William Lane Craig vs Ronald De Sousa 5/16 (York University)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- From William Lane Craig's Ontario Universities Debate Tour.
Does God Exist? Professors William Lane Craig and Ronald De Sousa debate. Sponsored by Campus for Christ. Hosted by York University
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I should clarify: a classical example of an an existence debate where neither party is saddled with a burden is a dispute over whether a contract exists...
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...in this case the sugar being humor, the medicine being knowledge replacing ignorance.
why would God prevent evil?
because he loves us.
and what ever he is trying to show us or teach us he can do so without the suffering.
if he can't, he is not all powerful.
It certainly asserts something. Though taking various forms, atheism essentially asserts that, beyond our physical universe, there is nothing. That is an assertion. A classical example of this is whether or not a contract exists: the trial court does not place the burden on the claimant who says it does, but rather judges by a preponderance of the evidence.
@arktheball
as a nonomnipotent parent i would let the child go through some struggles so that he would learn that life is indeed hard. but if i could teach him the same lesson in a different less harmful way, as a loving parent i would.
"How can God show us that his word is true? By ....". He being omnipotent could shows us the same thing in a non hurtful way and still achieve the same result.
it seems that i might be more loving than god.
I'm still working on it. It's going a lot slower than expected. I apologize for the wait.
@hexusziggurat We measure everything in degrees of probability; with a preponderance of evidence, we can state quite confidently that something is, indeed real or the case. But without that evidence--such as the extreme dearth of evidence for god's existence, and even counter-evidence that contradicts the holy texts making the claim--we cannot say ANYTHING for certain...and we're foolish if we do.
@bahramf Peace be with you. Happy holidays and Merry Christmas. Have a good New Years!
@vision4DaY Not at all. Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do logical impossibilities. You can MAKE someone FREELY love you. It may very will that only in a world that has suffering, would the maximum amount of people come to God and are saved.
And of course, without freedom, love really isn't love.
I stand corrected if that's the case.
My point isn't that the quality of the argument rests on its acceptance from the public. But it sure as heck annoys and frustrates me to no tomorrow, which makes me enjoy these debates a lot less.
@AgeOfReasonXXI
I'm not aware of any logical rule of inference that would allow you to determine the truth or falsity of a proposition on the basis of origin at all. Because virtually everything about our species has evolved over time, you can't really appeal to survival benefits, since evolution takes place because their is a survival benefit. And I don't recall D'Souza taking a "genetic approach" to propositions. Indeed, I have seen him argue precisely the opposite for such an approach.
@vision4DaY "if he can't, he is not all powerful."
ORRRRR
He sees/understands something we do not. Therefor His reasons are not something so simple as this type of logic tries to force one to adhere to its path. There are other possibilities...but this type of logic is exactly what Sousa described in the previous video as "one believes something first then tries to see the facts that support their views".
@vision4DaY unfortunately the burden of proof on the Atheistic scale doesn't grant evil OR good as a concept except as derived from a relative viewpoint...and if we base it on social evolution then it can only be deemed transitory. So the Atheists has to in fact borrow the moral framework of God just to establish good/evil.
Maybe God loved us so much that HE told us what not to touch....but the way we are...we did...then He showed us how to get back to Him..& some complain its too tough.
How does he abuse the Genetic Fallacy. I'm not aware of instances where the origin of belief can be attributed to it's falsehood or truthfulness.
And you're point is so easily refutable. Our reasoning capabilities and intelligence are also the product of evolution but somehow I get the feeling you won't say that this therefore means our own reasoning processes may be false or true.
See Christianjr4, this is what I was talking about a while back when I expressed worries about possible bias among the crowd members when it comes to a debate between Craig and another atheist. C;early his explanations were in vain, as they will be with Hitchens, as we can see the audience keeps cheering Desouza and laughing heartily at his cheap shots, while Craig only receives their contempt.
What is the point of these debates if he casts his pearls before swine?
@hexusziggurat But if your belief affects others--which it WILL, given how religions are practiced in this world--then you most certainly DO have to prove your reasons to the rest of us.
Furthermore, you don't "know" something is true when you've only witnessed it and not experimented, not investigated; you can only SUSPECT it's true unless you actually do the research to make sure your senses weren't fooling you, that you weren't a victim of confirmation bias..
It's kind of ironic actually. In Craig's new book, the Blackwell companion to natural theology, Mark Linville makes the same mistake while posing the moral argument. His argument is;
(1) If Evolutionary Naturalism is true then the human moral sense is a by-product of natural selection.
(2) If the human moral sense is a by-product of natural selection, then there are no objective moral facts.
(3) There are objective moral facts.
(4) Therefore, Evolutionary Naturalism is false.
Bad arguments aren't made into good ones because the audience may happen to cheer them on. Likewise, good arguments aren't defeated by the contempt of an audience for them.
I haven't yet uploaded the entire debate. It may appear that De Sousa is way ahead here, but Craig makes a comeback as you'll see.
They polled the audience after the debate and most thought that Craig won the debate so your assessment of the audience is wrong. Later on you'll see that most of the cheering is for Craig.
@IceKnight366 if you MAKE someone love you, then it isn't FREELY
@hexusziggurat I didn't say "values"--as in morals--I said "value", as in worth. Which is what YOU said: "the burden of proof on the Atheist is not neccesarily to disprove "god" but to prove its own worth"
If you're going to move the goalposts, try not to do it so fucking obviously, eh? Give me a LITTLE credit. *rolls eyes*
I reiterate: it is the burden of religion to prove that god is real. If god is NOT real, the value of atheism is irrelevant to the fact of its truth. Period.
@BionicDance maybe i do. I like to believe in people and that they are telling me the truth. I have a healthly does of skepticism. Now just b/c i may believe somebody it doesn't mean i'll act on it...i just allow myself to have a neutral understanding of that subject and grant people the benefit of the doubt. Though it is true, i would like to be surrounded by other people who grant me that same benefit.
"I think I like this guy. Heh."
Not really surprising is it.
"What about the other fuckers???"
I think I like this guy. Heh.
Anyway, WLC is way off the mark, here. The proof lies upon the shoulders of the one making the claim; the atheist DOES NOT have to prove that anything is logically impossible, it's the theist who has to prove that his assertions are true. The atheist has only to shoot down those "proofs" to show that the theist has no case.
Atheism is a default position because it asserts nothing; the theist must prove there IS a god or concede.
@Christianjr4 i live in australia and people in my town didn't grow up hindu... i find some validity to this argument
@BionicDance then perhaps people who believe the Biblical texts have a strong hunch in the reasons they believe...&/or perhaps they have other personal evidence to support their belief.
@hexusziggurat Bull. There IS NO burden of proof on the atheist.
Value has nothing to do with it; if god isn't real, then atheist is true REGARDLESS of its value.
@BionicDance the burden of proof on the Atheist is not neccesarily to disprove "god" but to prove its own worth....and it falls short of anything with a value that a theist cannot already accomplish.
@BionicDance check out video 9 of the 16 in this series at 9:20 minutes.
which is what i was aiming for. "moving the goalposts"? pull it down a notch,sheesh. There is absolutely no burden for religion to prove God (we already have enough evidence)...since by His nature, He is not a falsifiable being by scientific methods (the altar of atheism). Since theists are the ones that already believe, then that burden would fall on the atheist if they feel like proving/disproving God.
I've seen tons of Atheists attribute things to Craig he hasn't said or doesn't hold to so I'm not surprised if you have as well.
The Genetic Fallacy has been used over and over again in Craig's debates. His opponents especially use it on morality as if implying that morality isn't objective because it evolved. In this debate, De Sousa clearly used it by implying the only reason we believe in religion is because of comfort and birth location. That's still the genetic fallacy.
@BionicDance if values have nothing to do with it...then that debunks atheistic morality right there since is based solely on applied values.
@BionicDance but i already believe for my own reasons...and I really don't have to prove those reasons to anyone, in fact those reasons could have been supplied to me exactly the way i would come to understand them via God's methods and would therefor garner no beneficial effect for anyone else. If my cat does a backflip + 2 somersaults in the air i don't have to go around trying to get people to believe me for me to know its true.
@vision4DaY Do you prevent your child from ever experiencing pain? from having to struggle? If you do then you are a sorry parent. In a world where the forces of nature are what allowed life to evolve, then those same forces are capable of destroying/ harming it. How can God show us that his word is true? By letting our head strong and sinful butts screw up and go against his instruction and hurt ourselves. Because otherwise those headstrong d.i.y'ers wouldnt know better.
Yes, I assumed you were an Atheist. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but I never meant it in any derogatory sense. I'm just talking about people who have objected to Craig's claims (mainly Atheists).
As for the attribution, you did say his reasoning implied the absurd which I took it to mean what you already said in your initial comment
De Sousa did at least imply religious people believe in their beliefs based on comfort and where they were born. He went down that road at 2:55 in this video
I hope De Sousa is not dense enough to think that the universe and everything therein including man and woman all arrived by "Chance" - and that Darwinian evolution - etc. - produced all life. If he did that would be sad. He did not address to my knowledge - maybe I missed that part of his debate - how everything was produced out of nothing as stated in Lane Craigs points in his debate.
He makes the same genetic fallicy Craig often accuses his opponents of making!
where are the rest of them?
Well, I'll give it to. The Atheist this time was entertaining and quite humorous to listen too. That but minus the knowledge lol. But I'll guess we'll be disagreeing on that point. :D
@hexusziggurat Or perhaps they're just completely full of shit.
You give them WAAAAAYYYY too much credit.
@bahramf what doesn't make sense to you?
@AgeOfReasonXXI
That's still the genetic fallacy. You cannot dismiss a belief by showing how it originated, period. If you can dismiss belief in God simply on the basis of its survival benefits then why not dismiss, say, our five senses, since we have also evolved them for their survival benefits as well. But would any sane person dismiss the objective realness of the things we see, hear, touch, taste and smell because they are the result of senses that have evolved over time? Clearly not!