It's incredibly poor taste to invite William on your show for a long form conversation, and then attack him on a singular position in the title. I'm the opposite of a William Craig apologist, but the way you often hold over on people morally (passive aggressively) is gross. *edit - almost 20 minutes in before you announce the reason you invited William back on the show. The title admittedly reads very differently in that full context. My mistake.
@@klaxoncowyes I agree with you too. WLC has no right to call himself a philosopher, because he definitely doesn't love knowledge or seek its acquisition.
@@kenhiett5266 Outside of a bit of introduction at the start, it was a singular topic video though. This is 1 hour of William Lane Craig defending the Canaanite Slaughter. Did you not watch the video?
I thought the same thing. It’s literally “because I said so”. I generally think it’s a bad thing to blindly follow the instructions of any figure of authority without exercising our own best judgment.
Yes. But that is not the point. The point is that because God is good the order he gave to israelites is moraly good , so there is not discrepancy between God being all loving and this comand of killing babies. That is his point
@@onisimpetrescu4816 how would you know if the entity who gave that command in the Bible is in fact God? Maybe God has morally sufficient reasons to allow the evil being in the old testament to convince you that he is God.
@@onisimpetrescu4816 how would you know if the entity who gave that command in the Bible is in fact God? Maybe God has morally sufficient reasons to allow the evil being in the old testament to convince you that he is God.
@@onisimpetrescu4816the only way for that to be the case that I can think of is to define good as what god wants. If you do that I reject your concept of it. Good could just as well be defined as anything satan wants but I doubt defining it that way would convince many christians that Satan is all good.
@@sparrow3026 classic apologetics' logic. 😂😂"it's true because i said so". funny how you folks love claiming yourselves to be objective when your arguments really boil down to "because I (or god) says so". just a bunch of subjectivist pretending to be objectivist accusing others of subjectivity. hypocrites 🙄🙄
I was a Pastor for several years and when I truly looked into this subject I came to an anti YHWH perspective. Listening to Dr. Craig made me realize just how absurd Christian Logic can be. Thanks Alex for the gracious interview.
@@VenusFeuerFallepeople who lack the foresight to see beyond their noses, therefore lack the imagination and critical thinking skills necessary to solve real problems usually do
What we just watched was the clearest example of Voltaire's quote in action. Anything - literally anything - can be justified with divine command theory. That fact alone should make you incredibly wary of adopting it as your moral foundation.
"We need to save those children from being potentially sacrificed by killing all of them!" I’m starting to believe their actual problem isn’t the "kids being killed" part but the "in the name of another god" part.
one would think it's "just a view" but there are mothers who literally did this. one took her son's life so he'd be sent to heaven before he could be corrupted by the world. one must wonder: why are folks who share Craig's belief so against abortion then? it's not for any OBJECTIVE reason. it's only wrong SUBJECTIVE to who's doing the kiIIing.
If I heard that out of context I would've thought it was an interview of a cult member. I'm astonished as to why Alex continues to platform people with ideologies like these
@@lampad4549 Ethnic cleansing is the destruction of a people, using any means. This could be killing, displacement, interbreeding (the non-consensual form that RUclips refused to let me post), sterilization etc. Genocide is a specific type of ethnic cleansing, that means that one of the predominant means of achieving it is through systematic killing of the unwanted ethnicity. What is described here is pretty much exact definition of genocide, although WLC argues that the Canaanites were also given the option of ethnic cleansing through displacement.
This video is a great example of how theism can totally pervert one's morality. Leave it to the arbiters of morality - the moral monopoly - the ones who accuse nonbelievers of borrowing from their worldview, to claim that the real victims of a genocide are the ones who committed the genocide. Sometimes the monsters don't come yelling and snarling. Sometimes they shake your hand and give you a wide smile.
Absolutely! I am grateful for this demonstration of theist morality taken to its logical conclusion, by a renowned apologist, no less! This has excellent educational value! It ought to be discussed in classrooms. WLC did the world a favor by presenting himself as an excellent bad example for morality. Who can believe that religion is a positive force in the world after hearing this? Who can still defend "objective morality"?
Do you think the Allies were justified in killing hundreds of thousands of civilians by firebombing German and Japanese cities including women and children non-combatants in it?
Here is a possible explanation. God wants good to prevail on Earth especially in that particular land. There are many occurences of ethnicities punished by God for their persistent rebellion against God's commands. Usually God punishes them through natural disasters. In this case God asked the Prophet and his followers to apply justice on Earth themselves and occupy the land. God could have punished them Himself, however the children of Israel wouldn't be occupying the land. Obviously God wanted them to occupy that land, that's why they needed to fight themselves. The result was for them the removal of the rebelled ethnicity from Earth such that Good can prevail, and such that they can occupy and live on that obviously sacred land. It is important to notice the command was not given to any person among the children of Israel. It was given to a Prophet who was Joshua. Regarding the question of killing innocent children, here is a possible explanation. Children are indeed supposed to not be held accountable. However, what we can predict is that they will be influenced by their environment and rebel also to God's commands as their parents did and taught them directly or indirectly, and therefore the Bad will continue to prevail. God has given time to the Canaanites to get back to the Good path but they arrogantly refused for a long time. God saw no hope in the future generations given the new generations used to emulate the previous ones. That's the reason the children were also to be killed. However the children won't go to Hell as their rebellious parents. Regarding the soldiers who had to kill the Canaanites, were they traumatised by the experience later on ? I think it differs depending on what reason one kills an other person, and whether it is for a state or for God. When it's a divine command, you are convinced you are doing Good because you are obeying to God who is Good, therefore you won't have any remorse because you are 100% the motivation was Good. When you kill for a state, it's different, it's not enough of a conviction and certainty such that you won't feel any remorse. As it was said, only God could order such command of killing a population including the children because one would need to be aware and 100% sure they wouldn't change to the better in the future, and therefore that one won't be unjust. And only God can be aware and be sure of the future. I hope I have managed to share the wisdom behind an obviously horrible command at first sight.
At first I thought that Dawkins was being a bit hyperbolic, but after listening to William Lane Craig express his view for an hour I have to admit that Dawkins is right. William Lane Craig is an extremely disturbing man.
What makes it worse is that the Canaanites didn't receive the same revelation from God as the Israelites. All they knew is that they were being invaded - they couldn't have even thought "well, it's what God wants so we better flee in peace". It was therefore inevitable for them to try to defend themselves (like any normal society). The whole notion that God didn't want them to be slaughtered is just not born out by the circumstances. And if God wanted them to flee in peace, why all this talk about God judging them for being evil? If they actually did flee in peace, then God apparently didn't really care about their evil.
It's not naive at all because he doesn't really think that. He's only claiming it in this case to make his god seem less of a monster. He doesn't even need to do so though because, if something is good because god says so, violence in this case would be good. he can't even be that honest though. He has to pretend that obvious violence isn't actually violence. Talk about denying reality.
This is not really a discussion about Israeli armies and dying children… it is a discussion about worldviews and the grounding of ethics and morality… most comments here are laden with emotion about the atrocity of the Israeli actions and how appalling Craig is for defending them - but that emotion comes from our moral intuitions (which I share) which under Alex/Dawkin’s worldview has no objective underpinning… to put it another way, under atheism is there any reason why the killing of innocent children is truly wrong - other than ‘it just feels wrong’? And so, we come back to a war of two world views… 1 - under atheism, we have a sense of appall at the biblical story (and at a God who would command such a thing) and at Craig for defending it… but, with no objective basis for that emotional reaction… (indeed, some terrible dictator might argue that the indiscriminate killing of innocent children is a good thing - and under atheism we’d have no objective way to prove him wrong) 2 - while under theism we have the very paradigm of goodness and justice (God) commanding an act which ultimately serves his own good purposes but which to our moral instincts seems reprehensible… what on earth might these good purposes be?.. well, according to the biblical narrative, God ordered the exile/destruction of the Canaanites to execute judgement on a wicked people group and to advance the cause of his chosen people through whom he will ultimately bring about redemption of the earth - in the death and resurrection of Jesus… does this seem unjust?.. Yes!!.. But remember - under Craig’s worldview this action is just as reprehensible and unjust, should it be mandated by any one of us… but this action against the Canaanites was not mandated by one of us… it was ordered by God - who in his unique role as creator and judge of all people is the only one who is perfectly justified in giving such an order, as long as it is consistent with his character. And it seems that it is: in his role as just judge, he brings judgment against the Canaanites for their wickedness… while, out of his love God ensures that the innocent who suffer and die in the process, go on to enjoy an eternity in perfect peace and fulfilment And so, as always, whichever worldview you come to this debate with, entirely determines on what side of the fence you will land
“Canaanites were so wretched that they sacrificed children to their Gods” and “Israelite soldiers were the victims because their God told them to exterminate thousands of children”
Note that Craig's god demanded a child sacrifice, but in this case is was god, or an avatar of god, but actually the son of god, who is the same as god who is a father. Hmmm, no wonder Craig can spew his evil psycho-bible stuff believing such a twisted idea.
@@onedaya_martian1238 do you not comprehend trinitarian belief the son is of the same substance as the father a singular divine essence and how is the self sacrifice of god equal child sacrifice
@@durrangodsgrief6503 What is to comprehend, when a contradiction is presented ? Saying things like "a father and son are the same but different" makes anything possible. That babble-ing story has the son/god plead to not have to die, but dad/god made the rules...the stupidity in all this goes on and on. For example, how does a god die, especially for three days ??? And "To get to the father, one has to go through the son" makes no sense irr f they are the same but different. This is completely incoherent...and thinking a rational person is inferior because they actually comprehend this is obvious nonsense, is why religion should be classed as a mental disorder. It leads to thinking the world is flat or 6000 years old or genocide is moral !!(see William Lane Craig explain this to Alex O'Conner on RUclips) That's just dangerous and leads to planes flying into buildings.
"The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary." - 1984
Almost as disturbing as Craigs beliefs, is the smug looks and literal smile he wears while describing the slaughter of innocent men, women and children...
I think he is sincere in suggesting if not admitting that he is one who would be, behave monstrously, have no restraints if not for religious commands/prohibitions.
Alot of the people that were slaughtered were involved with human/child sacrifice, forcing women, men, and children to do horrible things. It's even crazier to consider them to be "innocent."
I think the old man is not even listening to what he is saying, "they didn't have to die" they just had to leave all of their families and belongings and lands and flee because there are some murderers commanded by a fake "god" are coming to exterminate them. What the hell is this guy even thinking
atheist: "Why did God kill the raping, pedophilic, beastiality practicing, human torturing, human sacrificing, violent community after 400 years, they were good people God is such a meanie"...also atheist, "i believe in the death penalty, if kills someone"
plus, it's all good and moral because the (imaginary) arbiter of goodness and morality commands it. This is undefendable BS and grotesque as others have pointed out and it drives me mad that Alex isn't as obviously disgusted at this explanation as I am. Some seemingly just have clearer heads.
@@GameTimeWhy I asked a close member of my family if they.would have done what Abraham nearly did. To his son and they could not give me an answer... So yeah, probably real people
It’s convoluted and grotesque, because you demanded a logical explanation of something alogical by Nature, if you can’t transcend your egoistic urge to demand a logical explanation, you’ll criticize naive theists forever, accept that Unconditional Love, the stuff of Being, and WHO “God” IS, transcends petty “logic” I will turn my other cheek, and allow you to reincarnate as an atheist as many times as you want, because I love you, but if you get bored of that, I Am Who I Am
And thus the root of all religious evil in the world - just convince yourself that God has commanded you to slaughter your perceived enemies and you’re good to go. Craig’s moral theory is truly monstrous.
Oh, but objective morality!!! How can society function if we don't have the Christian God being the foundation of an objective morality!? The objectively moral God: "Murder the children of these folks, plz". The memes make themselves.
@@daily-chargebut even if you do, there’s no way to tell who’s acting on God’s command and who’s just pretending. In a world where divine command theory is universally accepted, there’s no way around this problem. Justice systems would completely fail.
"One of the reasons discussions like these seem so difficult for Alex is that he views himself only as flesh and blood, confined to this material existence. But as humans, we are so much more-we are spiritual beings with a higher purpose. Our ultimate goal isn’t to remain tied to this world but to return to the home where we truly belong. Until we recognize the full nature of our being, we miss the bigger picture of life, morality, and faith."
As someone who grew up within the Christian faith and was surrounded by people who both sounded like and espoused similar beliefs to William Lane Craig there is something unmistakable about his intonation and tone when he speaks. It's not so much the voice as it is the forced sincerity and kindness. It comes across as so incredibly smarmy and difficult to listen to. It makes my skin crawl, especially in the mismatch between the 'kindness' of the inflection and the 'brutality' of the acts he attempts to defend within the Old Testament. Anyways, thanks for the great interview Alex. I always appreciate your work.
I feel the same, they all act similar and when yo have a lifetime of people like them telling you how sinful you are and how beatiful its gonna be when jesus come back to destroy the world and sent everyone to hell, yes, your skin tends to react.
Jews didn't have to be deported to the camps, it was only those who chose to stay behind and not to flee. To be an apologist and be able to live with himself. He lost me several times but completely at divine command morality, an oxymoron. Dawkins should not debate this guy, he is deluded and IMO dangerous.
You’re retarded. The command from hitler was to take up Jews and throw them in camps and kill them. The Nazi’s didn’t say “only kill the Jews who stay” the Nazi’s said “kill all the Jews”. You’re trying too hard and failing
🤦🏼♂️ I mean if you think child sacrifice is dope just say so. To me, the culture that would allow such horrific acts is far more dangerous than a person who thinks that an attempt to end said acts is justified. But hey, call me deluded too, I guess.
@@michaelhenton159in your worldview, what happened to the children whose parents would’ve had them sacrificed but were interrupted by the Israelites invading?
@@Sebanovic5 God always granted the children heaven. Even when they were being sacrificed. The fact that the children are dying is not inherently the issue, the issue is that mere humans are killing the children. And when humans kill they do not confer good, they only confer suffering, it is god alone who confers good to the child. That is why humans cannot kill children but god is justified in permitting it. Because god confers an infinite good and saves then from future suffering, while the human simply confers suffering onto the child
There are a couple of things I would have liked Craig to be pushed harder on: - He talks about the epistemic burden, and how one can know that God is in fact giving a divine command. I'm curious what it would take to get Craig to believe that God was giving him a command; would a vision be sufficient, or would he require a higher bar of evidence? What kind of evidence would be required to get him to kill innocent children? On a related note, could the Israelites have been mistaken about whether or not God really commanded them to drive out the Canaanites? Even if they were not mistaken and God truly did command the slaughter, were they justified in committing it on the basis of the evidence that they had? - Craig claims towards the end that God is restricted by his just and loving nature; he says there are commands that God could not make because they would be contrary to that nature. However, if God is the standard of love and justice, then anything he does is by definition loving and just. Additionally, if killing kids does not contradict God's 'loving and moral nature', then I struggle to thing of what action would.
That's my point. How do we confirm a divine commandment? I mean he believes old book written by men is divine and based on that. One dude just needs to say God told him
To your first point: yes, many Christians take a reading of the Bible that sees the Isrealites as wrestling with their understanding of God. It seems clear to most Christians that God would not command such a thing today. It seems clear that this is in direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus for example, to love your enemy. To the second point: that's the exact point it falls apart, right? Craig is holding on so tightly to the part of his brain that recognizes the extreme immorality of the version of God he believes in. By who's standard does he insist that certain things would never be commanded by God? He is putting limits on God that God seems to be okay with removing from time to time. The very God that doesn't want sacrifice demanded it. The very same God that demanded mercy and forgiveness demands violence and slaughter. And this view of God is consistent with human nature. There's an irony when you insist that God's nature is more loving and more forgiving and more reconcilitory than our own, people will tell you that is a God of our own making.
Craig's sociopathic abstraction, er 'god' needed a child sacrifice, but not just any child, but "god's child" which is really an avatar of itself... hence this jeezuz idea...that loves billy !! And now Bill ritualistically, but symbolically !! eats this avatar's body and drinks his blood. Jeffrey Dahmer sounds almost sane compared to WLC's religion.
Regarding your second point, WLG is basically arguing that the end justifies the means. The killing of innocent children is justified because it's a blessing to them as they all go to heaven. In his mind, this nullifies the cruelty of the action, enabling him to say "see? They all go to a far better place, therefore God's command was consistent with his good and loving nature".
Just finished Craig's section ending at 32:00, and he sounds like an absolute psychopath to me. As long as "god" commands it, it's moral. Literally don't think for yourself, just accept it. Completely insane. Edit: Holy shit. Not even 10 minutes later, and it actually got so much worse. 😳 Edit 2: I do not recommend reading the replies to my comment. They are unnecessarily confusing thanks to one seeming defender of theistic morality.
I did the exact same thing. I felt the need to stop and comment right around mid way through the video, but then realized that I had made a mistake. It gets much worse.
Divine Command Theory, the loophole for Craig to avoid being called a Moral Relativist. So all evil is justified as long as the god of the Bible commanded it. Good job Craig, you’ve proven Dawkins point about you.
Let me start by say I feel I agree more with Alex than Craig. Just admit you don’t know Craig. But should have pointed out that there is no rule that is unqualified. Alex is asking a very easy question, is it always wrong to kill a child? You can abstract this to “it is wrong to do X” I feel it is abhorrent. I cannot envisage any circumstance where this is moral therefore your doing X is immoral. Taking the example of the child, I can think of a circumstance. What if that child were to carry an infections disease like Ebola - a Typhoid Mary-like carrier - meaning the disease doesn’t kill the child. In that case you would kill the child to save thousands. Then admit that we BELIEVED there is a reason but we don’t know it.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s definitely appealing to a highly speculative and convenient technicality to avoid not just being called but actually being a moral relativist.
@alanpearly What the f is wrong with you? Of course, you wouldn't kill the child! You could isolate it and try to cure the disease, but jumping straight to murder is frankly abhorrent. Killing children is wrong, plain and simple, and if your first thought is to somehow justify the murder or try to find an example that does it, something is not right with you.
I just found Alex’s channel through his discussion with Jordan Peterson. I am impressed by this young man’s approach. I am a Christian and I fully respect his commitment to reason even if we disagree with the conclusions
How do you know? Do you know what a divine command looks or sounds like? If God is real, He is capable of speaking to His creations. What form would that appear in? Presumably you have some preconceived notion of how God would speak to us, how He should behave, and the kind of things He is “allowed” to command of us; why does it have to be that way? Why are you the arbiter of how a Supreme Being should be? God could be completely evil, it would not change the fact of His existence. The fact of the matter is, if God exists, and you don’t like God, YOU’RE the one in the wrong. What you’re doing is like a video game character getting mad at its developer; what right do you have to question _anything_ God does? You (and I, and everyone) are dust, using God’s very breath to blaspheme Him. Do you not see the problem with that?
@@waido_while reading your comment god spoke to me. He said I have to pass you a message. He said you must never comment on you tube ever again. Bless you 🙏🏽
I just received a second revelation from God, praised be His name. He said that I should start a new covenant to improve the covenant started with the prophet @matthewbazeley2984 . The new covenant says that @waido_ should not use the internet as a whole and should just stay home playing LEGO. May His will be done!
@@matthewbazeley2984 I've also received a revelation from God, praised be His name. He said that I should start a new covenant to improve the covenant started with the prophet Matthew. The new covenant says that waido_ should not use the internet as a whole and should just stay home playing LEGO. May His will be done!
Alex pointed out in the debate with Shapiro that believing that God grounds your morality could be bad if you believe evil things, as there would be no way for someone to change your mind. This is the great example of that.
Exactly. Many theists speak like grounding morality is a good thing, when I think it's a terrible thing that prevents us from changing our attitude when we learn how an action may be harmful.
@@OmniversalInsect It could be a good thing if we actually had a source of reliable moral authority. The problem in religion is that they have rules created by humans that they believe come from a god that is good and moral.
@@OmniversalInsect So morality is spontaneous and irreducibly fluid? Every moral standard is grounded. Where it is grounded is the essence of this debate. To say that grounding morals is a bad thing is to admit you don’t understand moral philosophy.
If my family and I were being slaughtered by marauding zealots, the last thing on my mind would be whether or not their morality was internally consistent. Also, gotta hand it to Craig, he doesn't run away from the Euthyphro dillema. He grabs the bull by the horns and impales himself on the worse of the two options.
The last thing on my mind would also be whether or not they were divinely commanded to do so. I mean, who actually thinks they were ever going to think "this is probably divinely commanded, so we better flee in peace and give up our homes". Craig's retort that "no one had to die" is so blatantly ridiculous, it's disingenuous.
@@Jockito I mean, if you commit a crime that you think you didn't commit, when you are standing in court in defense of yourself, the last thing you are concerned about is to understand whether or not the court is just in condemning you. That's why you need a lawyer. We are not and aren't meant to be the final moral agent capable of discerning those things at all times.
@@marukchozt6744 I'm not saying the Canaanites should have been the final moral agents to discern what was just. Rather, the issue is that there was no epistemic way for them to verify that the Israelites were in fact commanded by God. Craig himself said that one would have to have an incredibly high level of justification for this. So the Canaanites were acting rationally to defend themselves. There was no other reasonable thing to assume, other than they were being attacked. Which again, is why the notion that the whole ordeal didn't have to be violent is just disingenuous.
@@Jockito Heh? You said they shouldn't be the final moral agent to know those things and yet you proceed to say they need to be able to verify it? And yeah, their defense of themselves was rational
As a Christian and someone who admires Dr. Craig, I'm really hoping the "if anyone was wronged it was the soldiers who had to kill innocent women and children" part was just a severe miscommunication because oh my goodness is that a hard listen. Alex continues to prove himself as one of the best interviewers in emerging media.
@@StJimmy765 ahm, nope not what I said. I said that this person stated that they were a Christian, were clear about their background, and expressed that they were disturbed by a specific part of the interaction. It’s a cheap shot to then turn around and hijack their comment by saying that they didn’t condemn another equally bad part. A 50 word comment can say only so much about an hour long video. That’s why I called it a cheap shot to try and make someone feel even worse because of the words of another. I hope you have a good day, cheers.
This is not a miscommunication. It is something that he has said, often times, before. And, from my perspective as an atheist who does not admire him at all, this is exemplary of his methodology.
"I think you eviscerated his position in that interview. But you did it so sweetly and so gently that I don't think he had any idea of what actually went on" an ominous premonition
Atheists love thinking of themselves as the "intellectuals" when they're the first to believe nonsense. Is "mental gymnastics" just supposed to mean "thought"? I'd understand why atheists aren't used to it.
It sends shivers down my spine hearing this man talk about the killing of innocent children being morally justified if it has been commanded by god. This man is insane.
This is not really a discussion about Israeli armies and dying children… it is a discussion about worldviews and the grounding of ethics and morality… most comments here are laden with emotion about the atrocity of the Israeli actions and how appalling Craig is for defending them - but that emotion comes from our moral intuitions (which I share) which under Alex/Dawkin’s worldview has no objective underpinning… to put it another way, under atheism is there any reason why the killing of innocent children is truly wrong - other than ‘it just feels wrong’? And so, we come back to a war of two world views… 1 - under atheism, we have a sense of appall at the biblical story (and at a God who would command such a thing) and at Craig for defending it… but, with no objective basis for that emotional reaction… (indeed, some terrible dictator might argue that the indiscriminate killing of innocent children is a good thing - and under atheism we’d have no objective way to prove him wrong) 2 - while under theism we have the very paradigm of goodness and justice (God) commanding an act which ultimately serves his own good purposes but which to our moral instincts seems reprehensible… what on earth might these good purposes be?.. well, according to the biblical narrative, God ordered the exile/destruction of the Canaanites to execute judgement on a wicked people group and to advance the cause of his chosen people through whom he will ultimately bring about redemption of the earth - in the death and resurrection of Jesus… does this seem unjust?.. Yes!!.. But remember - under Craig’s worldview this action is just as reprehensible and unjust, should it be mandated by any one of us… but this action against the Canaanites was not mandated by one of us… it was ordered by God - who in his unique role as creator and judge of all people is the only one who is perfectly justified in giving such an order, as long as it is consistent with his character. And it seems that it is: in his role as just judge, he brings judgment against the Canaanites for their wickedness… while, out of his love God ensures that the innocent who suffer and die in the process, go on to enjoy an eternity in perfect peace and fulfilment And so, as always, whichever worldview you come to this debate with, entirely determines on what side of the fence you will land
@@davidblack1353no, not at all. There's more than a philosophical discussion of worldviews, which is why Alex says many times that even though he can't point to a contradiction there are many intuitions that are undermined by Craig's model. You don't need to be an atheist or a theist a priori, since there are many theists who wouldn't agree to divine command theory too
@@davidblack1353Very well put. It's ironic that the listeners of this channel might otherwise pretend to be rational but resort to emotion the moment their intuitions fail against a more consistent theory. That's what seperates Alex as despite that he tries to present reasonable arguments even if he based them on reliability of intuitions.
What bothers me so much is how he just goes back to these like nothing burger sentencences like "you see morality is imposed by a moral imperative to help be moral, so because od the moral imperative and the genocide of canannitez" like BRO WHAT
the idea goes -> if there is an all just god, i wouldn’t mind being killed to be with him to be saved from the evil around me. however, the problem is that this turns the whole argument backwards where you are proving these morals with god’s existence instead of indirectly supporting god’s existence via his goodness through his own written morals
What is interesting is how WLCraig simultaneously defends the notion of a holocaust directed at the Canaanites while saying he is certain that the holocaust Hitler did was wrong.
@@rizdekd3912exactly. What if god told hitler and the Nazis it was right but told them not to tell anyone. Craig’s logic demands that possibility be considered
@@ballisticfish1212 It is interesting how often the holocaust is thrown out as a 'well if there is no objective morality then who's to say the holocaust is wrong?' But...as we see they can't answer who IS to say it was wrong...certainly not someone referring to the Bible for their basis of morality. They call it mass murder...but in another context (a context BTW that I don't agree with) it was mass execution of enemies of the state...that is how Hitler saw them. And there seems to be no moral repugnance for executions...at least from the Abrahamic religions/God. So it's down to subjective basis for saying the executions Hitler oversaw were wrong while other mass executions are right.
@@OhManTFEIf you're talking about their use of steelman, that is not new. It's the opposite of strawman. Steelmanning, I'll call it, is presenting your opponents argument in its strongest form.
We are all religous. That is, we all worship something. Even those who think they don't worship, they worship their own thinking. What Christianity brings is a foundation for proper object of worship. And, morality must be based on something other than our thinking. A fluid flexible morality brings on the worst of humanity. What is the basis of your moral judgments?
@@randyrobinson2609all morality is subjective. Everyone makes a subjective decision about what to put at the top of the decision-making pyramid. Merely saying you put God at the top of the pyramid doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't solve the problem! It just kicks the can further down the road. You can call it biblical morality or you can think that you're basing your morality on the ten commandments or some such, but you're not really doing that. You're taking the Bible as a starting point and then (hopefully) using reason and logic to assess whether or not these biblical rules make sense, and then making your moral decisions based on your own interpretations of the biblical rules. PS of course morality should be flexible! That's the entire point of famous books like the Scarlet Letter, the Crucible, and Les Mis.
Craigs argument about the Israelite soldiers suffering the most reminded me of how the Einsatzgruppen suffered mental trauma from killing so many Jews. Totally sick to make the claim that these kinds of people were the real victims
38:18 "It was actually a tremendous blessing to these children for them to be killed..." "Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself." (Napoleon)
I disagree with DCT but you are clearly not able to comprehend it. God would have gave the children an infinite good and saved them from falling. In what sense is that not a blessing? This does not say that people can kill children because they will go to heaven. A person killing a child does not confer good to the child. God is the one who confers the good, he gives you infinity in return for finite suffering. All the person does is confer bad, the person gives suffering and gives no good
@@Shehatescash Naturally I understand that what you write is the justification. If, however, the Abrahamic god is nothing but a fairy tale, and there is no justification to believe otherwise, then the act caused by such a belief is not a "blessing" for the killed children.
What if a person attacks and murders innocents then claims that God told him to do it, does it become justified? Because that is exactly the case with the Caananites: the Israelites commited war crimes against innocents, then wrote in their books that God told them to do it. You cant prove that God didnt tell them to do it, just like you cant prove that he did@Shehatescash
@@Soonzuh First I wanna say try not to lump “abrahamic gods” into 1. But it looks like we both agree that IF god does exist, then he’s justified in permitting the death of a child, and so this “biblical slaughter” does nothing to undermine the goodness of The Christian god if he exist. Now it looks like there’s just a question of whether or not he does exist, which isn’t the topic here. Alex and Craig have argued that before tho and I do believe there is reason to think he exist. I do want to point out that if god doesn’t exist, then that means god didn’t even command the Jews to slaughter cannan, and so the “biblical slaughter command” objection wouldn’t even work. That’s why when raising the slaughter objection you have to presuppose god exist and then argue that this part of the Bible contradicts what the rest Bible says about god. This slaughter objection is like an argument from within Christian belief
Thank you @CosmicSkeptic for all that you are doing. I am a passionate follower of Christ, and I truly appreciate your arguments. I appreciate your willingness to have conversations with individuals from the other side. Not to play a "gotcha," but to understand the argument. You are awesome and I look forward to seeing more of your interviews in the future.
Absolute Madman. He should listen to himself once in a while. Sitting there and saying killing innocent children is ok if god demands it. Feels like listening to the logic of suicide bombers. Smh.
Is genocide wrong? Why? I thought Craig's explanation was unsatisfactory. There may not be an explanation that can be justified. But I keep coming back to if there is no God there is no right or wrong. And I want people that are atheists to think that through and then own the fact that none of this even matters.
@@ericbilderback7676 Listen to yourself. If the only right/wrong is what a god says, then it's not morality at all. It's just kissing the ass of the biggest bully. And of course things matter. They matter to *US.*
@@ericbilderback7676 That is ridiculously nonsensical to me. If there is no god, then good and bad is up for discussion. Funny enough, this is exactly what we have always done, even while having these religious "guidelines" (that everyone tends to interpret slightly different). Killing is not evil because the bible says so, but because it makes sense. In every culture, in every religion. Just because we are able to justify cruel deeds that do not align with our moral beliefs (a triple hooray for cognitive dissonance), does not mean that there was any divine command to do so. If the Canaanites really were slaughtered and forced out of their land, then that is literal genocide and the bible is just whitewashing their history.
If you make a video game, you’re allowed to remove any character you want, at any time, for any reason-even and especially if those “characters” are using _your life force_ to exist in the first place.
@@waido_ If humans are just pawns in God's game, why would we respect him? I'd fear a being that is willing to "remove me" just because it has the power to do so, of course, but I'd not respect him, much less adore him. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Go ahead and defend genocide and the mass murder of children because it's your God doing it, but you don't get to then turn around and say "Isn't he a perfectly good and lovely God?? We should adore him!". If that sort of God existed, I'd despise him.
25:00 The ol' "They didn't have to die, they could have just left their homes and belongings to the marauders, and march thousands of miles to the next country".... as if that isn't a death sentence, especially thousands of years ago.... This moral argument is really something else
So... by this "logic"... no one in Ukraine has to be killed or injured, "if they would simply retreat" and give Ukraine to Putin... what kind of an argument is that? Is the speaker serious? Does he even understand what he's saying?
Also, Craig contradicts the Bible here. It is described that Canaanites must be completely destroyed, including womans, children and old men. Cities must be burned, altars destroyed, and Jews are meant to dominate promised land in such a brutal way. Actually, Craig could have been perfectly slapped by Alex by bringing those citations from the Bible, although I'm 💯 sure Craig would still find some way to twist that around too.
@@theinvestingpalace4710 I watched the video, but I suppose you misread or misunderstood me. Alex didn't bring exact citations from Bible that would contradicts Craig's softening on Godly command about Canaanites. It would be so fun to watch Craig trying to massage Bible words to get what he wants them to mean. And also would be way more apparent from that what a lying fraud Craig is.
There's some extreme meme value with the title of this video in conjunction with the large smile on this guy's face in the thumbnail. Alex really knows his audience lmfao
@@danw5760 Which is a disgusting practice. Instead of a nuanced title, it was basically fishing for controversy, hate and anti intellectualism on people.
45:00 ... literally... If Germany had won and Hitler said, "God told us to wipe out the Jews." WLC would be, at this point of the video, talking about how terrible the PTSD would be for those German soldiers who had to do all the k1lling... I have no words...
Did God personally tell the Canaanites that the land now belongs to the Israelites? Or are they just to take the Israelites' word for it that he said so?
This is something I wished Alex spent more time on. Near the end Alex asked if they were justified in defending themselves. And Craig said ultimately they weren't because they were going against what God wanted. But if God never commanded them to leave, there was no way of them knowing what they were supposed to do except as you say, to take the Israelites word for it - except the problem with that is that Craig also said that one needs to have an *incredibly* high level of epistemic justification for God's commands. So really, there wasn't much hope for those little Canaanite babies was there.
It would be God's way to do such a thing and there are precendents for the same. When the kingdom of Judah was to be punished through Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah was sent to them to tell them to acquiesce and let Nebuchadnezzar's army into the city after which he would move them en masse to Babylon. The price of resisting was mass death. Likewise, Jonah was sent to the city of Nineveh to tell them to reform their wickedness or they would be punished. They acquiesced and God's wrath was averted.
@@andrewdaly21 Don't you see a problem with having to trust a third party's word for it that they were sent from God? This is just not epistemically justifiable. Craig himself said that it would be basically impossible to justify whether one has been divinely commanded.
Best evidence I've ever seen for the quote "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." The standard this sets is that anyone with conviction of their God should feel entitled to do whatever they want. The implication of this is far worse than any atheistic moral framework ever could be.
Interesting that he wouldn't get into the epistemological argument. Because saying "how can one tell?" Seems to be yet another fundamental issue. After admitting that it's kosher for God to order the killing of children, he has to hide behind the "but you can't ever be justified in knowing you've been ordered!" so that he can avoid any responsibility for someone repeating that genocide today.
@@LacayoDe He advocates something not much better than this "divine command theory" thing when it comes to the "trusting the elites/experts," most recently with the "pandemic measures."
@@GoldenMechaTiger Could you explain why committing atrocities because "science said so" and doing so because "God said so" are so different as to be incomparable? Is it merely that you believe one, and think the other is mostly nonsense meant to control stupid people?
@@ShankarSivarajan Nobody is committing atrocities because science said so. Science simply provides you with the current best understanding of the issue. Like washing your hands is good to prevent getting sick. That is not an atrocity.
Jup. It's not only similar but it's the same rhetoric that religious fanatics are always utilising. It's dangerous and it's irrelevant which religion it exactly is based on.
Yeah I commented the same thing. If you watch old Bin Laden tapes he makes the exact same argument. All religious genocide or violence is justified by Craigs argument, unless you can prove that they really didnt speak to God...which you cant...
Alex I love your interviews. As someone who used to be a conservative evangelical, your calm engagement with these issues is of immense value. One thing I’ve gathered in my study of apologetics and argumentation is that these arguments from Craig and others of the like are not for skeptics or those that need to be convinced. It seems that these arguments are given to those who are trying to maintain belief in an age of rampant biblical criticism. The apologist doesn’t have to convince the atheist or skeptic, they just have to make things at least plausible to other believers (or even themselves) and therefore it allows them to hold on to the other positive aspects of their belief. I think that’s why so many of these arguments seem like a lot of mental gymnastics.
Sam Harris summed up Craig's position on this sort of thing during their debate years ago: "According to Dr Craig’s Divine Command theory, God is not bound by moral duties; God doesn’t have to be good. Whatever he commands is good, so when he commands that the Israelites slaughter the Amalekites, that behavior becomes intrinsically good because he commanded it." Craig's position does not appear to have evolved whatsoever.
It can't. Apologetics is a dead discipline where all you do is look for new ways to say the same thing. That's what happens when you're forced to work backwards from a conclusion.
I saw that debate. As much as I dislike Craig, I was extremely disappointed in the performance of Sam Harris. The debate between WLC and Sean Carroll was far more satisfying, as Carroll mopped the floor with him.
It's unfortunate because Sam Harris himself is a genocide supporter now, defending what Israel is doing to Palestine. Then again he also defended the Iraq war back in the day, saying all the damage done to innocents during that was simply collateral damage and it was inevitable.
Even my ADHD brain cannot keep up with the pinball level of mental springboarding being done here. The slaughter of children being painted as a blessing to them is a stomach-churning take in my opinion. I'm not sure I would be able to sleep at night if I held such a view.
Existence itself is mental springboard, yet you say “I cannot keep up” You’ve kept up you’re whole life Yet when faced with a grinning theist you say “I cannot keep up” I thought atheists were supposed to be ahead of the curve If you can’t make EVERY paradox harmonious, you aren’t based and redpilled yet If you can’t entertain Craig, then you allow him to expose your intellectual ego You’re valid, given your context, but you are lacking Self awareness, to rebut so reflexively and shallowly
I absolutely could be wrong because I know almost nothing about you but I’m /assuming/ (because I’m a fool) that you support the mass infanticide of pre-born indefensible humans? The irony here runs thicker than the nectar of Eden.
@@jacksonelmore6227I never said that I was unwilling to entertain him. It's not reasonably based to assume that the expression of an opinion from a subjective position is evidence of egotism or mental inflexibility. Furthermore, I did not see it prudent to compose support or rebuttal in its entirety via a RUclips comment.
It strikes me as deeply dishonest for Bill to keep invoking the standard of “Who’s been wronged!?” when his standard for “wronging” is so ridiculously high that murder, mental trauma, and forcible eviction from one’s home do not necessarily qualify.
@@douglaswise6797Craig would say otherwise which makes it even worse. He was trying to figure out who was wrong and thought about that very point, bur ultimately concluded that even the soldier wasn't wronged in the end. Even if every action was justified, causing trauma on your own people as you demand them to commit horrific acts seems like an easy place to draw the line.
@@Randomsaestrange that, when god vould have completely side stepped the issue by just snapping his fingers. Instead it had to play out ezactly like it would if a nation was justifying its own attrocities... funny that.
remember,folks. next time you offend a christian, tell him you didn't technically wrong him. you merely wronged his god. i'm sure he'd be okay with the score being settled during judgment day, if it ever comes.
Kinda, Craig’s argument is “For God, everything is permitted”. So Craig can reason, therefore there is no inconsistency. There is so much wrong with this.
@@casaroli But ONLY if WE do it. Craig's logic is that morality comes from God and therefore God doesn't need to obey the same code. It's not consistent from our point of view, and it's irrelevant from God's point of view, therefor remains consistent. To me, I believe humans naturalistic/secular morality is superior to God’s due to the fact that it has to remain consistent. God on the other hand can change from black to white whenever he wants because God gets to decide what is good or bad, right or wrong at his own discretion with no justification, other than, I’m God, I can do what I want. (Oh and trust me, it's for the greater good, but you just can't see it because you're a silly little human.- God"
Alex, thank you so much for this interview. I'm a christian, but I dont think that takes me the pleasure of marvelling at your inteligence you have been given( I know you dont believe in a God, bear with me) The way you articulated those questions, those thoughts, those counter arguments.. What an articulated and thinker bright mind you are. You asked the right questions, and didn't spend spend time on unnecessary ones. Kudos to Dr Craig for he is not afraid or constricted on talking about this. Clear and concise
Wow. I don't know where WLC gets this stuff from. I may not be a bible scholar, but I thought there were prerequisites for getting into heaven. The Catholic church didn't think innocent babies went to heaven. That's why they invented Limbo.
He did specify "in my theology". In the scriptures themselves about the commanded genocide of the other canaanites, no where in that section does God say: "don't worry about the child murder, I'm taking those kids to my paradise." I not certain if at the time of the writing of these stories the theology of humans going to paradise with god was a part of Judaism.
@@ghanson1717 If you don´t believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins, you do not believe in his resurrection you go to hell. Since infants can't make such a decision in Protestantism they go to hell. In the catholic church to Limbo. A strange sense of morality.
@@filipeazevedo6165 wrong. bible talks about the "age of accountability" since the children are not accountable they go to heaven. there are passages in the bible this happening.
The funniest thing is that he keeps underlying the "just & loving nature" of Yahweh every time he talks about the divine ability to override our moral intuitions and slaughter innocent children. That's a pretty interesting way of interpreting love.
It invites questions about how we can have a human perception of Heaven being pure good if the infallible divine dictator can freely perform acts we perceive as pure evil.
Yes, I think these types of arguments should really undermine Christian's unwavering belief that God has their best interests at heart. Let's just grant the Canaanites were utterly depraved and wicked. It is literally Christian doctrine, and I am relatively sure one that is accepted by Craig, that due to original sin we are ALL depraved and wicked, unworthy of any redemption or mercy from God. If this depravity does indeed justify God in taking any action against us due to our wickedness and failure to live up to his standards of perfection, God is perfectly justified in lying to all Christians that they will have an eternal life in joy if they trust in Jesus, and then torturing them forever for being so arrogant and prideful as to believe they would be treated better just for those beliefs. Lying and torturing people is only immoral if people are unjustly harmed, and is it justice for all humans to suffer eternally, so it does not go against God just and loving nature to do so. Terrifying stuff that Craig's brain just blocks out because obviously God wouldn't do anything bad to HIM, it is the other horrible wicked people that God will righteously burn for eternity.
@@davegold Maybe the problem doesn't lie with God per se, but with our own interpretation of reality? If God exists and God is omniscient, then who are we to question his judgement? Maybe we've become completely obssessed with power these days - the power to control our own destiny, the power to control each other in all sorts of tyrannical ways - the power to give life and to take it away? Science can make us feel like gods at times, but it's an illusion, if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos & King Charles are gods, then we're obviously screwed for all eternity, aren't we? :) Why would anyone want to live in a world that devalues their worth to the level of a mere commodity/lab rat? Naw, it's us - not God, we're drunk on power, simple as that. "People are crazy, and times are strange, i'm locked-in tight, i'm outta range, i used to care but... things have changed!" - Bob Dylan
This is the main reason why I watch these things. I have read a book from a neurologist. He described patiens that had something happen in the brain that made them lose function on a limb. But the weird thing is...the person themself are not aware they lost function. If asked to use the limb they will create any adhoc reason not to comply. Keeping this internal belief perfectly reasonable. This is what craig does. It is bizar to watch.
I must say aside from the subject matter what a beautiful exchange between you and Dr. Craig. The level of respectful discourse between you both is something very admirable. Thank you for this.
In my 29 years on this earth I've never about-faced so quickly as after hearing William Lane Craig defend child murder. This man has logically defended evil and uses his theology as defense. I have so many objections it's difficult to even start to respond. I can count 4 off the top of my head; practical, authoritarian, tautological, moral.. If I met such a person that believes what he does, I would be hard pressed to not be disgusted. (Edit: You actually got him to bite the bullet on psychosis induced school shooting, I don't know how this man sleeps at night)
*In my 29 years on this earth I've never about-faced so quickly as after hearing William Lane Craig defend child murder.* So what? Child murder has been defended all the time in living memory and even today in Modernity. There are cRiMeS and then there are crimes. You most likely have no problem the former, despite that in both latter and former cases, child murder takes place. *This man has logically defended evil and uses his theology as defense.* There's a lot of things you would probably defend that would contain in them what you consider to be evil. Be consistent. *If I met such a person that believes what he does, I would be hard pressed to not be disgusted.* Likewise.
@@xxdragnxx1 *you just made a bunch of assumptions about me and I have no idea what you're talking about. Go argue with someone else online* That is correct. Unfortunately, I am forced to make assumptions about you like you have to do the same with me. That's exactly why I use terms like 'most likely' and 'would probably'. I'm aware you may very well disagree with the propositions above. But I did so because I'm trying to present you on a general basis. It's up to you to make these generalizations more catered to your actual positions, should you care to do so.
@@thepalegalilean If you felt like my first comment on this video was a personal attack on you or made assumptions about you, please just move to Canada.
At the beginning WLC said "You destroyed Dawkins, without him noticing", Alex grinned quite visibly... now I ask, whether the case was, that he knew, he was going to do the very same thing again... right in this interview :D
In response Christopher Hichens would say, "“In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you'll need religion.”
This guy philosophy makes me 🤢 VOMIT 😢 !!! Now... my cat was there, and israelites killed it... my dog escaped, then came back to eat the dead babies. Hey ! Lot a burials hard work for them ... poor israelites... overall, the whole thing is a bunch of LIES, Historically speaking ... Well.. it's a horrible bedtime story.
@@Jk-ow8ny for me it’s just easy to become insensitive, which leads to some contradictions in other issues. For example why should we care about people having abortions since we can assume they will go to heaven. Or why be upset when governments kill large groups of people like the holocaust. The logic can easily get abused
“God doesn’t have the same moral constraints that we do, because he doesn’t have moral obligation to fulfill, he only has to act in consistency with his own nature” Chilling stuff from an all loving god
As a Christian I really disagree with his argument, in fact I find what he said to be blasphemous. God does have the same perfect moral standard as us - from which we rebel and as a result Christ's atonement is necessary. The argument he is making would make sense in modern rabbinic Judaism, it seems like he's an American Dispy.
It's actually kind of terrifying to be honest. This supreme being doesn't have the "same moral constraints we do". What does that even mean? Do God operate with a separate moral framework than what he gives us or what?
@@TryHard-tr8mn what if God is an asshole and you’re right? Soooo? Nature is kind of an asshole Evolution is a bitch But guess what here we are making the best out of it The point is I like all the Bible says you should just trust God it’s like saying we don’t believe in God, but trust the universe, trust law agent, and be a lover of your faith no matter what happens everything else like chasing the wind
@@TryHard-tr8mn It means that the universe would already be a complete Hell for all sentient beings placed in it. Luckily there is no evidence this god even exists.
What tribe would retreat and not fight for their land? Why are these people coming into our land? Your God said you could have it? That's not our God. Why doesn't this God speak to us? There is also evidence Canaanites are just those people who aren't us.
Richard Hawkins may be a brash and pointed person, but I agree with his assessment of Craig. He uses larger words to dress up the older Christian arguments. Basically, "God said so." Of course, Dawkins doesn't want to debate him. There's nothing new to debate about honestly.
There's nothing you CAN debate. You can say "how do we know God is good in the first place", but he'll just respond with "you can't KNOW that, but in the Christian framework He is". Ultimately WLC will appeal to a lot of unfounded faith based claims. There's no "debate" to that
I wonder what Craig would do if he is suddenly teleported into a Canaanite home just as an Israelite soldier, sword in hand, bursts into a room where three Canaanite children are sleeping peacefully. Would he really stand aside and tell the soldier, "Son, your doing God's work. Carry on."
Do you think the Allies were justified in killing hundreds of thousands of civilians by firebombing German and Japanese cities including women and children non-combatants in it?
The psycholigical toll exacted on the Israeli soliders is something to be concerned about... in a similar manner that H. Himmler & Co. were troubled by the negative effects upon the Einsatzgruppen in the course of their repeated murders of thousands of men, women & children in cold blood during WWII. Poor guys. Some became drunks over this.
In reality, your subjective morality does permit genocide, as you make up the principles yourself and can change or disregard them at will. Thus if you wanted to commit genocide, you'd be able to. Also, theistic morality doesn't permit genocide.
@@danfrische3801Did you watch the same video I did? This is quite literally an argument that genocide is permitted by theistic morality because of divine command
@@Dekrov808 First, will you accept that subjective morality permits genocide? Second, the theistic morality of which I speak is Christianity, which does not permit genocide. "Love your enemy," "do good to those who persecute you," "no murderer has eternal life abiding in him," etc., etc., etc., etc. In Judaism (the Old Testament), God made a specific command to the Jews to go and kill everyone in the Canaanite lands because they were doing evil things like raping everyone and sacrificing their children/people on altars. Morally speaking, this is akin to the flood in that God has the right to destroy his creations, it's just more violent because people were the enactors and not water. So you might protest against God for allowing genocides (the flood and the Canaanites), but that's a failure to recognize the distinction between the morality of men and of God. He created everything and has the right to take it back when it betrays him. You can shake your fist at that fact, fine. But other than those specific instances in Judaism, in Christianity there is no command and can be no command from God that permits murder or genocide. Christ said "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." And basically everything he said was against murder.
A wonderful interview by Alex I had thought the “Canaanite massacre” topic had been exhausted by this point but this was the most revealing segment into WLC’s thinking What was most striking is how WLC wants to defend “if God commands, then it becomes moral” but has no system of epistemology to help decide if/when a command has been given. It’s like saying a cop has full authority to stop me but I have no way to distinguish a cop from a normal person in real life. He’s allowed to rationalize a system of divine commands but not utilize it in daily life.
Spot on - that was bothering me too. Alex proposed a thought experiment that exposed it, but I'd have liked him to press a bit harder honestly - seems like a really weak point to me.
Excellent point. I made a similar comment on this video because the epistemological problem of authenticating a message from a deity seems insurmountable. In both theory and practice there's no answer to this question.
It's a great example of why Alex is such a brilliant interviewer. He's very courteous, always respectful to his guests, and never aggressive in his disagreements, so that WLC feels comfortable enough to talk about his views in full detail. Alex lets his listeners judge for themselves, and judge we will.
Exceptional Moderating Alex! You extracted the details of the discussion and different perspectives efficiently and with grace and compassion to Craig and his views. It really allowed for the discussion and the depth of the logic behind all sides arguments to develop quickly and deeply. Extremely mature and professional of you.
I am truly amazed by your ability to have conversations like this and conducting yourself in such a composed manner. I would love to be more like that.
@@RedefineLivingthe final reference point is the impact it has on the well-being of others. If we find out that a certain method of dealing with the problems in society is flawed, the only wise conclusion is to find a pertinent method to resolve it. Doesn't mean any type of God needs to be involved.
@@Acceptablehandleaheada2.-_ No, that begs the question. The impact is independent from the right or wrong of the thing. You’ve only offered your opinion, making the final reference point yourself. Why not point to someone who disagrees with you?
@@RedefineLiving It's already clear the position of those who disagree with me, which is that God is the only arbiter of what counts as good and what doesn't. From my perspective, if God can ordain anything as right, why is it always dependent on the ways of the culture? You never see any worldly culture doing or saying things that you wouldn't expect them to under the divine doctrines which they espouse. And if these decisions come about from the edict of an all-knowing creator who supposedly can intervene in any way he wants, it's only sufficient than to conclude that this creator can be morally apprehensive if he chooses to. I say this understanding your position clearly. Which is that the fall of man was essential to turn everyone into dog shit so that we would eventually be in need of a savior. (Pardon my layspeak, it's not the best in conveying point) But all that aside, how then can YOU be certain that I'm not justified in using my supposed free will to decide these things aren't divine, but rather human inventions? To me, if one decides to worship a Good that they assume to be almighty and all-powerful, their trust should be based in knowing that divine authority figure has their best interest in mind. Now, if they are also capable of doing things out of ill intent) given they understand what wrong is) wouldn't they be just as predisposed to fucking things over? I ask this because of the fact that being all knowing and all powerful doesn't immediately make one righteous, and to assume so is to relinquish one's own sense of innate skeptical prudence by deferring themselves as a sycophant over to someone who can decide to do whatever they want with them, which unfortunately just doesn't happen to be freedom. You can come up with any world-based analogy you want in order to demonstrate the moral uprightness of it, yet somehow any world analogy the opposition happens to employ is flawed given they're "in a state of sin, and therefore all their analogies fall short of imperfect humans with the intent to speak the will of the Lord."
@@Acceptablehandleaheada2.-_ Thanks for the long emotional response that dodged my question, but I did not ask you to strawman my position as you did. How about you let me answer for my position and you answer for yours. No I asked you why you have not considered those who disagree with your ethical framework, and it was silly for you to suggest that only Christians disagree. Perhaps consider the nihilist and his philosophical justification, perhaps consent those that are in prison for justifying their actions by their own autonomous reasoning. Look bud, it’s like you guys have never thought this through…
Dawkins doesn't debate him because Dawkins is a coward, he is using this as an excuse and to appear better than him, Dawkins isn't secure enough in his own abilities as a debater, he has changed his reason for not wanting to debate Craig innumerable times and frequently the objection also applies to people he has debated.
@@Mr.Goodkat How can someone be a coward, to debate someone who finds justifying god killing children, and being something good? i think it's just a delusional point of view christians can't surpass.
@@Mr.Goodkat Coward isn't a fair word, he's debated him before. Maybe he doesn't feel like he can "win" a debate, fine, but the reason he gave may also be a valid one. It's very difficult to debate someone that refuses to even acknowledge that their logic is flawed (yet somehow recognises it when others' logic is flawed).
@@joeygrace2464 That can be a delusional point of view just like you said and someone can still be cowardly in debating the person who believes it because of how he comes off in debates to the audience, the fact is Craig wouldn't be talking about the genocide, he'd be talking about the Kalam, fine-tuning, objective morality etc, and Dawkins would be in way over his head because Dawkins doesn't know much of anything about those things, he is more comfortable talking about evolution, religion's impact on the world and comparing it to science etc, Craig would be dragging him into discussions about cosmogony and philosophical arguments everywhere, Dawkins wouldn't know where to start.
@@sb_dunk He hasn't debated him before the thing in Mexico lasted about one minute, was part of a team rather than one on one and didn't involve them actually debating one another on God. The reason he give is not a valid one because he is lying, the lack of honesty is what I take issue with, if he was a coward and admitted he was afraid of debating him due to feeling way out of his depth with a philosopher, ironically that would save face and he'd appear much more of a well put together individual, more trustworthy, instead his ego/pride made him BS everybody, himself included and he took the dishonourable path.
You have a remarkable ability to, rather than rebut or correct any point given by an apologist, simply ask a question, sit back and relax as they adequately demolish their own position. Bravo, as always. In this case, Craig confirmed everything Dawkins said about him with great precision.
What’s chilling about this is probably most of the people criticizing Craig’s position would say nothing is objectively morally right or wrong. So when children are murdered and terrible things happen to them, the atheist has to say nothing wrong happened to them. But wait! You’re all saying wrong things happened in this instance! How is that possible when your world view says right and wrong don’t exist? Don’t you see how your accusations fall to the floor? Alex understands this.
@@lovespeaks777 This is tedious! The chilling thing is that you fail to see what has been answered over and over again! What is wrong with you people? Where is the mental blockage? To reiterate: If absolute right and wrong doesn't exist it doesn't mean that right and wrong doesn't exist, it means that they are situation dependent! It means that it is debatable what is right or wrong! It means there can be different opinions on whether something is right or wrong! Is that what you find chilling? That people can disagree with you? I can reassure you that most people will agree with you regarding the killing of children! Atheists probably even more so than Christians like Craig, because most atheists would even object to killing children because of a divine command. If you are trying to put atheist morality into question, this is the wrong example! Craig's point is that even killing children isn't absolutely wrong, there are situations where it can be right. The chilling thing is that it can be right for reasons that have nothing to do with the children, but with the society they had the misfortune to be born into, and whether there is a neighboring people who think they are entitled to their land. Whether killing of children is right or wrong, and for what reasons, is obviously debatable, and that is precisely what we are doing here, what Alex and Craig did, and what people do again and again in societies since millennia! And it is a good thing that such topics are being debated! Only such debates can bring us forward, and help exposing and overcoming such misguided ideas like the "divine command theory".
@@moroccandeepweb5880 the same argument is used concerning the bombing of civilians in the Gaza strip, that they could “just move, just leave the area”, except the forceful expulsion of entire group is ALSO encompassed in the definition of genocide. Biblical verses like the slaughter of the canaanites have been invoked by Israeli officials as precedent as well.
for real! In the span of *one hour* he admitted that both the arguments from design AND the arguments from morality for the existence of God are flawed, all to defend *ONE* passage of the Old Testament. Like holy shit, we will be out of arguments for God after a few chapters at this rate lmao.
@@sanstheblaster2626I just don’t understand he could have said … maybe that part of the Bible was a metaphor and that’s it 😂he could have preserve his teeth
Check out Shortform and get a free trial and 21% discount at www.shortform.com/oconnor
It's incredibly poor taste to invite William on your show for a long form conversation, and then attack him on a singular position in the title. I'm the opposite of a William Craig apologist, but the way you often hold over on people morally (passive aggressively) is gross. *edit - almost 20 minutes in before you announce the reason you invited William back on the show. The title admittedly reads very differently in that full context. My mistake.
@@kenhiett5266I agree with you, @CosmicSkeptic should change the title quickly.
Dawkins is right.
This man is moral monster.
@@klaxoncowyes I agree with you too. WLC has no right to call himself a philosopher, because he definitely doesn't love knowledge or seek its acquisition.
@@kenhiett5266 Outside of a bit of introduction at the start, it was a singular topic video though. This is 1 hour of William Lane Craig defending the Canaanite Slaughter.
Did you not watch the video?
His argument seems to be the highly rationalized version of "God said so."
Which will not help in convincing anyone who is not already a believer.
I thought the same thing. It’s literally “because I said so”. I generally think it’s a bad thing to blindly follow the instructions of any figure of authority without exercising our own best judgment.
Yes. But that is not the point. The point is that because God is good the order he gave to israelites is moraly good , so there is not discrepancy between God being all loving and this comand of killing babies. That is his point
@@onisimpetrescu4816 how would you know if the entity who gave that command in the Bible is in fact God? Maybe God has morally sufficient reasons to allow the evil being in the old testament to convince you that he is God.
@@onisimpetrescu4816 how would you know if the entity who gave that command in the Bible is in fact God? Maybe God has morally sufficient reasons to allow the evil being in the old testament to convince you that he is God.
@@onisimpetrescu4816the only way for that to be the case that I can think of is to define good as what god wants. If you do that I reject your concept of it. Good could just as well be defined as anything satan wants but I doubt defining it that way would convince many christians that Satan is all good.
“It wasn’t genocide. It was just that the land was to be cleansed.” 🙃
Perfect logic 😂
WLC is the master of word games.
You can't corner him. He dictates the flow .
Not just "cleansed", cleansed "*of these people*". Dawkins may indeed be naive about the finer points of philosophy, but he's right about Will Craig.
LMAOOO
This is 100% what hitchens ment when he said that with god all things are permissible
Well hitchens is wrong, obviously, and he’s been destroyed in every debate against John Lennox about this.
Fundie: What's your basis for *morality* filthy atheist!
Atheist: Secular humanism - wellbeing - survive, thrive - etc.
Fundie: That's subjective!
Atheist: What's yours?
Fundie: gawd said so!
Atheist: *unimpressed*
@@sparrow3026 classic apologetics' logic. 😂😂"it's true because i said so". funny how you folks love claiming yourselves to be objective when your arguments really boil down to "because I (or god) says so". just a bunch of subjectivist pretending to be objectivist accusing others of subjectivity. hypocrites 🙄🙄
"As it was written"
@@GrammeStudio they are the epitome of hypocrisy
I was a Pastor for several years and when I truly looked into this subject I came to an anti YHWH perspective. Listening to Dr. Craig made me realize just how absurd Christian Logic can be. Thanks Alex for the gracious interview.
are you stil a pastor? I think anti-Old Testament priests would be a blessing for the USA
@@VenusFeuerFallepeople who lack the foresight to see beyond their noses, therefore lack the imagination and critical thinking skills necessary to solve real problems usually do
Yikes
Wild to know there are unsaved, unregenerated "pastors" out there.
You clearly dont understand God's character and nature. what a sad testimony.
*"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities"* ― Voltaire
What we just watched was the clearest example of Voltaire's quote in action.
Anything - literally anything - can be justified with divine command theory. That fact alone should make you incredibly wary of adopting it as your moral foundation.
Good quote ,,but doesn't make your assumptions right.
It’s not an absurdity it’s actually perfectly consistent
@@ckay_real2765 Can't spell immortal without immoral.
Craig is a shame to mankind
When the ad break came in with “do you like reading?” At first I thought he was talking to William Lane Craig in a condescending way lol.
😂
Same, lol
Same here hahaha, it was so abrupt I laughed out loud and had to stop doing dishes and look at the screen hahaha
Haha I was doing the dishes as well at that exact moment@SamoaVsEverybody814
That got me 😂
The “they were sacrificing their children, so their children needed to be slaughtered” argument.
"We need to save those children from being potentially sacrificed by killing all of them!"
I’m starting to believe their actual problem isn’t the "kids being killed" part but the "in the name of another god" part.
I literally laughed out loud when he used child sacrifice as evidence of immorality.
@@leslieviljoen whoops edited it
Funny cuz doesn’t the Christian god sacrifice his son too 😂
@@Tom-iz5ps
That son came back to life later, so not really...
In any other line of work, besides apologetics, an interview like this would be career ending.
LOL
38:17 "So it was actually a tremendous blessing for these children to be killed"
What did i just hear.
When you go so far down the religious rabbit hole that you believe the lunacy you're spewing without second thought.
one would think it's "just a view" but there are mothers who literally did this. one took her son's life so he'd be sent to heaven before he could be corrupted by the world. one must wonder: why are folks who share Craig's belief so against abortion then? it's not for any OBJECTIVE reason. it's only wrong SUBJECTIVE to who's doing the kiIIing.
If I heard that out of context I would've thought it was an interview of a cult member. I'm astonished as to why Alex continues to platform people with ideologies like these
I've been hearing a lot of people trying to justify the killing of children lately.
@@ellyam991 I think it's good to expose these people. Let Craig dig his own grave.
“Driving a people out of their nation on pain of death isn’t genocide no one had to be killed” -low bar bill on why genocide isn’t actually genocide 😂
The Gaza explanation.
yeah: "it was only ethnic cleansing, let's not be rash"
@@RichardCThurstonwhats happening in gaza now isnt genocide it isnt to drive people out for pain of death
@@dizehjvegnomiswhat even is ethnic cleansing and what is difference between that and genocide?
@@lampad4549 Ethnic cleansing is the destruction of a people, using any means. This could be killing, displacement, interbreeding (the non-consensual form that RUclips refused to let me post), sterilization etc.
Genocide is a specific type of ethnic cleansing, that means that one of the predominant means of achieving it is through systematic killing of the unwanted ethnicity.
What is described here is pretty much exact definition of genocide, although WLC argues that the Canaanites were also given the option of ethnic cleansing through displacement.
This video is a great example of how theism can totally pervert one's morality. Leave it to the arbiters of morality - the moral monopoly - the ones who accuse nonbelievers of borrowing from their worldview, to claim that the real victims of a genocide are the ones who committed the genocide. Sometimes the monsters don't come yelling and snarling. Sometimes they shake your hand and give you a wide smile.
Absolutely! I am grateful for this demonstration of theist morality taken to its logical conclusion, by a renowned apologist, no less! This has excellent educational value! It ought to be discussed in classrooms.
WLC did the world a favor by presenting himself as an excellent bad example for morality. Who can believe that religion is a positive force in the world after hearing this? Who can still defend "objective morality"?
Do you think the Allies were justified in killing hundreds of thousands of civilians by firebombing German and Japanese cities including women and children non-combatants in it?
He seriously needs to watch your video about the time travelling pastor
Feels like an atheist crossover seeing you here
Long time no see!
I can’t believe I just listened to this man say that the worst thing one could do was OK because god said to do it.
I can think of worse.
Here is a possible explanation.
God wants good to prevail on Earth especially in that particular land. There are many occurences of ethnicities punished by God for their persistent rebellion against God's commands. Usually God punishes them through natural disasters. In this case God asked the Prophet and his followers to apply justice on Earth themselves and occupy the land. God could have punished them Himself, however the children of Israel wouldn't be occupying the land. Obviously God wanted them to occupy that land, that's why they needed to fight themselves. The result was for them the removal of the rebelled ethnicity from Earth such that Good can prevail, and such that they can occupy and live on that obviously sacred land.
It is important to notice the command was not given to any person among the children of Israel. It was given to a Prophet who was Joshua.
Regarding the question of killing innocent children, here is a possible explanation.
Children are indeed supposed to not be held accountable. However, what we can predict is that they will be influenced by their environment and rebel also to God's commands as their parents did and taught them directly or indirectly, and therefore the Bad will continue to prevail.
God has given time to the Canaanites to get back to the Good path but they arrogantly refused for a long time. God saw no hope in the future generations given the new generations used to emulate the previous ones. That's the reason the children were also to be killed. However the children won't go to Hell as their rebellious parents.
Regarding the soldiers who had to kill the Canaanites, were they traumatised by the experience later on ? I think it differs depending on what reason one kills an other person, and whether it is for a state or for God. When it's a divine command, you are convinced you are doing Good because you are obeying to God who is Good, therefore you won't have any remorse because you are 100% the motivation was Good. When you kill for a state, it's different, it's not enough of a conviction and certainty such that you won't feel any remorse.
As it was said, only God could order such command of killing a population including the children because one would need to be aware and 100% sure they wouldn't change to the better in the future, and therefore that one won't be unjust. And only God can be aware and be sure of the future.
I hope I have managed to share the wisdom behind an obviously horrible command at first sight.
@@frankiecooper worst thing according to who ?
@@colinpp123 not God apparently
At first I thought that Dawkins was being a bit hyperbolic, but after listening to William Lane Craig express his view for an hour I have to admit that Dawkins is right. William Lane Craig is an extremely disturbing man.
1000% agree. WLC is bereft of sanity.
Yes
Psychotic.
the scariest part is his mode of thinking isnt fringe. its mainstream christianity.
😂 Lol I don't think so.
He seems to think that driving a people out of their homes is an non-violent thing. This is such naive thinking.
What makes it worse is that the Canaanites didn't receive the same revelation from God as the Israelites. All they knew is that they were being invaded - they couldn't have even thought "well, it's what God wants so we better flee in peace". It was therefore inevitable for them to try to defend themselves (like any normal society). The whole notion that God didn't want them to be slaughtered is just not born out by the circumstances. And if God wanted them to flee in peace, why all this talk about God judging them for being evil? If they actually did flee in peace, then God apparently didn't really care about their evil.
It's not naive at all because he doesn't really think that. He's only claiming it in this case to make his god seem less of a monster. He doesn't even need to do so though because, if something is good because god says so, violence in this case would be good. he can't even be that honest though. He has to pretend that obvious violence isn't actually violence. Talk about denying reality.
@@Jockitoyou make such a good point. WLC looks awful throughout this conversation
Yeah, it is just like what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people today.
This is not really a discussion about Israeli armies and dying children… it is a discussion about worldviews and the grounding of ethics and morality… most comments here are laden with emotion about the atrocity of the Israeli actions and how appalling Craig is for defending them - but that emotion comes from our moral intuitions (which I share) which under Alex/Dawkin’s worldview has no objective underpinning… to put it another way, under atheism is there any reason why the killing of innocent children is truly wrong - other than ‘it just feels wrong’?
And so, we come back to a war of two world views…
1 - under atheism, we have a sense of appall at the biblical story (and at a God who would command such a thing) and at Craig for defending it… but, with no objective basis for that emotional reaction… (indeed, some terrible dictator might argue that the indiscriminate killing of innocent children is a good thing - and under atheism we’d have no objective way to prove him wrong)
2 - while under theism we have the very paradigm of goodness and justice (God) commanding an act which ultimately serves his own good purposes but which to our moral instincts seems reprehensible… what on earth might these good purposes be?.. well, according to the biblical narrative, God ordered the exile/destruction of the Canaanites to execute judgement on a wicked people group and to advance the cause of his chosen people through whom he will ultimately bring about redemption of the earth - in the death and resurrection of Jesus… does this seem unjust?.. Yes!!.. But remember - under Craig’s worldview this action is just as reprehensible and unjust, should it be mandated by any one of us… but this action against the Canaanites was not mandated by one of us… it was ordered by God - who in his unique role as creator and judge of all people is the only one who is perfectly justified in giving such an order, as long as it is consistent with his character. And it seems that it is: in his role as just judge, he brings judgment against the Canaanites for their wickedness… while, out of his love God ensures that the innocent who suffer and die in the process, go on to enjoy an eternity in perfect peace and fulfilment
And so, as always, whichever worldview you come to this debate with, entirely determines on what side of the fence you will land
“Canaanites were so wretched that they sacrificed children to their Gods” and “Israelite soldiers were the victims because their God told them to exterminate thousands of children”
Note that Craig's god demanded a child sacrifice, but in this case is was god, or an avatar of god, but actually the son of god, who is the same as god who is a father. Hmmm, no wonder Craig can spew his evil psycho-bible stuff believing such a twisted idea.
What's ironic is that Yahweh orders the Israelites to "turn the Canaanites over to him" so herem warfare is a form of human sacrifice to Yahweh
@@onedaya_martian1238 do you not comprehend trinitarian belief the son is of the same substance as the father a singular divine essence and how is the self sacrifice of god equal child sacrifice
@@durrangodsgrief6503 What is to comprehend, when a contradiction is presented ?
Saying things like "a father and son are the same but different" makes anything possible. That babble-ing story has the son/god plead to not have to die, but dad/god made the rules...the stupidity in all this goes on and on. For example, how does a god die, especially for three days ??? And "To get to the father, one has to go through the son" makes no sense irr f they are the same but different.
This is completely incoherent...and thinking a rational person is inferior because they actually comprehend this is obvious nonsense, is why religion should be classed as a mental disorder. It leads to thinking the world is flat or 6000 years old or genocide is moral !!(see William Lane Craig explain this to Alex O'Conner on RUclips) That's just dangerous and leads to planes flying into buildings.
"The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary." - 1984
Almost as disturbing as Craigs beliefs, is the smug looks and literal smile he wears while describing the slaughter of innocent men, women and children...
I think he is sincere in suggesting if not admitting that he is one who would be, behave monstrously, have no restraints if not for religious commands/prohibitions.
@@suarezguy 💯💯💯
Alot of the people that were slaughtered were involved with human/child sacrifice, forcing women, men, and children to do horrible things. It's even crazier to consider them to be "innocent."
@@AaronSonyidude, the children absolutely were innocent. You can’t argue they’re not.
@@jordancave3089 how do you know that? How can we assume the children didn't participate in the evil acts?
I think the old man is not even listening to what he is saying, "they didn't have to die" they just had to leave all of their families and belongings and lands and flee because there are some murderers commanded by a fake "god" are coming to exterminate them. What the hell is this guy even thinking
lol, exactly
yeah, after 400 years of being there!? what the crap... whats the waiting about
atheist: "Why did God kill the raping, pedophilic, beastiality practicing, human torturing, human sacrificing, violent community after 400 years, they were good people God is such a meanie"...also atheist, "i believe in the death penalty, if kills someone"
plus, it's all good and moral because the (imaginary) arbiter of goodness and morality commands it.
This is undefendable BS and grotesque as others have pointed out and it drives me mad that Alex isn't as obviously disgusted at this explanation as I am. Some seemingly just have clearer heads.
@@QuintarFarenor I'm sure Alex is disgusted. He has to remain professional.
Good grief, Craig’s defense of divine genocide is as convoluted as it is grotesque.
But God is good so good is whatever God says. I hope the people defending wlc are bots or trolls but i doubt it. Just a bunch of monsters.
@@GameTimeWhy I asked a close member of my family if they.would have done what Abraham nearly did. To his son and they could not give me an answer... So yeah, probably real people
It’s convoluted and grotesque, because you demanded a logical explanation of something alogical by Nature, if you can’t transcend your egoistic urge to demand a logical explanation, you’ll criticize naive theists forever, accept that Unconditional Love, the stuff of Being, and WHO “God” IS, transcends petty “logic”
I will turn my other cheek, and allow you to reincarnate as an atheist as many times as you want, because I love you, but if you get bored of that, I Am Who I Am
@@jacksonelmore6227 Blah blah blah. Mystical word salad to relativize genocide. Won't deceive anyone with more than 2 neurons, mate.
@@GameTimeWhywhat is even a monster? God ends the lives of children every day. Ultimately it boils down to good and evil
And thus the root of all religious evil in the world - just convince yourself that God has commanded you to slaughter your perceived enemies and you’re good to go. Craig’s moral theory is truly monstrous.
Oh, but objective morality!!! How can society function if we don't have the Christian God being the foundation of an objective morality!?
The objectively moral God: "Murder the children of these folks, plz".
The memes make themselves.
Just as Allah commanded the Hamas!
That's if you don't believe God exist
@@daily-chargebut even if you do, there’s no way to tell who’s acting on God’s command and who’s just pretending. In a world where divine command theory is universally accepted, there’s no way around this problem. Justice systems would completely fail.
There hasnt ever been a religious genocide that Craig didnt just fully justify.
"One of the reasons discussions like these seem so difficult for Alex is that he views himself only as flesh and blood, confined to this material existence. But as humans, we are so much more-we are spiritual beings with a higher purpose. Our ultimate goal isn’t to remain tied to this world but to return to the home where we truly belong. Until we recognize the full nature of our being, we miss the bigger picture of life, morality, and faith."
As someone who grew up within the Christian faith and was surrounded by people who both sounded like and espoused similar beliefs to William Lane Craig there is something unmistakable about his intonation and tone when he speaks. It's not so much the voice as it is the forced sincerity and kindness. It comes across as so incredibly smarmy and difficult to listen to. It makes my skin crawl, especially in the mismatch between the 'kindness' of the inflection and the 'brutality' of the acts he attempts to defend within the Old Testament.
Anyways, thanks for the great interview Alex. I always appreciate your work.
Absolutely unconvinced of his sincerity
I feel the same, they all act similar and when yo have a lifetime of people like them telling you how sinful you are and how beatiful its gonna be when jesus come back to destroy the world and sent everyone to hell, yes, your skin tends to react.
'hate the sin love the sinner' kinda vibes
@@wataehebro1543 Uhm.. I don't think you understand Christian theology? Maybe consult an AI to clear those misconceptions
That's interesting. As someone who grew up around atheists, and as one, I don't hear smarmy.
Jews didn't have to be deported to the camps, it was only those who chose to stay behind and not to flee. To be an apologist and be able to live with himself. He lost me several times but completely at divine command morality, an oxymoron. Dawkins should not debate this guy, he is deluded and IMO dangerous.
You’re retarded. The command from hitler was to take up Jews and throw them in camps and kill them. The Nazi’s didn’t say “only kill the Jews who stay” the Nazi’s said “kill all the Jews”. You’re trying too hard and failing
🤦🏼♂️ I mean if you think child sacrifice is dope just say so. To me, the culture that would allow such horrific acts is far more dangerous than a person who thinks that an attempt to end said acts is justified. But hey, call me deluded too, I guess.
@@michaelhenton159in your worldview, what happened to the children whose parents would’ve had them sacrificed but were interrupted by the Israelites invading?
@@Sebanovic5 is there a discernible point to your question? I’m not seeing one.
@@Sebanovic5 God always granted the children heaven. Even when they were being sacrificed. The fact that the children are dying is not inherently the issue, the issue is that mere humans are killing the children. And when humans kill they do not confer good, they only confer suffering, it is god alone who confers good to the child. That is why humans cannot kill children but god is justified in permitting it. Because god confers an infinite good and saves then from future suffering, while the human simply confers suffering onto the child
There are a couple of things I would have liked Craig to be pushed harder on:
- He talks about the epistemic burden, and how one can know that God is in fact giving a divine command. I'm curious what it would take to get Craig to believe that God was giving him a command; would a vision be sufficient, or would he require a higher bar of evidence? What kind of evidence would be required to get him to kill innocent children? On a related note, could the Israelites have been mistaken about whether or not God really commanded them to drive out the Canaanites? Even if they were not mistaken and God truly did command the slaughter, were they justified in committing it on the basis of the evidence that they had?
- Craig claims towards the end that God is restricted by his just and loving nature; he says there are commands that God could not make because they would be contrary to that nature. However, if God is the standard of love and justice, then anything he does is by definition loving and just. Additionally, if killing kids does not contradict God's 'loving and moral nature', then I struggle to thing of what action would.
That's my point. How do we confirm a divine commandment? I mean he believes old book written by men is divine and based on that. One dude just needs to say God told him
Excellent comment
To your first point: yes, many Christians take a reading of the Bible that sees the Isrealites as wrestling with their understanding of God. It seems clear to most Christians that God would not command such a thing today. It seems clear that this is in direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus for example, to love your enemy.
To the second point: that's the exact point it falls apart, right? Craig is holding on so tightly to the part of his brain that recognizes the extreme immorality of the version of God he believes in. By who's standard does he insist that certain things would never be commanded by God? He is putting limits on God that God seems to be okay with removing from time to time. The very God that doesn't want sacrifice demanded it. The very same God that demanded mercy and forgiveness demands violence and slaughter.
And this view of God is consistent with human nature. There's an irony when you insist that God's nature is more loving and more forgiving and more reconcilitory than our own, people will tell you that is a God of our own making.
Craig's sociopathic abstraction, er 'god' needed a child sacrifice, but not just any child, but "god's child" which is really an avatar of itself... hence this jeezuz idea...that loves billy !! And now Bill ritualistically, but symbolically !! eats this avatar's body and drinks his blood.
Jeffrey Dahmer sounds almost sane compared to WLC's religion.
Regarding your second point, WLG is basically arguing that the end justifies the means. The killing of innocent children is justified because it's a blessing to them as they all go to heaven.
In his mind, this nullifies the cruelty of the action, enabling him to say "see? They all go to a far better place, therefore God's command was consistent with his good and loving nature".
Dr. Craig killed this debate once again 💯
Just finished Craig's section ending at 32:00, and he sounds like an absolute psychopath to me. As long as "god" commands it, it's moral. Literally don't think for yourself, just accept it. Completely insane.
Edit: Holy shit. Not even 10 minutes later, and it actually got so much worse. 😳
Edit 2: I do not recommend reading the replies to my comment. They are unnecessarily confusing thanks to one seeming defender of theistic morality.
Replace God in any of these defences WLC gives with Hitler and it becomes obvious how dumb they are
I did the exact same thing. I felt the need to stop and comment right around mid way through the video, but then realized that I had made a mistake. It gets much worse.
Poor brave soldiers
Sam Harris called WLC out during their debate on the Divine Command theory. No matter what... If his god commands it, it's moral.
Same!
Divine Command Theory, the loophole for Craig to avoid being called a Moral Relativist. So all evil is justified as long as the god of the Bible commanded it. Good job Craig, you’ve proven Dawkins point about you.
What standard of evil are you talking about, last I checked atheists don't believe in objective morality.
Yes, and Alex has exposed WLC with polite questioning, just as WLC thought Alex did with Dawkins.
Let me start by say I feel I agree more with Alex than Craig. Just admit you don’t know Craig. But should have pointed out that there is no rule that is unqualified. Alex is asking a very easy question, is it always wrong to kill a child? You can abstract this to “it is wrong to do X” I feel it is abhorrent. I cannot envisage any circumstance where this is moral therefore your doing X is immoral. Taking the example of the child, I can think of a circumstance. What if that child were to carry an infections disease like Ebola - a Typhoid Mary-like carrier - meaning the disease doesn’t kill the child. In that case you would kill the child to save thousands. Then admit that we BELIEVED there is a reason but we don’t know it.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s definitely appealing to a highly speculative and convenient technicality to avoid not just being called but actually being a moral relativist.
@alanpearly What the f is wrong with you? Of course, you wouldn't kill the child! You could isolate it and try to cure the disease, but jumping straight to murder is frankly abhorrent. Killing children is wrong, plain and simple, and if your first thought is to somehow justify the murder or try to find an example that does it, something is not right with you.
The thumbnail with him smiling next to the word “slaughter” is killing me 😂
Alex has so many humorous thoughts that he does 😂
You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter".
Lovely touch wasn’t it
You are easily amused.
@@Jollyswagman7 you don’t think that’s cute?
I just found Alex’s channel through his discussion with Jordan Peterson. I am impressed by this young man’s approach. I am a Christian and I fully respect his commitment to reason even if we disagree with the conclusions
The insistence on divine command, when we have never ever observed one, is so astounding to me. William, there are NO DIVINE COMMANDS HAPPENING.
How do you know? Do you know what a divine command looks or sounds like? If God is real, He is capable of speaking to His creations. What form would that appear in? Presumably you have some preconceived notion of how God would speak to us, how He should behave, and the kind of things He is “allowed” to command of us; why does it have to be that way? Why are you the arbiter of how a Supreme Being should be? God could be completely evil, it would not change the fact of His existence. The fact of the matter is, if God exists, and you don’t like God, YOU’RE the one in the wrong. What you’re doing is like a video game character getting mad at its developer; what right do you have to question _anything_ God does? You (and I, and everyone) are dust, using God’s very breath to blaspheme Him. Do you not see the problem with that?
@@waido_while reading your comment god spoke to me. He said I have to pass you a message. He said you must never comment on you tube ever again. Bless you 🙏🏽
I just received a second revelation from God, praised be His name.
He said that I should start a new covenant to improve the covenant started with the prophet @matthewbazeley2984 . The new covenant says that @waido_ should not use the internet as a whole and should just stay home playing LEGO.
May His will be done!
@@matthewbazeley2984
I've also received a revelation from God, praised be His name.
He said that I should start a new covenant to improve the covenant started with the prophet Matthew.
The new covenant says that waido_ should not use the internet as a whole and should just stay home playing LEGO.
May His will be done!
@@waido_I see no problem with it. This “dust” is morally superior to this God.
Is it me, or did WLC do exactly what Dawkins said he would?
He did everything Dawkins said he would. Wait a minute, is Dawkins a prophet? 😅
@@Vhlathanoshat this point, I'm convinced
Because that was always his opinion. This was not a secret.
@@Vhlathanosh all hail the selfish gene!
For me, its merely reinforced that WCL is a dreadful man.. God Deluded
Alex pointed out in the debate with Shapiro that believing that God grounds your morality could be bad if you believe evil things, as there would be no way for someone to change your mind. This is the great example of that.
But it's ok to do the evil things because God commanded them and thus they are not evil.
@@malirk Moral relativism with extra steps.
Exactly. Many theists speak like grounding morality is a good thing, when I think it's a terrible thing that prevents us from changing our attitude when we learn how an action may be harmful.
@@OmniversalInsect It could be a good thing if we actually had a source of reliable moral authority. The problem in religion is that they have rules created by humans that they believe come from a god that is good and moral.
@@OmniversalInsect So morality is spontaneous and irreducibly fluid? Every moral standard is grounded. Where it is grounded is the essence of this debate. To say that grounding morals is a bad thing is to admit you don’t understand moral philosophy.
Oh. My. Non-Existent. God. Craig is a monster. I didn't realise his bar was THAT low. This was a very upsetting interview.
In the non-existent God's world, there are no monsters. It's only natural law of the survival of the fittest... 🤔
subjective emotional comment.
@@YouNoob573 So, we are to react _unemotionally_ to ethnic cleansing sanctioned by God?
Including the killing of children?
I don't know if Alex is aware, but what he has achieved here is masterclass.
Masterclass in showing how inconsistent Alex’s views are
@@lovespeaks777 Not really. Maybe the conversation is too complex for you to understand. It can happen
He didn't achieve anything 😂 the only thing he achieved is place in hell 😂
If my family and I were being slaughtered by marauding zealots, the last thing on my mind would be whether or not their morality was internally consistent.
Also, gotta hand it to Craig, he doesn't run away from the Euthyphro dillema. He grabs the bull by the horns and impales himself on the worse of the two options.
The last thing on my mind would also be whether or not they were divinely commanded to do so. I mean, who actually thinks they were ever going to think "this is probably divinely commanded, so we better flee in peace and give up our homes". Craig's retort that "no one had to die" is so blatantly ridiculous, it's disingenuous.
@@Jockitoand yet we have fairly modern examples of this exact thinking playing out today. Canadian residential schools, 60s scoop...
@@Jockito I mean, if you commit a crime that you think you didn't commit, when you are standing in court in defense of yourself, the last thing you are concerned about is to understand whether or not the court is just in condemning you. That's why you need a lawyer. We are not and aren't meant to be the final moral agent capable of discerning those things at all times.
@@marukchozt6744 I'm not saying the Canaanites should have been the final moral agents to discern what was just. Rather, the issue is that there was no epistemic way for them to verify that the Israelites were in fact commanded by God. Craig himself said that one would have to have an incredibly high level of justification for this. So the Canaanites were acting rationally to defend themselves. There was no other reasonable thing to assume, other than they were being attacked. Which again, is why the notion that the whole ordeal didn't have to be violent is just disingenuous.
@@Jockito Heh? You said they shouldn't be the final moral agent to know those things and yet you proceed to say they need to be able to verify it? And yeah, their defense of themselves was rational
Alex: let me step aside for a second...
Craig: excellent. now let me impale myself.
As a Christian and someone who admires Dr. Craig, I'm really hoping the "if anyone was wronged it was the soldiers who had to kill innocent women and children" part was just a severe miscommunication because oh my goodness is that a hard listen. Alex continues to prove himself as one of the best interviewers in emerging media.
Was the part where he said “It’s okay that the children were slaughtered because they went to heaven” a miscommunication too?
@@StJimmy765sigh, cheap shots when someone is willing to point out an issue in an hour long interview does not help the conversation.
@@davidjohnson5635
“Anytime someone points out Christian apologists saying something monstrous, it’s a cheap shot”
@@StJimmy765 ahm, nope not what I said. I said that this person stated that they were a Christian, were clear about their background, and expressed that they were disturbed by a specific part of the interaction. It’s a cheap shot to then turn around and hijack their comment by saying that they didn’t condemn another equally bad part. A 50 word comment can say only so much about an hour long video. That’s why I called it a cheap shot to try and make someone feel even worse because of the words of another. I hope you have a good day, cheers.
This is not a miscommunication. It is something that he has said, often times, before.
And, from my perspective as an atheist who does not admire him at all, this is exemplary of his methodology.
"I think you eviscerated his position in that interview. But you did it so sweetly and so gently that I don't think he had any idea of what actually went on"
an ominous premonition
Spoiler alert
One could say, "holy irony"
Jesus Christ this is accurate
Oh the irony 😄
Fr I was screaming at the top of my lungs. This was the toughest one to watch of this man's Psychotic rent.
You had me at "The real victims were the Israeli Soldiers carrying out the slaughter."
3000 years later and this argument is still being used to justify genocide
Reminds me of Himmler's Posen speech made in 1944.
And yet Craig concluded that even they weren't ultimately wronged either. So no one was wronged - just winners all round.
😂😅
seems defending israeli atrocities has a long long history
The duty of the apologist is not to seek the truth but rather to defend his preconceived notions using any mental gymnastics necessary
Atheists love thinking of themselves as the "intellectuals" when they're the first to believe nonsense. Is "mental gymnastics" just supposed to mean "thought"? I'd understand why atheists aren't used to it.
Get off yr atheistic horse
Totally agree
@@evanskip1 lost Muchachos
as Mr Deity coined it , excusigist. make any excuse to make good look better than an evil monster character in the bible.
Thought this was by far Alex’s best interview with Dr William Lane Craig
It sends shivers down my spine hearing this man talk about the killing of innocent children being morally justified if it has been commanded by god. This man is insane.
This is not really a discussion about Israeli armies and dying children… it is a discussion about worldviews and the grounding of ethics and morality… most comments here are laden with emotion about the atrocity of the Israeli actions and how appalling Craig is for defending them - but that emotion comes from our moral intuitions (which I share) which under Alex/Dawkin’s worldview has no objective underpinning… to put it another way, under atheism is there any reason why the killing of innocent children is truly wrong - other than ‘it just feels wrong’?
And so, we come back to a war of two world views…
1 - under atheism, we have a sense of appall at the biblical story (and at a God who would command such a thing) and at Craig for defending it… but, with no objective basis for that emotional reaction… (indeed, some terrible dictator might argue that the indiscriminate killing of innocent children is a good thing - and under atheism we’d have no objective way to prove him wrong)
2 - while under theism we have the very paradigm of goodness and justice (God) commanding an act which ultimately serves his own good purposes but which to our moral instincts seems reprehensible… what on earth might these good purposes be?.. well, according to the biblical narrative, God ordered the exile/destruction of the Canaanites to execute judgement on a wicked people group and to advance the cause of his chosen people through whom he will ultimately bring about redemption of the earth - in the death and resurrection of Jesus… does this seem unjust?.. Yes!!.. But remember - under Craig’s worldview this action is just as reprehensible and unjust, should it be mandated by any one of us… but this action against the Canaanites was not mandated by one of us… it was ordered by God - who in his unique role as creator and judge of all people is the only one who is perfectly justified in giving such an order, as long as it is consistent with his character. And it seems that it is: in his role as just judge, he brings judgment against the Canaanites for their wickedness… while, out of his love God ensures that the innocent who suffer and die in the process, go on to enjoy an eternity in perfect peace and fulfilment
And so, as always, whichever worldview you come to this debate with, entirely determines on what side of the fence you will land
@@davidblack1353no, not at all. There's more than a philosophical discussion of worldviews, which is why Alex says many times that even though he can't point to a contradiction there are many intuitions that are undermined by Craig's model. You don't need to be an atheist or a theist a priori, since there are many theists who wouldn't agree to divine command theory too
@@davidblack1353Very well put. It's ironic that the listeners of this channel might otherwise pretend to be rational but resort to emotion the moment their intuitions fail against a more consistent theory. That's what seperates Alex as despite that he tries to present reasonable arguments even if he based them on reliability of intuitions.
What bothers me so much is how he just goes back to these like nothing burger sentencences like "you see morality is imposed by a moral imperative to help be moral, so because od the moral imperative and the genocide of canannitez" like BRO WHAT
the idea goes -> if there is an all just god, i wouldn’t mind being killed to be with him to be saved from the evil around me. however, the problem is that this turns the whole argument backwards where you are proving these morals with god’s existence instead of indirectly supporting god’s existence via his goodness through his own written morals
Masterfully done, Alex. He said everything we needed to hear. I'm horrified.
What is interesting is how WLCraig simultaneously defends the notion of a holocaust directed at the Canaanites while saying he is certain that the holocaust Hitler did was wrong.
@@rizdekd3912exactly. What if god told hitler and the Nazis it was right but told them not to tell anyone. Craig’s logic demands that possibility be considered
@@ballisticfish1212 It is interesting how often the holocaust is thrown out as a 'well if there is no objective morality then who's to say the holocaust is wrong?' But...as we see they can't answer who IS to say it was wrong...certainly not someone referring to the Bible for their basis of morality. They call it mass murder...but in another context (a context BTW that I don't agree with) it was mass execution of enemies of the state...that is how Hitler saw them. And there seems to be no moral repugnance for executions...at least from the Abrahamic religions/God. So it's down to subjective basis for saying the executions Hitler oversaw were wrong while other mass executions are right.
@@ballisticfish1212Horrified of what? Do you believe morality is objective? If morality is subjective, God can’t be immoral
@@lovespeaks777 can’t even tell if you’re actually responding to me.
Alex is playing chess with these interviews. I look forward to more!
I love how he "steel mans" his opponents so he can fully understand their position before deconstructing it.
@@bryanburbank7855 did... did you just invent a new term??
@@OhManTFE What term?
@@OhManTFEIf you're talking about their use of steelman, that is not new. It's the opposite of strawman. Steelmanning, I'll call it, is presenting your opponents argument in its strongest form.
@@OhManTFE Steel man is a pretty common debate term now. It's the opposite of straw-manning.
I’m always encouraged by rational, polite, and mutually respectful conversations, regardless of stance and beliefs.
It's shocking what religion does to people's minds. Thanks Alex for showing this to everyone.
Just imagine if WLC was raised in the Manson family.
Alex is smartly subtle. He invites Craig on and lets him hoist himself with his own petard.
We are all religous. That is, we all worship something. Even those who think they don't worship, they worship their own thinking. What Christianity brings is a foundation for proper object of worship. And, morality must be based on something other than our thinking. A fluid flexible morality brings on the worst of humanity. What is the basis of your moral judgments?
@@randyrobinson2609all morality is subjective. Everyone makes a subjective decision about what to put at the top of the decision-making pyramid. Merely saying you put God at the top of the pyramid doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't solve the problem! It just kicks the can further down the road.
You can call it biblical morality or you can think that you're basing your morality on the ten commandments or some such, but you're not really doing that. You're taking the Bible as a starting point and then (hopefully) using reason and logic to assess whether or not these biblical rules make sense, and then making your moral decisions based on your own interpretations of the biblical rules.
PS of course morality should be flexible! That's the entire point of famous books like the Scarlet Letter, the Crucible, and Les Mis.
@@randyrobinson2609I am not religious in any widely agreed sense of the word
Craigs argument about the Israelite soldiers suffering the most reminded me of how the Einsatzgruppen suffered mental trauma from killing so many Jews. Totally sick to make the claim that these kinds of people were the real victims
I don't know what that group was, but that would give me PTSD.
@danielfincher8439 nazis who were originally tasked with elimination of all the Jews
@@danielfincher8439 They were Nazi death squads
Didnt you listen? The Caanites were abhorent people, victims of something they brought onto themselves.
very apt analogy
38:18 "It was actually a tremendous blessing to these children for them to be killed..."
"Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself." (Napoleon)
I disagree with DCT but you are clearly not able to comprehend it. God would have gave the children an infinite good and saved them from falling. In what sense is that not a blessing? This does not say that people can kill children because they will go to heaven. A person killing a child does not confer good to the child. God is the one who confers the good, he gives you infinity in return for finite suffering. All the person does is confer bad, the person gives suffering and gives no good
@@Shehatescash
Naturally I understand that what you write is the justification. If, however, the Abrahamic god is nothing but a fairy tale, and there is no justification to believe otherwise, then the act caused by such a belief is not a "blessing" for the killed children.
What if a person attacks and murders innocents then claims that God told him to do it, does it become justified? Because that is exactly the case with the Caananites: the Israelites commited war crimes against innocents, then wrote in their books that God told them to do it. You cant prove that God didnt tell them to do it, just like you cant prove that he did@Shehatescash
@@Soonzuh First I wanna say try not to lump “abrahamic gods” into 1. But it looks like we both agree that IF god does exist, then he’s justified in permitting the death of a child, and so this “biblical slaughter” does nothing to undermine the goodness of The Christian god if he exist. Now it looks like there’s just a question of whether or not he does exist, which isn’t the topic here. Alex and Craig have argued that before tho and I do believe there is reason to think he exist. I do want to point out that if god doesn’t exist, then that means god didn’t even command the Jews to slaughter cannan, and so the “biblical slaughter command” objection wouldn’t even work. That’s why when raising the slaughter objection you have to presuppose god exist and then argue that this part of the Bible contradicts what the rest Bible says about god. This slaughter objection is like an argument from within Christian belief
The level of delusion is just unbelievable
Thank you @CosmicSkeptic for all that you are doing. I am a passionate follower of Christ, and I truly appreciate your arguments. I appreciate your willingness to have conversations with individuals from the other side. Not to play a "gotcha," but to understand the argument. You are awesome and I look forward to seeing more of your interviews in the future.
Absolute Madman. He should listen to himself once in a while. Sitting there and saying killing innocent children is ok if god demands it. Feels like listening to the logic of suicide bombers. Smh.
Is genocide wrong? Why?
I thought Craig's explanation was unsatisfactory. There may not be an explanation that can be justified. But I keep coming back to if there is no God there is no right or wrong. And I want people that are atheists to think that through and then own the fact that none of this even matters.
@@ericbilderback7676 Listen to yourself. If the only right/wrong is what a god says, then it's not morality at all. It's just kissing the ass of the biggest bully. And of course things matter. They matter to *US.*
@@ericbilderback7676
That is ridiculously nonsensical to me. If there is no god, then good and bad is up for discussion. Funny enough, this is exactly what we have always done, even while having these religious "guidelines" (that everyone tends to interpret slightly different). Killing is not evil because the bible says so, but because it makes sense. In every culture, in every religion.
Just because we are able to justify cruel deeds that do not align with our moral beliefs (a triple hooray for cognitive dissonance), does not mean that there was any divine command to do so.
If the Canaanites really were slaughtered and forced out of their land, then that is literal genocide and the bible is just whitewashing their history.
If you make a video game, you’re allowed to remove any character you want, at any time, for any reason-even and especially if those “characters” are using _your life force_ to exist in the first place.
@@waido_ If humans are just pawns in God's game, why would we respect him? I'd fear a being that is willing to "remove me" just because it has the power to do so, of course, but I'd not respect him, much less adore him.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. Go ahead and defend genocide and the mass murder of children because it's your God doing it, but you don't get to then turn around and say "Isn't he a perfectly good and lovely God?? We should adore him!". If that sort of God existed, I'd despise him.
25:00 The ol' "They didn't have to die, they could have just left their homes and belongings to the marauders, and march thousands of miles to the next country".... as if that isn't a death sentence, especially thousands of years ago.... This moral argument is really something else
Isn't that an Israeli talking point for what is happening in Gaza?
So... by this "logic"... no one in Ukraine has to be killed or injured, "if they would simply retreat" and give Ukraine to Putin... what kind of an argument is that? Is the speaker serious? Does he even understand what he's saying?
Also, Craig contradicts the Bible here. It is described that Canaanites must be completely destroyed, including womans, children and old men. Cities must be burned, altars destroyed, and Jews are meant to dominate promised land in such a brutal way. Actually, Craig could have been perfectly slapped by Alex by bringing those citations from the Bible, although I'm 💯 sure Craig would still find some way to twist that around too.
@@avan432did you watch the video? He does bring up those points
@@theinvestingpalace4710 I watched the video, but I suppose you misread or misunderstood me. Alex didn't bring exact citations from Bible that would contradicts Craig's softening on Godly command about Canaanites. It would be so fun to watch Craig trying to massage Bible words to get what he wants them to mean. And also would be way more apparent from that what a lying fraud Craig is.
There's some extreme meme value with the title of this video in conjunction with the large smile on this guy's face in the thumbnail. Alex really knows his audience lmfao
exactly i don't even think half of the people in the comment even watched the video bruh like it has been only 1 hour
Yes, he has to be careful if he wants to maintain respect and continue to attract interesting thinkers. He doesn't want seem cynical and tabloidy
Which is a disgusting practice.
Instead of a nuanced title, it was basically fishing for controversy, hate and anti intellectualism on people.
@@danw5760 Which is a disgusting practice.
Instead of a nuanced title, it was basically fishing for controversy, hate and anti intellectualism on people.
@@Nature_ConsciousnessI think the title is quiet accurate.
45:00 ... literally... If Germany had won and Hitler said, "God told us to wipe out the Jews." WLC would be, at this point of the video, talking about how terrible the PTSD would be for those German soldiers who had to do all the k1lling...
I have no words...
“Yeah, if you just ethically cleanse yourself, no need to genocide you.” Bill Craig 2024
I guess it's not just the epistemic bar that's being lowered, huh?
Is genocide wrong according to your world view?
Did God personally tell the Canaanites that the land now belongs to the Israelites? Or are they just to take the Israelites' word for it that he said so?
This is something I wished Alex spent more time on. Near the end Alex asked if they were justified in defending themselves. And Craig said ultimately they weren't because they were going against what God wanted. But if God never commanded them to leave, there was no way of them knowing what they were supposed to do except as you say, to take the Israelites word for it - except the problem with that is that Craig also said that one needs to have an *incredibly* high level of epistemic justification for God's commands. So really, there wasn't much hope for those little Canaanite babies was there.
It would be God's way to do such a thing and there are precendents for the same. When the kingdom of Judah was to be punished through Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah was sent to them to tell them to acquiesce and let Nebuchadnezzar's army into the city after which he would move them en masse to Babylon. The price of resisting was mass death.
Likewise, Jonah was sent to the city of Nineveh to tell them to reform their wickedness or they would be punished. They acquiesced and God's wrath was averted.
@@andrewdaly21 Don't you see a problem with having to trust a third party's word for it that they were sent from God? This is just not epistemically justifiable. Craig himself said that it would be basically impossible to justify whether one has been divinely commanded.
On that note, how do the Jews know God wanted this? They just take Joshua's word for it?
@@iamalmostanonymous Yeah. One guy hears a voice and everyone just goes along with it.
Best evidence I've ever seen for the quote "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
The standard this sets is that anyone with conviction of their God should feel entitled to do whatever they want. The implication of this is far worse than any atheistic moral framework ever could be.
I had the exact same thought. Even more chilling for me is that the only requirement WLC placed on Divine Command is that it be "consistent".
Interesting that he wouldn't get into the epistemological argument. Because saying "how can one tell?" Seems to be yet another fundamental issue. After admitting that it's kosher for God to order the killing of children, he has to hide behind the "but you can't ever be justified in knowing you've been ordered!" so that he can avoid any responsibility for someone repeating that genocide today.
Dehumanizing a people to defend genocide, exactly what is happening with the palestine people in Gaza. Dehumanizing to get the land.....
Nicely executed interview Alex. I don’t know how you keep a strait face.
Ikr, I would absolutely lose my shit to WJC's asinine mouth farts
One of the very rare occasions when I can completely agree with Richard Dawkins. This man's views on the topic are absolutely egregious.
Where do you disagree with Richard I am curious I am yet to hear anything that I would genuinely disagree upon
@@LacayoDe He advocates something not much better than this "divine command theory" thing when it comes to the "trusting the elites/experts," most recently with the "pandemic measures."
@@ShankarSivarajan wtf are you even talking about. Listening to experts on science is not at all comparable to command theory
@@GoldenMechaTiger Could you explain why committing atrocities because "science said so" and doing so because "God said so" are so different as to be incomparable? Is it merely that you believe one, and think the other is mostly nonsense meant to control stupid people?
@@ShankarSivarajan Nobody is committing atrocities because science said so. Science simply provides you with the current best understanding of the issue. Like washing your hands is good to prevent getting sick. That is not an atrocity.
I just realized that William's argument is similar to an Islamic Jihadist. Anyone kind of see the similarities?
Jup. It's not only similar but it's the same rhetoric that religious fanatics are always utilising. It's dangerous and it's irrelevant which religion it exactly is based on.
Yeah I commented the same thing. If you watch old Bin Laden tapes he makes the exact same argument. All religious genocide or violence is justified by Craigs argument, unless you can prove that they really didnt speak to God...which you cant...
Its the exact same rhetoric. Disgusting.
I like what atheists unconsciously think they’re trying to do, but you’re comment just comes off as so surface level, you’re petty and in your ego
I immediately picked up on that vibe as well. Like a shiver down the ol’ spine.
I've already watched this, but it came back in my suggestions and I had to laugh at the thumbnail again. Perfect. 😂
Alex I love your interviews. As someone who used to be a conservative evangelical, your calm engagement with these issues is of immense value. One thing I’ve gathered in my study of apologetics and argumentation is that these arguments from Craig and others of the like are not for skeptics or those that need to be convinced. It seems that these arguments are given to those who are trying to maintain belief in an age of rampant biblical criticism. The apologist doesn’t have to convince the atheist or skeptic, they just have to make things at least plausible to other believers (or even themselves) and therefore it allows them to hold on to the other positive aspects of their belief. I think that’s why so many of these arguments seem like a lot of mental gymnastics.
Sam Harris summed up Craig's position on this sort of thing during their debate years ago: "According to Dr Craig’s Divine Command theory, God is not bound by moral duties; God doesn’t have to be good. Whatever he commands is good, so when he commands that the Israelites slaughter the Amalekites, that behavior becomes intrinsically good because he commanded it." Craig's position does not appear to have evolved whatsoever.
It can't. Apologetics is a dead discipline where all you do is look for new ways to say the same thing. That's what happens when you're forced to work backwards from a conclusion.
I saw that debate. As much as I dislike Craig, I was extremely disappointed in the performance of Sam Harris. The debate between WLC and Sean Carroll was far more satisfying, as Carroll mopped the floor with him.
@@TheRealShrikeyea harris was terrible in the debate. He barely attacked Craig's points
It's unfortunate because Sam Harris himself is a genocide supporter now, defending what Israel is doing to Palestine. Then again he also defended the Iraq war back in the day, saying all the damage done to innocents during that was simply collateral damage and it was inevitable.
@@TheRealShrike I'll check that debate out. Thanks!
Even my ADHD brain cannot keep up with the pinball level of mental springboarding being done here. The slaughter of children being painted as a blessing to them is a stomach-churning take in my opinion. I'm not sure I would be able to sleep at night if I held such a view.
Existence itself is mental springboard, yet you say “I cannot keep up”
You’ve kept up you’re whole life
Yet when faced with a grinning theist you say “I cannot keep up”
I thought atheists were supposed to be ahead of the curve
If you can’t make EVERY paradox harmonious, you aren’t based and redpilled yet
If you can’t entertain Craig, then you allow him to expose your intellectual ego
You’re valid, given your context, but you are lacking Self awareness, to rebut so reflexively and shallowly
I absolutely could be wrong because I know almost nothing about you but I’m /assuming/ (because I’m a fool) that you support the mass infanticide of pre-born indefensible humans? The irony here runs thicker than the nectar of Eden.
@@jacksonelmore6227I never said that I was unwilling to entertain him. It's not reasonably based to assume that the expression of an opinion from a subjective position is evidence of egotism or mental inflexibility. Furthermore, I did not see it prudent to compose support or rebuttal in its entirety via a RUclips comment.
@@FrostyK1414 subjectivity and ego are metaphysical fractals, yet you’d deny this
@@jacksonelmore6227you have foul spirits inside you for justifying the murder of children. Please get help.
I love the thumbnail and title combination
It strikes me as deeply dishonest for Bill to keep invoking the standard of “Who’s been wronged!?” when his standard for “wronging” is so ridiculously high that murder, mental trauma, and forcible eviction from one’s home do not necessarily qualify.
But the mental trauma of the soldier obeying the order does.
@@douglaswise6797Craig would say otherwise which makes it even worse. He was trying to figure out who was wrong and thought about that very point, bur ultimately concluded that even the soldier wasn't wronged in the end.
Even if every action was justified, causing trauma on your own people as you demand them to commit horrific acts seems like an easy place to draw the line.
@@Randomsaestrange that, when god vould have completely side stepped the issue by just snapping his fingers.
Instead it had to play out ezactly like it would if a nation was justifying its own attrocities... funny that.
He tends to use his knack for philosophy to create unfalsifiable positions.
remember,folks. next time you offend a christian, tell him you didn't technically wrong him. you merely wronged his god. i'm sure he'd be okay with the score being settled during judgment day, if it ever comes.
Craig’s view on Divine command is the reversal of Dostoyevsky’s “Without God, then everything is permitted” - which was already pointed by Žižek.
Kinda, Craig’s argument is “For God, everything is permitted”. So Craig can reason, therefore there is no inconsistency.
There is so much wrong with this.
@@Insomniac_86 I don't think it's inconsistent, I just pointed out that it's the opposite: by God's command, everything is permitted.
@@casaroli But ONLY if WE do it. Craig's logic is that morality comes from God and therefore God doesn't need to obey the same code. It's not consistent from our point of view, and it's irrelevant from God's point of view, therefor remains consistent.
To me, I believe humans naturalistic/secular morality is superior to God’s due to the fact that it has to remain consistent.
God on the other hand can change from black to white whenever he wants because God gets to decide what is good or bad, right or wrong at his own discretion with no justification, other than, I’m God, I can do what I want. (Oh and trust me, it's for the greater good, but you just can't see it because you're a silly little human.- God"
"it's been ... ahh, let's just see what people think about this one" is just gold.
Alex, thank you so much for this interview.
I'm a christian, but I dont think that takes me the pleasure of marvelling at your inteligence you have been given( I know you dont believe in a God, bear with me)
The way you articulated those questions, those thoughts, those counter arguments.. What an articulated and thinker bright mind you are.
You asked the right questions, and didn't spend spend time on unnecessary ones.
Kudos to Dr Craig for he is not afraid or constricted on talking about this. Clear and concise
The person on a street corner ranting and screaming irrationally about God is also unafraid and unconstricted. Craig just isn’t ranting and screaming.
The real question here is why are you still a Christian
Did he seriously said it was a blessing for the kids to be killed because they went immediately to heaven? Oh wow...
Wow. I don't know where WLC gets this stuff from. I may not be a bible scholar, but I thought there were prerequisites for getting into heaven. The Catholic church didn't think innocent babies went to heaven. That's why they invented Limbo.
He did specify "in my theology". In the scriptures themselves about the commanded genocide of the other canaanites, no where in that section does God say: "don't worry about the child murder, I'm taking those kids to my paradise."
I not certain if at the time of the writing of these stories the theology of humans going to paradise with god was a part of Judaism.
@@ghanson1717 If you don´t believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins, you do not believe in his resurrection you go to hell. Since infants can't make such a decision in Protestantism they go to hell. In the catholic church to Limbo. A strange sense of morality.
@@kyleepratt Read the book of Ecclesiastes chapter 9. The destiny of all humankind and animals is the grave.
@@filipeazevedo6165 wrong. bible talks about the "age of accountability" since the children are not accountable they go to heaven. there are passages in the bible this happening.
I am always facinated by your conversations with Craig, definitely my favourite episodes. Would love to hear you have a conversation with John Lennox
The funniest thing is that he keeps underlying the "just & loving nature" of Yahweh every time he talks about the divine ability to override our moral intuitions and slaughter innocent children. That's a pretty interesting way of interpreting love.
I had this thought too. Does he not hear himself?
It invites questions about how we can have a human perception of Heaven being pure good if the infallible divine dictator can freely perform acts we perceive as pure evil.
Yes, I think these types of arguments should really undermine Christian's unwavering belief that God has their best interests at heart. Let's just grant the Canaanites were utterly depraved and wicked. It is literally Christian doctrine, and I am relatively sure one that is accepted by Craig, that due to original sin we are ALL depraved and wicked, unworthy of any redemption or mercy from God.
If this depravity does indeed justify God in taking any action against us due to our wickedness and failure to live up to his standards of perfection, God is perfectly justified in lying to all Christians that they will have an eternal life in joy if they trust in Jesus, and then torturing them forever for being so arrogant and prideful as to believe they would be treated better just for those beliefs. Lying and torturing people is only immoral if people are unjustly harmed, and is it justice for all humans to suffer eternally, so it does not go against God just and loving nature to do so. Terrifying stuff that Craig's brain just blocks out because obviously God wouldn't do anything bad to HIM, it is the other horrible wicked people that God will righteously burn for eternity.
@@davegold
Maybe the problem doesn't lie with God per se, but with our own interpretation of reality?
If God exists and God is omniscient, then who are we to question his judgement?
Maybe we've become completely obssessed with power these days - the power to control our own destiny, the power to control each other in all sorts of tyrannical ways - the power to give life and to take it away?
Science can make us feel like gods at times, but it's an illusion, if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos & King Charles are gods, then we're obviously screwed for all eternity, aren't we? :)
Why would anyone want to live in a world that devalues their worth to the level of a mere commodity/lab rat?
Naw, it's us - not God, we're drunk on power, simple as that.
"People are crazy,
and times are strange,
i'm locked-in tight,
i'm outta range,
i used to care but...
things have changed!"
- Bob Dylan
This is the main reason why I watch these things.
I have read a book from a neurologist. He described patiens that had something happen in the brain that made them lose function on a limb. But the weird thing is...the person themself are not aware they lost function. If asked to use the limb they will create any adhoc reason not to comply. Keeping this internal belief perfectly reasonable.
This is what craig does. It is bizar to watch.
I must say aside from the subject matter what a beautiful exchange between you and Dr. Craig. The level of respectful discourse between you both is something very admirable. Thank you for this.
Again thank you Alex for bringing Craig in your show.. really appreciate you and learn a lot from you as well... All love from India.😊
In my 29 years on this earth I've never about-faced so quickly as after hearing William Lane Craig defend child murder. This man has logically defended evil and uses his theology as defense. I have so many objections it's difficult to even start to respond. I can count 4 off the top of my head; practical, authoritarian, tautological, moral.. If I met such a person that believes what he does, I would be hard pressed to not be disgusted. (Edit: You actually got him to bite the bullet on psychosis induced school shooting, I don't know how this man sleeps at night)
*In my 29 years on this earth I've never about-faced so quickly as after hearing William Lane Craig defend child murder.*
So what? Child murder has been defended all the time in living memory and even today in Modernity. There are cRiMeS and then there are crimes. You most likely have no problem the former, despite that in both latter and former cases, child murder takes place.
*This man has logically defended evil and uses his theology as defense.*
There's a lot of things you would probably defend that would contain in them what you consider to be evil. Be consistent.
*If I met such a person that believes what he does, I would be hard pressed to not be disgusted.*
Likewise.
@@thepalegalilean you just made a bunch of assumptions about me and I have no idea what you're talking about. Go argue with someone else online
@@xxdragnxx1
*you just made a bunch of assumptions about me and I have no idea what you're talking about. Go argue with someone else online*
That is correct. Unfortunately, I am forced to make assumptions about you like you have to do the same with me. That's exactly why I use terms like 'most likely' and 'would probably'. I'm aware you may very well disagree with the propositions above. But I did so because I'm trying to present you on a general basis. It's up to you to make these generalizations more catered to your actual positions, should you care to do so.
@@thepalegalilean If you felt like my first comment on this video was a personal attack on you or made assumptions about you, please just move to Canada.
@@xxdragnxx1
I didn't think that at all.
I'm imagining Alex calling Dawkings and saying: "And that's how you expose a lunatic. Did the job for you. You're welcomed".
😂😂😂
At the beginning WLC said "You destroyed Dawkins, without him noticing", Alex grinned quite visibly... now I ask, whether the case was, that he knew, he was going to do the very same thing again... right in this interview :D
Lol. 🤣🤣🤣
Alex didn’t have to do anything other than give Lane permission to score repeated own goals. Ouch!
Fafgsq@@simonpajger1331
In response Christopher Hichens would say, "“In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you'll need religion.”
Nah, mate. If a "good" person does wicked things in the name of religion, then they were always wicked
@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 just asking , would that also apply if person did good in the name of religion, are they now "good" ?
@@justadude189 People can do "good" things but they are not "good". No-one is good but God.
I believe the late, great C. Hitchens was quoting Weinberg there.
The apple thumbs up emoji at 43:33 while Craig is talking about god commanding slaughter was just too good
It made me laugh so hard 😭😭😭😭😭
Alex, you eviscerated Craig so sweetly that he didin't even know what happened.
Just like he did Richard Dawkins
@@itsnevertoolatetodotherigh3271
At least Dawkins isn't in favor of genocide.
@@unduloidyou actually believe in objective morality?
@@manny4012
Nope. Objective morality is an oxymoron.
@@unduloid so genocide isn’t immoral or moral?
Really impressed with Alex for keeping a straight face when he hears the whole well kids go to heaven argument
The pro life or pro abortion theories when you read between the lines. Take a pick...Bunch of hypocrites 😢
This guy philosophy makes me 🤢 VOMIT 😢 !!! Now... my cat was there, and israelites killed it... my dog escaped, then came back to eat the dead babies. Hey ! Lot a burials hard work for them ... poor israelites... overall, the whole thing is a bunch of LIES, Historically speaking ... Well.. it's a horrible bedtime story.
He flinches a bit if you look at him very closely in that moment
Is there a problem with that argument?
@@Jk-ow8ny for me it’s just easy to become insensitive, which leads to some contradictions in other issues. For example why should we care about people having abortions since we can assume they will go to heaven. Or why be upset when governments kill large groups of people like the holocaust. The logic can easily get abused
Craig’s final comments in the last couple of minutes were very helpful and worth hearing.
Nah
Our prisions are full of people who committed atrocities claiming they acted on divine commands...
Yeah but uhhh god, or at least not the correct god didn't actually tell them to. My source: trust me bro
“God doesn’t have the same moral constraints that we do, because he doesn’t have moral obligation to fulfill, he only has to act in consistency with his own nature” Chilling stuff from an all loving god
As a Christian I really disagree with his argument, in fact I find what he said to be blasphemous.
God does have the same perfect moral standard as us - from which we rebel and as a result Christ's atonement is necessary.
The argument he is making would make sense in modern rabbinic Judaism, it seems like he's an American Dispy.
It's actually kind of terrifying to be honest. This supreme being doesn't have the "same moral constraints we do". What does that even mean? Do God operate with a separate moral framework than what he gives us or what?
@@TryHard-tr8mn what if God is an asshole and you’re right? Soooo?
Nature is kind of an asshole
Evolution is a bitch
But guess what here we are making the best out of it
The point is I like all the Bible says you should just trust God it’s like saying we don’t believe in God, but trust the universe, trust law agent, and be a lover of your faith no matter what happens everything else like chasing the wind
@@TryHard-tr8mn
It means that the universe would already be a complete Hell for all sentient beings placed in it. Luckily there is no evidence this god even exists.
I doubt the illiterate rabbi yeshua he worships would agree or even understand this question. Nothing to worry about.
Thank you Alex for doing this.
What tribe would retreat and not fight for their land? Why are these people coming into our land? Your God said you could have it? That's not our God. Why doesn't this God speak to us? There is also evidence Canaanites are just those people who aren't us.
Richard Hawkins may be a brash and pointed person, but I agree with his assessment of Craig. He uses larger words to dress up the older Christian arguments. Basically, "God said so." Of course, Dawkins doesn't want to debate him. There's nothing new to debate about honestly.
There's nothing you CAN debate. You can say "how do we know God is good in the first place", but he'll just respond with "you can't KNOW that, but in the Christian framework He is". Ultimately WLC will appeal to a lot of unfounded faith based claims. There's no "debate" to that
This is so chilling to listen to. As he says it with a smile.
45:20 - No joke, smiling like a big psychopath
What’s more chilling is if you’re going to try and defend subjective morality
@@lovespeaks777
Another psycho here
I wonder what Craig would do if he is suddenly teleported into a Canaanite home just as an Israelite soldier, sword in hand, bursts into a room where three Canaanite children are sleeping peacefully. Would he really stand aside and tell the soldier, "Son, your doing God's work. Carry on."
Do you think the Allies were justified in killing hundreds of thousands of civilians by firebombing German and Japanese cities including women and children non-combatants in it?
"What a blessing you're bringing to this child!"
Saved him from being sacrificed to the gods.
he said they didn't have to die
The psycholigical toll exacted on the Israeli soliders is something to be concerned about... in a similar manner that H. Himmler & Co. were troubled by the negative effects upon the Einsatzgruppen in the course of their repeated murders of thousands of men, women & children in cold blood during WWII. Poor guys. Some became drunks over this.
Thoroughly enjoyed
If justified, objective, theistic morality can excuse genocide, then I’ll just stick with my unjustified, subjective morality which does not.
it's just to easy to excuse it on unjustified, subjective morality as it is on theistic morality. stop blowing smoke up your own ass
You and Dahmer, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin. List goes on. They all thought they were right too.
In reality, your subjective morality does permit genocide, as you make up the principles yourself and can change or disregard them at will. Thus if you wanted to commit genocide, you'd be able to.
Also, theistic morality doesn't permit genocide.
@@danfrische3801Did you watch the same video I did? This is quite literally an argument that genocide is permitted by theistic morality because of divine command
@@Dekrov808 First, will you accept that subjective morality permits genocide?
Second, the theistic morality of which I speak is Christianity, which does not permit genocide. "Love your enemy," "do good to those who persecute you," "no murderer has eternal life abiding in him," etc., etc., etc., etc.
In Judaism (the Old Testament), God made a specific command to the Jews to go and kill everyone in the Canaanite lands because they were doing evil things like raping everyone and sacrificing their children/people on altars.
Morally speaking, this is akin to the flood in that God has the right to destroy his creations, it's just more violent because people were the enactors and not water.
So you might protest against God for allowing genocides (the flood and the Canaanites), but that's a failure to recognize the distinction between the morality of men and of God. He created everything and has the right to take it back when it betrays him. You can shake your fist at that fact, fine.
But other than those specific instances in Judaism, in Christianity there is no command and can be no command from God that permits murder or genocide. Christ said "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." And basically everything he said was against murder.
A wonderful interview by Alex
I had thought the “Canaanite massacre” topic had been exhausted by this point but this was the most revealing segment into WLC’s thinking
What was most striking is how WLC wants to defend “if God commands, then it becomes moral” but has no system of epistemology to help decide if/when a command has been given.
It’s like saying a cop has full authority to stop me but I have no way to distinguish a cop from a normal person in real life.
He’s allowed to rationalize a system of divine commands but not utilize it in daily life.
Spot on - that was bothering me too. Alex proposed a thought experiment that exposed it, but I'd have liked him to press a bit harder honestly - seems like a really weak point to me.
Excellent point. I made a similar comment on this video because the epistemological problem of authenticating a message from a deity seems insurmountable. In both theory and practice there's no answer to this question.
As far as I can tell WLCs only constraint on divine commands is that they should be "consistent".
It's a great example of why Alex is such a brilliant interviewer. He's very courteous, always respectful to his guests, and never aggressive in his disagreements, so that WLC feels comfortable enough to talk about his views in full detail. Alex lets his listeners judge for themselves, and judge we will.
The epistemological grounding is divine revelation retard? Are you slow?
With a smile on his face, he effectively says "who is wronged by this genocide?"
Holy shit.
Those who _were_ wronged by the genocide are in his outgroup rather than his ingroup, so of course he doesn’t think of the victims as people
Did he actually say that, verbatim? I don't remember that but you have put speech marks over it, implying that you have quoted him directly.
@@emmanuelmannymojo2591 I think I quoted him accurately but I'd have to go back to make sure.
@@emmanuelmannymojo2591 the exact wording is "who has been wronged by this action". So I guess I'm paraphrasing a bit.
@@emmanuelmannymojo2591 you can open the transcript and do ctrl f and type: wronged
46:29
Thank you Alex! Brilliant channel for intellectuals. You give an opportunity to everyone to choose.
Cool!
Exceptional Moderating Alex! You extracted the details of the discussion and different perspectives efficiently and with grace and compassion to Craig and his views. It really allowed for the discussion and the depth of the logic behind all sides arguments to develop quickly and deeply. Extremely mature and professional of you.
I am truly amazed by your ability to have conversations like this and conducting yourself in such a composed manner. I would love to be more like that.
You can start now. Can you tell me how anything can be wrong from a non-biblical framework? What is the final reference point?
@@RedefineLivingthe final reference point is the impact it has on the well-being of others. If we find out that a certain method of dealing with the problems in society is flawed, the only wise conclusion is to find a pertinent method to resolve it. Doesn't mean any type of God needs to be involved.
@@Acceptablehandleaheada2.-_ No, that begs the question. The impact is independent from the right or wrong of the thing. You’ve only offered your opinion, making the final reference point yourself. Why not point to someone who disagrees with you?
@@RedefineLiving It's already clear the position of those who disagree with me, which is that God is the only arbiter of what counts as good and what doesn't. From my perspective, if God can ordain anything as right, why is it always dependent on the ways of the culture? You never see any worldly culture doing or saying things that you wouldn't expect them to under the divine doctrines which they espouse. And if these decisions come about from the edict of an all-knowing creator who supposedly can intervene in any way he wants, it's only sufficient than to conclude that this creator can be morally apprehensive if he chooses to.
I say this understanding your position clearly. Which is that the fall of man was essential to turn everyone into dog shit so that we would eventually be in need of a savior. (Pardon my layspeak, it's not the best in conveying point) But all that aside, how then can YOU be certain that I'm not justified in using my supposed free will to decide these things aren't divine, but rather human inventions?
To me, if one decides to worship a Good that they assume to be almighty and all-powerful, their trust should be based in knowing that divine authority figure has their best interest in mind. Now, if they are also capable of doing things out of ill intent) given they understand what wrong is) wouldn't they be just as predisposed to fucking things over?
I ask this because of the fact that being all knowing and all powerful doesn't immediately make one righteous, and to assume so is to relinquish one's own sense of innate skeptical prudence by deferring themselves as a sycophant over to someone who can decide to do whatever they want with them, which unfortunately just doesn't happen to be freedom.
You can come up with any world-based analogy you want in order to demonstrate the moral uprightness of it, yet somehow any world analogy the opposition happens to employ is flawed given they're "in a state of sin, and therefore all their analogies fall short of imperfect humans with the intent to speak the will of the Lord."
@@Acceptablehandleaheada2.-_ Thanks for the long emotional response that dodged my question, but I did not ask you to strawman my position as you did. How about you let me answer for my position and you answer for yours. No I asked you why you have not considered those who disagree with your ethical framework, and it was silly for you to suggest that only Christians disagree. Perhaps consider the nihilist and his philosophical justification, perhaps consent those that are in prison for justifying their actions by their own autonomous reasoning. Look bud, it’s like you guys have never thought this through…
Thanks for having WLC back on. I can see why Dawkins refuses to debate him.
Dawkins doesn't debate him because Dawkins is a coward, he is using this as an excuse and to appear better than him, Dawkins isn't secure enough in his own abilities as a debater, he has changed his reason for not wanting to debate Craig innumerable times and frequently the objection also applies to people he has debated.
@@Mr.Goodkat How can someone be a coward, to debate someone who finds justifying god killing children, and being something good? i think it's just a delusional point of view christians can't surpass.
@@Mr.Goodkat Coward isn't a fair word, he's debated him before. Maybe he doesn't feel like he can "win" a debate, fine, but the reason he gave may also be a valid one.
It's very difficult to debate someone that refuses to even acknowledge that their logic is flawed (yet somehow recognises it when others' logic is flawed).
@@joeygrace2464 That can be a delusional point of view just like you said and someone can still be cowardly in debating the person who believes it because of how he comes off in debates to the audience, the fact is Craig wouldn't be talking about the genocide, he'd be talking about the Kalam, fine-tuning, objective morality etc, and Dawkins would be in way over his head because Dawkins doesn't know much of anything about those things, he is more comfortable talking about evolution, religion's impact on the world and comparing it to science etc, Craig would be dragging him into discussions about cosmogony and philosophical arguments everywhere, Dawkins wouldn't know where to start.
@@sb_dunk He hasn't debated him before the thing in Mexico lasted about one minute, was part of a team rather than one on one and didn't involve them actually debating one another on God.
The reason he give is not a valid one because he is lying, the lack of honesty is what I take issue with, if he was a coward and admitted he was afraid of debating him due to feeling way out of his depth with a philosopher, ironically that would save face and he'd appear much more of a well put together individual, more trustworthy, instead his ego/pride made him BS everybody, himself included and he took the dishonourable path.
I think this is the strongest defense of Jihad by a Christian I've ever heard... Shocking
It is forbidden in jihad to kill innocent non combatants... So he is not defending jihad as jihad condemns such action
You have a remarkable ability to, rather than rebut or correct any point given by an apologist, simply ask a question, sit back and relax as they adequately demolish their own position. Bravo, as always. In this case, Craig confirmed everything Dawkins said about him with great precision.
I wonder whether Dawkins has seen the video already.
Perfect example of confirmation bias here.
What’s chilling about this is
probably most of the people criticizing Craig’s position would say nothing is objectively morally right or wrong. So when children are murdered and terrible things happen to them, the atheist has to say nothing wrong happened to them. But wait! You’re all saying wrong things happened in this instance! How is that possible when your world view says right and wrong don’t exist? Don’t you see how your accusations fall to the floor? Alex understands this.
@@lovespeaks777 This is tedious! The chilling thing is that you fail to see what has been answered over and over again! What is wrong with you people? Where is the mental blockage?
To reiterate: If absolute right and wrong doesn't exist it doesn't mean that right and wrong doesn't exist, it means that they are situation dependent! It means that it is debatable what is right or wrong! It means there can be different opinions on whether something is right or wrong!
Is that what you find chilling? That people can disagree with you?
I can reassure you that most people will agree with you regarding the killing of children! Atheists probably even more so than Christians like Craig, because most atheists would even object to killing children because of a divine command. If you are trying to put atheist morality into question, this is the wrong example!
Craig's point is that even killing children isn't absolutely wrong, there are situations where it can be right. The chilling thing is that it can be right for reasons that have nothing to do with the children, but with the society they had the misfortune to be born into, and whether there is a neighboring people who think they are entitled to their land.
Whether killing of children is right or wrong, and for what reasons, is obviously debatable, and that is precisely what we are doing here, what Alex and Craig did, and what people do again and again in societies since millennia! And it is a good thing that such topics are being debated! Only such debates can bring us forward, and help exposing and overcoming such misguided ideas like the "divine command theory".
William Lane Craig explaining the biblical rationale for future Palestinian genocide. “They could just leave!”
No logical connection whatsoever. (I am a Muslim, an Anti-Zionist)
@@moroccandeepweb5880 the same argument is used concerning the bombing of civilians in the Gaza strip, that they could “just move, just leave the area”, except the forceful expulsion of entire group is ALSO encompassed in the definition of genocide. Biblical verses like the slaughter of the canaanites have been invoked by Israeli officials as precedent as well.
That's not biblical that's just plain logic
Bibi literally talked about amelek in his speech during the beginning of the war, absolutely disgusting stuff.
Did you notice he also called the Israelis and not Israelites?
Surprised Craig still has teeth after biting all these bullets
LMAO
for real! In the span of *one hour* he admitted that both the arguments from design AND the arguments from morality for the existence of God are flawed, all to defend *ONE* passage of the Old Testament. Like holy shit, we will be out of arguments for God after a few chapters at this rate lmao.
@@sanstheblaster2626 in fairness, I call bullshit at Genesis 1:1
He has artificial teeth and probably an artificial brain too.
@@sanstheblaster2626I just don’t understand he could have said … maybe that part of the Bible was a metaphor and that’s it 😂he could have preserve his teeth