dead look like? Could they talk? Eat? Sleep? Poop? Have babies? Or did they just crawl back into the ground once the point was made?
I need to know if I am descended from a walking corpse. Don’t you?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Respectfully, what scholarly "methods of historiography" demonstrate that Jesus practiced "exorcisms" and commanded the forces of darkness?
@@citizenghosttown What does that have to do with the evidence Dr. Craig uses for the resurrection? - RF Admin
Thanks to Christopher Hitchens and others that I left the evangelical cult in 2007 and today I’m free of religion and don’t miss it at all.
@joeturner9219God explains nothing..the Gospels are Myth and Propaganda
Congratulations!
What is it that you feel free from?
At 2h10m: The reason for legislating morality is an effort to make earth like heaven and being like God is to share his will and he shared the will to make earth like it is in heaven.
Amen
No it isn't.
It is merely a desire to control others.
@@MrGreensweightHist yeah bro. Just let everyone do whatever. Wouldn’t want to control them like a religious nut.
@@BandAid350z So long as what they do isn't harming others.
That's the ONLY viable criteria for legislating.
@@MrGreensweightHist the NAP is a pipe dream. Hey bro, let him do heroin or crack. It’s his prerogative. So what if they’re shitting in the streets or dancing around naked. They aren’t harming anyone. Mind your business. Right?
I never heard such bull hooey from William Lane Craig in all my life! Thanks, Hitch!
Hitchens is brilliant
A brilliant man would have offered proper philosophical refutations and premises to support atheism being more logically sound than theism. Hitchens failed in this regard.
@@user-rw5ok6rn5kin the end, you can’t really argue with believers because think they trump you with a book credited to a god.
Craig has the insight of a well spoken 12 year old. I wouldn't say unread, but he's certainly misread and misunderstood a whole lot of basic logic. It's remarkable he has any following at all.
This is just an bias opinion that holds no weight. Go ahead and believe we are just meaningless meat bags that have no compass.
@@jamesjones11301994 Of course it's an opinion, What woud you expect to find in a comment section? But it happens to be well-supported opinion.
Engaging in ad hominem attacks and derogatory comments diminishes the integrity of the discussion. Resorting to insults reveals a lack of substantive counterarguments and undermines the credibility of your stance. Let us rise above such tactics and focus on the strength of our ideas and the merit of our reasoning.
@johnnyreb5982 it's not a tactic. I'm just pointing out a total lack of value. And often times yes, I agree, but Craig's childish and totally unsubstantiated claims over and over again, delivered with a straight face, as if he were saying something remotely valid or sound, are so tiresome on this subject. I can't understand why he is even considered for debate. So, like you, I'm arguing for good debate.
so did all the popes & MANY horrendous & vile political leaders; such is the weird enigma of the human species.
"the cause of space and time must be personal because the cause must be beyond space and time... and a mind is the only thing that fits that description" - when I heard that I spilled coffee on my desk 🤣How does a mind fit that description, if all the minds we've observed are tied to physical brains? The mind is what the brain does; it's an emergent property of physical material, a collection of processes and brain states. So why a mind? What does it have to do with the cause of the universe? What is the link? That part always goes unexplained. It would be like saying that the cause of the universe must be "wetness outside of space time" because all water in the universe is wet, or that the cause must be photosynthesis because all plants do it. What's the justification of taking this characteristic of some carbon-based life forms and slap it on some imaginary explanation? This just confirms that theists have a propensity to anthropomorphize everything. "The cause of everything must have this feature of ours because we're so damn special"
The "soul" retains the thinking ability of the brain, even without the brain? I'm just guessing.
@@Preservestlandrygood guess just like religions guess to explain things.
You assume consciousness is materialistic. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Secondly, the propensity to anthropomorphism is legitimate, certainly if you subscribe to the notion of neo darwinist evolution. Thirdly, to extrapolate using logic is perfectly legitimate. As for your fallacious 'whataboutism'...meh.
It's actually a simple argument. Because "mind" cannot actually be explained via materialism. You're presupposing it already has been as a collection of cells that make a brain and create the mind. But the point being made here is, what is the only known cause of design? It's mind. We are evaluating an inference to the best known cause. The ONLY known cause for design that we currently know of, is mind. Therefore it follows logically that if we find evidence of design from that macro, i.e. the fine-tuning of the universe and all it's impossible variables, to the micro, in even the most "simple" cell with the information bearing properties of DNA and the protein machines that operate within a cell via incalculable complexity, then we can infer a mind was responsible for it as it's the only known cause.
@@tomfoolery1967 And we haven't even touched on entropy.
Christopher Hitchens' recital of a litany of colourful tirades in this exploration of DOES GOD EXIST, in a captivating sonorous voice, is enthralling. I enjoyed his ingenuity in his masterful crafting.
Not that my opinion matters at all, and you can speak how you damn well please, but using simpler words and better syntax will communicate ideas more effectively than carpet bombing people with vocab.
@@BoshBerry I think that's actually the point the guy is sarcastically trying to make. Could be wrong tho
@@BoshBerry I guess Hitchens knows his audience, and knows the people who need the simpler words are probably in the Craig Camp anyway.
@@daman7387 Ahh yeah after reading it again I think you're right. Whizzed right past my head on the first pass haha.
@@dancahill9585 People like you make us in the agnostic/atheist community look bad. Please miss me with that cringe superiority shit. If you were honest with yourself you'd understand that the only reason you believe what you believe is because you were born in the right place at the right time. No need to muddle the discourse with toxicity.
Did the intelligent designer use a white board for the design? Was he sitting or standing when the design happened? 🤔
He had to stand because he had hemorrhoids when he came to creating Earth.
I've come across this debate and it amazes me how Hitchens never proposes alternative options for the creation of the world, life and morals etc. He only attempts to disprove or discredit the Christian stance without giving a reasonable or coherent replacement for the questions debated. Also, it's obvious that Hitchens doesn't understand the bible, it's context or who Jesus is. He may have read the bible but reads with a harden heart and with presumptions grounded in antagonism. He uses humor, charm and sarcasm to mask his lack of substance in his arguments.
No one understands the Bible, that's why there's innumerable denominations. Just different interpretation of something that is unreasonable and incoherent for which there is no reasonable replacement without more knowledge of the universe.
You have to be a fool to believe the Bible is the written word of a supreme being. I cannot believe anyone can believe such nonsense. Why did he show himself to Bronze Age peasants in the Middle East and not the humans to the east that could read or write? He chose a group of people over others. It’s all just so obvious and laughable
How is the Bible "unreasonable" and "incoherent" yet without a "reasonable replacement" due to our lack of knowledge of the universe? What incredibly poor reason.
@@user-rw5ok6rn5k because it makes baseless assertions without any verifiable evidence. Same as all other religions.
@@user-rw5ok6rn5k as far as the incoherency, why is there catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc if it's clear and everyone can agree what it says?
I listened to the opening arguments that god exists, that were labelled by the speaker as ample evidence he exists, and I'm not at all convinced he exists. The debate was over at that point.
Yes, there was no credibility behind his assertions. Christopher could have wiped the floor with him, but clearly showed more respect than usual and didn't need to go full out to handle this debate.
all of those arguments were sufficient.
Craig and he's using of words like "fact, true"
It's like "fact number one: Voldemort lost his powers after he killed Harry's parents, fact number two..."
oh. you stole my profile pic. can you change your color plz
Backing into belief car salesman-like versus walking firmly forward with evidence-empirical based perspectives.
I provided five arguments as to why Santa Claus exists.
You haven’t proved Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
😂
Ah, and a vehicle of the “Anglo-American”.
At 47.01 Christopher is beyond rebuttal, but Bill has a clever word salad for every occasion
Um not really. Basically he made the point that it's like tinkerbell. If you believe she lives! Evidence is an occasional convenience. It was a first attempt but shouldn't be guiding us after a few thousand years.
William is the foremost expert at word salad and gish gallop
@@CahyaTroyy’all have no arguments just word salad 😂
I've always thought that.If this dude makes planets and stars and shit why would they give a feck about us and why send your son down in human form to be tortured to 'death'?
It's a fairy story...it never happened
Yeah also if he can condemn us 4 just d sin of one man den y didn't he just find another good man & 4give us cos of dat person but he instead decided 2 sacrifice his son 2 himself 2 4give us 4 a sin of simply eating from a fruit he made available
When you start asking questions the whole thing falls apart. The answers to those questions are never good. It's either speculation or anything idk it's in God's hands.
These, these fairy tales are the reason I failed Sunday school.
😂
@Emiliocab47 Actually it did happen and it's completely backed up by history.
Just apologist 'gotcha' shit on one side, including the 'mY cOnTeNtIoNs aRe' and the intentional false definition of atheism... And on the other side, coherent, logical, and eloquent argumentation. RIP Hitch. It's embarrassing that this is even considered a debate.
It is essential to approach discussions with respect and open-mindedness, rather than resorting to dismissive and derogatory language. Dismissing an entire side of the debate as "apologist 'gotcha' shit" and suggesting that only one side possesses coherent, logical, and eloquent argumentation oversimplifies the complexities of any debate.
Debates thrive on the diversity of perspectives and the exchange of ideas. Each side brings their unique insights, experiences, and arguments to the table. By engaging in substantive discussion, we have the opportunity to challenge and refine our own beliefs while gaining a deeper understanding of opposing viewpoints.
Labeling the entire debate as embarrassing based on personal biases undermines the spirit of intellectual inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Instead, let us encourage respectful dialogue, rigorous analysis, and the pursuit of knowledge, ensuring that debates are conducted with fairness, open-mindedness, and a commitment to understanding.
@@johnnyreb280 🥴😂 So you didn't actually watch the debate then?
look, if brother hitch could dissuade even a 'baker's dozen' of the audience at each of these events to turn away from this ridiculous gobbledegook, it is time well spent in the service of advancing the human condition.
>The Christian God is defined by mainstream Christianity as being all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, and all just. Yet even a cursory reading of the bible reveals a God who is cruel, unjust, tyrannical, unloving and eternally vengeful. Ergo, the Christian God does not exist by reason of self-contradiction.
>An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God, by definition, cannot create evil or permit evil to exist in the world. And yet, evil exists. Ergo, God, as he is defined by mainstream Christianity, does not exist on the grounds of self-contradiction.
>The law of conservation of matter and energy states that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but neither can be created or destroyed. Ergo, the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. God is unnecessary by the Principle of Parsimony.
>The natural histories of religions are well-documented. The behavioral causes of religions are well-known. There is no evidence that gods and religions are the products of anything other than human ingenuity and imagination. Ergo, atheism is rational and skeptically unassailable.
Craig makes my skin crawl, but it is, after all, just an argument on God's existence. It does exemplify that the Christian is one with deceit. Even Joel Osteen said that"Sometimes, we have to lie for God"! It is amazing how much human beings can stomach dishonesty before we say "no more"!
Joel Osteen is a fake Christian who does not believe in nor preach the Gospel of the Bible. Nowhere does God ever say to lie for Him. In fact every one who did had bad things happen in spite of doing so. Abraham and Isaac are two easy examples
You're assuming lying and dishonesty are somehow worse than truth and honesty. There's no difference in the two from a moral perspective if you're an athiest. Just like picking candy... it's up to your personal taste.
Ah yes, quoting Joel Osteen to represent Christianity. Okay. I choose Dennis Rodman as the ambassador of atheism. Hope you don’t mind 😂
On what basis can you actually say that Joel Osteen ripping off the members of his church is immoral? Isn't he just a shining example of Darwinism where the strong survive? Why does the fact that Joel Osteen takes advantage of people for his personal gain disgust you? On what grounds? Did he take advantage of you?
Here is a fun challenge. Try to freeze the video anywhere where William lane doesn't look like he thinks the world of himself.
True, he has that effect on people
Looks like a typical Baptist preacher to me . Kinda has that Gavin Newson look too. I never trust those faces .
And hitchens is not arrogant by thinking he's cleverer than anyone else .
Loool so that's what you got from a 2 hour + debate.
Absolute nonsense.
The absolute best part is at 2:18:45, a 3 second snapshot of Hitchens non-verbal communication while Craig is is rambling on about Jesus suffering on the cross to 'explain' why the problem of evil is not a valid argument against theism is priceless.
It's really difficult to listen to Craig say that grape is ok in an atheistic world view. If he truly believes that he should totally stay a Christian.
What's your problem with rape?
@@Questioning_Godhe’s basically implying that Craig thinks since there’s no God, us humans have no morality, but that’s bullshit, we can clearly tell right from wrong without the Bible telling us so, In fact, Ironically, the Bible literally tells people to stone a woman to death if she had been deflowered, the Bible is a terrible book when it comes to morals, we know rape is wrong because of the terrible psychological and emotional harm it causes a person who was a victim to it.
@Questioning God I don't understand the question (I hope). I don't like a lot of things about rape. The thing I don't like most is that it's non-consensual. I hope you mean something else.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the argument. The point isn’t that we theists think it is automatically okay under atheism. The point is that atheists don’t have any solid recourse when declaring it not okay. Only subjective opinions, which reduce the rhetorical power of the argument against rape to that of your preference of pizza topping.
Consent is thrown out as some kind of magic word that is supposed to satisfy the objection, and everyone is so afraid of looking rapey that they don’t think to critically assess this standard. But consent is not objectively offered. It’s a thing that we hold on to; that we made (assuming God doesn’t exist).
Point being, if person A consents to rape person B, but person B does not consent, and morality is purely a product of our own minds, then why does person A lose? They consent, don’t they? Isn’t it a tie? Why is person B not consenting more important than person A consenting? If a prisoner doesn’t consent to being moved from their cell, does the guard just say “oh well, guess I can’t do anything”? And if you’re just going to say “well duh, rape is harmful,” then ask person A. He doesn’t think so.
@@aprylvanryn5898 where is your foundation for consent structured upon if we are living in an uncaused and unguided universe from which we randomly evolved into humans?
D best word salad of all time will be a discussion between Jordan Peterson, Kent Hovind & William Craig
@@tasiletoa1037 my money is on Kent, he just going 2 speed rap his entire speech & declare victory
I think they would fall instantly in love with each other and start frenching on stage -clasping each other’s butts frantically. By all that’s holy and unholy-please don’t let those two illogical men get together. There’s not enough KYjelly for that to occur.
Ouch!!
You guys are too thick to understand that's all
You forgot to mention John Lennox.
Does anyone know who William lane Craig says has a list of miracles?
He often refers to Craig Keener's two-volume set on miracles. - RF Admin
@@matthewstokes1608 Try learning some basic logic.
@@FourDeuce01… er, what are you prattling on about?
@@matthewstokes1608 English. Do you speak it?🤤
@@FourDeuce01 far better than you do, clearly
I love dialogues like this...both speakers are sound seekers...much respect! However, Dr Craig was outstanding I must say...unlike most religious arguments
1:45:00 Bonhoeffer took a stance against Hitler
Irrelevant.
A few dissenting priests does not negate the OVERWHELMING support by teh churches as a whole.
All it does is illustrate the lack of consistency
@@MrGreensweightHist Easy on the capitals buddy. You mean that people under threat of violence were coerced into submission? That is sooo weird, eh? You can't even keep your genitals covered, so you are not in a position to criticize. I think its great that you take your kids to Pride events. Hopefully, they will be gay and we won't have to worry about your genes getting back into the pool! Win-win scenario bro.
lol the amount of butthurt in these comments that Hitch lost is hilarious. All ad hominems against WLC
No kidding. Check the brain child comment made immediately after yours.
I love how the first guy started by saying "we arent here to debate old testament ethics" then literally tries to use "no God, no objective morality" as an argument for Gods existance lol. Aside from the hypocrisy, that doesnt even remotely count as evidence of literally anything; so why even waste time talking about it.
Christian apologists simply do not understand how logic works. Im not trying to be rude, its true. It goes without saying that Hitchens clearly "won" this debate. Although thats not even really fair because he was the only one actually debating the topic 😂
Lol where does objective morality come from then? You claim the universe has no higher purpose. Therefore it has no higher moral value. Pretty simple.
Atheists are subconsciously piggybacking off of religious dogmas. Then pretending they only care about cold hard science. Yea sure dude.
Hi! I love that you as an atheist mentioned objective morality. Would you like to explain the basis for objective morality from an atheistic perspective? I would love to hear it
@@RealDianaGarcia I literally said nothing about it aside from the fact that he brought it up...
There is no objective morality; certainly not as ordained by a God (or else religious people today should champion stoning women, slavery, rape, etc). Morality is derived from personal experience and your own feelings. Nothing more. That's why there are so many different systems of morals across the globe; past and present.
@@RedBishopGaming ah, then I completely misunderstood, thanks for clearing it up.
To us the existence of God is tied to objective morality, if you don’t believe in objective morality (as in your case) then that’s not a problem, but that is the reason he said no God, no objective morality. So if an atheist does believe in objective morality, he will have to explain where his foundation for that believe is, if there is no God. That’s why we think that atheist don’t know how to think logically, not trying to be rude, it’s just the truth.
I noticed that. But not just that, he started by saying we aren’t here to discuss Biblical inerrancy / provenance. Then goes on to make claims about resurrection which literally come exclusively from the NT.
Yoooo WLC is the goat, bro
Congrats on the W in this debate
WlC lost this debate... Still you're congratulating 😂😂
Winning and losing are one organic globule from which we extract what we need.
--White Men Can't Jump.
You obviously have a lot staked upon a WLC win. By all means, claim away, friend.
People are good at creating stories and fictional characters. That includes all the 'gods' of the past. I'm pretty sure christians don't believe in Zeus or Thor, so christians are in fact ATHEISTS with respect to all the 'gods' they don't believe in. They just need to cross out one more fictional character and join the rational club. Christianity, islaam and the other major religions today just happen to be the latest human inventions that stuck around, and there is zero reason to think that they are any different than all the other made up religions of the past. Religion serves a purpose which is control and power.
I find myself extremely lucky to be alive in this time. Through technology I am able to watch two men that i greatly respect in a civilized debate even after sadly one of them has passed. I am a Christian and I love the Lord my God but the brilliance of Mr Hitchens cannot be overlooked. In my opinion though Dr Craig is on a level that is difficult to attain. Mr Hitchens was at the very least elated to debate Dr Craig going by his facial and vocal expressions. As usual though, reading some of the comments by atheists reinforces my theory that most atheists do not just merely deny God's existence but are offended by the very idea.
Low Bar Bill? Ok..
I don't rate him very highly and I don't think too many actual philosophers rate him either. Not offended at all by the idea of a god (still waiting for some actual proof) it's more to do with the religious always banging on about how we'll pay when we're dead or some other religious demand on how we think/act.
1 WLC; There's no good argument that Atheism is true".
It's NOT a truth claim. Most of the time it's NOT a claim it's usually just the rejection of the claim "There is a God". No philosophy involved..
2 WLC; "There are good arguments that Theism is true".
If there was EVIDENCE then no argument is needed..
Hitchens - 44.58, argument over. Back to that drawing board for WLC.
the idea of god is very dismissive
At least we have a reason to be offended
To be a Christian means you think all the suffering such as starvation and torture and poverty are all justified and not just justified but justified by a being who has the power to halt all suffering with a single thought
@josep
And yet you took the time yo watch a 2.5 hour video and leave this comment. Whatever you say, mate
I just wanna give a quick shout out to the God is not Great cover designer, who did such a simple, but poignant, as well as hilarious job
I agree, perhaps he didn't think god was worthy of an elaborate design,his narrative seems indicative of this.
@@iveseen1 or maybe he thought anybody who critiques the artwork is too flakey to and self-absorbed to pay attention anyway.
Honestly, you guys are great together. Best of luck lovebirds!
@@truthisaquestion Yes, l seem to think by the comment the book hadn't been read.The cover certainly isn't a criterion for assessment ,as many bibles just show a plus sign emblazoned on a black cover....The love bird sarcasm was funny though ...cheers.m
@@iveseen1 thanks for realizing my ribbing is in good fun! Cheers!
@@truthisaquestion absolutely bro, have a great day ,cheers.
The entire argument from Craig was the god of the gaps fallacy.
No, he used the eye witness argument among others.
And you are using the Biased of the Gaps theory 😅
1:22:53 lt amazes me that for someone as well read and well spoken as Craig evidently is, he can still have such a short attention span.
😊
the apologists already believe they know the position of the anti-theist, the blinders are already up and the chains are on
I still think its strange the leap Craig always makes. The kalam only says the universe had a beginning, nothing else. Where does he get a personal creator from?
He invented a gap and then inserted his god there.
You can know Him, Jesus loves you.
@GodSoLoved.Yeshua that's a nice assertion or thought. But I see no good reason to believe that. How do you respond to the outsiders test of faith. Equally, I'd guess you believe God to be a necessary being. So, where is the contradiction in the not god worldview?
@@johnferguson8794be already outlined his reasoning at minute 20
In short
1 Since the big bang didn't happen in a place but rather was the expansion of space itself
2 Then the Cause of it can't be a material entity
This leaves us with limited options
1abstract objects like numbers
2 platonic forms
3 a mind
3Of the three options only number three has causal capacity
The leap from 2 to three can't be questioned
As It follows basic logic
However if you want To refute the second deduction
You need to refute the premise on scientific grounds
(Note I am more of a philosophy guy than a physics guy so my only criterion for judging Craig's premises is what I find on popular websites like NASA science)
@kiroshakir7935 I appreciate the response. My issue is we can have some necessary concrete object at the end of a casual chain. Like the amplituhedron or some 11D membranes...who knows. The mind hypothesis just feels like an adhawk insert.
It's magnificent that Christians have the guts to debate. Really good work.
I miss him a lot. I look at the old debates and miss the hitch slap. We lost a great voice when he left.
He had to. God called him.
@@joemildner5667 which god? he railed against all of them.
@@surfsnow1371 So, Christopher will have a long journey to visit all gods he was against. Poor Christopher.
@@joemildner5667 So you believe ALL gods exist? I'd love to see your evidence for that? I know you uneducated folk are big on claims but it's the evidence you lack.
@@surfsnow1371 No, it is simple, but more complicated for darwinian apes. There is one God, or better said for you, our universe and our life has sense, reason, in logical terms there is a Principle behind our existence, people call it god - so, what you call gods, are different interpretations of this principle.
You may believe that our world and our life are organised in this way or you do not believe. This is your choice, or your education, or your experience. And it is completely idiotic to argue with primitive like Dawkins about the topic, he cannot understand it like an ape cannot understand art, for instance - for an ape there is no evidence that something like art exists. Lizards cannot care about their children, they are not capable - this is the case of materialistic brain.
He who believes in the existence of God, so, he who believes that our existence is based on some principle, he can see lot of evidence for this existence in the nature, how we can exist or cooperate better, etc.
Considering materialistic, aka "scientific" evidence, the best prove provided Dawkins himself: He told once "there is evidence, that my wife loves me". Today he is divorced. This is your "evidence" and your "science" - do acknowledge that alchemy is part of science? I am sure not.
This was an epic debate. I love these two guys.
Hitch is pure class.
Cept for all the sass....:)
His arguments are pure poetry. It is SUCH a pleasure to hear him thinking out loud with words that fairly sing with truth and conviction. What a remarkable man and intellect. His intellectual discipline is simply unsurpassed.
Hitchens was special.
I think special primitive.
@@joemildner5667 says the guy who believes primitive mythology
@@Say1066 Yes, agree. Hitchens believed primitive mythology
@@joemildner5667 yeah sure…the theory of evolution is more primitive than the existence of an old man in the sky that watches you :))))
@@Say1066 Absolutely. By the way, the man in the sky watching you, it is a psychosis. Visit some psychiatry.
Notice that Craig, when viewed, is not listening to a word Hitchens says. I suggest he dares not in case he is forced to argue logically. Hitchens' points are entirely logical. Craig's are pure dogma.
“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”
― Bertrand Russell
Very disappoint that 80% of Craig’s argument is reversing the burden of proof
You really do need faith to accept Craigs arguments, but is it reasonable?
No
You are today's reminder that people do not think. You're astounding.
You need faith to dismiss his evidence confidently.
A Douglas Adams quote comes to mind
'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. ' “ 'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't.
William Lane has proved there are 2 kinds of people: believers and grown-ups.
Hitchens is just an angry sweaty drunkard. You think his British accent makes him sound intelligent but he doesn’t provide any kind of argument other than “I don’t like God”.
Craigs argument for religion: because I don’t understand how it works….god is the answer…..and in absence of evidence, just start preaching.
@ItsKarlDude I heard him give extremely contrived arguments based on hypothetical scenarios….and a bunch of preaching…..yep
@@JR-st3mp his arguments held up way better than Hitchens' refutation attempts.
@@MartinHindenes no….they really didn’t. Craig and all his apologists have no actual facts to site….only contrived logic, and then when that fails, preaching and quoting scripture. May as well quote from Lord of the Rings. Just another book making extraordinary claims with zero evidence to back them up. Not a single story outside any of the world’s bibles can be corroborated outside of their bibles. That’s pretty telling.
@@MartinHindenesnot arguments..... baseless assertions
I dont understand how a man can stand up in front of thousands of people and talk about how the universe was conceived rather than being compelled to explain how his God is right while the other 10,000 are wrong. How he could possibly know anything instead of speaking with such confidence in his folly.
He did
In reference to his resurrection argument
Sadly this type of argument requires lengthy presentation
And it doesn't matter whether you are a proponent of the minimal facts approach like Dr Craig
Or the maximum data approach
And yes the resurrection of Jesus may very well be the most credible miracle claim ever
It's not a joke
In fact, world-renowned atheist Antony Flew once said, “The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
The topic was: "Does God exist?" not: "Does the Christian God exist?" Therefore, Craig doesn't need to "explain how his God is right while the other 10,000 are wrong." He just needs to explain how A God is right, not particularly the Christian one.
@@kiroshakir7935what is the evidence of resurrection? I can’t seem to find any! Bible had so many factual errors
Craig's arguments are pathetic and demonstrate a naive and unsophisticated understanding of rationality and logic.
"Atheism" makes no claims about universal origins, so arguing "what else can it BE?" is pointless and for Craig to think otherwise is a clear demonstration of his unsophisticated understanding of rationality. As an atheist I don't know how the universe started, I make no claims for objective or subjective morality and I don't know that something can't come from nothing (the one and only example of that hypothetically happening was the big bang, so our only example demonstrates that something CAN come from nothing, but this is not my claim, it's a humorous aside). All I believe, as an atheist, is that theists think "god did it" but can't seem to demonstrate it... AND THAT'S ALL! Dismantling our position would only require you to demonstrate that your god exists - any other argument is useless and OBVIOUSLY SO to anyone with even a vaguely rational mind.
Craig's use of probabilities is just dishonest and, besides, and once again, irrelevant. Truth is unaffected by poorly assembled probabilities. Besides, how is magic ever a probable, or "more probable", cause of anything?
None of Craig's arguments hold up to even cursory examination. His qualifications suggest he is an intellect to be reckoned with, yet he provides the same childish crap that people with none of his qualifications or experience are perfectly able to think up.
It's embarrassing for him, honestly. To dismantle the atheist position, he only need demonstrate that his god exists. The theist position requires no dismantling as it isn't even "mantled" to begin with!
Honest atheists need only see sufficient evidence for whichever god a particular theist thinks "did it" and they will no longer be atheists. Our position is only a reaction to the theist position and doesn't stand independently. If nobody was claiming a god existed, atheists wouldn't exist.
I'm aware that Hitchens does not require my help, but the childish mindset of the WLC is utterly frustrating to listen to and I need to vent on a long train journey!
Eloquently put. Brilliant.
😂
NOT One sentence orterd by Craig is in the realm of reason or reasonable reality.
... Is that supposed to be in English?
What a ridiculous thing to say
@@grahamrogers3345 not any more ridiculous than practically everything Craig said.
@@littleherms3285 The entire universe and all life and matter coming into existence from nothing, by chance, is ridiculous.
@@matthewstokes1608 nobody but religious zealots claim this. Absolutely NOBODY in the science world actually believes that everything came from nothing.
If infinity is just an idea, then how come god does not have an age and was, is and will be here forever? Does this contradiction not apply? Just a thought
Think away
If you take the literal metaphysical description of G-d in the Bible, G-d is light, he is the father of Lights. And if you understand the characteristics of Light you would know that time does not matter to Light.
Hence G-d being light and eternal makes absolute sense.
@@DonDezz thx for the feedback :-)
My man used Einstein to prove god
It's called special pleading and is the usual endgame of apologist arguments. "This thing can't be possibly be true, therefore god.", "But you just said this thing can't possibly be true and even if you had a god, it would be true of god.", "Well it's not true of god, because god is god."