Dr. William Lane Craig Reveals the Best Ways to Debate Atheists
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- In this clip, Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig reveals the best ways to win debates with atheists.
Link to the full interview: • Answering Objections t...
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: / capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Thanks to all of our patrons for your continued support! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#WilliamLaneCraig #Apologetics #Debates
![[Limbus Company - PV] Chapter.7 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VUpkXPkvoxU/mqdefault.jpg)
Does being married for two decades count for debate training? Asking for a friend
Lol so funny!
Definitely
Lol
So you have lost debates for 20 yrs to a woman. Sounds normal
😂😂😂😂
The best way to “argue” with anyone is to:
1. Have a civil dialogue
2. Don’t assume ill intentions
3. Don’t assume their beliefs
4. Don’t assume their history
5. Be opened minded enough to assume YOU could be wrong.
6. Be clear on definitions.
7. Lastly, no one is above or below a discussion. It isn’t necessary to have a doctorate or degree of any variant to have a productive conversation. Everyone is worth discussion
All valid points. I think on the last point, Dr. Craig was more or less saying he wants to have serious debates and conversations with those who are the very best on the opposing side.
Andy S I understand he wants quality conversations but a degree won’t guarantee that. I’d be curious to know if Mr. Craig would deny a conversation to Sacrates because he didn’t have a degree? There’s a ton of intelligent thinkers that don’t have degrees
@@flyguy2617 I actually agree. I think he debated Hitchens who was a journalist, so to Dr. Craig's point, it more about quality opponents. He wants to debate the best
Andy S Hitchens was a journalist but Hitchens was educated at Leys School in Cambridge and Balliol College in Oxford. At Oxford he did his major in philosophy, politics and economics. I know Matt Dillahunty has been trying to debate him for years but WLC refuses due to lack of a degree...I’d love to see the conversation
TRIBAL BY NATURE what pedigree did Socrates have again? Nobody is above or below anyone else for a civil discussion.
Remember the goal of a Christian debate with non-believers is not to win the debate but rather to win souls. If you keep this in mind you will not loose your composure and you will utimately plants seeds of Truth and gain a victories for God. Amen!
Blue Skeptic nope
@Blue Skeptic exactly lol
That's the reason you loses every debates.
@Blue Skeptic While I don't share your very own devoutly faithful religious (e.g atheistic) beliefs, I'm sure you're a sincere believer. May the eternal Truth Himself bless you and keep your immortal soul safe from damnation.
How freaking sad that someone with a PHD believes in souls...
Big takeaway: don’t feed the trolls.
@Ben Love
I don't know. Craig sort of comes off pretty snooty here and honestly like he's not even after people's hearts, but just after an intellectual challenge.
@Vincent Kinney
I understand that part, however I am of the opinion that many people could also use the more basic knowledge of the faith. Jesus taught to the Sadducees and Pharisees, but he also did not neglect to teach the lowliest of questioner. He cared about them all equally. I don't remember one time he scoffed at people, not even the woman who referred herself to a dog under the table.
Brando William lane Craig has a website, and I have seen were people have asked him questions and he written lengthy responses in order to help them understand. I don’t think he would turn down anyone with questions. the website is called reasonablefaith
@Tristan Maxwell
Really? Well that's good to hear :)
@Tristan Maxwell
Are you sure it's him though?
“they wanna be Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens . You gotta earn that .” W. Lane Craig
Unfortunately both are actually not very good at debates. Dawkins is a teacher, and just doesn't have a very effective way of debating. Hitch8, while witty and hilarious, had his one liners and talking points but unfortunately rarely addressed what his opponents said in a meaningful way, preferring jokes and emotional peals. It really hurt him in a debate with Turek, if I recall correctly. He didn't shoot down assertions that Turek made regarding biology, so they went unanswered and incorrect.
Here, he mentioned them for their prior celebrity. That seems a strange talking point as it deals with the meta of a debate. In a clip supposedly for giving tips for actually debating atheists, he should have addressed arguments. All of the clear and well established criticism of his and other apologist arguments. As he mentioned reading his opponents' work, he would encounter some people who have specifically refuted his arguments.
One fair tip would be to not debate physicists on cosmology. Philosophy doesn't touch that anymore beyond logic. His debates with physicists highlight this.
@@IllustriousCrocoduck both useless when it comes to defending what they believe.
@@lesblase3667 both as in Dawkins and Hitchens?
@@IllustriousCrocoduck They just couldn't justify themselves.
@@noahm44 you mean their arguments? I'm having trouble following you as you might be talking about the men, things they said, things I said, etc. Can you be a little more specific/contextual?
The title of this should have been “how to prepare for a debate” (in general)
Exactly, how is this anything even close to the title???
"Pretentious man acts pretentiously" would also be a great title.
@@TNK8 or, "How to obliterate the notion of Christian Humility in a Few Minutes".
David Lenett interesting, can you provide one example of this?
@@bentonvillefamily of what specifically? Condescending attitude? The insistence of going first in the debate? Use of the Gish Gallop technique? Avoiding direct responses to direct questions (that might fall outside the narrow subject of the debate)?
Make no mistake, WLC is a skilled debater and apologist, - I give him that. One should fully expect to witness a, 'rigidly controlled' contest taking place on stage, again, with WLC insisting on being given opening comments to 'set the table' and lay out his arguments so his opponent will feel compelled to respond specifically.
However, for many truth seekers, I think the highly circumscribed, adversarial format is getting stale and many folks welcome a more relaxed, open and honest, 'free form' conversation that goes wherever it may.
I've listened to dozens of full length WLC debates and it didn't take long to pick up on his style and pattern but again, the format often deprives the listener from honest conversations that would be far more valuable and illuminating IMHO.
He probably had The Amazing Atheist in mind.
Thunderfoot, for me.
Matt Dillahunty as well.
The problem is that, although WLC doesn't consider these guys to be worth pushing back against, they have great influence and legions of obnoxious fans stroking their egos.
@@therealhardrock True. I think this is the case of "treat not the fool according to his folly". These people don't listen and don't want to listen. Talking with them will only increase their support.
Or hopefully not. There are many honest ones out there, but as we all know, a quick look at the RUclips comments shows you what type of people you're dealing with.
@TheCosmicWarrior many low grade athiest are products of RUclips preachers like cosmicskeptic😪
Is William Lane Craig dishonest?
TL;DR: No.
Internet atheists may have a low opinion of him in terms of honesty or intelligence, but thankfully, this opinion is largely NOT shared by his atheist peers in philosophy and other academic atheists. Academics respect Craig as a serious philosopher and credit his work.
Is he intelligent?
He's a respected philosopher, yes. Quentin Smith writes, "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence."
In atheist philosopher Graham Oppy's "Arguing About Gods", Craig is cited 23 times in the references; more times than anyone save Oppy himself.
He has a huge section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy dedicated to his KCA (about a 4th of the article on the cosmological argument).
Dishonest?
(Atheists academics who say Dr. Craig is NOT dishonest)
- Lawrence Krauss (Atheist Physicist) -
At first we can notice the very reason that Krauss went to Australia and had the “discussions” was to expose William Lane Craig as dishonest. In an interview before the event, he is asked the question, “What’s the point of debates like this?” Here is part of his reply:
“In this particular case, I also do it because I happen to think William Lane Craig abuses science and says many, many, many things that are not only disingenuous but untruthful, but recognizes that his audience won’t know that. So one of the reasons I like to do these, and certainly why I agreed to allow the first one to be videotaped, is to demonstrate explicitly examples of where he says things that he knows to be manifestly wrong, but also knows that the audience won’t have access to the information.”
But after more discussion with Craig, surprisingly Krauss changes his mind. He says, “I’ve listened to Dr. Craig over the days, and I’ve changed my opinion. I’m much more charitable. I came here convinced, based on my past interactions and his writings, that Dr. Craig is a dishonest charlatan. But I don’t believe that. I think Dr. Craig earnestly believes deeply, in the issues he is talking about -- so deeply, and as a man of great intelligence, he is convinced that there must be a reason"
- Christopher Hitchens (Atheist Journalist) -
“But I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him [Dr. Craig] very seriously. He’s thought of as a very tough guy -- very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I say that without reserve; I don’t say that because I’m here.”
- Daniel Dennett, (Atheist Philosopher) -
After he heard Craig speak, said "That was a virtuoso job! A stunning amount of careful articulation and structure of some dauntingly difficult issues."
- Quentin Smith (Atheist Philosopher) -
On Time and Eternity, “William Lane Craig is one the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time…It is a rewarding experience to read through this brilliant and well-researched book by one of the most learned and creative thinkers of our era.”to believe that way…”
- Michael Ruse, (Agnostic Philosopher) -
On his book debate with Walter Sinott Armstrong "This is a wonderful exchange about the existence of God--fast, fair, informative, intelligent, sincere, and above all terrific fun."
- Jeff Jay Lowder (Well known, Atheist Blogger) -
“As a freethinker, I think it’s important to follow the evidence wherever it leads and avoid sloppy thinking….I take the charge of dishonesty extremely seriously. Anyone who levels the accusation of dishonesty has the burden of proof, and they had better make sure they attempt to get the other person’s side of the story before publicly concluding that dishonesty is the best explanation. If Craig has been dishonest, I have yet to see any evidence of that.”
“A second allegation is that Craig is dishonest in his public debates because he uses arguments which he “knows” are false. Really? I do wonder how these people “know” what Craig thinks.”
- John W. Loftus (Atheist Blogger with a Master’s in Theology, plus some PhD level study) -
“From personal knowledge my testimony is that Bill sincerely believes and is not being dishonest with himself. Unless someone knows him better than I do then my testimony should be taken seriously. He does not think he is wrong even though he is.”
This is emphatically not the case as much as some atheists would like to think. He is delusionally dead wrong. But he sincerely believes. I know him personally and have talked with him on several occasions even after deconverting.”
- Keith Parsons (Atheist Philosopher) -
“Having debated Craig twice face to face and once in print (in the Dallas Morning News,of all places, June 13, 1998) let me weigh in on Jeff [Jay Lowder]'s side. In these debates only once did I feel that Craig said anything that even sounded like a cheap shot. This was at the debate at Prestonwood Baptist Church near Dallas with 4500 people in attendance, about 4450 of whom were on Craig's side. Craig asked whether anything would convince me that he was right. I responded, as Norwood Russell Hanson did in "What I do not Believe" that some huge display that everyone would see would convince me. Earlier, I had rejected Craig's appeal to the "500" witnesses mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians XV and noted that mass hallucinations do sometimes occur. Craig then asked whether I would not also dismiss ANY display as a hallucination, prompting much braying laughter from the highly partisan audience.
Now whether Craig was intentionally playing to the audience or not, I don't know, but this was a legitimate question and I obviously had left myself open to the rejoinder. When the laughter died I explained...Craig had no response, so I think I took the point.”
“Now if you are looking for nasty, there are people like Steve Hays, Holding/Turkel, and Ed Feser. Ad hominem, character assassination, straw man, and vituperation are their stock-in-trade. I would not at all put Craig in their sleazy category.”
- Kevin Scharp (Atheist Philosopher) -
"In assessing his arguments, I will talk as I would to any other professional philosopher whose system I’ve managed to work my way into. That is, I don’t pull punches, but I also never attack character, so it isn’t personal. Professor Craig knows this; I know this; I’m saying it for the benefit of the audience. In part, because I respect the guy. He’s got some great philosophical skills, he’s a talented system builder, which I admire, and he’s done a tremendous service to the atheist movement by trouncing most of our heroes and raising the bar on both sides. [Audience laughter] I’m serious! That’s a major benefit, a major thing that we can say thank you for."
- Peter Milican (Atheist Philosopher) -"'The Cosmological Argument for Plato to Leibniz' - that's actually my own copy, dated 1980. I got it when I when studying the B Phil here [Oxford], studying philosophy of religion under Bazil Mitchell. And it was clear, even then, that Bill's book was a new landmark in the discussion of the cosmological argument."
Good
Thank You for Sharing this!
Subscribed to your Channel!💓💪👆
@@mickqQ yeah and still he can't debate that magic is real without magicians .
@@mickqQ you obviously have a big misconception about religion
@@mickqQ youre obviously trying to be funny, but you do have a misconception if you think you can just laugh religion off as "magic"
The most important rule is to know what you’re talking about first. It’s foolish to jump into deep water with the sharks before you know how to swim.
I always enjoy when you enter a conversation lol. I imagine you busting into a conversation with the sound of an 18 wheeler goimg down a mountain using the *"jake break"* 😂😂😂
@@electricspark5271 Haha. Yeah, wisdom says know when to throttle up and when to pump the brakes. Truck driving and sharing the gospel can be similar that way. 👍🏻
@@festushaggen2563 lol, yeah like screaming *"Hhhhoooolllldddd on their a minute"* 😂
@@electricspark5271 Funny enough, I just had one of those moments right now. Im talking to a guy on today's Cross Examined video and he just told me that the Bible leaves room to believe that Jesus wasn't crucified. That got me to slam those brakes real fast. 😆
@@festushaggen2563 lol, all I can day is wow...
I know how he feels I would rather debate a Dawkins than my family members who are so ignorant on very basic concepts.
I consider Dawkins a mental midget personally. There's a reason he won't debate publicly anymore.
His books are very intellectually dishonest. He's a scientist pretending to know philosophy.
@@jeffreyyoungblood7438 I don't think he is a mental midget, I think you hit it on the head, he is totally dishonest, as are many informed/educated atheists (and lefties). And they have succeeded in totally brainwashing the uneducated masses.
@@mickqQ 1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand,[a] who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.
4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?
5 There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.
6 You would shame the plans of the poor, but the Lord is his refuge.
--- Psalm 14
Jesus Saves he found Noah righteous apparently, so I guess that's contradiction number 1
@@ApeLikeCreature have u ever compared the number of churches in poor areas compared to rich areas?
Lots more in poor areas. Why? Poor people are desperate for anything and charlatans know it. You theists feed of people's ignorance and fear by injecting your religious dogma.
Even when YOU hear about rapes of little boys by priests, what do u do? Nothing. Priests continue their rapes.
Theists say their prayers and keep it moving. You people are disgusting and without empathy.
_Atheists:_ **want to be Richard Dawkins so they can debate Lane Craig*
_Richard Dawkins:_ **is Richard Dawkins and still didn't debate Lane Craig*
why would anyone want to debate WLC? Why don’t you stick to putting product in your hair, posting witty comments isn’t your strength
WLC doesn't have a "terminal" degree in biology (just philosophy) so is disqualified from debating Dawkins. This was the reason WLC gave for not wanting to debate Matt Dillahunty.
Because of Craigs age old tired non argument about something coming from nothing! Dawkins doesnt want to waste his time getting irritating!!!
Haha
Poor athiest
"For anyone who wants to have this kind of ministry, preparation is going to be critical, and then what they need to do as well is they need to get some experience; they need to take a course on debating techniques, and then they need to do mock debates before they ever go into a public debate. Otherwise they risk losing and dishonoring the Gospel."
Very illuminating that this is how Craig sees debates.
He is all style over substance. He floods the zones with convoluted assertions, knowing that with limited time, no skilled debated prepared for the topic will have the tone to address them all and also make and pursue his own assertions. It is an intellectually dishonest gimmick. Dillahunty would be the one to go at this first and defang Craig, then make assertions putting the onus of proof on Craig for evidence for all of Craig’s claims. That is the real reason Craig dodges dillahunty, as he sees the executioner…
You also have to be ready to lie for Jeebus.
@@MrMCN1963 bro shut up lol why do you go starting debates??? This guy is talking about how Craig views debates and you start saying a bunch of rude stuff.
William lain Craig is a pretty bad debater he is so dishonest and commits the strawman fallacy constantly and I love how the other guy says that many people believe he won the debate lol. Christians think he won an non Christians think he lost. But also, the confidence that most Christians have that their God exists is comparable to the fact that if you go out into the rain you get wet. And a debate like that would last 5 minutes. Define what it means to be wet in this case and then bring up certain cases where going out in the rain doesn't make you wet in the accepted definition. But you can't do this for God even with a loose definition of God. I mean these guys Litterally go to school to learn how to make a case for their God. And still can't do it in a way that doesn't commit multiple fallacious arguments that's why one of the newer points are "you can't prove your not just a brain in a vat" so basically saying "my God has the answers to everything and since I can claim acces to ultimate knowledge and you can't that means I win" which is just so wrong. If God was real then we aren't just a brain in a vat and are still not convinced of a God because there is no evidence for a God. So that means God really doesn't want us to know him or else he would show himself or.kill a Bunch of ppl like in the Bible. And if God doesn't exist then it really doesn't matter if we are just a brain in a vat because our experiences in life affect us. We feel pain and that's not a good feeling so we avoid it and we feel pleasure and go towards it but we also have to presuppose that other people are having this same experience so we try to avoid things that cause them pain and if you are actually the only one who experiences these things it still matters cause you could find yourself locked away in jail or in a mental hospital. It should be pretty easy to prove the God of the Bible just pray for something specific under the certain specifications in the Bible that guarantees that your prayers will be answered and if they aren't then no biblical God, and no saying that God is just testing you or it must not be in God's plan. Okay so why tf are you praying in the first place. What power does it actually have. Ppl are praying for their sick child to get better then they die because "God needed another angel in heaven" or some bs like that but if that sick child lives after being treated by a team of doctors "God is so great he saved my child he must have big plans for him/her" I grew up with a kid. Very religious and he got cancer it Got so bad that he even got to do the make a wish thing. And got a pretty sweet outdoor basketball court out of the deal. But when he went into remission him and his parents praised God all up and down like he was truly responsible for saving their child. But guess what years later her became a drug dealer and addict and sold drugs to people that resulted in multiple deaths. It's been about 20 years since he went into remission and 10 since he became an addict. There's no greater plan and even if there was what would it be for? To have as much people love him as possible but we aren't even aloud to see him? I think it's time to call catfish and see if this God is really who he says he is.
This is so sad why do they have to “train” for debates or learn “techniques” it’s like they don’t even care about what’s true or not it’s just about winning
I thought debates were meant to gain new insight and even possibly change one’s own mind not for deploying strategies and remembering tricks to “win”
Thats true reminds me of a saying "there is no deafer of an ear than one that refuses to listen"
Atheists listen but have yet to hear a convincing arguement for a god. Your comment could apply just as easily to theists.
Wim Harleev yup, and no evidence for them either. :)
And that is the perfect description of WLC.
Romans 11:8
KJV Bible
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Dr. Craig is a brilliant scholar, brilliant debater, brilliant philosopher, and brilliant Christian. Thank God for William Lane Craig.
brilliant Christian? Christian?? A man that denies half of God's word is a brilliant "Christian"? An chrisitan are supposed to belive in God's word.
@@Giraf1964 that is a hard accusation to accept. What I know of Dr. Craig he definitely affirms God's word. You'd have to provide significant evidence to support your position before I believe it.
@@rickintexas1584
Dr. Craig believes in theistic evolution, so he "denies" a literal interpretation of the earliest chapters of Genesis. Maybe that's what the other commenter objects to in Dr. Craig's theology.
Let's thank Yahweh even harder for Bone Cancer, amirite?
@@coffeeandbytes9854you would have to thank Adam and Eve, silly guy
The first half sounds like a rationalization on how to avoid debating Matt Dillahunty.
Craig would have no problem debating Dilihunty.While Matt is a very smart guy.And very good debater.If you listen long enough,he will inevitably make a cop out statement that’s like a shield that he can hide behind so he can continue his stance.Like when he said at the end of a debate i watched with him that we couldn’t even be sure or put our belief in the validity of reason.What a cop out statement.So our universal fundamental tool of taking information in.Processing it,coming to a rational,logical conclusion,cannot be trusted as valid??? I would ask Matt,what other way do we have to figure things out? That’s only one statement.But it’s a huge one.Craig would have no problem with Matt.And i doubt Dilihunty is even on par with Craig.
@@dylanacious
To add to the "shield" I've noticed the same thing about his objection with the definition of God. Its his standard response to the Kalam (saying a necessary foundation isn't the same as god), and he used it in his debate with Michael Jones: he pretty much ran out of objections to Michaels hypothesis of a cosmic consciousness (on the basis of quantum physics) and just ended up saying that he simply didn't liked that Michael called the cosmic consciousness "God". Standard last resort, and clear giveaway of a loss.
Sounds like wisdom to me. I’ve seen David Wood’s debate with Matt and it was just terrible. Matt constantly dodges the issues. He says one thing one minute and then the next he changes it when it is more convenient and then denies he ever said it. While anyone can just rewind back and realise he was lying. You don’t want to get into a silly game like that.
@@Miatpi I think it’s fair to say he didn’t like the definition of God as a “cosmic consciousness”. To agree that such a thing exists and one could call it God if they wanted is indeed a loss, but it’s not a very meaningful one. That particular definition of God is incredibly vague, on the level of saying “God is order” or “God is energy”. So while you can certainly define anything as God, demonstrate that it exists, and therefore prove God exists, that doesn’t necessarily tell you anything new about the universe, or anything new or useful about God’s nature.
That being said, Matt is absolutely not without flaw, especially as he can let emotion overcome his otherwise mostly sound arguments.
Why should he be trying to avoid Dillahunty? Is Dillahunty more formidable than Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris?. What Credentials does Dillahunty have? He's a RUclips atheist.
I'm sure Dr. Craig is most grateful to Kevin for allowing him to pass on these tips on this channel.
lol
Since WLC does not win debates, how can he reveal the best ways to win them?
His tactics regarding debating atheists: Lie about atheism, misrepresent what the atheists are saying, lie about science, commit every logical fallacy in the book, and assume that God exists and the Bible is true.
Somewhere along the way we forgot what the nature of having discussions and debates was and replaced it with crass discussions that go for shock value and winning internet points.
Haha. Yeah... Quite sad.
Do you think fables somehow have the same validity as science? Seriously, elevating a fable to that standing is just dishonest.
@@frosted1030 no, I do not. Perhaps you meant to respond to someone else?
You know, that's merely in this circle. I can point you to multiple secular discord servers, YT channels and FB groups where open discussion is encouraged and very active.
Christians seem to have this distopic view of us atheist, that we go around looking for trouble with religion, and only bring up religion when its being mocked or taunted. That's literally what WLC does. NOT US. We debate/discuss multiple religions, yet christians seem to think we only care about them. Heck, WLC even just mentioned this in the video "we try to be Richard Dawkins" to win internet points as you say. Yeah, you're referring to the minority of militant atheist we choose not to associate with.
As someone who came from fundamental christianity to atheism, I can happily say that the atheist side promotes free discussion, while the former actively discourages it. I can't even begin to count the number religious discord servers I'm banned from simply for not agreeing with a point. "think like us and you will have a wonderful time, or we will make you leave" That's the impression I got. There's absolutely nothing comforting about having to conform yourself in order to be accepted. Or to pretend you are something you're not just in order to open a discussion. I can't freely go to my local church and declare myself gay and have an honest discussion with my preacher, that admission instantly denies me. Now, I'm not saying all christians are like that, but doesn't that specific worldview find it's source in doctrine? Therefor I have to reject the doctrine before assessing the individual I'm in discussion with.
Its because they are indoctrinated and told not to debate with creationist. Richard dawkins said something similiar to this.
Trying everything you can to win will leave you close minded, not actually listening to the opponent, just blindly rejecting their arguments.
Debates are not to illuminate the presenters, but to inform the viewers. It’s about letting viewers make up the decision in their own mind, after hearing arguement from both sides.
@@IeatBeef4ever I didn’t know that, thank you.
HOST: Majority of people agree you have won these debates."
.....you mean other Christians think he won? Same way other Atheists think he lost. How is it determined that he won any of these debates? Did he convert more Atheists to Christianity? Or did the Atheists do more of the converting? Again, how do you know?
Usually it's the person whose arguments go uncontested. That's been WLC mostly. You seem to be agitated with WLC, care to share why?
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Actually, I have nothing but repsect and admiration for WLC. He seems kind and passionate about what he believes. It's the internet trolls-atheists and Christians alike- that drive me crazy saying "Boom! He destroyed em!!" Or "He got destroyed!"
@@jrivera345 Oh. Well in that context, I pretty much agree with you. My opinion of who won or lost is rarely influenced by the comment section.
Still waiting for Craig to debate Matt Dillahunty if he knows how to handle atheists
That would probably be a nice conversation. With all my antipathy to WLC for his lack of rigor and intellectual dishonesty he's a decent in talking to people (even though with his usual smugness like he's explaining something super complicated to a three-year-old).
Nah, Craig needs to debate with someone who isn't a Dilladodger.
Edit* people that agree with him think he won the debates..
Well, one way to excuse one's unwillingness to debate is to blame the person; assume they don't understand, assume they aren't serious, assume not having a degree makes them unable to debate professionally. And what if they have a public record that attests to their seriousness and their abilities? Apparently that won't make any difference. But then again, I find the format of most formal debates to be somewhat boring and less than informative, the exceptions being when debaters get to question each other directly and answer questions from the audience.
I don't think Craig is saying here that he would only debate academics or PhDs. He has debated Christopher Hitchens, for eg, who isn't an academic, doubtlessly because Hitchens is a tremendously influential figure. "Becoming an extremely influential intellectual figure" apparently counts as "earning it" for Craig, and well when you think about it, that does make perfect sense.
@@Jasonmoofang I don't mind that he's discerning about who he debates, but I'm not buying all of his criteria. It seems a little too convenient to me but having listened to many of his debates, he pretty much makes the same points all the time. I find his method and the format kind of boring to tell the truth. I would advise any potential opponent to change it up, 5 minute presentations with a long Q & A to follow - which he probably would reject.
@@madmax2976 I feel like he can't exactly be blamed for preferring to stick to a format that he excels at, but I do agree and think that it would be cool to see him in more diverse - probably more laid back - settings. Something more like a civil conversation than a back and forth debate, say.
No one can decide what convinces them. You're either convinced or you're not.
WHWWD And Philosophy I think many do not understand this
Well that's not very convincing...
@@chonn3 lol yes but its true although was i just convinced of it???? holy **** Illuminati confirmed
Bruh
Are you trying to define "imaginary entity"?
@@filipedias7284 I will define it... "God" 😂
"Let the dead bury their own dead"
I'd say this guy is a master debater!
I think he's a mass debater for sure.
@@mystery6411 I think it's more that he presents arguments that sound plausible to people who have already decided they agree with his conclusions and either can't or won't see that his arguments don't demonstrate the existence of a god, even though he says they do.
He is actually terrible. Most people agree with his bias so they like his arguments no matter how nonsensical they are
I've master debated to this video...... R.I.P Christopher Hitchens
@@jwake9196 😂🤣😂
1:17 None of Craig's opening statement is true. What he is actually known for is giving the same Kalam Cosmological argument at every debate since 1979. What he fails to understand in spite of his claim of great knowledge and wisdom concerning philosophy is that Kalam is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. Secondly, Craig has debated people who don't have a PhD. In other words, Craig claims he won't debate someone without a PhD to avoid debating Dillahunty who would be happy to debate him, but then tosses that rule out the window when he so chooses.
2:00 Craig is vastly overstating his importance. No one would be seen as Dawkins or Hitchens after debating Craig. Further, Hitchens did not attend graduate school and certainly did not have a PhD. Finally, Richard Dawkins has stated that he will never debate Craig. Grayling has made the same statement. I did read an article in the Guardian where someone suggested that Dawkins was afraid to debate Craig because Craig is so much smarter. No. Dawkins is a biologist which is an area that Craig knows almost nothing about. If Craig only wants to talk about Kalam, he needs to debate an astrophysicist. Finally, we can see that what Craig really means is that he only wants to debate someone well known enough to give him some validation.
2:30 Not exactly. In a purely abstract debate (like with Hitchens) where arguments are based solely on logic and intuition, Craig does quite well. However, in any debate where science is involved he quickly shows his vast, scientific ignorance. I recall one such debate where Craig claimed that he had knock down arguments meaning that his opponent was not able to make any defense. In reality, Craig never got up to a college Freshman level of discussion. He didn't understand how ridiculous his arguments were. Kent Hovind does the same thing.
4:18 What Craig is failing to understand is that he can only give a response with which he is familiar which is limited to medium level philosophy and apologetics. This doesn't work with a discussion about science.
Is you last sentence true or are you making a joke? Because it sounds like you are vastly overstating your importance
@@gabrielbernal6309 I don't have any importance today. I don't know how I could be any clearer on that point. But what I said is completely true.
This was a laugh!
If anyone is seeking knowledge, then you should focus on discussions rather than debates
Can you ask Dr. Craig why he always turns off comments on his video. Why would someone with god on their side do that? Seems pretty weak to me..
He doesn't on one of his channels.
@@josephsack4918 which one? I only know of his main 2: drcaigvideos and reasonablefaithorg- both of which comments are always disabled...
@@amandamcgovern5744 one of those sometimes has them open. I know on his animated shorts they're open.
He does provide for some of the best arguments in the game.
All it takes is Wisdom,
something that Atheists reject.
these arguments are?
@@KenMasters. that's your personal opinion. I would say that you're wrong because wisdom indeed is something atheists have, I know I have it. sorry we don't agree that your God exists....doesn't them equal we don't have wisdom.
@@therick363
That's an oxymoron,
because wisdom restricts free-though, just like how absolute morality is the opposite of subjuctive morality.
Also: *The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no god."*
@@KenMasters. so then the question is what you said a fact or an opinion about atheists and wisdom?
Absolute morality hasn’t been shown to exist.
Also “the fool”….so you take it that if someone says Atheist….they are all the same?
You can’t debate someone who issues magic as their premise....
@Scott Seufert something coming from nothing would sound like magic to me
@@ramigilneas9274 if He is the one who created it - then all has a cause, and therefore that cause is what we call God. Besides, creating from nohing is different than nothing creating everything, if there is something that exists, in this scenario, God, then there is something that existed forever, and "everything came from nothing" can't apply here, since God is not nothing, in this case
The notion that life arose by chance - requires far more than magic
@@ionutdinchitila1663 the origin of the universe is irrelevant to the god debate. Stop that "something from nothing" strawman. It's the weakest, dead horse "gotchya" Christians have.
How to convince atheists that an invisible, unknowable god lives in the clouds and wants to have a relationship.
Answer: Ask god to appear.
Further: If the Hebrew god is the all powerful creator of all things as Bill likes to claim then god debates would be pointless.
Who said god lives in the clouds? Such a childish comment.
mark mooroolbark I’m sure he was illustrating a much bigger syllogism. Don’t get caught up in semantics you fool 😂
@@markmooroolbark252 Mark they think that comment is funny or clever and it makes the person saying it look well childish like you said. foolish.
@@markmooroolbark252 The writers of the bible seemd to think God lived in the "sky". E.g They were trying to build a tower of Babel to reach God who didn't want that and scattered their language; Jesus's ascencion into the clouds as if heaven was physically just beyond that. Due to modern astronomy this now sounds childish to you.
@@elawchess It is the suggestion that Christians today still adhere to this understanding of God that I found to be a strawman.
The best way would be to just provide valid, objective, positive evidence that his god actually exists. But he has never done that, and cannot do it.
They only have speculations and opinions and they count it as real facts. That's what preachers do but they never had any real proof to begin with.
@@keqingsimp6788 Along those lines .... Science speaks of facts without having absolute certainty: religion speaks of absolute certainty without having facts.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Right. They have philosophical arguments but that's a very medieval way of thinking. It's funny how people trust a book with talking donkeys vs. science.
@@keqingsimp6788 wait really where’s the talking donkey? 😂
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger This is one of the best quotes I have ever read.
Summary of video: research opponents work, make up brief responses from your opponents work and then pull them out while in a debate.
Not sure if this is supposed to help anybody learn in depth structures of arguments or not but ok boomer.
Good chirp kiddo.
Well before you have objections you have to give an opening statement, so responding isn't the only part.
Brendan Keane Your conclusion is already a better understanding to structure arguments than this entire video
@@TheManofLawlessness what exactly do you mean by that
Brendan Keane This video didn’t teach anyone how to structure arguments. It just stated how this individual structures his own arguments without going in depth on how to structure a proper argument.
No, I have been to one of his debates. He answered all questions from the audience. He stayed for hours so that everyone had a chance to ask him his/her question. He is just against giving “noisy atheists” a platform in a debate who have not prepared or have any serious accreditations.
heather parker wow, hours is a long time to debate. In all the time did he manage to produce any actual evidence to support his position?
So socrates and aristotle wouldn’t be qualified to debate this charlatan?
@@MrMCN1963 First, having the best educations of their day, Socrates and Aristotle would certainly be qualified, but would likely have agreed with him. Secondly, you refer to WLC as a charlatan: What do you mean by that, and how did you come to that conclusion?
@@WhereWhatHuh WTF? Do you even have an understanding of Socrates and Aristotle? Speaking of divinity does not necessarily require a believe in a deity.
@@MadersPie FTW? Yes, I have an understanding; what's more, I read.
I did not say that Socrates and Aristotle believed in a god or gods, though Socrates, in his _Apologia,_ denied the charge of Atheism by stating that one may not believe in horsemanship without believing in horses (you did read that part, right?). Which means, by implication, that he believed ... Hello?
Later in the dialog, as he is preparing to drink the hemlock, he describes his vision of the afterlife in great detail.
It's okay; I understand how you got to your conclusion, and I'm neither shocked nor insulted. You started with the premise (an unstated assumption, in this case, and wholly without foundation) that belief in any god is contrary to logic. That's your weak spot, btw.
You then assumed (based not on reading their works, but probably on an article, possibly on wikipedia) that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were the epitome of logic.
With those two premises, of course you would reach the conclusion that you reached, namely, that Socrates and Aristotle would be violently opposed to such an idea. Why, something supernatural? Metaphysical? Pshaw!!
Socrates would never have talked about that myth of the cave idea, with it's implications of a metaphysical world beyond this one -- except that he did. It's also in Apologia, in the opening arguments.
Sorry Friend. Didn't mean to burst your bubble, but, well, facts are facts.
With all due respect, is it possible that David Lee Roth be Mr Craig's "Evil Twin"?
Yes...
Get your eyes checked.
Is this guy considered to be a good debater / defender of christianity ? Really ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This man is the greatest Christian defender ever, God bless his soul and his family abundantly with grace 🙏🏽❤️
🙏👍👏👏👏
God bless you!
What good is defending a god that is not real? What does he achieve?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Well what if it is? Also, how would we know if it's real? Craig is clearly very sharp on these matters; he's even responded to objections made against the Kalam.
@@theoskeptomai2535 But in your worldview God doesn't exist, so everything is ultimately absurd, so why does it matter what anyone achieves? Good, bad, rape, murder, discovering of medicine? Who cares if it's ultimately absurd and the universe will expand into an ever ending darkness? Science points out that at the end of the universe's life, the last black holes will have evaporated and humans will be long gone extinct by then, so who cares and why do you care about what you achieve or anyone else for that matter?
every Christian debate with and atheist has been lost before it got started.
You cant win a debate with a fictional book with a 6300 year old universe, an impossible timeline, and stories that is proven not to have happened. Then you make a claim that the book is 100% true and should be believed on faith.
Why is this even a debate in 2020 if there is so much 'evidence'? Can someone just present it already?
Evidence is usually premised on actual beliefs or entrenched prejudices. Not the other way. Atheism is also a belief system.
@@amhenotepakkardius5504 What? You don't base evidence on belief.😂 Belief is what you rely on when you have a lack of evidence, and it gets you no closer to the truth. Are you saying that a hundred different people believing in a hundred different things provides evidence for what they individually believe to be true, even if those things might be contradictory?
It is beyond me why people in the comment section spam crying laughing emojis. That aside, I don’t agree with belief being evidence but a lot of atheist do treat atheism as a belief system. Specifically atheist who view atheism as “the belief that there is no God” as opposed to just not believing in God.
Before you think that’s dumb, let me explain.
The reason why this small difference is important is because the the atheist that says conclusively that there is no God is making an objective claim that should be able to be proven, right? This is when I’d use your original comment as a copypasta (but I’m to lazy). Personally, I don’t think you have to have 100% proof for everything you believe in (at least something like scientific evidence) but I’m pretty sure that applies to atheist too and not just Christians.
If you want to fire back with the correct definition of atheism, that’s fine but my point is that the definition that asserts there’s no God is almost like a self defeater blah blah blah hopefully you get my point
@@TheNewHumanity hahaha😂
0:43 damn I want to see Craig vs Matt dillahunty
Very unlikely. WLC is scared of him!
WLC guards his paper tiger of a reputation. He's too smart to be humiliated by Dillahunty. (And lose those souls!) 😝
@@mzavros the only people Dillahunty humiliates is his parents and Atheist that actually know what they are talking about. He's nothing more than a layman.
Dillahunty is exactly the type of atheist Craig was referring to.
ABSOLUTE LEGEND! Yes I agree - in the clear MAJORITY of his debates, William Lane Craig turned out to be the WINNER!
When ever has god, jesus, or the "holy spirit" ever shown up and said "See everyone, WLC is correct".....? lol
MrScout0311 I have to agree with that absolutely.
Try to watch more than just video clips then.
MrScout0311
How about through our ancient historical documents inspired by the supernatural...
Jide Adigun
We get it you hate God
What I see Craig do in every debate is as follow:
1: Set what the atheist have to do in order to score debate points. That is to give "proper" responses to every argument you present.
2: Present Craig's 5 favorites arguments for the existence of God.
3: Listen to the responses the atheist give to these 5 arguments and dismiss as quickly as possible any of the atheist's claims.
4: If the atheis fails to give a "proper" response to at least one the 5 arguments, and they will fail because of time constraints, you bring attention to that.
5: Given the atheist's failure you claim victory.
Works almost every time. Craig is a genius :)
That's exactly what he does! He makes a great big deal when his opponent forgets to handle one of his many ridiculous claims, and preens like he's won the debate.
All style, no substance.
ruclips.net/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/видео.html He spoke to the Cosmicskpetic a while back. I do not find things similar to how you have described above.
@@bkhan19 That was not a debate. In conversations William has a different attitude. Check one of his debates with an atheist.
@@justoch I listened to his debates with Hitchens, Carrol and Rebecca Goldstein. Point 1 that you mention, seems in tune with his debate strategy. Not sure on the rest of the points that you make.
@@bkhan19 Well, I could be wrong about the other points, but after whatching many of his debates that's the pattern I see. And it is a good debate strategy in my opinion, if you consider that debates are for winning over your opponent and not for finding out the best arguments.
I think the debate WLC had with Sean Carrol and the debates he has where he tries to defend the Christian morality view of Devine command theory ended my need to take WLC seriously any more.
Elisha simple, I take into account what I call, “The Three Cons”; Consequence, Context and Consideration.
I think of the consequences of my choices and actions. The legalities are an example.
I also might ask myself the Context. The classic hypothetical of a woman stealing diapers for her baby is an example. Why might someone have come to the conclusion that they did?
I then take into Consideration any other people who might be involved (or animal for that matter). How would I feel if what I’m about to do was done to me?
That is my moral compass and the method by which I try to make the best decisions and act accordingly.
What’s yours? “Cause God said so”?
@@Tennethums1
Hi man what you are saying doesn't make sense . I have a 2 yrs not even close to know how to talk . One day she stole butter from the fridge and right way she went to hide me . My question to you is that how can a 2yrs old has the knowledge of right and wrong if they have not designed to be like that ? By God or a hire being , where does human conscious comes from if it has never been designed by anything. ? Have a great day God bless you all
stellio stevenson Germain not sure I understand your question fully but I’ll give it a try!
You’re saying your two year old who can’t even talk, stole some butter from the fridge and then...gave it back to you because she felt guilty?
First, if she can’t talk I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion she had any sense of wrong, much less guilt. At that age she probably wasn’t “stealing”. More likely, she thought she wanted it and just took it BECAUSE she had no sense of right or wrong. That’s something you’ll have to teach her. In fact, you could tell her there is nothing wrong with just taking things and she’ll grow up thinking THAT’S right. People do it all the time.
If God had instilled in us a sense of right and wrong then we’d probably not need teaching. However, parents teach their kids these things.
The other problem with your argument is even if we were to say her actions were not “natural”, we’d be hard pressed to jump to “supernatural” or (even more of a jump) “divinely inspired”. And it doesn’t even stop there! Not only would you be arguing that her actions are divinely inspired, but that they are YOUR God and THAT God is this and that.
That’s reaching to say the least. The best we could say is she seems to have some unborn sense of right and wrong but that we have no evidence that points to what that might be. You can’t just insert God. To be honest with yourself you’d have to follow a trail that LEADS to your God.
But, I don’t think any of that’s even necessary. We see kids take things all the time and much of the time they DO give the items back but it’s neither stealing or a sense of guilt and shame. They do it to PLEASE YOU. Not themselves.
Sorry the gift was only butter 😇
Mick Q thanks. Little long winded though, sorry 😜
Elisha our thoughts are fully determined by our brain chemistry. Amnesia, schizophrenia, bipolar, Alzheimer’s, head trauma...all cause changes in brain function. If our “mind” was separate from our brain then brain ailments/head trauma would not affect change. But they do.
Now, does these leave us mindless automatons? No, but you’re incorrect in thinking our “mind” is separate from our physical brain. You can lose your mind quite easily and there is nothing you can do about it.
2:36 in and haven't discussed a single way to debate athiests
How to debate atheists? Try evidence
*Gives evidence*
Atheist: I’m not convinced, muh LACK BELIEF.
(Hey guys atheist here, today I’m going to approach a metaphysical question with my personality psychological state, and set the bar for success to be my own idiosyncratic psychological incredulity!!!! Category errors and beyond.)
@@affinity1746 yeah I'm still waiting for solid evidence.
Hello from Armenia🇦🇲†
Craig is cool🔥
Hello from the rest of the world.
No he's not.
He is absolutely freakin..from India
Ist lesson:pick your fights carefully.
I have seen Dr. Craig debate non scholarly atheists. It is embarrassing for the atheist. The world is a better place because of Dr. Craig.
The world is a better place because of Dr. Craig's god 😌
So you all really believe this? That you know the truth and 5 other billion people on Earth are wrong? That because you say certain words in a certain order, you know the truth about the universe??? Think about what you are saying...
@@martingirard1949 Hi Martin (salut Martin ?).
Let's put it differently : how many causes has the universe? just one, OK? so there is only one truth about this point.
Same for life : how did it appear on earth (how did it appear at all)? Just one reason, just one cause.
From there on, you may discuss which is the correct answer, but not critic those who search for the truth. All discoveries in science where made by people who searched "the" right answer to a specific problem.
How do you feel about things presented that way?
@@martingirard1949 Yes, I believe this. Yes, I have thought about what I am saying (a lot). Over 5 billion people on earth don't know advanced calculus, but I do. Just because so many don't know it doesn't mean that I am wrong.
Dr. Craig's arguments are very well laid out and explained. The fact that 5 billion people have never heard these arguments is irrelevant to whether they are truthful or not. My original statement still stands: I have watched Dr. Craig debate atheists. The debates that I have watched were embarrassing for the atheists because they had no sound arguments, they only threw stones and hurled insults.
@@ThefrenchFranz religious people don't search for the truth. They already "know " it and they try to read it into thing... It's dogmatism... The contrary of free inquiry. Salut à toi.
And he won’t debate Dillahunty.
@Carlos Rodriguez Are you speaking for yourself? Have you ever tried calling the show to debate Matt? Can I invite you to try it? I would be surprised if you stumped him but I'm open-minded :)
@Carlos Rodriguez Matt Dillahunty has lots of filmed, formal debates on RUclips, just like the one with JP. You seem to not understand that there are lots of differences between a call-in show and a formal debate. Craig's argument that he doesn't want to give him platform is moot, since anyone who knows about Craig knows about Matt Dillahunty, lol. It's just silliness. And, as Matt often says, arguments stand or fall on their own, regardless of who says them. I can't attribute motive to Craig, because I can't read his mind. But his stated reason for not debating Matt Dillahunty is hollow.
@Carlos Rodriguez What better way to reveal the holes in Dillahunty's thinking than on the debate stage? ;-)
Dillahunty has paid his dues and he needs no platform.
Craig is full of sh*t and knows he is outclassed.
Carlos Rodriguez
i have two questions, if i may?
you write, "atheists assume things that have not been proven"
since that's completely false, i am curious
1. what assumptions do you think are being made?
2. do you not recognize your hypocrisy clearly being demonstrated by that statement?
I'm a little put off by this clip. I know many apologetics guys debate atheists, but to what end? To "win?" What do you consider winning? That most of the people listening to the debate think you won because they think your argumentation is the best? Well, if you get a hundred people in the room and half are atheists/skeptics and half are Christians, nine times out of ten the Christians are going to think the Christian has won and the atheist will think the atheist won. You may get some honest give on both sides every now and then, but more than likely the person believing their worldview will side with the person that agrees with their worldview.
And not giving up and coming atheist a platform because they haven't "earned" the stature of a Dawkins shows the heart of debating here is actually "winning." No, as Christians, we want to lead people to the gospel because we're not ashamed of it (Romans 1:16). It is the power of God unto salvation, not our clever, philosophical arguments. And when you argue from more of a philosophical viewpoint than a Biblical one, you violate Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8. Dr. Craig does this way too much, to the point that he has no problem confessing that he doesn't mind if the Bible has errors. The Bible is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but most apologetics has more to do with "proving" this than proclaiming it. So as Christians we believe God's Word is God's Word in church, but when we talk to an unsaved person we get philosophical to "prove" the Bible is the Word of God before we proclaim the truth of it (then we even give in to the criticism that it might have errors). It's a sign of double-mindedness, which James 1:8 seriously warns against.
Couldn't agree more. What is the point of arguing the Bible with someone who doesn't believe it? We don't read the Bible as if it's a technical manual so why argue over it as if it is one? If they can't see God in the spider's web, the eggshell, the butterfly, or the hummingbird they're never gonna see God in the Bible. If I'm going to argue with a non-believer, I'm going to argue over his perspective on reality and life. Where does he get it and how does he know it is true?
I want to see frank turek vs matt dilahunty
When will Bill Craig stop running from Matt Dillahunty?
He just explained that he doesnt debate popularizers.
Matt Dillahunty = Jerry Springer evangelist
@@inaudiblearia8047 Craig's days of debates are in the finish line, indeed.
As a theist, your opinion would be the same as mine when it comes to Kent Hovind LOL
Haven't heard Craig mention the word "truth" even once. All I heard was "winning" and "profit". In other words, for Craig, winning and profit is more important than truth.
In my experience, most apologists, street preachers and religion enthusiasts in general are arrogant wanks who basically do what they do for sport. If they think that arguing with people is going to convert them to their religion, they are very sadly mistaken.
@@1970Phoenix Just Pray and read the bible. Do u believe u have a soul
@@thebelievertheone1625 Nah ... not convinced to talking to imaginary friends is an efficient way of achieving anything. Ditto with reading astoundingly boring, inaccurate and internally contradictory bronze age mythology. The soul is an absurd concept with zero supporting evidence and a considerable amount of conflicting evidence ... so no. Also, I sold mine for $5.
Profits is pretty much what religion and churches are about. Lol
@@1970Phoenix I would sell my soul for some chicken nuggets. Lol
As someone who grew up in the speaking forensics world, I can say everything he describes is just as we would do it. I was in Lincoln-Douglas style debate in High School, Extemporaneous Speaking, and later, I was a judge for all types of events. I judged state debate tournaments on a panel of 3, to smaller town one day events. I can tell you there is a difference between those who spent time preparing at their home practice setting, from those who did less. We would also call them "briefs". The idea is to try to be more steps ahead of your opponent, than he is of you. Think of what they'd say before they say it. Prepare responses so much that you're just waiting for them to say it. It was fun and I hope to get into it again.
Dr Craig is a wonderful speaker and skilled in debate.
Craig is a complete moron, i am not aware of a single valid point he has ever made. the best he can do is the good old "nobody knows how the universe came into existence therefore my god" and try to force atheists to prove the nonexistence of his imaginary friend, as if that would make any sense.
@@hitman5782 William Lane Craig is good with people who already have that Christian nonsense in their head.
Sure Craig wants to debate Atheists. Craig wants to show the problems with Atheism. What Craig wants to stay away from is why the stories of Christianity are not true. Much better debates against Christianity being true are debaters from the Age of Enlightenment Philosophers. Modern day Atheists are to much into proving Science and whether there is a Nature's God or there is not a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is never a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero, not a Nature's God.
@@ronaldlindeman6136 You do realize Craig has on numerous occasions debated the resurrection. That is the central most part of Christianity so how can you say this-"What Craig wants to stay away from is why the stories of Christianity are not true"
@@kristheobserver Because debating the story of the resurrection is not debating why Christianity is not true. That is only debating the story.
How would you debate that the story of Santa Clause is not true? Would you take the text of the story of Santa Claus and if there are any mistakes in the text of the story, then we can decide that the stories of Santa Claus are not true about someone who got Reindeer to fly and pull his sleigh and get elves to build toys. The reason we don't think the stories of Santa Claus are not true is all the Supernatural stuff is not believable.
That is my argument on why Christianity is not true. The way I think about the debates, we should not debate the text, but debate just how stupid and ignorant Jesus of Christianity is about knowledge of Nature. Look up where Jesus and Disciples did not have to wash hands before meals. Would a real God of the Universe know about microbiology? If Jesus is claimed to be a God of the Universe, where is the knowledge of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biology, etc..
@@kristheobserver How do we figure out what stories are true and what stories are not true?
It has to do with making an analogy with stories that we can believe happened, and an analogy with stories that we believe did not happen. And use the thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of stories that humans have created, both true and not true.
Do we think the stories of the moon landings are true?
Do we think the stories of Star Trek are true?
Why do we think the moon landings and coming back to the Earth actually happened? Because Neil Armstrong was a great pilot of jets, Buzz Aldrin had a PhD from MIT in orbital mechanics. The Scientists and Engineers knew how to build rocket ships.
Why might we think that the stories of Star Trek are not true? Aside from the timeline problems. Because the stories don't contain knowledge on how to make Warp Drive Star Ships, Photon Torpedoes, Transporters. In order for us to think the stories of Star Trek are true, we would have to be able to build a Warp Drive Star Ship and fly to Vulcan and look and see if there is anybody there that looks like Spock. Then we might think that Star Trek is true.
It is all about knowledge vs story claims. In order for someone to turn a 3 day old stinky body to new again, that being would have to know a lot about the human body, about blood, skin, bones, eye balls, liver, heart, etc.. Did Jesus tell us anything about the human body? Anything about first aid that we humans can use? Anything about CPR? Anything that would start Science to research into starting Medical Science so humans can build hospitals, medical research facilities and ways to prevent diseases naturally?
All Jesus of Christianity gives us is Story Magic. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero. Jesus of Christianity is not a Nature's God.
Did Jesus tell us about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Geography, etc.. If Jesus was a God, Jesus should have been able to fill entire books on economics, much more than Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, 1776. Instead of just telling people to give to the poor. If Jesus cared about humans, Jesus would have talked about how to build more wealth with good economic practices to build businesses and on how to make things.
Then lets understand Thomas Jefferson and his phrase in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Thomas Jefferson did not think that Christianity is true. Jefferson knew that the stories of Christianity only gets to a human created story God, stories created by humans. Jesus is a Supernatural Superhero, who only knows Story Magic. Jefferson thought that a Nature's God would have knowledge of Nature. That is what the Philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment gave us, is to not believe in Supernatural Superhero Story Magic, but to build on knowledge of Nature and Reason. A phrase used to describe the Age of Enlightenment was 'Dare to Know.'
It is the Age of Enlightenment Philosophies that gave us the advances of Nature, like electricity, electronics and machine created power, medical care and medical hospitals. Not the Story Magic thinking from the ancient world.
Summation:
1. Don't give atheists time to explain.
2. God requires people to have specific modern day degrees in order to discuss the bible meaningfully.
3. If people want to be successful off debating (like he is) then their opinion is invalid.
4. Make personal attacks of character towards the atheist instead of arguing for your subject point.
5. Organize with portfolios.
@Vincent Kinney Did we learn a new word today?
A strawman is a fabricated argument that is attacked instead of the argument presented.
That means it cannot be a strawman if what he says actually means what I am saying it means, which it does.
Here are some time marks for when he advocates these ideas:
0:38 - 0:48
"In fact I routinely turn down debates with atheists who are popularizers, who want to have the spotlight and acheive a reputation for their opposition to Christianity." (My 3rd and 1st point is supported by this. By the way what difference does it make towards the truth of their claims?)
0:48- 1:00
..."But frankly, who haven't done the hard work of getting a degree and uh, doing serious scholarship (My 2nd Point) uhm, I don't give these people a platform (My 1st point)." (Why not? Are there souls not in danger too? Or poor people can burn in hell?)
That's why you love this guy so much, he sounds like you got a sophisticated professional on your side. Doesn't matter what he's actually saying right?
People like that because suddenly their ideas don't sound so silly. Just like you claim atheists are guilty of. (This part is my personal opinion and not part of the video).
1:32 - 1:58
" That's part of it, some of these people are very eager to have the spotlight and be the big man the big anti-christian... and I say you got to earn that stature." (My 4th point, and this is nothing more than a personal attack with no significance to truth of what atheists say. It discourages atheist conversation as anyone can be interpreted that way).
2:10- 2:34
"I usually regretted it because the level of conversation is so... low its debating people who don't understand the issues, much less are capable of giving good arguments in favor of their view... so they have generally been very unprofitable." (My 4th point again).
4:00 - 4:30
(My 5th point). Using portfolios also known as "briefs."
He's kind of a snide prick hypocrite if you ask me but i see the appeal of his fancy accent, though it advocates garbage.
Isn't it a responsibility to save everybody? He has a biblical scripture citable responsibilty to use his apparent genius on the matter so people dont burn in hell.
So how was anything I said a strawman?
@Vinsplosion
"
Summation of your summation:
1: Strawman
2: More people made of straw
3: Hey guys do we need any more straw men? I have a lot...
4: I don't appear to be running out
5: Welp I'll just throw this out there
"
That's such a content-free comment
All this talk of needing to have a degree to have a conversation is ridiculous.
I would agree that a certain level of understanding needs to be met to have a conversation on a given subject.
I think Craig should come up with a list of concepts and terms that must be understood by a person before he is willing to have the conversation with that person.
Otherwise he’s just arrogantly assuming that, on the one hand anybody without a PhD is illiterate, and on the other hand anybody with a PhD somehow has knowledge of his parochial subject.
He never said he wouldn't debate who doesn't have a p h.d (like Dawkins does). He refuses to debate popularizers who have not earned it achieved the level of discussion. I have debated so many atheists who were really a waste of time since they were more interested in trying to redicule me than seriously engage me.
Roger Herrington
That’s exactly it. WLC simply doesn’t want to waste his time
Stormageddeon Dark Lord of All
They want nothing to do with him because they’re intimidated and know they don’t stand a chance
Stormageddeon Dark Lord of All
Ditto
God Is Love
Stand a chance? Are you a child?
Debating is not a blood sport.
A good debater is likely to beat a bad debater regardless of who is correct about the issue at hand.
So, why does Craig even want to debate someone like Dawkins, who is not trained in debating and knows he’s no good at it?
I suggest that it could be because Craig wants a notch on his belt to show off to people who are ignorant enough of how debating works to think that their stance is correct because the guy on stage who agrees with them scored a few points against an untrained opponent.
Lol what was the takeaway here? An opportunity for WLC to brag about how important atheists need to be to debate him? Taking notes and researching your opponent seems like... common sense
No that's the bare minimum. And even this he slips on.
Prepare he says? Well, this is my favorite WLC quote: ""there are no good reasons to believe atheism is true" WLC in debate with C Hitchens.
He didn't even take the time to procure his logic before writing that debate. Or he intentionally wrote it like this in order to bring his own crowd closer.....Which is funny, cuz debates are won by notions passes, not the total amount of votes. If you start a debate with 60% of the notions on your side, and at the end it remains 60%, then you failed at having ANY impact in that debate. And that quote can't possibly convince any skeptic.
When the solutions are the points of an abelian variety, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture asserts that the size of the group of rational points is related to the behaviour of an associated zeta function ζ(s) near the point s=1.
Having watched many of Dr Craigs debates, many from which I benefitted greatly, I do not however see that by his debating only "the qualified" that his opponents have necessarily always been of a better quality than it would be debating a populariser like Matt Dillahunty, indeed, I have at times enjoyed and even learned more in a debate/discussion between Matt and a Christian populariser, than in ones between Craig and a "qualified" person.
Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins for example, how are they qualified? They do no philosophy or theology whatsoever and for the most part are utterly belligerent knuckleheads with the philosophical capacity of a child, has not Dr Craig himself during such debates not pointed out in no uncertain terms, their "schoolboy" level objections?
It appears to me that qualification is no guarentee that you are not wasting your time.
There are some popularisers out there with whom I believe a fruitful encounter could be had.
I think Craig is saying is that to debate them would be fruitful for a larger audience. Dawkins, although not a Philosopher, has built a reputation as a leading Athiest. So, to debate Dawkins wouldn't be to draw "new" attention to Dawkins, because the attention is already there. Debating Dawkins would reaffirm the Christian faith and let the supporters of Dawkins understand their folly.
However, WLC does not want to debate those who have received no education or have not built themselves a large enough audience. To debate these people would be to give them an unwarranted "spotlight" that isn't fruitful for WLC ministry. Craig wants to debate the known people or those who have earned the spotlight by receiving the education needed.
Adam McCarty ....you need no extra education to disscuss facts. Common sense, logic and respectful arguments is what needed.
One thing I can agree is a larger audience for WLC. True. He wont be bothered to debate anybody below $20.000
@@adammccarty351 It seems you are not familiar with what Dr Craig actually says in these debates. If these exercises were meant to convert followers and make them see their 'folly' as you call it, then they are totally ineffective . Dr Craig does not present any novel idea, his arguments are basically assertions. He is a clever opponent I must confess, but his arguments only convince those who are already willing to be convinced. These debates are solely for the Christian, to reassure them of their beliefs, and purge them of any doubts they may be harboring.
It is an argument for form over substance. Since craig has no substance, he targets those who have the reputation for substance without the training in form and fights them with form.Those with reputations for substance tend to be overconfident in their substance, and don’t bother addressing their Achilles heel in the form department, and so they tend to come off as defensive during the engagement. For the objective listener who is looking for substance, they will still select the Dawkins, Krauss, Harris arguments as the winners. The neutral may be swayed by the slick polish of Craig, if they can’t follow Craig and prefer his polish over the direct and aggressive styles of the substance debaters. Teh christians will usually just fold with craig all the time. If they can’t even understand the contrdactions, ridiculous claims and evil of the bibble, there is no way they are going to understand any of craig’s razzle dazzle.
@@wechulipaul you nailed it. I was going to say that more verbosely.
Just be annoying like Frank Turek and I'll run out of the room screaming. You'll win by default. To quote Patrick Jane. "He irks me. He's irksome." (That's a joke people)
"Dr. William Lane Craig reveals the best ways to win debates with atheists."
That's funny since he's never "won" a debate. All he does is make assertions without evidence. That's hardly winning......lol
@Patriot America Jg .
"Sam Harris was totally unable to respond with the “ if God nor not exist then objective morality does not exist” "
....that's because his assertion is just that....an assertion without evidence.
Craig *NEVER* backs up his BS with actual evidence.
Tell everyone, where's his list of "objective morality"? Is it where the god of the bible ordered the slaughter of all the little boys (but the Hebrews get to keep the little virgin girls for themselves)? How about the god of the bible endorsing owning another human being as property? Is that objective morality? lol
Have you ever actually watched his debates?
@@IamCalebMendoza
Several times with different opponents. He always makes the same assertions without evidence.....because he has *NO* evidence to back up his mouth.
Now, have *YOU* watched his debates and if you think he does present verifiable evidence.....post it. I'll bet you dance and dodge instead. lol
@@Jack44M I have watched the debates and seen the votes. Do you need links?
Of course he has won debates, do your homework
I'm a Christian. Before any discussion of "does God exist" or "from nothing came something" we must realize that the atheist only sees the natural scientific universe. We see the same universe but we also know of a supernatural world called the kingdom of heaven. The atheist laughs at that notion. Don't debate the atheist. It's a waste of time. Just offer kindness and friendship if accepted. If not, wish them well and move on.
Masters Larry:How would you go about trying to convince an atheist of the existence of the kingdom of heaven? Personally, I am unsure of it’s existence. Is it possible you are wrong and, if so, how would this change the way you look at the world?
I've always said that when it comes to those kind of debates, the atheist usually has the advantage because most atheists debate from a position of agnosticism. That puts the burden of proof on the theist and unless the theist has actual evidence for what he says, the debate is over. That doesn't mean that the atheist cannot utter some rather meaningless technical and/or scientific language that gets approval from atheists, nor the theist make some irrelevant religious proclamation that receives applause from the theists in the audience. One of Craig's debates that sticks out in my mind was a few years ago with astrophysicist Sean Carroll. It kind of presented the problem for scientifically-minded theists as to where their allegiance should fall, to scientifically accepted knowledge, or their faith.
Heather Watson, Yeah the atheist is in the driver's seat in any debate just so long as they don't proclaim that there is not god.
Atheist: "I lack belief in God." This is merely cognitively descriptive and tells us nothing about the world other than one's mental state. Imagine for a moment that Jesus has returned to the earth and is ruling from Jerusalem. God is literally on the earth. The atheist could still say "I lack belief in God." This thought experiment shows how vacuous the atheist claim is. The atheist needs to step up to the plate and give some evidence for God not existing and not just give us a cognitive descriptor.
@@chonn3 Are you being serious? Please tell me you are joking.
@TheCosmicWarrior Generally, if one person makes a definitive claim, that person has the burden of proof. If I say that I do not believe that water is wet, the claim being made concerns what I _believe_ . If I make the difinitve claim that water is not wet, that claim takes on the burden of proof if challenged.
@TheCosmicWarrior If you say that God exists and I say I don't believe that, then you have the burden of proof since you made the claim in question. I do not have a burden of proof for a disbelief in someone's claim.
This guy loses debates and then in his closing statement says my oppinent hasn't raised any good reasons for his arguments and I have raised only good reasons for mine. He is so indoctrinated that he can't even consider another view point and see he is wrong. Man I wish Hitchens was still alive to kick his ass publicly once more
No bias on your end there! I can just as easily say your comment applies to your own self.
@@First1it1Giveth Hitchens argues facts, Craig argues conjecture and belief. I can't be biased because you can't be biased if you have factual evidence to backup your point. It's like saying you're biased towards the colour orange because the sun is orange even if other people believe it's purple. It doesn't make sense. And Craig does pull that stunt at the end every single time.
@@MrDav020 "He is so indoctrinated that he cant even consider another viewpoint and see he is wrong." The irony......
@@First1it1Giveth I was a christian for 25 years. I've considered christianity and found it contrived and contradictive. I know true freedom now.
@@MrDav020 Maybe you can resurrect Hitchens as an undead zombie and kick Craig's ass on PPV, though its tantamount to the big bad wolf huffing and puffing trying to blow the house down. The idea that you are asserting how absolutely right you are about anti religious sentiment will be as good as dead as you will be in the grave. Follow that fact all the way to its core and you should easily see how contradictory it is, if not morbidly futile. Think about it, you being "right" about your position will mean that, in finality, it meets utter annihilation and therefore, ultimately nothing. It's why Sarte said that life is absurd.
We really are assuming a lot about the motivations of other people who we don’t know at all here, aren’t we, Billy?
Is your position really so weak that you can’t just stick to what you do know?
SJD
He’s always stuck to truth. Whats the issue..
Ad homs? Pretty weak atheist here.
For years he lost all the debates with atheist scientists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, ...) he should debate some without title - some day he might win eventually
Sure, Jan.
"I don't debate atheists who don't have a degree. I don't platform them" - Craig
"Now, is the reason you don't talk to.... to non degreed atheists, is it because you don't want to platform them" - Person clearly not listening
Also, I'm suspicious platforming has nothing to do with it, and Craig only debates degreed atheists so Craig can seem more relevant. After all, Craig is the one with a degree in what's effectively a fairy tale. Not very impressive when you call it what it is.
He has a PhD in philosophy. What do you mean?
Only one with a degree? Look up Tim Mackie, Carmen Joy Imes, Richard Baukham, Gary Habermas, or Frank Turek. All 5 of these people have multiple masters degrees and/or a PhD. This is not a fairy tale. It takes way more faith to be an atheist.
Well we know at least 8 atheists are as ignorant as you are.
@@jacobstephens8447 Faith ...what's that?
Cameron, what are your credentials? Whay is your degree in, etc...? Thank you
"Dr. William Lane Craig Reveals the Best Ways to Debate Atheists"
For a start, do not make any claims that you cannot support with evidence.
Next, if you are arguing that a god exists you must define the god clearly; the definition cannot include logical fallacies or unproven claims.
Id say only this, You cant prove gods existance, but you cant prove his inexistance. End of debate. I personally dont care if you belive or not even though the bible says otherwise. And one more thing, if you can define god clearly, then his no god. After all even the bible defines God in such words "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End"
@@awatarpl2241 "Id say only this, You cant prove gods existance, but you cant prove his inexistance. End of debate. "
I'd say only this, I never claimed a god does not exist, so I have nothing to prove. The people claiming a god does exist are on the hook, and need to prove that claim if they expect others to believe it. End of debate.
"After all even the bible defines God in such words "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End""
the Bible also defines god as:
- vengeful
- a warrior
- a consuming fire.
- jealous
- angry.
- furious
- love
It tells us God sows discord and hates anyone who sows discord.
It tells us god is:
- seen
- unseen
- a liar
- prohibits killing
- orders killing
- forbids the making of graven images
- orders the making of graven images
- is faithful, holy and good
- is responsible for evil.
- dwells in thick darkness
- dwells in unapproachable light.
According to the Bible, god is "the AMAZING Swiss Army knife deity" !!! He can be whatever his believer wants him to be, depending on which passage the believer wants to use.
@@cnault3244 The universe is not self-creating. End of debate.
@@michaeljamesdesign You have not prevented any evidence for a creator of the universe. End of debate.
@@cnault3244 My evidence is right in front of me and it's you. You're a rational human being capable of grasping the concept of God. You're capable of learning, loving and reproducing. You're no random accident born out of chaos and disorder. Your personality isn't a coincidence. You're unique among billions. There will only ever be one. There can only ever be one. In some way you represent the goodness and love of God, you are a personification of the creator himself. You are a living work of art. To say you're anything less would belittle you and I'm not in the business of doing that.
Basically: If you individually have the intuitive understanding that there is more of who we are than what we can experience in this glimpse/flash/microcosm of 3D simulation, then it is there. It’s impossible for us to understand what •that• is but the synchronicity of life events will unfold and your own gut will slowly reveal details. I think this is why people get depressed: they buy into the narrative of a life that only sees value in money, sex and the sciences and that our superficial world represents our (lack of) purpose and makes us feel disposable like scraps among pencil shavings. We are more than what our modern world will allow us to discover.
How to debate Atheists. Step 1) Count speculations and opinions as real facts. Step 2) Tell yourself you're winning! Easy win.
Aren't you just as guilty friend?
Or you could prove it wrong but you can’t 😂
I would love to see him debate Matt Dillahunty.
Ryan Provost Matt Will destroy him!
@@kyaxara7321
Indeed he would which is why I would like to see it. :)
Ryan Provost 😂🤣
@@kyaxara7321
Lol
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:22 KJV
Pray and read the bible. God bless you all
"How to debate Atheists"
I say, rather use your time and knowledge to make this world a better place as oppose to spreading iodicy. Christianity over the last 2000 years is still trying to convert folks and today we have over a 1000 denominations, sects, and cults based on this ancient book and no one has yet reached a concensus.
Conversion is about growing the number of adherents, its about money and power. It's about vying for first place amongst all the other religions. Each denomination is marketing their idea to attract you into their circle to grow and become powerful. This has absolutely nothing to do with the saving of souls
This is what happens when critical thinking skills are handicapped by indoctrination.
Very interesting perspective. I disagree.
@@leahcimmmm
A counter-argument would have been appropriate as oppose to "I disagree"
@@Testequip Ah, sorry, but I tend to avoid internet keyboard exchanges as they tend to be unfruitful. Time-consuming as it is, I also have not much of an idea as why you think that way and what led you to that conclusion. Perhaps it would be nice if I knew your motivations, but over the internet, that’s too time consuming for me.
I hope you don’t settle at that though. I hope you continue to find the reasons for why people such as I would disagree to what you’ve said.
Anyways, good day and take care :D
@@leahcimmmm
It's not that I think that way. It's reality!
Indoctrination is more potent at deluding the mind and giving it deficits in reasoning than any poison or drug known to man.
What do atheists need to prepare for exactly? It's the apologist who has to prepare evidence and if he gives it than the atheist rejects it. Either give evidence of god and win the Nobel prize (which is pretty much impossible) or don't. He has nothing - nothing in the bible - nothing in reality points to god existing. He seems to think he knows more because he "read the literature" on philosophy. But humans know nothing about God or if he exists so that doesn't help at all.
I can prove the existence of miracles:
My cat likes having his nails trimmed.
Q.E.D.
Most people think he’s won most of his debates? Man. I haven’t seen a SINGLE debate Craig has won against any prominent atheist.
Matt doesn't have a degree. This guy needs a degree in philosophy to debate atheists.
But this guy has no problem using the cosmological argument without having a degree in physics.
@@abhishekbsheks Exactly. And he continues to use the Kalam and fine tuning, even after the spanking Sean Carroll gave him on it. Continuing to use arguments after they've been shown to be fallacious means that WLC isn't after truth, he's after converts...which he all but says near the end of this video. That he is the great champion of modern apologetics is sad.
Remember the goal of a Christian debate with non-believers is not to win the debate, but to drag the debate from a rational discussion about objectively verifiable facts into the realm of imagination and make believe. They want to subvert reason by convincing you that faith is a valid way of understanding reality; which is harmful to those being manipulated but very useful and PROFITABLE for those who do the manipulating.
sorry but after watching a debate with Richard Dawkins and how he suggested that humans and life on Earth is nothing else but a seed of genetic experiment done by intelligent aliens and in return these intelligent aliens are the product of other even more advanced aliens, Dawkins completely lost the plot.
how much of a stubborn stuck-up you have to be in order to make your own cult ideology to explain the universe and life on earth, just to reject the existence of a God.
sure, religions can be a problem but the existence of a Deist God for example is not something that can be rejected.
the idea that something came from nothing is absurd.
even in mathematics, the term infinite is actually made up and just a concept with no basis on reality.
there is no such thing as infinite.
and there is no such thing as nothing. and nothing can't be done into something. unless of course there is a powerful entity or a "God" that can make it happen.
@@LevisH21 So Richard Dawkins suggested humans and life on Earth is nothing . .. . So Richard Dawkins suggested, Richard Dawkins is just having fun WITH the audience, Dawkins probably does not think that is the most probable.
He is just a debater..........the atheists that have debated him are seeking truth and actually having a conversation. Craig is just well.....blind as
Most atheist try to hard to deny the existence of God, you can bring up the evidence of the universe having a beginning and the evidence of intelligent design and they'll jump straight to saying "We don't know that the universe had a beginning" despite the evidence pointing to that and "You say the universe needs an intelligent designer so who created God"
Just the same old arguments but not logical.
Lucid Vision it doesn’t take much work to not be convinced that someone’s invisible god thingo done it.
I like being intellectually honest and saying that not only do I not know....you don’t either
Atheism will always be the most logical and reasonable position to hold, until someone can finally demonstrate or provide evidence a god exists.
You must either live in an echo chamber or haven't genuinely seen atheist / theist debates.
Rich, I’m an atheist. Do you have evidence that a god exists?
Hi @@RacistTortoise. For this context, I would definitely start with the incoherency of a materialist worldview that your question presupposes (you are inserting the answer into the question). Of course history, the human experience, sciences, basically all the areas there can be evidence as well. But of course if someone starts off on a wrong / incoherent worldview, no matter what is presented it will never make sense.
Not sure if you are anticipating a long back and forth because this is of course a RUclips comment section, not usually the most fruitful place for anything except one liners lol. Happy Labor day Cameron
@@TommyGunzzz, I don't mind reading longer responses. For me, I don't care if its RUclips, Reddit, Discord, or whatever. It's all the same to me. I'm interested in what presuppositions you believe my question had?
@@TommyGunzzz me? Lol!!
Cool clip. Don't understand the dramatic lighting though.
I thought he gave up after Sean Carrol made him look utterly ignorant and stupid.
Carroll lost that debate
@@marcusaviles3646 What was the score? How did you get that thumbs up immediately like that?
Haha! He says he only engages with academics at the top of their game yet devoted podcasts to an amateur atheist RUclipsr named Paulogia. He actually lost the exchange too.
He actually won. I head the podcast. Paulogia is unfamiliar with almost everything about Christianity.
@@geraldpchuagmail Craig got whooped. It was embarrassing.
@@religionizstoopid513Do you have any study that backs up your claim or it is based on your personal assesment? Also, Paulogia will need to cite studies and scholarly journals like Craig does.
@@geraldpchuagmail _"All of the narrative materials of the gospels are not straight reports of events observed or experienced, but are stories cast into the popular forms of communication. The quest for a historical kernel is therefore doomed to miss the point of these narratives. All of them were told in the interests of mission, edification, cult, apology, or theology (especially christology) and they do not provide answers to the quest for reliable historical information. While epiphany (resurrection) stories may still preserve the original name of the person who was the recipient of the epiphany, exact details of names and places are otherwise always secondary and are often introduced for the first time in the literary stage of the tradition. Precisely those elements and features of narratives that lead to the climax of the story are not derived from historically trustworthy information, but belong to the style of the genres of the several narrative types."_ - Helmut Koester, Intro to the New Testament vol. 2, pgs. 64-65.
_"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings."_ - Oxford Annotated Bible, pg. 1744
_"The chronological and geographical outline of Mark is secondary to the individual traditions; its form is determined by the author's theological premises and therefore historically worthless (the same goes for Luke, Matthew and John)."_ - Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, pg. 27
@@religionizstoopid513I will need to read the first source you quoted. The rest seems legit. I wonder how Paulogia interpreted these works. They are not what he argued on the video.
He's most famous for losing to Christopher Hitchens. Let's be serious.
Have you seen him trying to argue with Sean Carroll? WLC is just painful to watch there.
How he lost? You mean that time when hitch was running in cdrcles and constantly changing the topics instead of confronting the arguments head on?
@@donfanto1 Trying to solve one mystery (the existence of the universe for example) by applying to a bigger, untestable, mystery (his version of a divine being) is not an argument. It's a waste of time. Watch wlc debating Sean Carroll and see how he handles himself. This man has been schooled left right and center about nature and still comes up with the same outdated nonsense that has been demonstrated to have no explorational value.
Faith is the next level of ignorance.
It’s ignorance squared. It’s not knowing but convincing yourself you do know what you can’t know and what no one knows.
Faith is not a virtue.
Another Atheist Robot with his classic low IQ line
This man spews so much nonsense in 2 min or less during a debate, makes it impossible for the opponent to even touch on one or two topics in a reasonable time frame, then declares victory.
While an excellent public speaker sure he can “win” debates on style points alone. However nothing this man says is backed up by fact, logic and reason.
Sounds more like what you said is an opinion and not backed up by fact, logic, and reason.
Matthew Roskind No. All fact. WLC’s entire arguments all spawn from inference and a “god of the gaps” fallacy. Nothing he says is demonstrable, he only asserts things to be true.
@@Jas0nAnders0n He's certainly a philosopher, so I'd say its logically most of his arguments are inferences. I'm not sure how the atheistic arguments in this particular sense is any different?
Matthew Roskind Oh, and I can give you a proper opinion.
I think it is hilarious that a god relies on WLC to defend all of Christianity.
Matthew Roskind Atheist or secular arguments do not end in inference. They are by definition the null hypothesis.
Science > Religion in every way.
They aren’t mutually exclusive
Miasma Yes... They are.
@@parkjammer i would love to hear how force and momentum, speed of sound, refraction of light and particle physics all are mutually exclusive with simply believing in a god
@@Alex-hv8rj
Let's take two cases.
Case #1: simple Deism
==================================================
- somehow pushed the first quanta of energy that started the Big Bang or otherwise initiated the existence of the universe
- otherwise remains a non-interfering observer of what was created
- does not intercede when hominids on one pale blue dot in a universe of trillions of planets whines into the great expanse about something desired (prayer)
In this case there is no interaction between the proposed deity and the reality we all experience. Therefore there is no test possible to confirm the existence of the deity and no impact from the deity on our reality (for if there was, it would cease to be "supernatural" and become "part of the natural" and could thus be measured).
So here you could argue that the proposed deistic deity is not exclusive of science... but it might as well be a "null set" since it does not interact in any way. A non-interacting and non-detectible deity is functionally equivalent to a non-existent deity.
Case #2: specific monotheistic god (e.g. one of the three Abrahamic flavors)
==================================================
- singular deity
- typically defined as all-everything (all-knowing, omniscient, omnipresent, beyond space or time, omni-benevolent, omni-just, etc).
- intercedes on behalf of hominid whiners (prayer) on our pale blue dot among trillions in the visible universe
Not only is there no evidence for this type of deity (Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah) or for any other supernatural proposition, there are hundreds of points that exclude this deity from existing through factual incongruity with observed reality along with internal and external contradiction in the myth-texts (e.g. Torah, Talmud, Bible, Quran) that attempt to describe the deity and/or its supposed communication with humanity.
Let's start with the accurate description of the Biblical deity as noted by Richard Dawkins:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
There are literal examples of EACH of those adjectives.
A deity who creates something, apparently can see the future, but still manages to be "disappointed", who at times mass-murders nearly all of humanity, entire civilizations, entire cities, or individuals (about 250,000 in the bibble) while claiming to be moral.
A deity who creates a supposed problem (eating a fruit) by people who did not (per myth) have the ability to discern good from evil and thus weren't responsible for their actions, who wouldn't have done it if the deity itself didn't "harden the heart of Adam" so as to make it happen... then condemns all generations for the situation it (the deity) created, to be forgiven only by a blood sacrifice of himself, to himself, for the problem he himself created... when all that was necessary was to say "I forgive you for my dickishness as a deity".
The earth happens before there is light... direct conflict with how we understand the universe and our solar system to be created and as supported by fact, evidence, and various demonstrated and peer-reviewed scientific theories.
Then there is a lack of instruction on how to minimize disease (e.g., instructions for antibacterial soap and instructions to wash hands several times per day). Fairly stupid deity.
Or the means to treat leprosy (e.g. blood of a couple of birds... summarizing).
Or how to breed particular colors of sheep/goats (e.g. have them mate while pointing at a particular tree).
I could go on for days.
The fact is any of these particular proposed gods are actively excluded from accepting science as fact-based, predictive, and useful to society. Such religious beliefs are directly antithetical to the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of true knowledge (that is, verifiable facts).
Accept science, work to correct it where it is off track, work to add to it, and work to use it to "add value and avoid harm".
Avoid adult-Santa (religion and/or theism) at every turn.
@@Alex-hv8rj Your answer is provided.
craig is always worth a laugh. it amazes me whats passes as intellectual in the religious world....
Religion is an anthropological term. People worship many things. It amazes me that people simply accept what some "intellectuals", who make up the bulk of leftists who killed 100 million people in the last century, think.
At 5:05 its important to note that losing the debate is equivalent to dishonoring the gospel. Failing to convince an audience of the gospel's veracity means you failed not that the gospel failed, never the gospel.
Big double standard here, too: Someone accepts christ?: It's because the gospel is compelling and driven by god's will, someone fails to convince an audience of the gospel?: it's the person arguing on behalf of the gospel's fault. According to WLC.
Failing to convince a audience can be because they don’t want it to be true. He’s saying if you don’t know what you’re talking about as an apologist you’ve dishonored the gospel
Advice to Christians looking to debate Athiests; "Come up with arguments which arn't riddled with fallacies."
Also William Lane Craig is an intellectual coward. Matt Dillanhunty would have him for breakfast.
I love how promise and arrogant WLC is in talking about other people not doing the hard work and yet he is famous for regurgitating arguments which are centuries old.
Are you really this stupid?
1:00 LOL, how does one become a scholar in Atheism? The Truth is Craig is just looking for excuses to not debate people who always pummel him, LOL ... The very process of presuppositionalism is based on an unreliable epistemology, and therefore will never stand up in a debate.
Bro what. Craig isnt a presuppoliationist and what he means by scholar is someone with a degree in philosophy. If hes so scared of debating someone then why would he choose to debate people who are trained philosophers over your favorite internet atheist 😂
@@jacobleaver2450 Craig can't get from TAG to Christianity without presupposition .. Afterall, Faith is presuppositionalism, one must first believe the Bible is true, circular logic, the universal unjustified belief that is all religions.
"If hes so scared of debating.." why are you wanking off a strawman on me, LOL!! You said that, NOT ME. Craig debates all the time, and gets his ass handed to him time and time again. He does his TAG thing, and can't get to Christianity from there, its absurdly humorous, the dude is in it for the recognition and the financial opportunities that brings from the Jesus death cult followers.
Thank god for this response lol@@jacobleaver2450
This man is a BOSS when he debates people.
Chris McCord he’s a “boss” in the sense that he deflects questions, shifts the burden of proof and uses flawed logic in his answers. I could debate this guy because religion has no legs to stand on. Why? Because you need evidence of the claims you make when there is none. WLC could make as many points as he wants and all I would have to say is “prove it” and I guarantee he would be unable to. There is nothing to back up any assertion other then an ancient book that’s been retranslated countless times, written by a collection of around 20 authors most of which are unknown and highly edited by the Christian clergy over the centuries. A superman comic has more truth in it then the bible.
David Cleaver You’re parroting popular atheistic claims. Where’s the proof? Where’s the proof? Here’s a question? Given the definition of God, how can you expect such proof to be on equal footing as with proving the existence of a tree or the boiling point of water? ‘And we have gathered all the data...oh, there’s God.’ Your statement makes it clear how much of a ass of yourself you would make debating WLC.
@@davidcleaver4442 Who decides logic is flawed? You?
I think it's very sound, and stands on generations of sound, logical theology.
I wouldn't expect that from a militant atheist POV.
Even if God manifested his existence in the most profound way possible many so-called atheists would still deny Him citing a global Hallucinogenic phenomenon or advance governmental or extraterrestrial technology. It’s all about free will...not convincing evidence
@@coreyking5619 i think youre right partially. Some people thirst for any reason to believe. Belief is not a choice though. You need a cause. Not everyone hears the voice of God. People that do think everyone does and ignores him. People that don't think people that do are deluded
It's called "faith" because it's not fact. That's why atheism in winning. You don't need to have debates and arguments. If god really exists why would he need apologists and atheists to debate for or against him? He'd just turn up and show himself.
He has shown himself. The evidence is literally undeniable. You need more faith to reject Christianity then to accept it. Please look at the evidence man. There is so much evidence it is incredible. There is archaeological, historical, prophecy, logical and scientific evidence (to name a few) that proves that the Bible is true, that Jesus really did die and rise from the dead and that the Bible is the word of God.
But please don’t just try and refute my comment and leave, look at the evidence for yourself, look for God and you will find him
@@zacy-t2771 in your opinion what is the most convincing piece of evidence?
@@CaptainFantastic222 hmm good question, maybe the historical evidence (archaeological probably falls under this category as well if im going to be honest)
or the prophecies
@@zacy-t2771 The historical accuracy of the bible has *ZERO* relevance to its authenticity. Even if the bible were written by mere ordinary superstitious primative tribesmen. They would still know about towns , places, people , leaders kings ect . That's the very LEAST we would expect.
Herodotus wrote about life in 500bc he spoke of real people and places does that mean his works are inspired of god ??? Of course not .
If some future archeological dig discovered the ruins of New York and the empire state building would they be justified in thinking *KING KONG* was therfore real ???? Nonsense.
There is no archeological evidence for anything supernatural only the normal mundane stuff we find with everything else.
Almost every fictional book ever written will contain references to real places and people even Harry Potter it means nothing.
However if there were historical INACCURACIES (and there are lots ) that's a different story.
When was jesus born for example ? Because the historical evidence disagrees alarmingly with the bible on that for starters .
Quirinius's census for example we know conclusively did not occur until 6 ad not 3 years before the death of herod but several years after. And yes I know there was more than one herod, I can go into detail if you like about how we know exactly which one it was and can cross reference with Mathew ect.
@@zacy-t2771 I’m sorry but saying “the evidence is literally undeniable” gets tossed around way too much and isn’t accurate because I do not believe any gods exist.
What scientific evidence supports a god?
The only proper way to debate an atheist is to provide some actual evidence for the existence of God, which WLC or any other theist has absolutely failed to do
What you mean by evidence?
Don Fanto Anything that supports the claim that a god exists, and that this god created the universe. Literally anything. I don’t know exactly what that entails but that’s not my job
@@bengreene4972 no actually that's your job to know what sort of argument or evidence would be satisfactory to you.
Like obviously nobody can just show you the God, nor is God a joker and a jester to show off for your entertainment.
Therefore you must understand the problem at hand and have some reasonable expectations of what you would like to see in order to believe.
That's the main question. There was a famous atheist and archeologist (too lazy to Google his name) who became a Christian after he saw the clams on the top of Mount everest.
What's your clam on the mountain top?
Don Fanto It’s not my job to know exactly what evidence I would need to convince me that a god exists. The people who believe in and claim that this god exists has not provided nearly sufficient evidence to warrant belief. I would imagine this god, supposedly being “all-knowing” would know what would convince me that it exists, so either it hasn’t for some reason, or it doesn’t exist.
Don Fanto And assuming that’s true, clams on mountain tops don’t prove anything
How to debate atheists: keep things vague
My god is real, because I believe it to be so..."it is known"
@TREX LEX paranormal phenomenons and spirits exist around the world if they exist so does a spiritual God
@TREX LEX oh and to answer what does that prove easy try to fit evolution into that, explain to me if evolution is FACTS like many idiots say explain the paranormal happening around the world and how does that connect to evolution.
And make sure to beg the question and use non sequiturs!
whybother now seems to work especially avoiding any methodology that actually investigates these beliefs
Lane is so arrogant and proud of himself,but he doesn't realize that his whole belief is based on stuff which is no better than fairy tales.
Oh no. In most debates I saw craig lost. Sucking up to your interviewee does not make you look good....
You have to
1. Show how your arguments are scientific
2. Show how there arguments aren’t scientific
3. Show why your arguments are rational & logical
4. Show why their arguments are irrational & illogical
5. Finnish off by stating-
what matters is the truth,
regardless of the personal opinions of mankind.
Lolol #1 ... Zzzz
@@TitanUranusOfficial wow I didn't know you believed in magic
Leo Savage
The argument should be rational and logical only the truth is rational & logical so one falls apart based on the lack of rational & logic
demigodzilla
Without rationality and logic science is a pointless task
Rational and logic comes before any testing.
We use rational and logic in regards to every aspect of life especially in science because we need it to know what to test, based upon what we have already tested. And to use it to come up with different methods of testing.
demigodzilla
No but atheists hold science as their basis for truth & science is baseless without rational & logic.
sounds like he doesn't want to debate the atheists that can kick his ass
Intellectual dishonesty. Logical fallacy. Move goal posts. Pretty simple.
Yes, religious apologists are intellectually lazy, and dishonest.
He doesn't debate, he spews religious doubletalk.
Why do you believe God doesn't exist?