That might be the MOST annoying way to present and moderate a debate EVER. Putting people in some goofy boxing ring and interrupting their comments with, "Time out!" instead of a polite warning? Come on.
Flick I agree. This is really corny, cheesy and undignified. Not to say that all of these speakers are worthy of dignity, but the format and the way this whole debate is executed seems unnatural. People engaged in finishing a thought shouldn't be interjected by a pushy moderator.
Flick I agree with you Flick, and what about the tempo of the music - I know it by ear, but can't remember who composed it, anyway, the increased tempo was as ingratiating as the presenter and moderator, and to top it all, having to listen to Mr. (fucking boring) Craig, I just gave up and read comments instead.
Dawkins was a last minute replacement. He wasn't even suppose to speak. Another speaker dropped out the night before. Dawkins refuses to debate WLC and didn't know he was speaking. ruclips.net/video/i6awSAjw64s/видео.html
Protective HT not only that but Dawkins didn’t know WLC was supposed to be there. Of course Dawkins doesn’t want to debate WLC, unlike most other theists who have debated Dawkins William Lane Craig has no problem using science and philosophy along with logic to show not only is God a possible explanation for the creation of the universe it’s also the most probable. The flaws and gaps in evolution are unmistakable. Time being the biggest crutch in the theory of evolution! If they can’t explain how this becomes that than the Time flag raises and the atheist says “well give it 500 million years” 🤣 it’s honestly a joke when we have books we can accurately date back thousands of years that is full of fulfilled prophecy as well as the depiction of God entering his creation and solving a problem we created in the garden. No accredited historian denies Jesus existed, so the question is “is Jesus who Jesus claimed to be, who his followers claimed he was” and the EVIDENCE points unmistakably to yes. Why believe in Christianity? Because it’s the only religion with actual evidence. Dawkins argument on the surface is that he has outgrown the childish belief in God as if it’s relatable to Santa Claus when in reality the two are worlds apart! It sounds like a good argument to a prideful arrogant emotional human, but facts do not support it and WLC would dismantle Dawkins if ever given a 1 on 1 with him.. I will say this about Dawkins he is smart enough not to debate someone he knows would destroy him.. 👏🏼
Knightmare Fuel sum up wlc’s best argument/arguments for god. Go ahead. I want you to hear yourself say them out loud. It’ll be a useful exercise for yourself. Force yourself to summarize the desperate nonsense.
After this debate, Dawkins was scheduled to debate William Lane Craig on his home turf of Oxford. He refused and dropped out claiming that Craig was immoral and not worthy of debate. Needless to say the English press and most atheists disapproved of this behavior.
That's so interesting to know. I'm glad atheists disapproved. What a childish behavior. Craig is anything but immoral. And he is probably not worthy of debating only so far as he is far too knowledgeable to be an easy target, hence "worthy" of Dawkins' time. Never had much of respect for Dawkins but now I have none. Sam Harris is the only one I can somewhat respect.
sam harris talks crap about Islam, keeps being challenged to debate some muslim thinkers and scholars and keeps rejecting all of them to the point of escaping twitter just so he doesnt get spammed to debate, pathetic, not much to respect a cowardly man@@ConsumeristScroffa
@@youngurbangod1156 To begin with that's the genetic fallacy and not an argument. Secondly, he just said that that wasn't the reason. Your argument is invalid.
@@MegaFREAK313 I believe he came back not mainly because of his fear of eternal torture. Apart from that, what part am I wrong? You come back or else you'll be God's eternal barbecue cause of your sins. Yeah that's how much God loves you.
@@youngurbangod1156 You seem to not understand traditional Christian theology correctly. God loves man infinitely, all men. All men have a choice whether they are to subject themselves to God, the first Cause, he who is being and goodness and love in itself, or whether they are to reject him and don't want to be part of him and his kingdom. C.S. Lewis once said something along the lines of "The gates of hell are locked from the inside". That would mean, those who reside in hell all chose to go there willingly, and they are all free to leave whenever they want. God doesn't put you in hell, it's not even a place. Man can choose to either reside in God, with God, Forever - or to reject him, take no part of him and therefore fall into eternal oblivion, this we call hell. God is merciful, so merciful he will let his own killers be redempted If they repent. God don't want you to be in hell, he simply says "I gave you free will, you decide". Blessed Newman once said that it's better for the entirety of the cosmos to collapse onto itself, than that one single soul goes to hell. How does that contradict God's love do you mean? Should he FORCE men to reside in his kingdom against their will?
That is the most intelligent comment I ever read on youtube. It is 100% a circus. It is all staged, to con christians and atheists out of their money. It works, they make millions, selling tickets, DVDs, fiction books, etc. They could not care less about real science.
I feel insulted for the speakers and the attendees. This is the least professional public speaking event I've ever witnessed, and I've seen debates put on in people's living rooms and unfinished back rooms of bars and breweries. I would've liked to have seen Dawkins' face when he saw the boxing ring for the first time, though. "Oh, there's an actual... literal... arena... I'm not doing that." "Sir, you've already signed the contract" "Call my agent and tell him he's so fired that it will retroactively affect his family's economic situation dating back to the Dark Ages."
Would’ve loved to see more one on one between Dawkins and Craig. The two are arguably the most prominent and well known speakers for their respective world view.
@@ruaraidh74 I can see why. It would look great on Dr. Craig's resume, but not that much in Dr. Dawkins'. As eloquently stated in his TheGuardian article.
@@ruaraidh74 to be fair, this debate was bad for all of their resumes. I guess the mockery and absolute ridicule of the opening statements were part of what this TOs wanted since it is homogeneously hideous.
The hell was the point in administrating this event in Spanish but having the speakers speak English? Also, does anyone else feel weird seeing these 'intellectual titans' on such a goofy setting lol?
+BrainEatPenguin 1 He has two phd's from Birmingham and Munich, making him the most scholared debater on the panel. If he doesn't qualify as an 'intellectual titan', I can't imagine who on this panel would.
the worst moment of the debate IMO is when the time keeper interrupted the physicist halfway through his sentence. which was simultaneously one of the best moments.
This is my second time watching this, and I am still just astounded that otherwise intelligent people can pay so little attention to what their opponent just said. Dawkins and Shermer respond to Craig's speech as if he had said "the future is bleak without God, and the Universe would be a purposeless grave, *therefore God must exist!* or *therefore we ought to believe in God!*", and that is exactly what he *didn't* say. Indeed, he explicitly says that that is NOT the conclusion we should take from his argument (16:38). His argument establishes only one thing: Whether or not the Universe has an objective purpose is contingent on whether or not God exists. That's all. And the atheists, in their speeches, express a very similar thought. They say that we have to make up our own subjective purposes because there is no Universal, objective purpose to it all. They *agree* with Craig's conclusion. And yet they repeatedly erect and destroy a total strawman, rather than just acknowledge that Craig's *actual* point is correct and is what they themselves agree with.
@@flame984 What? Do we also have to demonstrate Dark Matter before discussing it as a possibility and describing what _would_ be the case _if_ it existed?
@@Mentat1231 Well said my friend.. it's almost as if the unbelievers are divinely blinded, so that they don't even realize their self-delusion.. Our minds truly are a wonder.. and debates never seem to do anything but repel the un-believer
HOLY SHIT! Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, William Lane Craig and Michio Kaku all in the same room. I never thought i would ever see that, this is clearly a miracle by god lol.
Do you use a shotgun to make holy shit? or do you get your hands dirty with more manual methods? The rest of us aren't so impressed by such creations that you seem to enthuse over
The atheist side opened with an off-colour joke and put out only one argument which William Lane Craig rightly wrecked. The theist side opened intelligently with a summary of the question and their arguments, as well as addressing the opposition’s statements. One side appeals to the audience’s base emotions and the other side to the audience’s reason and critical thinking. One side treats its hearers as children who can be led in circles and the other side treats them as adults who can comprehend and analyze logic. I think we have the atheism and theism position in a nutshell here.
I think we saw two completely different debates. But you know what? Since you truly believe that this is 1-0 in favor of theism, why don’t you try to argue for your position with me? Surely, you’re confident that things will go exactly as you claim they did in the Craig-Dawkins debate and theism will come out 2-0, right?
I'll put my comment here, because I should receive little opposition because this comment seems to support my view, and because I see only two responses indicated under it: I've had miracles. I had diseases which God healed: a fungus on my hands and face, my improved eyesight, etc.
@@allebasaiadartse3951 I believe it too. Mainly because we were made in the image of God. We are the pinnacle of His creation. We have a conscience and are self aware. We were created with the ability to know God. None of the other created order have that ability. God also gave us dominion over the animals and over the entire earth.
@@johndardi1334 I would not assume that humanity is "the pinnacle of His creation." As a species, we are whack. My God could certainly do better if He opted to do so. I have to rely on a belief that He created us this way for a reason that remains mysterious to me.
I'm a christian and I not because of my Bliefs, but really found the arguments of the Theist side more convincing. But anyway, this was one of the most complete and best debates I have ever seen. I wish God blesses all sides of the debate
The theist arguments are meaningless. For example, you all think love is something special and must come from a God but you don’t think like that when it comes to animals. Animals show love to one another but you don’t ever claim their must be a God when you see them showing affection to one another.
@@truth2you you are wrong, we do believe any form of love in this world derives from God. I don’t know where you learned this. We believe God is love, as the bible states, therefore the value of love derives from him. Hypothetically, Even if an apple learned and showcased love this love would derive from God. You’ve showcased your lack of knowledge of Christianity.
@@johnh2326 You don’t know where I learned this, huh? How about from the theist belief that man rules over all animals and they’re simply subject to us? Or that they don’t have souls and only humans go to heaven? How deplorable minded you all are to talk about animals love being from God then view those same loving animals as unworthy of heaven and creatures that just rot in the ground when they die🤦♂️. Amazing! You believe we humans go to paradise but then you show total and complete disdain towards our fellow loving creatures (a lower and pretentious mentality that can only be attributed to the primal mind of Ancients you all foolishly try to model yourselves after). You all are totally delusional and confused. You talk compassion and love on the one hand then show complete arrogance and ignorance on the other. You tailor your beliefs as you go along adding and subtracting all kinds of nonsense for which you have not a shred of empirical evidence. One theist will say one thing and another something completely different. You’re so confused and delusional you fight wars with one another, splinter into sects, denominations, and different Religions all claiming something different🤦♂️. Don’t bother replying because you’ll have nothing substantial to say just more delusion, imagination, and innovation into your Ancient book of primitive minded beliefs.
@@aallpprr8998 I'm sure you passed a Cambridge exam. And I didn't contend with any argument because you provided no real constructive contention. You need to support an assertion in order for there to be some logical answer/rebuttal possible
Yeah, people also worship him kind of, calling him one of the greatest minds of all time, which is totally ridiculous. He's just an internet sensation and most of his fans are 16-25 years old.
Too many people for this debate to be remotely interesting, 1vs1, or 2vs2 is the way to go. Even as a Spanish speaker, I had no idea what the hell was going on most of the time. The actual ring around the podium was cute though...
When you hear the first insult, you not only know which is the losing side, but, also know that the losing side *also* knows that they are the losing side. 😎
Theists won the opening statements. WLC, in particular, clearly and succinctly set forth the question of the conference and enunerated logically sound arguments for his position. The Athiests, on the other hand, failed to address the question at hand or just dismissed the question itself as rediculous.
You mean the very compelling argument "If there's no god we all will not exist after we die, that's very sad, there has to be something!!! Therefore God has to exist!" What a compelling argument. I've seen toddlers with better argumentation.
@@SumriseHD My point doesn't even have to do with the merits of either side. I am merely commenting on how each side is approaching the debate. The Theists are choosing to address the question/topic posed, while the Atheists are not. The Atheists freely agreed to participate in the debate and accepted the question posed. If they did not like the question, then they simply could have pulled out of the debate. But to stand on stage and the reject the debate question itself is absolutely childish. Typical behavior for Atheists.
This is the Christian Apologist, Richard Dawkins refused to berate and insulted him. Wiliam Lane Craig : - Born August 23, 1949 is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism. He is currently a Professor of Philosophy at Houston Christian University and a Research Professor of Philosophy at Biola University's Talbot School of Theology. Craig has updated and defended the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. He has also published work where he argues in favor of the historical plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus. His study of divine aseity and Platonism culminated with his book God Over All. Craig formulates his version of the argument as follows:- Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Craig's defense of the argument mainly focuses on the second premise, which he offers several arguments for. For example, Craig appeals to Hilbert's example of an infinite hotel to argue that actually infinite collections are impossible, and thus the past is finite and has a beginning. In another argument, Craig says that the series of events in time is formed by a process in which each moment is added to history in succession. According to Craig, this process can never produce an actually infinite collection of events, but at best a potentially infinite one. On this basis, he argues that the past is finite and has a beginning.
The purpose of life is visibly seen in our behavior, we strive to limit our suffering and increase our happiness. We seek pleasure because the material condition affords us no true pleasure but spirituality fulfills the need because when we live in harmony with God we experience some pleasure.
Alex Dupre Because the atheist side dont really understand the arguments (cosmological, contingency, etc), because their minds are ''programmed'' to automatically deny, even if the argument is correct. I am an example. I defended atheism from years (and I hated craig), but, now, I defend theism. And I am very convinced that an trancedental cause is necessary to the universe existence. Atheists who deny the cosmologial, contingency, etc, they REALLY DONT know the difference between inductive and deductive argument. sorry for my bad english, since it is not my first language.
Anderson Badari Wow!!! Lots of speculation in there. Lets starts off with there are no correct arguments in a argument. If a statement was proven correct no one would actually to continue to argue it. Well no sane people anyways. To say all atheists do not understand cosmological and contingency is laughable. To infer that Christians are not programmed from birth to believe in God without any solid prove of his existence is just as LOL. We are a programmed society. What you are convinced of has no value in this conversation. Only what you can prove and you can not prove out anything you just said. Let me also add that many Christians do not understand the cosmological and contingency arguments as well. The majority of society would not even now how to debate the issue because they simply do not care. The difference between Inductive and deductive arguments. No value here. Your English by the way is better then most Americans I know so bravo there.
Anderson Badari "because their minds are ''programmed'' to automatically deny" Then how did you switch to the Theist side? Why do you say theist, btw? I'm curious, do you belive in WLC's god?
Alex Dupre I just stopped debating after heavily defending atheism. four years have passed, and then I began to see the arguments as they actually are, and not under the specter of ideology (lets be honest, I assume that publicy: atheism, from a certain point, is just a battle for ego, a battle for who is right, and not a battle for the thuth - and I am an live example). And, yes, I do believe in WLC good (not in a religious meaning - and not exactly as his god - I just think there is a Cause).
Wow I am really amazed ..... In their opening statements, Dawkins and Shermer resorted to strawman arguments and even slight adhominen.... And then Shermer cries and accuses the others of using strawman arguments....
@@jacksongotardo6906 Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.
Science, The Universe & The God Question I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss at Rice University
Everytime someone say "they used to be a Christian" I keep hearing that verse that says 1 John 2:19 KJV They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Who set this debate up?? This is the single cheesiest and least professionally put on public speaking event I've ever seen. If it weren't for the people involved, I would swear it was put on by a middle schooler who has just learned how to do animations and sound effects in PowerPoint. And to have them stand in a boxing ring? Are you kidding me?
EmileeArsenic theyre a Hispanic audience and them love some drama!!!! ever see Hispanic soap operas or movies? they love the drama it's a stylistic choice common there
I wouldn't want to insult the audience's intelligence by thinking this was catering to their preferences. I think it was just unprofessional organizers. If I found out it was actually organized by a 12 year old I wouldn't be surprised. I would have liked to have seen Dawkins' face when he saw the boxing arena for the first time, though.
Theist arguments were also pretty basic and weak. "if it's not eternal it has no purpose". I've heard better arguments for theism on the internet from regular people using social networks...
@@Contagious93812 It seems weak but if try and come with a rebuttal to it, its quite difficult. That's the positive on the theist, he is able to bring up arguments the atheist have no answers at all, while the theist can to a good degree satisfy most of the atheist's arguments because to the atheist its all subjective or not based on a God's standard. If the atheist can bring up a solid theory of how for example morality has started without the need for a God, then the theist will have an issue. Stephen hawking tried to explain initially how to explain things like that but under close inspection, he seemed to have made doors of escape for himself which was soon pounced upon by everyone.
@@paulbenjamin6597 Actually that's false, majority of philosopher believe morality to be objective, so even experts think you can have objective morality without God, God just leads you to the euthyphro dilemma.
@@paulbenjamin6597 In philosophy the classical way is to start with "I think therefore I am". I exist and then the the fact that I exist i'm a part of this reality so with the law of identity so we can just ground the law of logic purely based of the fact I exist and we know there's one reality, at least one reality or one of me and so we can ground logic and math and rationality + morality all purely just based of I think therfore I am. We don't need to appeal to a god at all and that does give us a connection to the fundamental nature of reality because I exist in reality somewhere so that is some connection to the fundamental nature of reality. But there is a second part that if you think you need to appeal to the fundamental nature of reality to ground rationality the atheist can just make up of a kind of a god just like theists do. You could say it's grounded in naturalistic pantheism which is just an eternal all-powerful nature with no consciousness so it's essentially just the god without the mind and we can say there's just a law of nature that gives us rationality and it's just the awesomeness flaw, just make up equivalent to the god hypothesis just under naturalism and so can ground logic and rationality purely based of I think therfore I am or we can ground it on just the fact that nature exists or some law of nature. Either one of those gives us a better ground than theism. And theism one doesn't work because it's essentially an assertion that god has a nature that would give us correct rationality and it could just be the case that he wouldn't. He would just give us irationality, because that would be an evil god essentially and as simply defining god as a being that would give us the correct kind of rationality we can just do the same thing and say nature has a law that is just by definition the law that would give us a kind of rationality. So any justification used in presuppositionalism can be matched equally under atheism and the reason we don't do that is because that methodology doesn't work.
@Miguel Cisneros Atheists act as if what they do matters beyond them, but are at least honest about the fact that it's cosmically meaningless. Theists do the same, but convince themselves God exists and the universe actually cares about them.
Rain Deer Maybe what generations of marketing and profit seeking has done. All the participants sell book and likely get well paid on the lecture circuit. Lecture halls sells thousands of tickets for a profit and likely make a profit off their hot coffee and coke machines. Local businesses cater to people who are out for the night. Television producers sell programming to stations who in turn pay royalties and sell advertising. Not bad for two guys who essentially show up in a clean shirt and a tie. Not a lot to do with centuries of Catholicism.
I'm generally disconcerted when people watch a debate and say something to the extent, "That was good but Chistopher Hitchens would have torn them up." The reason this bothers me is that he has a different process than others who share his point of view and it underminds the strengths of such persons. On that note, this is definitely one debate I wish he was in, it left me with kind of a meh feeling. One of the things Hitchens does well is combine reasoning with emotion; this debate almost felt like reasoning versus emotion. The most interesting things were said by those who weren't decided or believed that the the question of meaning is unanswerable. Another reason I feel this was a weak debate is that there wasn't enough time for either side to really address the opposition. Cardinal Pell easily holds a stronger position in the argument for a God than the entire team in this debate combined. Dawkins was able to hold his own against Cardinal Pell but that didn't reflect well during this debate.
You know, it would be great to see more people respecting each others' opinions as if they were at the same level of credibility or importance. Because they actually are. They all derive from the same imperfect and limited creatures and the same cryptic lives. Everybody has their own motives and experiences to back up what they believe in, even though there are those who care to further elaborate and those who don't so much. As an Agnostic, it bothers me very much to see so many Atheists (especially here in RUclips) attack so fiercely and apathetically the mindsets of those who beg to differ, while claiming their minds are more open or whatever. If I was an Atheist I wouldn't go around militantly telling others they are 100% wrong and saying any possible argument to make them look bad with such arrogance and violence. That's just insane. I would keep it to myself and go on with my life functioning, occassionally talking about it but not like this. If you think you know better then there's no need to act so insecurely and have to compensate with this kind of immaturity. Atheists have absolutely no right to be so belittling because in the end that's their opinion, too. And seeing believers of faith telling others that they're going to Hell for the same reason of having a different mindset is not helping either. But this incredibly rude closemindedness coming from Atheists is what bothers me most. It is not a belief system? Of course it is! Otherwise you wouldn't be defending it, because there would be nothing to defend. Your arguments also come from deductions and assumptions no matter how hard you want to call the truth as something. And science shouldn't be used intrinsically as a philosophy because it's merely a profound and technical, but inanimate tool or set of steps to understand the mechanical side of reality. And a very important one in our development and progress. There do exist things which it can't answer or even attempt to (as it currently is), since it then would require a particular individual's bias and necessities of answers. So what would be great is if both sides recognized that others have as much a right to believe in another view, as themselves have the right. Even more when that person just thinks it comprehends the other side's way of seeing things. I don't get why this area of debate has to get so offensive, when it shouldn't have the purpose of plain mockery but a genuine understanding of your own view in another as effectively and respectfully as it could be. Not in this "I'm the only one who's right" kind of way, but in a "Let me help you understand" kind of way. I don't get why someone has to resort to closemindedness and astute mockery if that person supposedly has the obligation to share the good of his/her discoveries in the matters of existentialism...
@@darkice3267 and is that going to change all of Paulogia's points ? The fact that Craig quote mined and even was dishonest enough to edit his quote mine is demostrably true just check the original sources
@@darkice3267 just because someone is using youtube to comunicate doesn't mean that person is hiding behind it ,should I assume that you are hiding behind a screen now? Paulogia's points are valid regardless of how he comunicates them ,and how do you know he woulndt accept a debate with Craig ? Is more likely that Craig would refuse it because he is a condecending and arrogant prick
I have watched Hitchens crush Theists, and admitted it, despite being a Christian. Honestly, until I saw WLC actually beat him, I wasn't sure it was possible to win against Hitchens.
Andrew Liese As an atheist I will say WLC won the debate against Hitch. While Hitch won substance and logic, that isn't always the deciding factor in debate sadly. Hitch took WLC for granted.
Journeyman Joe How did he win? He didn't even prove the existence of any god, so until he proves the existence of any god or gods, it's all fantasy. Journeyman Joe
I hate how religious people say, The atheists dont give arguments of why god doesnt exist, they just mock god and so on but they dont disprove his existance. Just because you dont understand the arguments they give doesnt mean they are jokes. They give amazing arguments that make religion look like a joke. Of course you can not prove he exists, and you can not prove he doesnt exist, but you can prove he does not need to exist and that is what these people do.
Also i am mexican, and why do we have to make this in a ring? that just make it look less serious. But i guess that is how we mexicans are we try to make this kinds of topics less serious, so we can take them more seriously.
Atheists make mindless insult after mindless insult and expect that to be an argument. We understand the insults perfectly, but, unlike you atheists, we also understand that these mindless insults do not logically conclude with "therefore God does not exist." After everything an atheists says ask yourself "If this were true, then would it mean that therefore God does not exist?" and the answer will always be "no."
You don't understand what he means by that statement. He doesn't mean that we are not concerned with why the universe is here, he means that asking why the universe is here is like asking why mountains are here.
Creationist xD My point wasn't that he was defeated, according to the structure of debates he may have won all. But this doesn't make his arguments neither valid nor sound.
I cannot fathom why one might think that life has no purpose just because the universe wasn't created to serve a a purpose. And how does this argument possibly serve as a justification for God? Complete and utter nonsense.
Old comment but let me explain from my understanding. Objective purposes are the only real purposes we cling on to. Subjective purposes are secondary if not completely mostly ignored for the most part. Some of the most important purposes we hold dear are considered objective (moral or otherwise) purposes. But a suppose universe with no objective purpose and meaning means no real purpose at all. This is especially true from a psychological/behavioral perspective…
Michio Kaku talked such irrelevant shit about the atheists. Which one of these three men say they are "absolutely certain" about anything!? And how can anyone call them "arrogant" when they're the ones saying "we don't know all the answers - we're working on them"? The *theists* are the ones making the arrogant claim that they have all the answers and are at the center of the universe.
John He's a bullshit artist. Doesn't even understand the position of one of the sides. That guy is the definition of a bullshit artist who hasn't contributed anything to the scientific community.
Sean Chesley Michio Kaku is not a BS artist and actually did and does contribute to the scientific community. He is the co-founder of string field theory and published over 70 articles on physic along with a hand full of books as well. Kaku is even one of the most famous theoritcal physicist of are time.
Sean Chesley Jelani Mendez Michio Kaku is one of the preeminent physicists of our time, an accomplished academic, writer and a fine educator. In this particular appearance, though, he was arguing against (mainly atheist) strawmen/misrepresentations to make himself look superior - talking with an air of unbelievable smugness and self-satisfaction. If he's not going to bother listening to and understanding orators' positions and arguments, he should stay home and do something useful.
John Sean Chesley Yes I do agree with u on that Kaku is one of the most preeminent physicists of our time, but he did not mainly attack the atheist side as you say he did. Kaku just basically said GOD is hard to prove that he does not exist and vice versa. Kaku only believes in GOD to a certain point to where the universe is to complex for any unknown explanation therefore he believes in a superior being. Then Kaku does not believe that GOD governs all of us or we pray to him and our wishes will be answered. With that said I think Michio Kaku is a deists. So like I stated in the beginning he did not mainly argue against the atheists but also against the theist as well.
Jelani Mendez He probably believes in "Spinoza's god". This amounts to: "god is the name I give to the order and complexity of the universe". I think this is a cop-out position and that for all intents and purposes, he's an agnostic atheist. This isn't the issue though (I don't care what he believes) - it's what he said to misrepresent the beliefs of those speaking at this event. I strongly detest William Lane Craig, but not even he says he's "absolutely certain' that god exists. From what I can tell no one is claiming certainty at this event.
+Roper122 Craig was absolutely right that in order to recognize one explanation as the best, you don't have to have an explanation *of* the explanation on hand. He's also right in saying that such an approach would destroy science itself, as you couldn't ever acknowledge a single explanation of anything, lacking infinite knowledge about it and *its* causes at that time. As for your second objection, "he simply alerts that a god can be simpler that what it creates. With no evidence whatsoever." That's false. The argument he gives is that god is simple because he is an immaterial being with no parts. And of course, he points out that it's wrong-headed to think that the simpler explanation is always the best anyway. So neither of Dawkins' attempts to refute Craig here were successful. Do you know of any *other* attempts he's made? Just curious.
In the same way that it's foolish to absolutely claim there is no faeries. You can't prove or disprove either. Also science doesn't deal with absolutes.
Stethacanthus Just as in the court of law, absence of "evidence" does not necessarily mean "evidence" of absence. Also, if you don't believe in God, and He doesn't exist, then of course scientific evidence only leads to scientific evidence. If you do believe in God, and in fact He does exist (think about this scenario don't just dismiss it), then it follows that God is the creator of everything, including all of the scientific laws and first particles and atoms to come into existence; thus, as a believer everything becomes evidence "not only" for scientific aspects of the universe, but also for God's existence; the only way to view that everything is evidence for not just physical things but also for God is through belief in Him. So which is more open minded, the mind that accepts that all science and it's laws exist, or the mind that accepts that all science and it's laws exist, as well as the metaphysical realm (spiritual realm) including God?
Stethacanthus In the end, either the universe has always been, or God has always been. I believe it makes more rational sense if you think about everything critically and analytically that the God of the bible is the creator. I've read the bible twice, and God doesn't get into the details about how He made the universe, but claims that He is the Creator. The biggest differences between the bible's claims and other claims of another god and gods in history are two big claims. The bible claims that Jesus (God in flesh) died on the cross for everyone's sins no matter how evil those sins are so that way you can be declared clean from evil because of what Jesus did, not because of what you have done to earn heaven, since everyone is a sinner and deserves hell. The second big claim is that Jesus on the third day "rose from the dead" with accounts of witnesses to claim that indeed He had risen from the dead. No other so called god claimed to die in your place for your sins.
I'd say that that after watching this all the way through, both sides did well in expressing a clear model of their beliefs. Unfortunately with the way this debate was organized, it never gave time for defending their values - thus leaving their topics undefended. Also this was the first time I have watched a 3v3 debate and I don't think I like it. Ending conclusion: Both sides did poorly because their time was not able to be allotted appropriately.
John Wick Because some Atheist’s have this basic assumption that all people who believe in God are idiots and are brainwashed. You can believe me because I was one.
Comrade Androv “all people who believe in God are idiots and are brainwashed.” Wow, the Strongest argument I ever seen. In that one sentence you singlehandedly dismantled the Kalam, Morality, Contingency, Beauty, and Teleological arguments. Now I need to rethink my views.
I like the Jewish guy, he is pretty clever, and a good speaker. It is true that we exist because of the Order within a Chaotic Universe, however when you consider the Googol amount of stars in the universe, calling it a coincidence is not much of a stretch.
+Dylan H Ridicules...Really??? Look at the Christian debaters and how chill they are...You know why that is??? Because they know the atheist debtors can't stop their arguments..Awesome!
+David Conley Now, that's just silly, isn't it? Oh, I'm sorry, I should have translated that into creationist-speak: Now, that's just silly, isn't it???? There, that's better!!!?!?!?!!?!
I just want to say that in academia, all of WLC's arguments are taught and easily refuted just like Thomas Aquinas's are. WLC has been made aware of this and ignores it perpetually. This resulted in the refusal to debate him by most experts because of his abhorrent intellectual dishonesty for popularity and monetary rewards. The only people that will debate him are, sadly, also motivated by popularity and money. I still respect Dawkins despite this because he is popularizing atheism or at least skepticism. This has lead many people to do their own research and see why WLC is wrong despite his numerous debate victories including this one.
+Vito Corleone WLC's arguments have stood the test of time & they're still valid. Why don't you refute them with a better argument in stead of just asserting that they're refuted?
Richard Dawkins was especially arrogant & condescending without any substantial argument or counter-argument (other than being arrogantly dismissive). I am glad the three theists tore him apart big time in this debate That being said, the theists argument makes the most sense with existential question and they won this debate.
Have you never argued just for the sake of it. Dawkins loves to argue and does just that. He enjoys putting people down and pretends to be the only one with all the answers. Granted he is well educated, but he is not a scientist like he makes out. His views are very childlike regarding evolution and his arguments are still only based on guess work.
Heywood Yabloome lol, I honestly, as a christian, don't really follow flat earth theories. And I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, I don't think some of the flat earthers actually believe that either.
Darwin post enlightenment shed his faith completely and understood that his Christian Belief was a waste of his years and he was deeply disconcerted with this finding
Darwin is not an atheist.People just used his theory to reinforce atheism is possible.If Darwin alive, he will be so sad.He just wanted to understand the world around him
@@jarrygarry5316 Upon discovering the insane amount of evidence Darwin was indeed not a Christian any longer. Now whether he still believed in a God or not didn’t matter as he understood that humans were not god’s creation 6000 years ago. But the rational thing to say upon discovery would be that clearly Christianity, Judaism, Islam are all false in their creation myth
@@EpicLemonMusic This would only stand given the assumption that YEC and a Literalist reading of scripture was required by the church- which is a ridiculously false assumption unless you are exclusively referring to fundamentalist protestantism.
Waylan Andrews because the whole point in learning about things that we don’t understand is by asking why, in a sense Dawkins counter arguments on why god doesn’t do things is silly to him.
Schermer completely misses the mark. The question is not whether one can cone up with a purpose for his life, it is whether there us a purpose to the universe. The former is subjective, the later objective. If there is no objective purpose, then any subjective purpose is necessarily fleeting and meaningless.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" is itself an assertion without evidence. Therefore, by its own standard, it can be rejected. Hardly a razor since it breaks down on itself. And so if a Christian theist says, "God exists", Hitchens's statement won't do atheists any good. On the other hand, if an atheist says "There is no God", this is an assertion that can never actually be proven by any materialistic, naturalistic, and scientific means, as you would need omnipotence to be able to prove this statement, and therefore this statement itself by Hitchens's arbitrary and unproven standard can be rejected. The only intellectually honest position anyone can take is, "I do not know whether there is a God or not," and even at this point, the reason could either be "I am not satisfied with the evidences presented" (and when atheists are asked by Christians what kind of evidence they would like to see, they're hardly able to set intellectually honest parameters regarding what kind of evidence would satisfy them), or "I don't know if the evidences are satisfactory". To sum it all up, it is never intellectually honest to assert "God does not exist", as it is beyond the capacity of a naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic worldview to ever prove this statement.
@Juilian Bautista I call bullshit (mind my language) on your view of how athiests view evidence. Athiests aren't intellectualy dishonest about evidence would satisfy them. Christians just lack the evidence that would satisfy atheists. Evidence of the Christian God and evidence of Jesus's divinity beyond a 2000 year old book would be all that's needed. A single logically convincing argument with proven assumptions would be enough to prevent many doubtful Christians from turning atheist. I agree with you that we don't have enough knowledge of the univerese to prove that there isn't a god or gods, but an argument against the Christian God is possible due to the claims in the Bible. However, since there is no universally accepted interpretation of the Bible any argument would have to be based on the few things that all Christians agree on.
Dawkins is hyper rationalistic. His ideas are so mechanistic that by his logic, there would be no difference in falling in love with the black box of an aeroplane or a human being. His position is utterly depressing.
Man I saw this yeaaaars ago but thought I must have dreamed them all being there together because no way could it have been organized in such a goofy awful manner... well...
All interesting and seeing our Japanese scientist here was a plus!Dawkins is very challenging that's a good thing to!William is fairly new to me he also excellent challenger!MrKako always intriguing!
As an impressionable child, when I first watched this debate I agreed with Richard Dawkins 100%, but now as an adult I really think William Lane Craig dominates this debate, and that atheism is essentially the most hilarious fabrication of the scientific community.
Atheism isn't a fabrication, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god; gosh, why does so many people keep misunderstanding what "atheism" means ? Is not that difficult to understand.
@@eliassandoval9530 I think it's because religious people tend to take atheistic views as a personal attack to their own beliefs for whatever reason. They act like it's a claim or scientific statement that their particular god doesn't exist. Which is why I guess religious people also associate science with atheism even though they really have nothing to do with each other.
PILGRIM'S PROGRESS Choose one or more of these: A/ "An eye for an eye." B/ "Death to the infidel." C/ "Love your neighbour." An outsider, a Good Samaritan, is your neighbour. D/ "Love your enemy...If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" E/ None of the above.
It's like, the host was threatened to be kill if he didn't interrupt exactly at the end of the estimated time of each speaker, I mean, there's no other way to explain that amount desperate obnoxious behavior.
God bless my Christian brothers that were on William’s team but I really truly feel that they held him back in a lot of ways with their arguments of strictly faith and emotion. Dr. William lane Craig is presenting a highly rational/well thought out/LOGICAL explanation An explanation that lot of people need. More than just Faith. I myself been one of those people(once skeptic atheist to now christian.) And his Argument is overshadowed by there over emotional very elusive version of why God exist. When on the contrary, there is a lot of historical evidence as well as scientific evidence that points to a creator of the universe. As a truth seeker myself, a skeptic myself , as someone who follows logic rather than emotion Williams points makes absolute sense and directly align with human behavior with seeking purpose value and meaning. And needing all three to live consistently and happily. Whereas Richard Dawkins does not even follow his own arguments. Because with the atheist world view it is essentially subjective/relative truths that people follow in order to create their own happiness. It is simply a lie we tell ourselves so that we dont blow our brains out because of depression. A purpose we create for ourselves that are merely illusions to make ourselves feel better about the objective truth of our bleak depressing meaningless valueless and purposeless existence.. So what do you believe? That everyone just tells Themselves lies so that we can live happily and inconsistently? (Because you cant live consistently and happily as an athiest) i.e living consistently with an athiestic world view would create anarchist, morless, valueless, meaningless, purposeless sense of being THUS ruining your happiness. Because humans need purpose meaning and value to be happy. And if you so choose to LIE/ILLUSION yourself and pretend that you do have purpose meaning and value, then boom, you are inconsistent with the atheistic view. Therefore, you cannot live consistently and happily WITH and atheistic world view because thats just not how humans function. To deny the fact that humans are social creature as well as need Purpose, meaning, and value is to deny years of scientific /psychological studies of mankind. To accept that we as humans need these things to function and be happy(value, purpose, and meaning) then you must accept that there is a God. Unless you’re ok with just lying to yourself Till ya die... I want to see Richard Dawkins face off Dr. William Lane Craig 1v1 in a better set up debate and see who wins then.. Because just by this video alone logically speaking William won.
On the "Evil" spiel of Mr. Craig, its logic seems to me to resemble some of the arguments that one may find in pamplets dropped at one's doorstep by a few of the walking Elders in white shirts & black ties. The term "evil" to me is a conceptual term that has no real magical properties. Really it is a sort of subjective definition that could be applied to various events or situations. It is rather absurd for a person to use " the existence of 'evil' " as proof that God exists. I could get injured while participating in a sporting event or in an automobile, etc. and I would consider that evil because I wouold probably define the injury as not to be in compliance with "the way things ought to be." In which case my broken arm or bruised rib would prove the existence of God. Seems as if the existence of what Mr Craig calls "evil" means to him that there must be agency in the manifestation of such evil. And as such some titantic heavenly struggle is happening between opposting forces, one "evil" and the other the "proponent of what 'out to be'. "
It's an ego thing.The Atheist believes he is smarter than the theist..he thinks smart people don't rely on faith for answers.He needs acceptance admiration, justification, validation, the Atheist because of these needs is weak of mind. The theist, however, only requires love. The disproof of God feeds the Atheist's ego and fulfills his/her wish to see those in opposition to their learned stance ridiculed. The theist just wishes the Atheist could share in the joy they experience.
i have heard about that debate a lot of times, and this is the first time and aways the people told me Dawkins lose the debate... i have watching this one, and i say, just my opinion, of course... He did not lose that. Theists just defended they arguments about samething i have heard last years, and the atheists said what the science discover and probably will discover more for next years. just it! my personal opinion.
This is completely idiotic, I feel the fake concept of hell, the most immoral evil concept ever envisioned by mankind, and anyone who believes in this nonsense is disgusting and not worthy of any consideration.
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
Lane is the best Christian apologist I'm glad he's on my side lol
God doesn't need he doesn't give a fuck if a person believes or not
he tried like 3 times now xDDD
KRIWDIPIE W please rewrite, not sure what your saying?
God doesn't need he doesn't give a fuck if a person believes or not
he tried like 3 times now xDDD
+hawklord2001 exactly!! any man with a brain knows He exists ... !! But then there some ...
+hopeful LOL anyone with a brain knows he exists, what irony exists in your statement.
That might be the MOST annoying way to present and moderate a debate EVER. Putting people in some goofy boxing ring and interrupting their comments with, "Time out!" instead of a polite warning? Come on.
Flick Agreed. That guy really got on my nerves.
Flick I agree. This is really corny, cheesy and undignified. Not to say that all of these speakers are worthy of dignity, but the format and the way this whole debate is executed seems unnatural. People engaged in finishing a thought shouldn't be interjected by a pushy moderator.
Flick I know , Ridiculous.
Mexico City.
Flick I agree with you Flick, and what about the tempo of the music - I know it by ear, but can't remember who composed it, anyway, the increased tempo was as ingratiating as the presenter and moderator, and to top it all, having to listen to Mr. (fucking boring) Craig, I just gave up and read comments instead.
This is the worst debate format I've ever seen.
Because Dawkins was afraid to take on WLC one on one...
@@knightmarefuel4499 Hah - bullshit
Dawkins was a last minute replacement. He wasn't even suppose to speak. Another speaker dropped out the night before. Dawkins refuses to debate WLC and didn't know he was speaking. ruclips.net/video/i6awSAjw64s/видео.html
Protective HT not only that but Dawkins didn’t know WLC was supposed to be there. Of course Dawkins doesn’t want to debate WLC, unlike most other theists who have debated Dawkins William Lane Craig has no problem using science and philosophy along with logic to show not only is God a possible explanation for the creation of the universe it’s also the most probable. The flaws and gaps in evolution are unmistakable. Time being the biggest crutch in the theory of evolution! If they can’t explain how this becomes that than the Time flag raises and the atheist says “well give it 500 million years” 🤣 it’s honestly a joke when we have books we can accurately date back thousands of years that is full of fulfilled prophecy as well as the depiction of God entering his creation and solving a problem we created in the garden. No accredited historian denies Jesus existed, so the question is “is Jesus who Jesus claimed to be, who his followers claimed he was” and the EVIDENCE points unmistakably to yes. Why believe in Christianity? Because it’s the only religion with actual evidence.
Dawkins argument on the surface is that he has outgrown the childish belief in God as if it’s relatable to Santa Claus when in reality the two are worlds apart! It sounds like a good argument to a prideful arrogant emotional human, but facts do not support it and WLC would dismantle Dawkins if ever given a 1 on 1 with him.. I will say this about Dawkins he is smart enough not to debate someone he knows would destroy him.. 👏🏼
Knightmare Fuel sum up wlc’s best argument/arguments for god. Go ahead. I want you to hear yourself say them out loud. It’ll be a useful exercise for yourself. Force yourself to summarize the desperate nonsense.
After this debate, Dawkins was scheduled to debate William Lane Craig on his home turf of Oxford. He refused and dropped out claiming that Craig was immoral and not worthy of debate. Needless to say the English press and most atheists disapproved of this behavior.
That's so interesting to know. I'm glad atheists disapproved. What a childish behavior. Craig is anything but immoral. And he is probably not worthy of debating only so far as he is far too knowledgeable to be an easy target, hence "worthy" of Dawkins' time. Never had much of respect for Dawkins but now I have none. Sam Harris is the only one I can somewhat respect.
He chickened out of facing solid arguments and truth.
@@stephenking4170😂😂😂
@@stephenking4170yeah cause he it did.
sam harris talks crap about Islam, keeps being challenged to debate some muslim thinkers and scholars and keeps rejecting all of them to the point of escaping twitter just so he doesnt get spammed to debate, pathetic, not much to respect a cowardly man@@ConsumeristScroffa
First I was a Christian, then I denied him and became an Atheist, then I was brought back by Apologetic Christianity
Cause if you don't you'll go to hell.
@@youngurbangod1156 To begin with that's the genetic fallacy and not an argument. Secondly, he just said that that wasn't the reason. Your argument is invalid.
@@MegaFREAK313 I believe he came back not mainly because of his fear of eternal torture. Apart from that, what part am I wrong? You come back or else you'll be God's eternal barbecue cause of your sins. Yeah that's how much God loves you.
@@youngurbangod1156 You seem to not understand traditional Christian theology correctly. God loves man infinitely, all men. All men have a choice whether they are to subject themselves to God, the first Cause, he who is being and goodness and love in itself, or whether they are to reject him and don't want to be part of him and his kingdom. C.S. Lewis once said something along the lines of "The gates of hell are locked from the inside". That would mean, those who reside in hell all chose to go there willingly, and they are all free to leave whenever they want. God doesn't put you in hell, it's not even a place. Man can choose to either reside in God, with God, Forever - or to reject him, take no part of him and therefore fall into eternal oblivion, this we call hell. God is merciful, so merciful he will let his own killers be redempted If they repent. God don't want you to be in hell, he simply says "I gave you free will, you decide". Blessed Newman once said that it's better for the entirety of the cosmos to collapse onto itself, than that one single soul goes to hell. How does that contradict God's love do you mean? Should he FORCE men to reside in his kingdom against their will?
@@MegaFREAK313So you don't believe Hell is a literal lake of fire? Cause the majority of fundamental Christians does. Are they wrong?
Can't believe they all have agreed to participate in such a circus...
That is the most intelligent comment I ever read on youtube. It is 100% a circus. It is all staged, to con christians and atheists out of their money.
It works, they make millions, selling tickets, DVDs, fiction books, etc.
They could not care less about real science.
Because they all fanatics. The only right answer is "we don't know!"
Peter Rozen Correct!!!!
I feel insulted for the speakers and the attendees. This is the least professional public speaking event I've ever witnessed, and I've seen debates put on in people's living rooms and unfinished back rooms of bars and breweries.
I would've liked to have seen Dawkins' face when he saw the boxing ring for the first time, though. "Oh, there's an actual... literal... arena... I'm not doing that." "Sir, you've already signed the contract" "Call my agent and tell him he's so fired that it will retroactively affect his family's economic situation dating back to the Dark Ages."
EmileeArsenic What?????
The moderator should find a new job. He lacks respect for his guests. He cuts them of in a very impolite way.
Would’ve loved to see more one on one between Dawkins and Craig. The two are arguably the most prominent and well known speakers for their respective world view.
Too bad Dawkins doesn’t want to debate Craig :/
@@ruaraidh74 I can see why. It would look great on Dr. Craig's resume, but not that much in Dr. Dawkins'. As eloquently stated in his TheGuardian article.
@@ruaraidh74 to be fair, this debate was bad for all of their resumes. I guess the mockery and absolute ridicule of the opening statements were part of what this TOs wanted since it is homogeneously hideous.
It would be a pointless debate...
@@christiandawes4426 Maybe for them, but I think I may learn a lot of things from a debate like that.
The hell was the point in administrating this event in Spanish but having the speakers speak English?
Also, does anyone else feel weird seeing these 'intellectual titans' on such a goofy setting lol?
Well I don't know about Craig.
+BrainEatPenguin 1 He has two phd's from Birmingham and Munich, making him the most scholared debater on the panel. If he doesn't qualify as an 'intellectual titan', I can't imagine who on this panel would.
+Brandon Hoffman LOOOL Craig is a clown , now tell me , he has two PHD's of what? hahaha, thought so.
Cheetah Rawr What? I don't get your retort. Are you claiming he doesn't have Phd's?
Brandon Hoffman
I asked you where does William Lane Craig have his Phd's in?
Mr Craig is a great lawyer working for God
And the believer pays God's bill
the worst moment of the debate IMO is when the time keeper interrupted the physicist halfway through his sentence. which was simultaneously one of the best moments.
He dropped out because Craig never wants to argue logically.
Found Dawkins's opening statement remarkably weak, punctuated with a snobbish manner to boot.
W
What else did you expect from Dawkins
Dawkins is a moron, what do you expect?
Snobbish? Did you mean educated Brit. Because that is how he talks and other educated brits often talk that way as well.
@@mike1967sam
"what do you expect?"
Morons to call Dawkins a moron. That was exactly what I expected and got.
And now, to answer all these existential questions, Michio Kaku, you have 2 seconds! Go!
- Well. it seems tha- Time out! Thank you for coming!
😂😂
OMG LOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Hahahahaha you're right
😂😂😂
This is quite comically depressing...
This is my second time watching this, and I am still just astounded that otherwise intelligent people can pay so little attention to what their opponent just said. Dawkins and Shermer respond to Craig's speech as if he had said "the future is bleak without God, and the Universe would be a purposeless grave, *therefore God must exist!* or *therefore we ought to believe in God!*", and that is exactly what he *didn't* say. Indeed, he explicitly says that that is NOT the conclusion we should take from his argument (16:38). His argument establishes only one thing: Whether or not the Universe has an objective purpose is contingent on whether or not God exists. That's all. And the atheists, in their speeches, express a very similar thought. They say that we have to make up our own subjective purposes because there is no Universal, objective purpose to it all. They *agree* with Craig's conclusion. And yet they repeatedly erect and destroy a total strawman, rather than just acknowledge that Craig's *actual* point is correct and is what they themselves agree with.
Craig makes no sense. You have to demonstrate a god/possibility of before introducing that as a possibility
@@flame984
What? Do we also have to demonstrate Dark Matter before discussing it as a possibility and describing what _would_ be the case _if_ it existed?
@@Mentat1231 Well said my friend.. it's almost as if the unbelievers are divinely blinded, so that they don't even realize their self-delusion.. Our minds truly are a wonder.. and debates never seem to do anything but repel the un-believer
Yup
@@Mentat1231 dark matter started as a hypothesis just as god starts as hypothesis, dark matter has evidence, god does not, thats all
HOLY SHIT! Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, William Lane Craig and Michio Kaku all in the same room. I never thought i would ever see that, this is clearly a miracle by god lol.
🤣👏🏼💯
Ignorant u are 😂😂
The only regret i have right now, is that Dr. Kent Hovind wasn't included in this debate!!
@@vladimator1842 😀 lol nice one
Do you use a shotgun to make holy shit? or do you get your hands dirty with more manual methods? The rest of us aren't so impressed by such creations that you seem to enthuse over
The atheist side opened with an off-colour joke and put out only one argument which William Lane Craig rightly wrecked. The theist side opened intelligently with a summary of the question and their arguments, as well as addressing the opposition’s statements.
One side appeals to the audience’s base emotions and the other side to the audience’s reason and critical thinking. One side treats its hearers as children who can be led in circles and the other side treats them as adults who can comprehend and analyze logic. I think we have the atheism and theism position in a nutshell here.
I think we saw two completely different debates. But you know what? Since you truly believe that this is 1-0 in favor of theism, why don’t you try to argue for your position with me? Surely, you’re confident that things will go exactly as you claim they did in the Craig-Dawkins debate and theism will come out 2-0, right?
This guy seriously typed "The theist side opened intelligently." Had to stop to have a nice out-loud laugh after that.
I'll put my comment here, because I should receive little opposition because this comment seems to support my view, and because I see only two responses indicated under it: I've had miracles. I had diseases which God healed: a fungus on my hands and face, my improved eyesight, etc.
@@MarkBH70 This is one of the most incoherent comments I’ve read this week. And I’ve read quite a lot of RUclips comments this week.
You have evidence of God? Where is it?
This debate makes me realise how profoundly intelligent we are as a species.
???
This is the first time in my life I have ever seen someone say this not ironically... why do you believe this?
@@allebasaiadartse3951 I believe it too. Mainly because we were made in the image of God. We are the pinnacle of His creation. We have a conscience and are self aware. We were created with the ability to know God. None of the other created order have that ability. God also gave us dominion over the animals and over the entire earth.
@@johndardi1334 I would not assume that humanity is "the pinnacle of His creation." As a species, we are whack. My God could certainly do better if He opted to do so. I have to rely on a belief that He created us this way for a reason that remains mysterious to me.
@@MiklRngr this is what happen when monkeys become little bit smart
Now, intelligence is not enough. Wisdom is to acknowledge there is meaning to life because there is a personal God
I'm a christian and I not because of my Bliefs, but really found the arguments of the Theist side more convincing.
But anyway, this was one of the most complete and best debates I have ever seen.
I wish God blesses all sides of the debate
can i give me a simple evidence for the existance for god ill show you where you went wrong!
The theist arguments are meaningless.
For example, you all think love is something special and must come from a God but you don’t think like that when it comes to animals. Animals show love to one another but you don’t ever claim their must be a God when you see them showing affection to one another.
@@truth2youthe atheist argumdnts hold literally no weight dumbass
@@truth2you you are wrong, we do believe any form of love in this world derives from God. I don’t know where you learned this. We believe God is love, as the bible states, therefore the value of love derives from him. Hypothetically, Even if an apple learned and showcased love this love would derive from God. You’ve showcased your lack of knowledge of Christianity.
@@johnh2326
You don’t know where I learned this, huh?
How about from the theist belief that man rules over all animals and they’re simply subject to us? Or that they don’t have souls and only humans go to heaven? How deplorable minded you all are to talk about animals love being from God then view those same loving animals as unworthy of heaven and creatures
that just rot in the ground when they die🤦♂️. Amazing! You believe we humans go to paradise but then you show total and complete disdain towards our fellow loving creatures (a lower and pretentious mentality that can only be attributed to the primal mind of Ancients you all foolishly try to model yourselves after).
You all are totally delusional and confused. You talk compassion and love on the one hand then show complete arrogance and ignorance on the other. You tailor your beliefs as you go along adding and subtracting all kinds of nonsense for which you have not a shred of empirical evidence. One theist will say one thing and another something completely different. You’re so confused and delusional you fight wars with one another, splinter into sects, denominations, and different Religions all claiming something different🤦♂️.
Don’t bother replying because you’ll have nothing substantial to say just more delusion, imagination, and innovation
into your Ancient book of
primitive minded beliefs.
"the DNA turned out to be just a simple digital linear recombination" lol yeah, it's just soooo simple lol
Blackhawk505 simpler than a god for shure
@@aallpprr8998 you just spelled "sure" "shure" and are attempting to make claims on metaphysical concepts
Elijah Negron
1) i’m not a native speaker
2) i have passed the advanced cambridge exam so, SUREly I know how to spell SURE
Elijah Negron why don’t you try to answer my argument instead?
@@aallpprr8998 I'm sure you passed a Cambridge exam. And I didn't contend with any argument because you provided no real constructive contention. You need to support an assertion in order for there to be some logical answer/rebuttal possible
The debate format is bananas.
Lol I love the aggressive "Time out!" cutting everyone off mid speech
Man if only I became a theist 1 year earlier than this I could have definitely been into this
Bad arguments from the atheist side, people should just stop debating this. You can't get anywhere.
Ahh, but Dawkins has made a fortune out of it!
Yeah, people also worship him kind of, calling him one of the greatest minds of all time, which is totally ridiculous. He's just an internet sensation and most of his fans are 16-25 years old.
Josef Orva Mm-hm. Except Dawkins totally smacked down WLC's totally emotional, evidence-free "arguments."
The only thing dawkins smacked down that night was his post-debate errection to WLC's rhetorical skills.
The journey counts for nothing?
William Lane Craig is like the apostle Paul of our time.
He really is💞
Well said.
😂😂😂😂
As an atheist I agree with this...
Too many people for this debate to be remotely interesting, 1vs1, or 2vs2 is the way to go. Even as a Spanish speaker, I had no idea what the hell was going on most of the time. The actual ring around the podium was cute though...
When you hear the first insult, you not only know which is the losing side, but, also know that the losing side *also* knows that they are the losing side. 😎
Quite correct'
Theists won the opening statements. WLC, in particular, clearly and succinctly set forth the question of the conference and enunerated logically sound arguments for his position. The Athiests, on the other hand, failed to address the question at hand or just dismissed the question itself as rediculous.
You mean the very compelling argument "If there's no god we all will not exist after we die, that's very sad, there has to be something!!! Therefore God has to exist!"
What a compelling argument. I've seen toddlers with better argumentation.
@@SumriseHD My point doesn't even have to do with the merits of either side. I am merely commenting on how each side is approaching the debate. The Theists are choosing to address the question/topic posed, while the Atheists are not. The Atheists freely agreed to participate in the debate and accepted the question posed. If they did not like the question, then they simply could have pulled out of the debate. But to stand on stage and the reject the debate question itself is absolutely childish. Typical behavior for Atheists.
This is the Christian Apologist, Richard Dawkins refused to berate and insulted him.
Wiliam Lane Craig : -
Born August 23, 1949 is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism.
He is currently a Professor of Philosophy at Houston Christian University and a Research Professor of Philosophy at Biola University's Talbot School of Theology.
Craig has updated and defended the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.
He has also published work where he argues in favor of the historical plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus.
His study of divine aseity and Platonism culminated with his book God Over All.
Craig formulates his version of the argument as follows:-
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Craig's defense of the argument mainly focuses on the second premise, which he offers several arguments for.
For example, Craig appeals to Hilbert's example of an infinite hotel to argue that actually infinite collections are impossible, and thus the past is finite and has a beginning.
In another argument, Craig says that the series of events in time is formed by a process in which each moment is added to history in succession. According to Craig, this process can never produce an actually infinite collection of events, but at best a potentially infinite one. On this basis, he argues that the past is finite and has a beginning.
The purpose of life is visibly seen in our behavior, we strive to limit our suffering and increase our happiness. We seek pleasure because the material condition affords us no true pleasure but spirituality fulfills the need because when we live in harmony with God we experience some pleasure.
logic independs cientific knowledge.
thats why craig won, and will always win.
How did Craig win? I'm confused. Both sides came to a dead end, and if anything, the Atheistic side came out stronger refuting most of the points.
Alex Dupre Because the atheist side dont really understand the arguments (cosmological, contingency, etc), because their minds are ''programmed'' to automatically deny, even if the argument is correct. I am an example. I defended atheism from years (and I hated craig), but, now, I defend theism. And I am very convinced that an trancedental cause is necessary to the universe existence.
Atheists who deny the cosmologial, contingency, etc, they REALLY DONT know the difference between inductive and deductive argument. sorry for my bad english, since it is not my first language.
Anderson Badari Wow!!! Lots of speculation in there. Lets starts off with there are no correct arguments in a argument. If a statement was proven correct no one would actually to continue to argue it. Well no sane people anyways. To say all atheists do not understand cosmological and contingency is laughable. To infer that Christians are not programmed from birth to believe in God without any solid prove of his existence is just as LOL. We are a programmed society. What you are convinced of has no value in this conversation. Only what you can prove and you can not prove out anything you just said. Let me also add that many Christians do not understand the cosmological and contingency arguments as well. The majority of society would not even now how to debate the issue because they simply do not care. The difference between Inductive and deductive arguments. No value here. Your English by the way is better then most Americans I know so bravo there.
Anderson Badari "because their minds are ''programmed'' to automatically deny" Then how did you switch to the Theist side? Why do you say theist, btw? I'm curious, do you belive in WLC's god?
Alex Dupre I just stopped debating after heavily defending atheism. four years have passed, and then I began to see the arguments as they actually are, and not under the specter of ideology (lets be honest, I assume that publicy: atheism, from a certain point, is just a battle for ego, a battle for who is right, and not a battle for the thuth - and I am an live example). And, yes, I do believe in WLC good (not in a religious meaning - and not exactly as his god - I just think there is a Cause).
dude Dawkins got destroyed by Dr.WilliamLaneCraig. damn
Yep.
Indian Rhapsody watch the video again and pay attention everytime WLC speaks...
Wow I am really amazed ..... In their opening statements, Dawkins and Shermer resorted to strawman arguments and even slight adhominen.... And then Shermer cries and accuses the others of using strawman arguments....
Yeah... I'm sure you're able to be fairly objective on non-theists...
So many comments about how “WLC is the best Christian apologetics has to offer” I must say, that is incredibly sad
Bro you understand shit about a debate ... WlC killed your monkey lover Lil boy
the arguments on both sides i found very compelling. i hope one day we will find out the answer.
cade wishart did you find the answer?
The answer is: There is no god.
@John Dela Cruz In the name of God?
We have the answer. He created us, He loves us. Draw near to Him, and He will draw near to you.
@@jacksongotardo6906
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.
The only takeaway from this debate I remember is “time out!”
Seriously?? A boxing ring? Too funny
Science, The Universe & The God Question
I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss at Rice University
you know that cannot happen right? Richard dawkins is dead afraid of Dr. William Lane Craig now you add rennox! atheism would cease.
@@gilbertkalima9723lmao, no he's not, you fool. He doesn't want to debat Craig, because Craig is a moron
Debate was over at 13:40. Team Dawkins has no answer.
Actually it ended at 33:50 😅
Everytime someone say "they used to be a Christian" I keep hearing that verse that says 1 John 2:19 KJV
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Who set this debate up?? This is the single cheesiest and least professionally put on public speaking event I've ever seen. If it weren't for the people involved, I would swear it was put on by a middle schooler who has just learned how to do animations and sound effects in PowerPoint. And to have them stand in a boxing ring? Are you kidding me?
EmileeArsenic theyre a Hispanic audience and them love some drama!!!! ever see Hispanic soap operas or movies? they love the drama it's a stylistic choice common there
I wouldn't want to insult the audience's intelligence by thinking this was catering to their preferences. I think it was just unprofessional organizers. If I found out it was actually organized by a 12 year old I wouldn't be surprised.
I would have liked to have seen Dawkins' face when he saw the boxing arena for the first time, though.
EmileeArsenic you are right! This is horrendous
Yep such a shame good speakers that couldnt even finish a thought
Knowing Who set it up wouldn’t mean much unless you knew all the different organizers.
Dawkins and his atheist colleagues seem to be unable to follow the basic logical errors behind their strawman arguments. So very arrogant.
Theist arguments were also pretty basic and weak. "if it's not eternal it has no purpose". I've heard better arguments for theism on the internet from regular people using social networks...
@@Contagious93812 It seems weak but if try and come with a rebuttal to it, its quite difficult. That's the positive on the theist, he is able to bring up arguments the atheist have no answers at all, while the theist can to a good degree satisfy most of the atheist's arguments because to the atheist its all subjective or not based on a God's standard. If the atheist can bring up a solid theory of how for example morality has started without the need for a God, then the theist will have an issue. Stephen hawking tried to explain initially how to explain things like that but under close inspection, he seemed to have made doors of escape for himself which was soon pounced upon by everyone.
@@paulbenjamin6597 Actually that's false, majority of philosopher believe morality to be objective, so even experts think you can have objective morality without God, God just leads you to the euthyphro dilemma.
@@Contagious93812 How do you propose it then?
@@paulbenjamin6597 In philosophy the classical way is to start with "I think therefore I am". I exist and then the the fact that I exist i'm a part of this reality so with the law of identity so we can just ground the law of logic purely based of the fact I exist and we know there's one reality, at least one reality or one of me and so we can ground logic and math and rationality + morality all purely just based of I think therfore I am. We don't need to appeal to a god at all and that does give us a connection to the fundamental nature of reality because I exist in reality somewhere so that is some connection to the fundamental nature of reality.
But there is a second part that if you think you need to appeal to the fundamental nature of reality to ground rationality the atheist can just make up of a kind of a god just like theists do. You could say it's grounded in naturalistic pantheism which is just an eternal all-powerful nature with no consciousness so it's essentially just the god without the mind and we can say there's just a law of nature that gives us rationality and it's just the awesomeness flaw, just make up equivalent to the god hypothesis just under naturalism and so can ground logic and rationality purely based of I think therfore I am or we can ground it on just the fact that nature exists or some law of nature. Either one of those gives us a better ground than theism.
And theism one doesn't work because it's essentially an assertion that god has a nature that would give us correct rationality and it could just be the case that he wouldn't.
He would just give us irationality, because that would be an evil god essentially and as simply defining god as a being that would give us the correct kind of rationality we can just do the same thing and say nature has a law that is just by definition the law that would give us a kind of rationality.
So any justification used in presuppositionalism can be matched equally under atheism and the reason we don't do that is because that methodology doesn't work.
Wtf is with the format/stage setup? 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
@Miguel Cisneros Totally agree.
@Miguel Cisneros It's a constructed and false meaning we absurdly navigate.
@Miguel Cisneros Atheists act as if what they do matters beyond them, but are at least honest about the fact that it's cosmically meaningless. Theists do the same, but convince themselves God exists and the universe actually cares about them.
Spanish people bro😊
Such an unprofessional looking debate environment. =[
Rain Deer Maybe what generations of marketing and profit seeking has done. All the participants sell book and likely get well paid on the lecture circuit. Lecture halls sells thousands of tickets for a profit and likely make a profit off their hot coffee and coke machines. Local businesses cater to people who are out for the night. Television producers sell programming to stations who in turn pay royalties and sell advertising. Not bad for two guys who essentially show up in a clean shirt and a tie.
Not a lot to do with centuries of Catholicism.
Ha! Have you watched Univision? How about Telemundo? It's batshit crazy and childish.
Worked for the audience
I'm generally disconcerted when people watch a debate and say something to the extent, "That was good but Chistopher Hitchens would have torn them up." The reason this bothers me is that he has a different process than others who share his point of view and it underminds the strengths of such persons. On that note, this is definitely one debate I wish he was in, it left me with kind of a meh feeling. One of the things Hitchens does well is combine reasoning with emotion; this debate almost felt like reasoning versus emotion. The most interesting things were said by those who weren't decided or believed that the the question of meaning is unanswerable. Another reason I feel this was a weak debate is that there wasn't enough time for either side to really address the opposition. Cardinal Pell easily holds a stronger position in the argument for a God than the entire team in this debate combined. Dawkins was able to hold his own against Cardinal Pell but that didn't reflect well during this debate.
You know, it would be great to see more people respecting each others' opinions as if they were at the same level of credibility or importance. Because they actually are. They all derive from the same imperfect and limited creatures and the same cryptic lives. Everybody has their own motives and experiences to back up what they believe in, even though there are those who care to further elaborate and those who don't so much.
As an Agnostic, it bothers me very much to see so many Atheists (especially here in RUclips) attack so fiercely and apathetically the mindsets of those who beg to differ, while claiming their minds are more open or whatever. If I was an Atheist I wouldn't go around militantly telling others they are 100% wrong and saying any possible argument to make them look bad with such arrogance and violence. That's just insane. I would keep it to myself and go on with my life functioning, occassionally talking about it but not like this. If you think you know better then there's no need to act so insecurely and have to compensate with this kind of immaturity. Atheists have absolutely no right to be so belittling because in the end that's their opinion, too. And seeing believers of faith telling others that they're going to Hell for the same reason of having a different mindset is not helping either.
But this incredibly rude closemindedness coming from Atheists is what bothers me most. It is not a belief system? Of course it is! Otherwise you wouldn't be defending it, because there would be nothing to defend. Your arguments also come from deductions and assumptions no matter how hard you want to call the truth as something. And science shouldn't be used intrinsically as a philosophy because it's merely a profound and technical, but inanimate tool or set of steps to understand the mechanical side of reality. And a very important one in our development and progress. There do exist things which it can't answer or even attempt to (as it currently is), since it then would require a particular individual's bias and necessities of answers.
So what would be great is if both sides recognized that others have as much a right to believe in another view, as themselves have the right. Even more when that person just thinks it comprehends the other side's way of seeing things. I don't get why this area of debate has to get so offensive, when it shouldn't have the purpose of plain mockery but a genuine understanding of your own view in another as effectively and respectfully as it could be. Not in this "I'm the only one who's right" kind of way, but in a "Let me help you understand" kind of way. I don't get why someone has to resort to closemindedness and astute mockery if that person supposedly has the obligation to share the good of his/her discoveries in the matters of existentialism...
No wonder Dawkins is afraid to debate Craig one-on-one...
Really...
www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/02/08/william-lane-craig-is-either-lying-or-getting-things-very-wrong/
@@enmanuelsan
Well he's hiding behind a screen and being a keyboard warrior. If he has the balls to debate Craig face to fact then call me
@@darkice3267 and is that going to change all of Paulogia's points ? The fact that Craig quote mined and even was dishonest enough to edit his quote mine is demostrably true just check the original sources
@@darkice3267 cool! And you call when Craig finally has the balls to debate Matt Dilahunty ,he's been avoiding that one for a long time
@@darkice3267 just because someone is using youtube to comunicate doesn't mean that person is hiding behind it ,should I assume that you are hiding behind a screen now? Paulogia's points are valid regardless of how he comunicates them ,and how do you know he woulndt accept a debate with Craig ? Is more likely that Craig would refuse it because he is a condecending and arrogant prick
Did Dawkins really open up with a butt joke? :|
No, that wasn't Dawkins...
That was Matt Ridley
Anton Babani lol
@Anton Babani like they could even get the joke
No, a dick joke
This is the weirdest Christian versus atheist debate I’ve ever seen.
How so?
For one thing they’re in like a WWF wrestling ring.
@@philosophytoday6518 what do you mean they’re literally in a wrestling ring.
C'mon people, lets be serious.
Atheists will never say WLC won and Christians will never say Dawkins won.
I have watched Hitchens crush Theists, and admitted it, despite being a Christian. Honestly, until I saw WLC actually beat him, I wasn't sure it was possible to win against Hitchens.
Andrew Liese
As an atheist I will say WLC won the debate against Hitch. While Hitch won substance and logic, that isn't always the deciding factor in debate sadly. Hitch took WLC for granted.
Journeyman Joe How did he win? He didn't even prove the existence of any god, so until he proves the existence of any god or gods, it's all fantasy.
Journeyman Joe
as soon as Hawkins proves that we are all decendents from ancestors of primates. For now that theory is fantasy.
Eh, genetics proves it.
Dawkins sounds like he would belong to the house of Slytherin. XD
I love how they open with Vivaldi's 4 season: Summer
Richard Dawkins: "I will never debate William Lane Craig!"
Ciudad de las Ideas: "We'll pay you $15,000"
Richard Dawkins: "I'll be there!"
I hate how religious people say, The atheists dont give arguments of why god doesnt exist, they just mock god and so on but they dont disprove his existance. Just because you dont understand the arguments they give doesnt mean they are jokes. They give amazing arguments that make religion look like a joke. Of course you can not prove he exists, and you can not prove he doesnt exist, but you can prove he does not need to exist and that is what these people do.
Also i am mexican, and why do we have to make this in a ring? that just make it look less serious. But i guess that is how we mexicans are we try to make this kinds of topics less serious, so we can take them more seriously.
Atheists make mindless insult after mindless insult and expect that to be an argument. We understand the insults perfectly, but, unlike you atheists, we also understand that these mindless insults do not logically conclude with "therefore God does not exist." After everything an atheists says ask yourself "If this were true, then would it mean that therefore God does not exist?" and the answer will always be "no."
the "why" question is a silly question ? we humans are obsessed with purposes ? Dawkins always disappoints me.
You don't understand what he means by that statement. He doesn't mean that we are not concerned with why the universe is here, he means that asking why the universe is here is like asking why mountains are here.
Kobyashi did you watch the video?
+Neville Beater Of course, the entire thing, why?
Kobyashi did u hear what he started saying about the why question?
Well yes, but I can't remember exactly what he said. What did he say?
Congratulations William!
Lol Lol he is an idiot, if you think he is anything more than that then you yourself are an idiot.
Creationist xD
My point wasn't that he was defeated, according to the structure of debates he may have won all. But this doesn't make his arguments neither valid nor sound.
@@jokerxxx354 why aren't his arguments valid or sound?
Mr. Monkey arguments are invalid if the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, arguments are unsound if there is problem in the premises.
JokeR xxx What an absolutely great way to refute your opponent by calling them names 😳
49:30 I love how dawkins claps to William's response.
I know you are an atheist. Not on my watch!
Inveja
I cannot fathom why one might think that life has no purpose just because the universe wasn't created to serve a a purpose. And how does this argument possibly serve as a justification for God? Complete and utter nonsense.
Old comment but let me explain from my understanding.
Objective purposes are the only real purposes we cling on to. Subjective purposes are secondary if not completely mostly ignored for the most part. Some of the most important purposes we hold dear are considered objective (moral or otherwise) purposes.
But a suppose universe with no objective purpose and meaning means no real purpose at all. This is especially true from a psychological/behavioral perspective…
Michio Kaku talked such irrelevant shit about the atheists. Which one of these three men say they are "absolutely certain" about anything!? And how can anyone call them "arrogant" when they're the ones saying "we don't know all the answers - we're working on them"? The *theists* are the ones making the arrogant claim that they have all the answers and are at the center of the universe.
John He's a bullshit artist. Doesn't even understand the position of one of the sides. That guy is the definition of a bullshit artist who hasn't contributed anything to the scientific community.
Sean Chesley Michio Kaku is not a BS artist and actually did and does contribute to the scientific community. He is the co-founder of string field theory and published over 70 articles on physic along with a hand full of books as well. Kaku is even one of the most famous theoritcal physicist of are time.
Sean Chesley Jelani Mendez Michio Kaku is one of the preeminent physicists of our time, an accomplished academic, writer and a fine educator. In this particular appearance, though, he was arguing against (mainly atheist) strawmen/misrepresentations to make himself look superior - talking with an air of unbelievable smugness and self-satisfaction.
If he's not going to bother listening to and understanding orators' positions and arguments, he should stay home and do something useful.
John Sean Chesley Yes I do agree with u on that Kaku is one of the most preeminent physicists of our time, but he did not mainly attack the atheist side as you say he did. Kaku just basically said GOD is hard to prove that he does not exist and vice versa. Kaku only believes in GOD to a certain point to where the universe is to complex for any unknown explanation therefore he believes in a superior being. Then Kaku does not believe that GOD governs all of us or we pray to him and our wishes will be answered. With that said I think Michio Kaku is a deists. So like I stated in the beginning he did not mainly argue against the atheists but also against the theist as well.
Jelani Mendez He probably believes in "Spinoza's god". This amounts to: "god is the name I give to the order and complexity of the universe". I think this is a cop-out position and that for all intents and purposes, he's an agnostic atheist. This isn't the issue though (I don't care what he believes) - it's what he said to misrepresent the beliefs of those speaking at this event. I strongly detest William Lane Craig, but not even he says he's "absolutely certain' that god exists. From what I can tell no one is claiming certainty at this event.
Lol. What even is this debate set up? TIIIIME OOOOUT! I kept waiting for those DJ horns you hear on radio remix tracks.
This is a comedy game show. Proof: 8:08 - 8:22
+Roper122 Craig was absolutely right that in order to recognize one explanation as the best, you don't have to have an explanation *of* the explanation on hand. He's also right in saying that such an approach would destroy science itself, as you couldn't ever acknowledge a single explanation of anything, lacking infinite knowledge about it and *its* causes at that time.
As for your second objection,
"he simply alerts that a god can be simpler that what it creates. With no evidence whatsoever."
That's false. The argument he gives is that god is simple because he is an immaterial being with no parts. And of course, he points out that it's wrong-headed to think that the simpler explanation is always the best anyway.
So neither of Dawkins' attempts to refute Craig here were successful. Do you know of any *other* attempts he's made? Just curious.
At the end of the debate, it is concluded that it is not proven whether God exists or not; it is foolish to absolutely claim there is no God.
equally so to claim there is one. The only universal truth is that we do not know.
In the same way that it's foolish to absolutely claim there is no faeries. You can't prove or disprove either. Also science doesn't deal with absolutes.
That is a victory for Atheism. Atheism doesn't claim anything but the lack of evidence of a deity and therefor the lack of justification for belief.
Stethacanthus Just as in the court of law, absence of "evidence" does not necessarily mean "evidence" of absence. Also, if you don't believe in God, and He doesn't exist, then of course scientific evidence only leads to scientific evidence. If you do believe in God, and in fact He does exist (think about this scenario don't just dismiss it), then it follows that God is the creator of everything, including all of the scientific laws and first particles and atoms to come into existence; thus, as a believer everything becomes evidence "not only" for scientific aspects of the universe, but also for God's existence; the only way to view that everything is evidence for not just physical things but also for God is through belief in Him. So which is more open minded, the mind that accepts that all science and it's laws exist, or the mind that accepts that all science and it's laws exist, as well as the metaphysical realm (spiritual realm) including God?
Stethacanthus In the end, either the universe has always been, or God has always been. I believe it makes more rational sense if you think about everything critically and analytically that the God of the bible is the creator. I've read the bible twice, and God doesn't get into the details about how He made the universe, but claims that He is the Creator. The biggest differences between the bible's claims and other claims of another god and gods in history are two big claims. The bible claims that Jesus (God in flesh) died on the cross for everyone's sins no matter how evil those sins are so that way you can be declared clean from evil because of what Jesus did, not because of what you have done to earn heaven, since everyone is a sinner and deserves hell. The second big claim is that Jesus on the third day "rose from the dead" with accounts of witnesses to claim that indeed He had risen from the dead. No other so called god claimed to die in your place for your sins.
I'd say that that after watching this all the way through, both sides did well in expressing a clear model of their beliefs. Unfortunately with the way this debate was organized, it never gave time for defending their values - thus leaving their topics undefended. Also this was the first time I have watched a 3v3 debate and I don't think I like it.
Ending conclusion: Both sides did poorly because their time was not able to be allotted appropriately.
Dawkins is a disgrace
Davidjonathan 20 and you an idiot
@@jokerxxx354, atheism is the religion of hate.
JokeR xxx why is he an idiot?
John Wick Because some Atheist’s have this basic assumption that all people who believe in God are idiots and are brainwashed. You can believe me because I was one.
Comrade Androv “all people who believe in God are idiots and are brainwashed.” Wow, the Strongest argument I ever seen. In that one sentence you singlehandedly dismantled the Kalam, Morality, Contingency, Beauty, and Teleological arguments. Now I need to rethink my views.
1:15:56 William walks off with a smirk haha
I like the Jewish guy, he is pretty clever, and a good speaker.
It is true that we exist because of the Order within a Chaotic Universe, however when you consider the Googol amount of stars in the universe, calling it a coincidence is not much of a stretch.
Definitely NOT Gogol stars. If there are about 100 billion galaxies and each has in aberage 100 billion stars you are still about 80 powers short.
As smart and intelligent as Dawkins is, I just don't think he is a very good debater.
What's 9+10?
+Dylan H Ridicules...Really??? Look at the Christian debaters and how chill they are...You know why that is??? Because they know the atheist debtors can't stop their arguments..Awesome!
+David Conley Now, that's just silly, isn't it?
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have translated that into creationist-speak: Now, that's just silly, isn't it????
There, that's better!!!?!?!?!!?!
I just want to say that in academia, all of WLC's arguments are taught and easily refuted just like Thomas Aquinas's are. WLC has been made aware of this and ignores it perpetually. This resulted in the refusal to debate him by most experts because of his abhorrent intellectual dishonesty for popularity and monetary rewards. The only people that will debate him are, sadly, also motivated by popularity and money. I still respect Dawkins despite this because he is popularizing atheism or at least skepticism. This has lead many people to do their own research and see why WLC is wrong despite his numerous debate victories including this one.
+Vito Corleone WLC's arguments have stood the test of time & they're still valid. Why don't you refute them with a better argument in stead of just asserting that they're refuted?
This debate needs a 10 second warning buzzer instead of an interrupting host lol
Richard Dawkins was especially arrogant & condescending without any substantial argument or counter-argument (other than being arrogantly dismissive). I am glad the three theists tore him apart big time in this debate
That being said, the theists argument makes the most sense with existential question and they won this debate.
Um desperdício terem colocado um ringue e ninguém ter saído no soco.
I'm sure Dawkins doesn't believe in half of what he says !
Heywood Yabloome wic ? so together we don't believe in much !
+Heywood Yabloome He's arguing that Dawkins doesn't believe in what Dawkins himself says. You not believing WLC has nothing to do with it.
Care to offer a specific example? And care to explaine how you're so "sure" of that?
Have you never argued just for the sake of it. Dawkins loves to argue and does just that. He enjoys putting people down and pretends to be the only one with all the answers. Granted he is well educated, but he is not a scientist like he makes out. His views are very childlike regarding evolution and his arguments are still only based on guess work.
Heywood Yabloome lol, I honestly, as a christian, don't really follow flat earth theories. And I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this, I don't think some of the flat earthers actually believe that either.
(Aug 17, 2023)
46:35 47:35 48:55 1:15:00 1:15:20
1:36:30
Dawkins referred to Darwin as a scientist when, in fact, he was trained to be a theologian.
Darwin post enlightenment shed his faith completely and understood that his Christian Belief was a waste of his years and he was deeply disconcerted with this finding
Darwin is not an atheist.People just used his theory to reinforce atheism is possible.If Darwin alive, he will be so sad.He just wanted to understand the world around him
@@jarrygarry5316 Upon discovering the insane amount of evidence Darwin was indeed not a Christian any longer. Now whether he still believed in a God or not didn’t matter as he understood that humans were not god’s creation 6000 years ago. But the rational thing to say upon discovery would be that clearly Christianity, Judaism, Islam are all false in their creation myth
@@jarrygarry5316
Somehow understanding the world around us tends to disprove the myths of the Bible.
@@EpicLemonMusic This would only stand given the assumption that YEC and a Literalist reading of scripture was required by the church- which is a ridiculously false assumption unless you are exclusively referring to fundamentalist protestantism.
What's the most irrefutable evidence for the existence of gravity?
The "why" is a silly question? smh
eric hayes why?
Waylan Andrews because the whole point in learning about things that we don’t understand is by asking why, in a sense Dawkins counter arguments on why god doesn’t do things is silly to him.
Schermer completely misses the mark. The question is not whether one can cone up with a purpose for his life, it is whether there us a purpose to the universe. The former is subjective, the later objective. If there is no objective purpose, then any subjective purpose is necessarily fleeting and meaningless.
purpose is right in front of us. But God says that people will still reject him
Just as random as: "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know." -Capt. Geoffrey T. Spaulding
Levi Dettwyler Yes, the world needs more pirates!
-
don leavell
don't forget god wanting us to stone our stubborn children
Chase twohundredmph i fear the ones who like to bomb planned parenthood clinics and Olympic events
This video is literally a window into an alternate universe...why tf are these esteemed men in this goofy event?
I guess the multiverse DOES exist!
What's The Takeaway? It does and it sucks
@@WhatsTheTakeaway That made me laugh.
Hitchens Razor rules again. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" is itself an assertion without evidence. Therefore, by its own standard, it can be rejected. Hardly a razor since it breaks down on itself.
And so if a Christian theist says, "God exists", Hitchens's statement won't do atheists any good.
On the other hand, if an atheist says "There is no God", this is an assertion that can never actually be proven by any materialistic, naturalistic, and scientific means, as you would need omnipotence to be able to prove this statement, and therefore this statement itself by Hitchens's arbitrary and unproven standard can be rejected.
The only intellectually honest position anyone can take is, "I do not know whether there is a God or not," and even at this point, the reason could either be "I am not satisfied with the evidences presented" (and when atheists are asked by Christians what kind of evidence they would like to see, they're hardly able to set intellectually honest parameters regarding what kind of evidence would satisfy them), or "I don't know if the evidences are satisfactory".
To sum it all up, it is never intellectually honest to assert "God does not exist", as it is beyond the capacity of a naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic worldview to ever prove this statement.
@Juilian Bautista I call bullshit (mind my language) on your view of how athiests view evidence. Athiests aren't intellectualy dishonest about evidence would satisfy them. Christians just lack the evidence that would satisfy atheists. Evidence of the Christian God and evidence of Jesus's divinity beyond a 2000 year old book would be all that's needed. A single logically convincing argument with proven assumptions would be enough to prevent many doubtful Christians from turning atheist.
I agree with you that we don't have enough knowledge of the univerese to prove that there isn't a god or gods, but an argument against the Christian God is possible due to the claims in the Bible. However, since there is no universally accepted interpretation of the Bible any argument would have to be based on the few things that all Christians agree on.
Dawkins is hyper rationalistic. His ideas are so mechanistic that by his logic, there would be no difference in falling in love with the black box of an aeroplane or a human being. His position is utterly depressing.
Just had the joy of watching this, the sharp rocks analogy was brilliant.
Man I saw this yeaaaars ago but thought I must have dreamed them all being there together because no way could it have been organized in such a goofy awful manner... well...
Dawkins is NOT an erudite. haha! That's too funny. He's a crass one dimensional materialist.
Well, he has done pretty well in life. What have you accomplished, fool?
All interesting and seeing our Japanese scientist here was a plus!Dawkins is very challenging that's a good thing to!William is fairly new to me he also excellent challenger!MrKako always intriguing!
Dawkins=mumbo jumbo
WLC = logic and reason
As an impressionable child, when I first watched this debate I agreed with Richard Dawkins 100%, but now as an adult I really think William Lane Craig dominates this debate, and that atheism is essentially the most hilarious fabrication of the scientific community.
Atheism isn't a fabrication, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god; gosh, why does so many people keep misunderstanding what "atheism" means ? Is not that difficult to understand.
Hahahahha
@@eliassandoval9530 I think it's because religious people tend to take atheistic views as a personal attack to their own beliefs for whatever reason. They act like it's a claim or scientific statement that their particular god doesn't exist. Which is why I guess religious people also associate science with atheism even though they really have nothing to do with each other.
That's very sad to hear.
Hope you recover soon.
Good can not exist without evil
Lol what
PILGRIM'S PROGRESS
Choose one or more of these:
A/ "An eye for an eye."
B/ "Death to the infidel."
C/ "Love your neighbour." An outsider, a Good Samaritan, is your neighbour.
D/ "Love your enemy...If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?"
E/ None of the above.
Kaku comes up with Schodiger's God, brilliant!
It's like, the host was threatened to be kill if he didn't interrupt exactly at the end of the estimated time of each speaker, I mean, there's no other way to explain that amount desperate obnoxious behavior.
God bless my Christian brothers that were on William’s team but I really truly feel that they held him back in a lot of ways with their arguments of strictly faith and emotion.
Dr. William lane Craig is presenting a highly rational/well thought out/LOGICAL explanation
An explanation that lot of people need.
More than just Faith.
I myself been one of those people(once skeptic atheist to now christian.)
And his Argument is overshadowed by there over emotional very elusive version of why God exist. When on the contrary, there is a lot of historical evidence as well as scientific evidence that points to a creator of the universe.
As a truth seeker myself, a skeptic myself , as someone who follows logic rather than emotion
Williams points makes absolute sense and directly align with human behavior with seeking purpose value and meaning. And needing all three to live consistently and happily.
Whereas Richard Dawkins does not even follow his own arguments. Because with the atheist world view it is essentially subjective/relative truths that people follow in order to create their own happiness. It is simply a lie we tell ourselves so that we dont blow our brains out because of depression.
A purpose we create for ourselves that are merely illusions to make ourselves feel better about the objective truth of our bleak depressing meaningless valueless and purposeless existence..
So what do you believe?
That everyone just tells Themselves lies so that we can live happily and inconsistently? (Because you cant live consistently and happily as an athiest)
i.e living consistently with an athiestic world view would create anarchist, morless, valueless, meaningless, purposeless sense of being THUS ruining your happiness. Because humans need purpose meaning and value to be happy.
And if you so choose to LIE/ILLUSION yourself and pretend that you do have purpose meaning and value, then boom, you are inconsistent with the atheistic view.
Therefore, you cannot live consistently and happily WITH and atheistic world view because thats just not how humans function.
To deny the fact that humans are social creature as well as need Purpose, meaning, and value is to deny years of scientific /psychological studies of mankind.
To accept that we as humans need these things to function and be happy(value, purpose, and meaning)
then you must accept that
there is a God.
Unless you’re ok with just lying to yourself Till ya die...
I want to see Richard Dawkins face off Dr. William Lane Craig 1v1 in a better set up debate and see who wins then..
Because just by this video alone logically speaking William won.
On the "Evil" spiel of Mr. Craig, its logic seems to me to resemble some of the arguments that one may find in pamplets dropped at one's doorstep by a few of the walking Elders in white shirts & black ties.
The term "evil" to me is a conceptual term that has no real magical properties. Really it is a sort of subjective definition that could be applied to various events or situations. It is rather absurd for a person to use " the existence of 'evil' " as proof that God exists. I could get injured while participating in a sporting event or in an automobile, etc. and I would consider that evil because I wouold probably define the injury as not to be in compliance with "the way things ought to be." In which case my broken arm or bruised rib would prove the existence of God.
Seems as if the existence of what Mr Craig calls "evil" means to him that there must be agency in the manifestation of such evil. And as such some titantic heavenly struggle is happening between opposting forces, one "evil" and the other the "proponent of what 'out to be'. "
I have just realised that Craig is a parody of himself...
... or Dawkins, then. The parody is thinking you know it all.
dawkins is a parody at the same time murderer
Archrave ninteenseventeen murderer? . . .
Why do atheists make such a fuss about something they don't believe in?
It's an ego thing.The Atheist believes he is smarter than the theist..he thinks smart people don't rely on faith for answers.He needs acceptance admiration, justification, validation, the Atheist because of these needs is weak of mind. The theist, however, only requires love. The disproof of God feeds the Atheist's ego and fulfills his/her wish to see those in opposition to their learned stance ridiculed. The theist just wishes the Atheist could share in the joy they experience.
Because religion infects our daily lives and affects us all.
worst opening joke I've ever heard. by Dawkins
He didn't open with a joke... Matt Ridley did. Good god, do you all really not know which one Richard Dawkins is?
Calm down guys, it is just a way to spread out ideas, so, it's more important the debate than the format ;)
i have heard about that debate a lot of times, and this is the first time and aways the people told me Dawkins lose the debate... i have watching this one, and i say, just my opinion, of course... He did not lose that. Theists just defended they arguments about samething i have heard last years, and the atheists said what the science discover and probably will discover more for next years. just it! my personal opinion.
am I the only who feels death when the atheists talk but the opposite when William Lane Craig talks? God is life my friends :)
+Ioan Dănuţ Ovidiu you are generalizing way to much. I have seen just as many christians mock, curse and belittle atheists.
***** That's a pointless argument you could not possibly prove. Like you know the origin of every insult that has been thrown around for decades.
How does one "feel" death?
+Victor Valenzuela Yes, you are the only one.
This is completely idiotic, I feel the fake concept of hell, the most immoral evil concept ever envisioned by mankind, and anyone who believes in this nonsense is disgusting and not worthy of any consideration.
Wow, did he just call DNA ‘simple’? I’m guessing he had no part in the 13 years it took to map the genome. 😂
Which genome?
Yes, it's simple. To the ignorant ones, it seems complex
@@flame984 By that naive strand of logic, society is then also very simple because it’s *only* made up of the motives of people.
@@flame984 Make some life then.....
@@flame984 oh , that full of shitness of yours ... You so advanced and inteligent 🤡
Why did Richard accept this circus. I hope he had fun and was paid stupid money! Always a pleasure to see him even in this circus!