Graham Oppy was the unit coordinator for a couple of my philosophy units and he was always very charitable in giving high marks to students advocating a theist position, I held my own in those classes thanks mostly to Ed Feser and some help from Trent Horn. But Graham is just so smart and switched on, must be very daunting to go up against him
I've heard that name [Oppy] tossed around here on YT. I'm not familiar with him; might need to check him out. In any case, however, I can confidently state that WLC's work will not be remembered (say) two hundred years from now in the same way the works of atheist and non-atheist philosophers like: Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, David Hume, Compte, Aristotle, or even lightweights like Descartes. Further, his drivel will not be placed in books sitting in shelves next to some of the aforementioned thinkers/philosophers because he's a pseudo-intellectual/charlatan who mainly convinces his fellow Xtians.
@@PhuckYourExistence I disagree. WLC is a great theist philosopher. The cosmological and moral arguments are technically good arguments for God, and WLC's Kalam is fantastic, so if there is any honesty in philosophy, his theism will ultimately triumph. That's a big 'if', though, I know.
@@PhuckYourExistence Very rude.. all though I don't like Bills attitude all of the time. And this is also not the case for the vast majority of philosophers. Who cares.
I think the best public discussion with William Lane Craig, hands down, was with Shelly Kagan. Neither person took low blows, and the discussion afterward really showed where each speaker was coming from.
@@ferretzor Think of it like sacrificing your Queen for the win in a game of chess. God haters don't do that. When confronted with the piss poor arguments God haters make for their fantasy belief "atheism," once rebuked they don't sacrifice their Queen Richard Dawkins, they throw him under the bus. Two completely different strategies, or one strategy and the other is unconditional surrender. 1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the LORD of glory. Christ's sacrifice works, the God haters don't do anything, they don't even study science, not really, or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.
@@ferretzor You went in deciding you won the exchange, but because you're in the wrong, you didn't and I accept you almost had an aneurysm. You got out in the nick of time with "incoherent drivel."
I thank WLC for helping me a great deal on my journey as a Christian, which ultimately lead me to the Catholic Church. Good Christian apologetics of the nature described here is a catalyst for conversions to Catholicism.
i was a grad student at talbot in the philosophy program at the same time josh rasmussen was there. we were on a retreat one weekend and i was talking with him about an argument he co-authored for publication in a well known journal. i sat there listening to him thinking that i had no business sitting at the same table as that dude! he is indeed a super, super intelligent philosopher.
@@stanleystonehouse636 - accusations without evidence just make you sound like a jealous troll. Dr. Craig always offers plenty of evidence for his arguments.
G Will I was only able to catch twenty minutes or so live; I’ll have to pick up the rest when I can. I agree with your general feelings on the debate. However, Oppy IS extremely intelligent; I wouldn’t be too quick to judge him on this debate alone.
There are definitely people who are brilliant at giving an articulate lecture, but dreadful at debating. Two different skills. It’s a whole different ballgame when you’re on the hot seat and someone is firing away at you.
I'm surprised WLC didn't mention Mackie and his famous back and forth with Plantinga. It was good to see Oppy mentioned. He never gets the credit he deserves from the New Atheist movement.
The new atheist movement is made up of very flashy debaters in thst they have the owned style. But the real thinkers are almost always, in all movements, simply obwrlooked because they are not flashy enough.
Mackie did a terrible job criticizing the Kalam which is Craig's favourite argument. He's done good work in other areas but I wonder if that influenced Craig's impression of him.
Frieza Force unfortunately superficial leaders create superficial understandings in their followers... applying more modern day slavery to the servitude God called everyone of His followers to have is a typical superficial misconception many atheists have.
Frieza Force thank you for proving my point... Your first sentence sounds like a quote from Matt Dillahunty, not the Bible. Please show me where in the scriptures it encourages the beating of servants how you have been trained to make it sound like. The law you are trying to refer to states that if you beat a servant and he dies within a couple days of beating him, YOU DIE. That means even if he died from other causes, it’s still your head! Do you really think anyone in there right mind would gamble their own life just to beat their slave?? The other laws you are referring to was about keeping families together, not dividing them. You are literally regurgitating the exact superficial points atheists make in order to straw man the scriptures. If a slave was mistreated in ANY way, they had the right to escape from their master and take refuge and protection with the rest of society. A bruised face would become a release of their bondage. This servitude was instituted for the sake of the poor so they could have a place to live, eat, and survive.... unlike our society which either leaves them to die or gives them money and food for nothing. What is it about a mutual agreement of serving someone under a contracted amount of time that bothers you? Marriage is a contract to serve your spouse for a lifetime, should we dispose of that? How about military service? Should we dispose of that too? Do you have a job in which you need to serve your employer for a wage, does that bother you? If you are going to combat a debate I suggest you actually learn the source you are debating against for yourself and not rely on other atheists who purposefully try to misguide their listeners in order to make their points valid.
Frieza Force you realize the punishment it’s talking about is death, right? Those scriptures you quoted are pretty much saying if you kill your slave you shall be put to death and if you injure him you shall let him go from the contract.... what about that bothers you? Do you think those laws shouldn’t have been in place?
I think the best Craig debate with the most clash and class was the Millican v. Craig debate. Millican really pushed and lead Craig to give some more in depth material most other debaters do not demand.
No shot. Idk what you watched. Not being snarky but lol I thought it was a huge fail from millican. His time management wasn’t great, granted he states it was his first real public debate so understandable but he failed to address some arguments and when making the genetic fallacy he then tried to circumvent it by claiming he wasn’t committing the fallacy when he indeed was. Just because you preface it with “i’m not arguing the genetic fallacy” then go on to argue the fallacy it doesn’t mean you didn’t. lol
@@sttrategic Even if all that is granted - which I am more than willing to grant, Millican not getting caught up on all the details and still replying to what Craig was saying led Craig to go deeper into some of his arguments than he has had to go previously - which is a GOOD thing for the unbelieving audience to see there is much more depth to Craig's arguments - it is just that the extra depth has not been warranted by the weak responses of the previous opposition.
WL Craig mentioned the following: * Atheists: Graham Oppy (best according to Craig) Jordan Howard Sobel (Oppy is the torchbearer now that Sobel has passed away, or so Craig says) * Theists (Craig isn't aware of their debating skills, but intellectually they are on par with Oppy according to Craig): Alexander Pruss Joshua Rasmussen Robert Koons
To go into a debate you must obviously know what you believe but also know what your opponent believes and also what are their objections to what you believe and know how they will respond to what you will respond with.
Man, the wisdom and knowledge one finds in the comment section are unmatchable. Please, don't watch the videos, go straight to the comment section where ppl who could not make sense of Young Goodman Brown are going to inform about ANYTHING philosophy, theology, and science. Feast!
IKR the best RUclips videos to feast for knowledge are videos with a good amount of likes and dislikes, people ideas clash and I just pick the scraps of information they drop along the way lol
@@JoshuaTCoe Not much to "debate" when " I know who banged it" is your thermodynamic expression. Dr. Turek should stick to extended car warranties, magazine subscriptions or selling costume jewelry on QVC.
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson I never called anything real and implied or stated that it was simply because I called it so. And for the record, you don't have ANY empirical evidence that you won't be struck by lighting in the next five seconds, yet you believe by faith that you won't be. Welcome to the club friend. Let me ask you: can you point specifically and clearly to a logical fallacy WLC has articulated, or are you making empty assertions without the ability to substantiate them? 1000 to 1 says the latter. Lastly, my comment stands as well. You simply stated WLC believes in a fable with absolutely zero substantiation for this claim. So I stated this objective truth, with no feelings attached. "You're invoking feelings," another empty and unsubstantiated claim from Mr. Empirical Evidence. Regarding your comments on the doctorates WLC should have received; respectfully, with that dissertation, you have certainly earned yours in circumlocution.
@@JoshuaTCoeEngage California Conference 2015 -Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, California .....Another Frank Turek gem...."You won the sperm race"... I have done my research to support my conclusions about Dr. Turek...Critical Thinking is a relentless mistress...
It's interesting to see WL Craig having conversations with other Christian apologetics, this is not the first video I've seen lately. And - unlike on WL Craig's own channel - you may even write comments.
Florin Gabor it could be because RUclips finds them kid friendly or something so the comments are blocked or it’s because Christians are against mocking and cursing and comment sections especially comment sections involving religious debate and discussion are full of it so I guess that’s why they block comments or maybe your right idk
@@HolyRainbowism Not really most christian channels I see do not.block comments, but.Craig does have a aversion towards swearing which I never understood.
That pithy characterization of Craig’s debate with Lewis Wolpert really sums up the New Atheism: Wolpert: “There are no good reasons for believing in God.” Craig: “Yes, there are, and here are a few of them.” Wolpert: “There are no good reasons for believing in God.” Craig: “Yes, there are, and here are a few of them.” Rinse and repeat ad infinitum, with plenty of atheistic ad hominem in place of actual counterargument. Ugh.
I think you missed a step: Wolpert: Those aren't good reasons and here's why. If you have any good reasons for believing in God, I'd be happy to hear them and say whether and why I think they aren't so good.
@@tomandrews1429: Hmm, it’s like we watched a totally different debate. So then, in your view, how, exactly, did Wolpert: 1) adequately refute Craig’s presentation of the Kalam cosmological argument and the Leibnizian cosmological argument - both buttressed, as Craig clearly outlined, by modern cosmology, namely the BVG theorem and Lemaitre’s Big Bang Theory?; 2) how, exactly, did Wolpert adequately refute Craig’s presentation of the fine-tuning argument?; and 3) how did Wolpert adequately refute Craig’s presentation of the moral argument?
@@rgvonsanktpauli6250 1. The Kalam doesn't even reference God, so how can it be a good reason for believing in (the Christian) God? The first 2 premises of the Kalam are unsubstantiated, how do we know the universe began or that all things need a cause? Even if I agree with the conclusion of the argument, how does Craig know that cause is God? 2. Fine tuning is just an argument from ignorance about what would happen if the constants and equations were different. We don't know enough about how changing the constants would change the universe to make conclusions about unfounded probabilities. 3. Again in Craig's moral argument the first 2 premises are unfounded. How does he know that only the Christian God could be the source of objective morals and how does he know that objective morals do actually exist?
@@tomandrews1429 1. First, basic logic dictates that every contingent, non-necessarily existing thing requires a cause. Second, both the Big Bang Theory and the BVG Theorem (i.e., modern cosmology) point to a beginning of the universe roughly 13.8 billion years ago, which would mean the universe is a contingent, non-necessarily existing system. And if the universe is contingent, if it began to exist, it also logically follows that the cause of the universe is outside the universe, and hence that this cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, seeing as time, space, and matter are components inside the universe. A "timeless, spaceless, immaterial entity” is part of the Christian definition of God -- a big part. Naturally, however, there is more to the definition -- it’s a cumulative case; at this point, we’re not yet at the full definition of the Judeo-Christian God, just partly there. But we have ruled out atheism. 2. The fine-tuning argument examines the cosmological constants we know exist, constants that are improbably -- most say impossibly -- fine-tuned for life. Speculating about what sort of universe we’d have were the constants different has nothing to do with the fine-tuning argument. Here is Craig’s video on that. Good for a brief refresher: ruclips.net/video/EE76nwimuT0/видео.html 3. How exactly are the first two premises of Craig's moral argument unfounded? And if one thinks objective morality doesn’t exist, a question like this might be quite tough to answer: When is it not objectively wrong to murder for fun? Many atheists have a big hang-up with the word “God.” Wolpert certainly seems to. This very brief snippet from the Craig-Wolpert debate might be helpful. Watch what happens: Wolpert, it seems, has no problem accepting the notion of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial creator of the universe; he just doesn’t like the word “God” as a descriptor. But, in fact, an entity that tallies perfectly with the Christian definition of God is precisely what he is, quite unwittingly, describing here -- just with a different name: ruclips.net/video/go6m-KNUmG4/видео.html
@@rgvonsanktpauli6250 I'm just going to respond to Craig's first argument since otherwise this comment thread will get way too big. "Second, both the Big Bang Theory and the BVG Theorem (i.e., modern cosmology) point to a beginning of the universe roughly 13.8 billion years ago, which would mean the universe is a contingent, non-necessarily existing system." Incorrect, the Big Bang theory describes a period of rapid expansion in the universe at a point in time 13.8 billion years ago. Before that 13.8 billion year number, more specifically before the Planck time, our current models of physics break down so any assumption of what happened before (i.e. a creation or origin event) that time is unfounded. Take a look at the Carroll vs Craig debate. Actual astrophysicist don't believe that the universe began with Big Bang and Carroll provides a great description that non-experts can understand. "and hence that this cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, seeing as time, space, and matter are components inside the universe" What does it mean to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial? How do you know it is possible for an entity to even have these characteristics? If you want to appeal to basic logic, basic logic says that anything that exists must have some aspect of these characteristics. ""First, basic logic dictates that every contingent, non-necessarily existing thing requires a cause". Basic logic also dictates that a cause must occur at a point in time before the effect. How does a timeless entity do something before doing something else? That would require time, which this entity does not have.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:12 🎙️ The Four Horsemen of New Atheism: None of the Four Horsemen (Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins) were considered formidable opponents in debates according to Dr. Craig. 00:53 🗣️ Sam Harris's Debate Skills: Sam Harris was seen as the least inadequate among the Four Horsemen in debates, and he presented himself well in discussions. 01:34 🧠 Formidable Atheist Today: Dr. Craig considers Graham Oppy to be the most formidable current atheist debater due to his intellectual prowess. 02:02 🤝 Ideal Debaters: Dr. Craig mentions potential debaters like Alexander Pruss, Rob Coons, and Josh Rasmussen as intellectuals who could engage in debates effectively. 03:20 ⏰ Time Management: Dr. Craig highlights the importance of time management in debates and addresses the issue of debaters not managing their time efficiently. 03:47 🤝 Craig Clones: Dr. Craig mentions the phenomenon of "Craig clones," individuals who imitate his debating style and arguments. 04:14 🚫 Avoidable Mistakes: Dr. Craig urges Christian apologists to come prepared for debates and avoid being overconfident. He also emphasizes the importance of civility and avoiding mean-spirited behavior. 06:04 🌐 Impact of New Atheism: While the public representatives of New Atheism might have receded, its cultural influence is still evident in phenomena like the rise of secularism and alignment with political progressivism. 06:54 🤝 Crossing Political Lines: Dr. Craig appreciates the ability to find common ground with atheists like Sam Harris on certain social and moral issues, even when there are political divides. 07:20 🗳️ Ethical Commitment: Dr. Craig acknowledges the alignment of Christianity with conservative politics but emphasizes ethical commitment over political correctness on issues like right to life and same-sex marriage.
As an atheist, I have to agree. Someone being civil is an absolutely terrible reason to believe that what they are saying is true. Likewise, his arguments are a terrible reason to believe in the existence of anything he would consider a god, much less the god of the bible. I would say the amount of motivated reasoning here is impressive, but that would mean deigning to call it reasoning. You know, if you'd make up nicer imaginary friends, the rest of us would probably protest a bit less.
ahgflyguy *his arguments are a terrible reason to believe in the existence of anything he would consider a God* Just as you calling his arguments terrible is a terrible reason to believe it’s true. *You know, if you’d make up nicer imaginary friends, the rest of us would probably protest a bit less.* If atheists spent more time presenting actual arguments and less time complaining about how they don’t like theistic arguments, theists might take them a bit more seriously.
@@nathanaelculver5308 aaaaand the burden of proof has JUST been shifted! Hooraaaayyy! But seriously, there have been thousands of god-claims throughout history. If there's one in particular god-claim that you think deserves more attention than the others, you should clearly state what it is, what differentiates your claim from the others, and what evidence you have that supports your claim while also disproving competing (and mutually exclusive) god-claims. And once you do that, I'll critique your arguments, because I actually DO NOT have any arguments of my own (I just have counterarguments and counterexamples to your arguments). Just like I don't have any arguments to show that leprechauns don't exist. I mean, OR you could just show some serious evidence that shows your god, and none of the other claimed gods, exists, and that it has the properties you state. A simple demonstration would TOTALLY make all the arguing go away.
@@angelicdoctor8016 but he's always saying the Bibles are first-hand accounts they most certainly are not it's accepted they are not they can't be they were all traditions for generations then written down anonymously they're written in the third person they account events that nobody was there to witness the gospel of Mark literally refers to Mark as a separate person they're written like third person narrative fiction. And he knows this and he keeps lying about it. He gets the order of that the gospels were written in wrong because the order they were written in pokes holes in his b*******
@@darkeen42 So Michael, the Gospel accounts are eyewitness accounts, not just according to the Gospels, but according to reliable patristic literature. This is very well known. Authorship is of course a broader attribution, but there's no doubt that the apostles and their companions are the authors of the Gospels. Only the letter to the Hebrews is of unknown authorship in the NT, yet it's approved by apostolic authority. We can get into that if you wish -- sharing authoritative sources.
Huge Hitchens fan, but i wouldnt go as far as to say he wiped the floor with him. WLC is a very good debater and I think at time Hitchens struggled a bit with some of WLC tactics. Hitchens always does much better in the less philosophical debates and more straight forward q&a. Only my opinion of course (Hitch was still a beast however).
I completely agree with the "none of them". Those debates were disapointing. They looked like children, evading Dr Craig's arguments. The one that impressed me the most was Dr Krauss, with a very unique approach. I would also say that Steve from Rationality Rules would be very interesting!
arguments from authority(bible) and things that cannot be proven and could lead to infinite regress(everything has creation-begginging => must be a god who created it) and such weak arguments and cannot be taken seriously and thats 2/3 of his points , the last point is moral objectivitty, if we have there must be a god who gives it to us, well that doesnt answer if there is a god, we dont even know if he have objective moral values and lastly that at best can prove a deist(Hitchens rightfly said it) and Craig still has long road ahead of him to prove the theistic argument
I don't want to be politically correct. I want to be correct. Jesus said, I am the truth, the life, and the way. No man cometh unto the Fathet but by me.
@@pannonia77 For you to say that this isn't what Jesus said is also a claim. Can you substantiate that claim? Now you can choose to believe Jesus didn't say it. Just like I can choose to believe He did. But I think there's adequate evidence that shows the Gospels were written by eye witnesses, who would have been in a position to know what Jesus said.
@@evidencebasedfaith6658 Not just that, but something that atheists will laugh at though. Problem is that is quite a big sin in itself. The Holy Spirit with whom Jesus left us with. Ps. The problem of sinning part : "“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.” - Mark 3:28-29 (CEV)" So yeah...
@@evidencebasedfaith6658 You should take lessons on the Gospels from someone other than Christian fundamentalists, and you would know that NEITHER of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. (Luke even says so in his introduction, have you never read it?) The synoptics may have some historical truths scattered in their writing, but John seems to me - and to most competent, not biased fundamentalist scholars - as not reliable.His theological agenda rules over any endeavour at historical authenticity.
@@sheissuzanne I will quote some of what WLC said ;) >>>"one of the most crucial elements in a debate is time management" >>>"comming unprepared" >>>"I think it's due to overconfidence and lack of preparation" >>>"I think Christians need to be reminded of is not to be so angry and mean" So, to me, yes he said that to win a debate you have to be extremly well prepared and show good figure on stage. He doesn't say that the winner has the best arguments or worse, that the winner is right.
@@kevinbarbe799 WLC: "I don't have any idea of these fellas debating skills... But intellectually-" Interviewer: *interrupts* "you need both I guess" .... Then WLC proceeds to talk about debating skills. He's just talking about skills that you need for debating. He's not saying it's what you need to win
@@sheissuzanne WLC says "Christians debater gets just skinned live [...] and they very often will lose" at 04:12. To me, he recognizes that they lose because lack of preparation (and others things) but not because they're wrong, don't you think? I understand the logic this way : christians debaters may lose because they're not prepared :someone can lose a debate not because he is wrong but because lack of preparation or skills in the time management. So someone can win not because he is right but because he was better prepared, has better debate skills. So winning or losing a debate does not tell if the winner is right (or the loser wrong) about the topic. My first comment was only about that point ;)
I am an atheist myself and would have to agree with Craig that none of the 4 horsemen were formidable in terms of clashing with Craig's arguments, but rather built a case around those arguments where Craig's arguments didn't matter in terms of being persuasive. It is more interesting to watch atheists/philosophers actually consider Craig's arguments than just dismiss them. Oppy is a fun one to watch because he truly considers the arguments in order to actually demonstrate why they fail as opposed to skirting around the arguments to make a different case for why they should be ignored.
Is constant debate a good thing? 1. It simply gives atheists a platform. It does not matter if they win or lose, they are heard. The debate is simply a way for them to be heard. 2. Many atheists base their arguments on emotional, mocking appeals, i.e., referring to God as your invisible friend or the spaghetti monster, referring to Christian’s are weak, stupid etc. 3. There is no end to the debate since no proof is enough for the vast majority of atheists. 4. Much of the science and theology is beyond most of us. The science behind evolution is so daunting. Yet it is cavalierly thrown around in debates with very few people having any sort of working understanding of it. Many confuse adaptation for evolution as one example. Yet many people or reject it without a good understanding of it.
The ones that want to shut down debate commonly can't defend their position. You should be willing to question everything. If not, there is no need for you to be in a debate in the first place.
James Hills - you say ‘no proof is enough for atheists’? What proof? If all the proof you have is absolute garbage, than you can bring a billion ton of it and, sure, it would never be enough. Bring one ounce of good or real proof and only then you might have a leg to stand on.
Somewhat surprised he didn’t mention Shelly Kagan, who was quite formidable in engaging with and rebutting Craig’s arguments on the subject of morality, or Bart Ehrman, who quite adeptly dismantled Craig’s arguments on the subject of the “historicity” of the resurrection, or Sean Carroll, who put Craig’s misunderstandings of modern cosmology and quantum mechanics on full display, or Raymond Bradley, who probably gave Craig the most thorough beating he’s ever received from an atheist in a public debate.
I watched Feser and Oppy debate. Over an hour of arguing about arguing then the last few minutes about Aristotelian notion of change (which is the essence of the Aristotelian argument for the existence of God). Conclusion.... I think Oppy is overrated by WLC.
@@l0_0l45 Craig uses the same angle and statements. Simply because the opposition cannot counter them. Never heard a better argument from any atheist. Heard most of them.
@@tobiestockhoff4251 Nope. Craig has never changed his positions despite many flaws being pointed out in them. He then claims that he never heard anything that significantly countered him, despite the fact that his arguments can be demolished by even non-philosophers. His claims are of arrogance, and he does not recognize his ignorance of counter arguments, and counter evidence. But that does not matter to a WLC fan who will defend him to hell and back. Till the time he claims he made a mistake, his fans will incorrectly assume his arguments have not been falsified. That is the situation.
@@tobiestockhoff4251 For instance, his version of the cosmological argument has been debunked several times, and yet his channel still makes videos defending the indefensible.
Pete Conrad I agree. WLC’s arguments are not that deep. Hitchens, for example, responds to them, quickly grows weary of them and often starts talking about other satellite problems related to WLC’s core arguments. WLC just seems to have a hard time understanding that he could be wrong.
@@PatrickInCayman I love the assumptions you make. I watch more of craig, slick, CC, and such than i do atheist material. Oppy, is one of the best atheist thinkers, we have had. No doubt. And yes, he is better than Dillahunty, but Craig isn't up to either of those standards. The atheist experience is on tomorrow...why don't you call in and show the world just how stupid Matt is.
@@PatrickInCayman If you say so, chief. I don't see you calling to expose him. Easy to type without him responding to you. Much harder harder to do when actually talking to him. Your opinion of him, is invalid until you call and show just how moronic he is. What elese ya got, besides ad hominems, and character assassination?
I don't think I've ever seen a debate with WL Craig in which he didn't go first and then pull the exact same tricks. He makes his points, the opponent has their opening remarks, Craig then gets up for his rebuttal and says "see?? They didn't address any of my arguments!" despite the opponent not having had a rebuttal turn yet. He is clearly a very skilled debator but seems more concerned with "winning" rather than having a discussion and coming to a deeper truth. And all his arguments for God (Kalam, Teleological, Ontological, Personal revelation) have all been debunked multiple times. Further, he is somewhat deceptive in some of his arguments. He will say things like "I don't understand why so many atheists won't follow the scientific evidence that points to a beginning of the universe." (many examples of this exact statement from him any time he discusses Kalam, including on this very channel.) No one still believes in the steady state universe, he is simply strawmanning in order to sound like he is making a cogent point.
Well said. It's hard for anyone to respond to the 'Gish gallop' with anything other than half-formed arguments... I used to think that Craig was at least well-educated enough to respond to scientific arguments; then I saw his debate with Sean Carroll.
You’re misrepresenting his point. When he says scientists don’t follow the evidence that points to a beginning of the universe what he means is that the evidence points to a beginning of the universe, but the beginning of the universe implies a creator and atheists won’t follow the evidence to that conclusion. Frankly, Kalam is a sound argument and I’d like to know why you make the claim that all of his arguments have been debunked because they really haven’t.
@@benjaminrippy9067 The Kalam cosmological argument is built around an equivocation fallacy, as "beginning to exist" is not clearly defined in the argument and it swaps definition within the 2 premises. Something can begin to exist ex materia or ex nihilo. If the universe began to exist ex materia, it doesn't need an immaterial cause, of it began to exist ex nihilo, then we know noting about it, as we have no experience with ex nihilo existence. It would be like me saying "I have the right to be an atheist, therefore it is right for me to be an atheist", that is also an equivocation fallacy
A beginning of the universe doesn't necessarily imply a creator in that way. This is the problem here. It's a false dichotomy. There are a number of non-supernatural potential causes for the beginning of the Universe such as: Quantum Weirdness (L. Krauss), Simulated Universe (Nick Bostrom, I think?), the multiverse could be true, Brane theory etc. Another problem with the Kalam argument is well put by Christopher Hitchens "It gets you to Deism, but those who wish to argue for a particular theistic god still have all the heavy lifting yet to do," or something along those lines.The ontological argument he also likes to trot out is ridiculous on it's face. It essentially boils down to "I can imagine god exists and because of how I've defined god, he therefore exists." The argument form Morality he uses is also weak. He asserts that morality is objective and there are objective moral duties and then asserts that therefore there has to be a law giver, Bam! God! Morality may or may not be objective. Sam Harris seems to think it is with is moral landscape but he wouldn't use that as an argument for god. There are also reasons to think that what we see as moral is dependent on an evolutionary process of communal living and survival. Dr. Craig doesn't like evolution though.The argument from Design is no good because it's a terrible design. Otherwise giraffes wouldn't have a vagus nerve a million miles long and I wouldn't have a bunch of herniated disks in my back. If Paradise Lost is at all close to being what church doctrine says, then it was a horribly conceived plan from the beginning to create a universe knowing full well it would lead to original sin and satan and all that.Arguments from personal experience mean nothing. Same validity coming from any source, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, etc etc etc..The only argument he uses that seems have any weight to it at all whatsoever is the Teleological argument. I don't right now know why the constants are the way they are but that doesn't mean that there isn't a solid physical reason and that god did it. That's a god of the gaps.I've never head Dr. Craig use any other arguments outside of quoting scripture
@@dragan176 There's a lot to get to, so let me give it a shot: "Begins to exist" as it pertains to this argument is pretty simple: 'before' the start of the universe (it's wrong to say before here because the Big Bang was the start of time) there was nothing, and then seemingly out of nowhere, the universe popped into existence 13.8 billion years ago. That is the beginning of existence for everything that exists. As far as I know, the only reason that in the Kalam argument (vs. other cosmological arguments) the premise says 'begins to exist' is because if it simply said 'everything that exists' that would include God and God is the eternal uncaused cause of the universe. That's not special pleading because you necessarily must have some uncaused cause in order to have anything at all, and to object would leave you with an infinite regress. You assert that something can begin to exist ex materia or ex nihilo. I would disagree that anything can begin to exist ex materia. For example, if somebody makes a piece of paper, then it began to exist ex materia; the materia in this case would be cellulose, dye, etc. However, it didn't really begin to exist; the carbon in the cellulose that is in the paper did not begin to exist with the piece of paper, it was present in the tree, and in many other forms for billions of years before that. Anything that 'begins to exist ex materia' is simply that materia changing form or chemical structure. Similarly, if the universe was created ex materia, that materia must have been present before the start of the universe, and unless that materia had a first cause and a finite past you're left with an infinite regress. However, modern cosmological evidence does point to the start of the universe as the start of everything, including time, regardless. However, if it began ex nihilo, which I think is undeniable, I would disagree with you that we know nothing about it; for example, we know that it is immaterial, timeless, spaceless, omnipotent, etc. because it had the power to create time, space, matter, and all the things we hold dear in the universe. It also created a universe with the potency for human life to arise out of inanimate matter and energy. I don't see where you find an equivocation fallacy between the first two premises of the argument. 'Begins to exist' means just what you'd think it means: begins to exist. Something didn't exist before, and it does now. And it means just that in both premises of the argument. Didn't mean to write half a book up there, but you can read it and respond if it interests you. I can't guarantee I'll respond though, the RUclips comment section is definitely not the place for a conversation like this.
It is interesting to see these questions being answered by both sides. They tend to be similarly aligned and mirror one another. Both say there's no intelligent points made from the other side, but how can that be? That was very nonchalantly dismissive.
What I find so interesting/disingenuous about WLC is that when he debates atheists he goes back to the Kalam and various other non-specific deistic beliefs. But that doesn’t explain why he is a Christian. The arguments he uses could be used by a Muslim, a Viking, an Ancient Greek etc. that’s why it’s so unpersuasive (not to mention the logical fallacies all these arguments entail)
If the debate wasn’t on Christianity then there was no need to use resurrection arguments. So instead it was over belief in God. Also, where’s the fallacy in the Kalam? Is it in the first premise? Second premise? Or is it the conclusion about the nature of the cause? You need to provide reasons why the kalam is a fallacy.
thearmysold1er who is to say the cause of our universe isn’t an alien civilisation who created it as some sort of simulation? What if in their universe cause and effect work differently? What if their laws of physics are different? How could anyone possibly know or find out? Does that make the aliens gods? The classic theistic God implied by religious people when use the Kalam; does it have a beginning? If not, why not? How do you know it’s eternal? What if it’s bluffing? What if it does exist and it doesn’t know how it began to exist? Why does it get to exist eternally, unbound by the causality of our universe? How does anybody know anything about any of these things at all?? How can we explore these questions? We can barely conceptualise them. Anyone who uses the Kalam as a way of expressing why they believe in a god inevitably still has a million miles to go if they want to prove why ‘their’ god (Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Thor) is in fact the god that created the universe. The irony to all WLC using it all the time is that the Kalam was created by Muslims, not Christians.
Peasant Scrublord in a discussion about truth do you think the best way to come to an understanding about truth is to say a person is a moron (your opening words were ‘you’re a moron’, not that I was having a moronic moment) if they disagree with you?
Craig’s problem is that he focuses on winning the debate from a technical perspective whereas his opponents are trying to win the debate with the audience. Case in point, Craig opens with making 4-5 claims that he wants addressed. Well guess what, that would consume all his opponents’ time and then the substance of the debate is dictated by him. Harris for example would have none of that and launched some amazing speeches to the AUDIENCE. Then Craig spends his time with “he didn’t address this and he didn’t address that” meanwhile being guilty of the same by not rebutting many things his opponents claim. You’re left with admiration with what his opponents stated and flustered that Craig is just arguing about arguing. But I suppose when you really have no substantive arguments, you turn the debate into a semantic brawl which is a smart strategy.
Atheism is a bald claim that doesn't address anything in reality. Whey I'm told, "you're claiming at least one deity exists" I reply, "No, I've never made that claim. God is not a god or any god, these are different and incompatible terms for you to be 'atheist' in denial." Someone the other day said, "But the claim *is out there!"* Talk about not addressing your opponents arguments. If I have to answer to "every claim that is out there" then it kind of ruins the point you're trying to make about 403 Federal Rules of Evidence, waste of time & prejudice. Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Once I've convinced the godless person I'm not equivocating on God being the same as a or any miniscule 'g' god they jump ship to another, "I'm lacking belief of gods all the time just like babies. We're all atheists from birth." Hold on just a minute there fella, you a few seconds ago we're telling me you existed as something by denying a claim you were making on my behalf and now you expect me to divine that's what babies think but can't express? "You're making the claim at least one deity exists." is every logical fallacy in the book. Philosophical theists *never* make that claim, we're on a different side _from that bald claim_ as noted above. It's at least two logical fallacies of bald claims, the one the alleged "atheist" is making and the one on our behalf (a bald claim strawman argument!). The _reason_ why your team isn't addressing any of Dr. Craig's proofs is *because they can't.* No person who claims "atheism" even claims it to themselves in the first person as a meditation or reflection, a ponderance.
like the christian arguments are better? yesterday i felt hope and joy therefore god appeared to me personally i felt him, or things like HERESAY from the bible (apostoles told the story 20-30 years after Jesus supposedly died), witness testimonies that wont hold in a court today or the weakest one which Craig loves, everyting has a beggining(creation) , the world has a begining therefore => GOD, just utter 6 year old logic
@@Saskobest LOL. The Gospels are not hearsay. They were written by direct witnesses to the events they relate. Even Paul was a direct witness to the appearance of Jesus Christ. If you want to be an infidel, fine; but please don't try to bolster your arguments with lies.
Lol, same could be said for 100 other religions, there are legit "islam historians" who claim Moohamad's miracles guided by ALAH or we have even modern day thousands of direct witnesses to miracles done in India,Indonesia etc where we have 300 year old man, man who flies, miracle waters etc.@@garymathis1042
@@garymathis1042 Paul never met Jesus and never saw Jesus, but he allegedly heard his voice on the road to Damascus. Outside the New Testament there are no records of him ever visiting the kings and other powerful authority figures he supposedly held audiences with, no Jewish records of a Christian-hunter gone rogue, etc. Even Josephus, Tacitus, etc, have nothing to say on Paul. The gospels were written annonymusly, and not by eyewitness. Scholars universally agree that it seems unlikely, for example, that Matthew would rely so heavily on Mark if its author had been an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry, or that the Acts of Apostles (by the same author as the gospel of Luke) would so frequently contradict the Pauline letters if its author had been Paul's companion. Instead, the two took for their sources the gospel of Mark (606 of Matthew's verses are taken from Mark, 320 of Luke's), the Q source, and the "special" material of M and L.
Hitchens got smoked absolutely awful he just ignored everything Craig said and went on a tantrum about how God was mean. Craig had 5 arguments and hitchens addressed zero. You could see his face turning redder and.redder.throughout the debate.
No, you were in the correct dimension, Hitchens pretty much lets WLC self implode, if you review the comments associated with that debate, you might "wonder" about which dimension you are in.
When the most formidable created finite sinful atheist dies he meets the pure, holy, infinite, all-powerful eternal Creator God on judgment day on sin, followed by the great eternal barbecue of sinners. Since most people love the devil, lies and other sins more than righteousness, don't concern yourself with leaving comments, they probably won't add up to a small hill of beans in value anyways. God is not mocked, people reap what they sow in the end. That's the way the cookie bounces, be sure your sins will find you out... it ain't rocket surgery, the proof is in the pudding, little lost sheeple.
Try telling them "I'm Christ" (It's my Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux, my only video proves it, proves I'm Christ), and you'll unleash all the devils of hell. I'm sadistically and Satanically hated by both parties in this dispute. LOL.
A more charitable response to the question of: "what do you wish apologists would stop doing?" would be to refrain from characterizing "Atheism" as a faith set.
ricky roach Let’s break this down a person who accepts God = theist. A person that does not accept that claim = atheist (from the Greek meaning without as in not excepting) So an atheist doesn’t say that there are no gods, just that the claim itself is not accepted, manly because of the lack of evidence.
@@cockroachvWhat is my label when I claim "There Are No Leprechauns.."? I have no "knowledge" supporting my lack of belief in Leprechauns... I must be therefore...an A-leprechaunist... a new "religion" you sir, are now forced to consider as real.. Leprechaunism...Have you heard the "Good News"?
@@cockroachv Again, when and until some well dressed "Atheists" come knocking at my door with pamphlets espousing their "religion".. It would be charitable to refrain from characterizing Atheism as a faith set.. Even I, as a Marginalized Christian, can figure this one out. I am assuming budd2nd's explanation may not be sufficient for most people.
ricky roach I’m an atheist. I’ve never stayed there is no God. I just state over and over that the arguments I hear from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. do not convince me that there is one. I doubt you believe that Darth Vader is a real person. I wouldn’t expect you to have to waste your own time looking to back that view up. If I came to you and said Star Wars is based on real history then it’s up to me to prove that.
The problem with Dr. Craig, and every other apologist and every other christian is that they have never offered a good reason or evidence for the validity of their mythology, or for the existence of their deity, or even the existence of any deity. Nothing else matters in christian apologetics and on that ground, all have failed miserably. Don't worry though, you're in good company as no other believer in all other deities and mythologies have accomplished this either. You're just like the muslims, mormons, zoroasters, and scientologists. While that should comfort you, it is also what's so satisfyingly hilarious about your beliefs for reasonable people who know how to think. 🙏
I feel the same way about as apologetics as Craig feels about the four horseman (and he has a bit of a point). Apologetics has always, always failed to meet one of the most basic standards of science, namely Popper's standard of falsifiability. Scientists seek to test theories to figure out if they are true. The greatness of science is that it lets the outcome of experiments determine what is true. What scientists like to be true is irrelevant. Apologists only try to come up with arguments in favour of their faith. No modern apologist has ever come up with a scientific experiment that can determine whether God exists, or whether souls exist, or to test any other religious claim. Apologetics has never gone out of the realm of philosophical argument and into experimental science. It is for this reason that I find apologetics and modern apologists so disappointing.
At least in theory it should be trivially easy to test if for example prayers work or to demonstrate the existence of a God who interacts with our reality in any measurable way. So to me it seems like Apologists already know that the gods they believe in don’t interact with our reality in any measurable way and are therefore indistinguishable from all other made up gods that don’t exist. That’s why unfalsifiable philosophical arguments are so popular among Apologists, especially arguments about the origins of our universe where the likelihood that any scientific discoveries may one day exclude God as an explanation are basically zero.
If I understand correctly, science excludes anything supernatural. How can one use the scientific method to prove something that it's existence it denies?
@@donpaco6536 Science doesn't exclude anything and the scientific method can be applied to everything that can be demonstrated to exist. Unfortunately supernatural claims tend to be entirely unfalsifiable.
@@donpaco6536 No, science does not exclude the supernatural. Science started rejecting the supernatural when more and more natural causes for things were found which were previously believed to have supernatural causes. A good example is natural disasters, which were believed to be punishments from the gods, but are now explained by natural causes. As long as it is possible to test an idea against a contrasting idea with experiments or observations, science can be used.
To the sceptics, he asked which of the four horsemen was the most formidable. Not which opponent ever. This is why he does not mention Ehrman, Carrell or some others. They are specifically talking about neo-atheism and its main representatives.
I used to be intimidated by the 4 horseman until I saw saw their debates with Christians. I was quite surprised by how little knowledge of theology or philosophy these "giants of atheism" had.
Interesting information interview. I tend to enjoy a good debate that relies little if none at all on opinions. He is very well spoken, but failed to touch on the mechanics of nothing creating everything. Even when I was agnostic I still couldn't understand that perspective.
God/uncaused first cause/creator is not nothing but is the best explanation of the given data and physical laws such as the second law of thermodynamics.
Matt dillahunty would absolutely win that debate with logic and reasoning, unlike Craig’s kalam argument, which does not lead to a god, much less the Christian god, and Craig’s “ facts” about the empty tomb. They just don’t hold up. Craig has said it all doesn’t matter anyway, because any evidence is worthless against a personal experience of the Holy Spirit , which you can only have in the first person. Craig is a very educated and classy person, but he’s still relying on feelings and bad evidence.
@TheCosmicWarrior WLC is a top tier coward and narcissist. Being fake nice doesn't work on those who see through veneers. Dillahunty scares him because Matt does not swoon over the big voice preacher persona WLC tries so hard to use for hypnotizing his malliable audiences.
Dillahunty is not a very smart person. Only over-zealous devout atheists find his rhetoric compelling, mostly because they'll take anyone or anything they can get. That much is self-evident.
“The Great Debate: Has Science Refuted Religion?” Yes, Science has refuted Sean Carroll's religious mooring based on everyone's inability to understand Sean's religion is the one where its adherents submarine the rationales of their own religious faith. Not for nothing, but Sean's participation in the Freedom From Religion Foundation is proof he doesn't even understand the grammar of assent, how it's irrelevant to the acceptance or denial of any religious paradigm, his own. It's a book 20 years in the making. This guy wrote a book compiled over twenty years that proves Sean's religion is the same subject as Craig's, but Sean hasn't read the guy's book. 20 years for the reading. Dallas, please try to understand, if I can give you twenty extra years of life, (I just did in this comment), wouldn't you want that? Harvard failed your dude. You don't even understand what I'm saying. These people are talking for hundreds of billions of years, and they're not really saying anything that matters.
Notice how when asked "who was the most formidable" he says Sam Harris then goes on to explain how friendly and charming he was, which is actually entirely irrelevant to the question. This is an indication WLC perhaps interpreted and subsequently answered the question "which Atheist do you like the most" almost as if he processed the question as one of subjective preference than an evaluation of objective parameters. Interestingly, this parallels the semantics employed by WLC during discussions concerning religion, it seems to me that questions answered can often be crudely reduced to "I prefer this explanation" when he is pressed on them.
I found it funny that this is After the Sean Caroll debate, where Sean actually refuted every argument that Dr. Craig made. Doesn't mention him, Ahmed, Erhman or Carrier either...smh.
No surprise he doesn’t mention the Sean Carroll debate, Carroll absolutely destroyed Craig and the Kalam argument definitively, and Craig disabled the comments on the RUclips video of the debate.
@@Cmez872 I know. Sean used actual facts, and decimated WLG. There wasn't a question about it, especially when he brought out Valenkin to dispute Craig's point that the BGV therum shows the universe has an absolute beginning.
Can't clash with WLC because he doesn't make any sensible arguments. He argues with himself using wordplay and age old politician/lawyer debate tactics
In my opinion, you don't have to go in deep philosophy to know wether or not the Christian God exists. You can disprove his existence quite easily with the problem of evil : P1) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then it means that God deliberately created a world where he perfectly knew child cancer (or insert any horrible event) would happen but he didn't make anything to change it. P2) God is omnipotent and omniscient. C) It means that God deliberately created a world where he perfectly knew child cancer (or insert any horrible event) would happen but he didn't make anything to change it.
Oh Lordy! The King of the non-sequitor, the Saviour of the Straw Man, the Lord of lame-brains has the brazen gall to criticise the "intelligence" of Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, Dawkins! Craig ... who has a "Mathematical Proof" of the resurrection! Craig is the Trump of Apologetics ... THINKS he is brilliant, knows it all and -- what's worse -- thinks he's doing the work of an Imaginary Being! Keep it up Craig ... every time you open your mouth to utter your sophistry, atheism moves another step forward!
@@mixandmatch44 I didn't say, "In THIS video ..."! In one of his debates, both "sides" could use slides and he "proved the "truth" of the "resurrection" using Bayes Theorem -- COMPLETELY WRONGLY! If you are really interested, I'm sure you could Google it!
@@shomshomni2314 Gee, THANKS!!!! Alas ... the "Soul" is an imaginary, man-made contrivance -- like Heaven, God, Hell, Satan, etc So, my "Soul" is fine thanks -- just as fine & dandy as if it actually existed!
Graham Oppy was the unit coordinator for a couple of my philosophy units and he was always very charitable in giving high marks to students advocating a theist position, I held my own in those classes thanks mostly to Ed Feser and some help from Trent Horn. But Graham is just so smart and switched on, must be very daunting to go up against him
I've heard that name [Oppy] tossed around here on YT. I'm not familiar with him; might need to check him out. In any case, however, I can confidently state that WLC's work will not be remembered (say) two hundred years from now in the same way the works of atheist and non-atheist philosophers like: Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, David Hume, Compte, Aristotle, or even lightweights like Descartes. Further, his drivel will not be placed in books sitting in shelves next to some of the aforementioned thinkers/philosophers because he's a pseudo-intellectual/charlatan who mainly convinces his fellow Xtians.
@@PhuckYourExistence I disagree. WLC is a great theist philosopher. The cosmological and moral arguments are technically good arguments for God, and WLC's Kalam is fantastic, so if there is any honesty in philosophy, his theism will ultimately triumph. That's a big 'if', though, I know.
@@PhuckYourExistence Very rude.. all though I don't like Bills attitude all of the time. And this is also not the case for the vast majority of philosophers. Who cares.
@@PhuckYourExistence A lot of these people, both theist and atheist, are very different in a scholarly setting and in a polemic setting.
I wish I could study for a bachelor's and master's under him.
I think the best public discussion with William Lane Craig, hands down, was with Shelly Kagan. Neither person took low blows, and the discussion afterward really showed where each speaker was coming from.
I would say Peter Millican. I’ve watched that one probably 3 times
Agree.. he never fell in to the many philosophical traps WLC employs in his debates.
@@chiselcheswick5673 "Philosophical traps"? Please give examples...
@@justin10292000 ruclips.net/video/Rm2wShHJ2iA/видео.html
@@justin10292000 There ya go.
I think professor John Lennox is very good. Very smart, polite, charming, prepared.
Daniel Stoica Hey he spanked Hitchens!
@@davidduncan4521 He really didn't. But that's a debate for you- most of us go in already deciding who wins anyway.
@@ferretzor Think of it like sacrificing your Queen for the win in a game of chess. God haters don't do that. When confronted with the piss poor arguments God haters make for their fantasy belief "atheism," once rebuked they don't sacrifice their Queen Richard Dawkins, they throw him under the bus. Two completely different strategies, or one strategy and the other is unconditional surrender. 1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the LORD of glory. Christ's sacrifice works, the God haters don't do anything, they don't even study science, not really, or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.
@@trustinjesus1119 I'm not sure what any of this incoherent drivel had to do with my reply. Reading that almost gave me an aneurysm.
@@ferretzor You went in deciding you won the exchange, but because you're in the wrong, you didn't and I accept you almost had an aneurysm. You got out in the nick of time with "incoherent drivel."
I thank WLC for helping me a great deal on my journey as a Christian, which ultimately lead me to the Catholic Church. Good Christian apologetics of the nature described here is a catalyst for conversions to Catholicism.
I don’t agree with him on everything but yes! I’m grateful for all he’s done and have a high level of respect for him.
i was a grad student at talbot in the philosophy program at the same time josh rasmussen was there. we were on a retreat one weekend and i was talking with him about an argument he co-authored for publication in a well known journal. i sat there listening to him thinking that i had no business sitting at the same table as that dude! he is indeed a super, super intelligent philosopher.
It just goes to show you can be extremely intelligent and still adhere to a laughably irrational worldview
He ultimately became a Theist, thankfully, but he adhered to Atheism for quite a while.
@@lightbeforethetunnel was joshua rasmussen an atheist???
@@yty7019 Yep, he was an atheist for a while.
“None of them.” I love it. “Sam Harris was the least bad.”
Dr Craig is certainly one of the best Christian debaters of all time.
Yeah actually the way he understands a multitude of topics is mindboggling. He is just brilliant
Philosophy doesn't make fairy tales real or true. Lane is a fraud.
@@stanleystonehouse636 - accusations without evidence just make you sound like a jealous troll. Dr. Craig always offers plenty of evidence for his arguments.
Craig has good debating skills but intellectualy he is far from Pruss, Swinburne, Van Inwagen and a few others . Also he is a bit dishonest.
@Warren Englehart what made you decide against Christianity? And would you consider yourself more of a deist now?
Ed Feser will be continuing his debate on the existence of God with Graham Oppy on February 6. Expect epicness
Correction: expect *MORE* epicness.
@@nathanaelculver5308 Heaven Yeah!
G Will I was only able to catch twenty minutes or so live; I’ll have to pick up the rest when I can. I agree with your general feelings on the debate. However, Oppy IS extremely intelligent; I wouldn’t be too quick to judge him on this debate alone.
Awesome. I'm a protestant, but I truly enjoy watching Edward Feser debate. And I've really enjoyed his book Five proofs of the existence of God.
Maudlin I don’t think 72.8% of all philosophers are atheists. That’s quite a high number. Not even 50% of all scientists are atheists.
There are definitely people who are brilliant at giving an articulate lecture, but dreadful at debating. Two different skills. It’s a whole different ballgame when you’re on the hot seat and someone is firing away at you.
Thanks for having him on.
I love the idea of quiet confidence without becoming sarcastic and taking cheap shots.
I'm surprised WLC didn't mention Mackie and his famous back and forth with Plantinga. It was good to see Oppy mentioned. He never gets the credit he deserves from the New Atheist movement.
The new atheist movement is made up of very flashy debaters in thst they have the owned style. But the real thinkers are almost always, in all movements, simply obwrlooked because they are not flashy enough.
Mackie did a terrible job criticizing the Kalam which is Craig's favourite argument. He's done good work in other areas but I wonder if that influenced Craig's impression of him.
Dr Oppy got trashed by Dr Feser
@@paulblackburn4245 Which debate was it that feser beat him in?
Matt: "who do you think was the most formidable?" (re: Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens)
W.L.Craig: "they were all extremely superficial ..." 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Frieza Force you are trying to project. Love, Absolute Truth, and Natural Law is not "superficial." ego worship unto devilry is.
Frieza Force unfortunately superficial leaders create superficial understandings in their followers... applying more modern day slavery to the servitude God called everyone of His followers to have is a typical superficial misconception many atheists have.
They all exposed your sophistry though.
Frieza Force
thank you for proving my point...
Your first sentence sounds like a quote from Matt Dillahunty, not the Bible. Please show me where in the scriptures it encourages the beating of servants how you have been trained to make it sound like. The law you are trying to refer to states that if you beat a servant and he dies within a couple days of beating him, YOU DIE. That means even if he died from other causes, it’s still your head! Do you really think anyone in there right mind would gamble their own life just to beat their slave?? The other laws you are referring to was about keeping families together, not dividing them. You are literally regurgitating the exact superficial points atheists make in order to straw man the scriptures. If a slave was mistreated in ANY way, they had the right to escape from their master and take refuge and protection with the rest of society. A bruised face would become a release of their bondage. This servitude was instituted for the sake of the poor so they could have a place to live, eat, and survive.... unlike our society which either leaves them to die or gives them money and food for nothing.
What is it about a mutual agreement of serving someone under a contracted amount of time that bothers you? Marriage is a contract to serve your spouse for a lifetime, should we dispose of that? How about military service? Should we dispose of that too? Do you have a job in which you need to serve your employer for a wage, does that bother you?
If you are going to combat a debate I suggest you actually learn the source you are debating against for yourself and not rely on other atheists who purposefully try to misguide their listeners in order to make their points valid.
Frieza Force you realize the punishment it’s talking about is death, right?
Those scriptures you quoted are pretty much saying if you kill your slave you shall be put to death and if you injure him you shall let him go from the contract.... what about that bothers you? Do you think those laws shouldn’t have been in place?
I think the best Craig debate with the most clash and class was the Millican v. Craig debate. Millican really pushed and lead Craig to give some more in depth material most other debaters do not demand.
No shot. Idk what you watched. Not being snarky but lol I thought it was a huge fail from millican. His time management wasn’t great, granted he states it was his first real public debate so understandable but he failed to address some arguments and when making the genetic fallacy he then tried to circumvent it by claiming he wasn’t committing the fallacy when he indeed was. Just because you preface it with “i’m not arguing the genetic fallacy” then go on to argue the fallacy it doesn’t mean you didn’t. lol
@@sttrategic Even if all that is granted - which I am more than willing to grant, Millican not getting caught up on all the details and still replying to what Craig was saying led Craig to go deeper into some of his arguments than he has had to go previously - which is a GOOD thing for the unbelieving audience to see there is much more depth to Craig's arguments - it is just that the extra depth has not been warranted by the weak responses of the previous opposition.
You should do interview Alexander Pruss. He was Catholic btw.
Fantastic Lemon He *is* Catholic :)
what about eleonore stump? isn’t she catholic as well?
Yes
WL Craig mentioned the following:
* Atheists:
Graham Oppy (best according to Craig)
Jordan Howard Sobel (Oppy is the torchbearer now that Sobel has passed away, or so Craig says)
* Theists (Craig isn't aware of their debating skills, but intellectually they are on par with Oppy according to Craig):
Alexander Pruss
Joshua Rasmussen
Robert Koons
Sorry for all those..... but them can not turn down all 5 arguments Craig use......nobody can falsify fine tuning of the universe......
To go into a debate you must obviously know what you believe but also know what your opponent believes and also what are their objections to what you believe and know how they will respond to what you will respond with.
Dr Craig is gifted.
I have to agree with that
I think you might be onto something... poor guy.
Man, the wisdom and knowledge one finds in the comment section are unmatchable. Please, don't watch the videos, go straight to the comment section where ppl who could not make sense of Young Goodman Brown are going to inform about ANYTHING philosophy, theology, and science. Feast!
This is the most true RUclips comment I’ve ever read.
I do! And l learn so much. 😂😂😂😂
IKR the best RUclips videos to feast for knowledge are videos with a good amount of likes and dislikes, people ideas clash and I just pick the scraps of information they drop along the way lol
METAL4 LIFE I like your spirit young man
John Lennox destroyed Stephen Hawking in his books such a gem 💎
Lennox sucks. Watch his debate with Michael Ruse. Ruse roasted him.
How did he destroy him?
@@therick363stole the batteries out of his wheel chair.
@@Youtuube304s Yow!
Frank Turek: "I know who banged it"... Well that settles the thermodynamic debate.. priceless.
Bobsyouruncle Wilson
Calling something a fable doesn’t make it so. It’s superficial and shows ignorance about your opposition’s arguments.
5:13
@@JoshuaTCoe Not much to "debate" when " I know who banged it" is your thermodynamic expression. Dr. Turek should stick to extended car warranties, magazine subscriptions or selling costume jewelry on QVC.
@@kristofftaylovoski60
And you should stick to insults and sarcasm, because you clearly don't have any arguments.
@Bobsyouruncle Wilson
I never called anything real and implied or stated that it was simply because I called it so.
And for the record, you don't have ANY empirical evidence that you won't be struck by lighting in the next five seconds, yet you believe by faith that you won't be. Welcome to the club friend.
Let me ask you: can you point specifically and clearly to a logical fallacy WLC has articulated, or are you making empty assertions without the ability to substantiate them? 1000 to 1 says the latter.
Lastly, my comment stands as well. You simply stated WLC believes in a fable with absolutely zero substantiation for this claim. So I stated this objective truth, with no feelings attached. "You're invoking feelings," another empty and unsubstantiated claim from Mr. Empirical Evidence.
Regarding your comments on the doctorates WLC should have received; respectfully, with that dissertation, you have certainly earned yours in circumlocution.
@@JoshuaTCoeEngage California Conference 2015 -Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, California .....Another Frank Turek gem...."You won the sperm race"... I have done my research to support my conclusions about Dr. Turek...Critical Thinking is a relentless mistress...
I’m just here to let you all know that WL Craig is actually David Lee Roth. Go now and spread the good word my sons
Is that why he left Van Halen? I know David is from Indiana and William was a professor in Deerfield, Illinois for many years.
“When you are intellectually prepared and know the answers” - this characterises Craig’s style.
Time management is the name of the game in debate
Alexander Pruss and Joshua Rasmussen vs Graham Oppy and Matt Dillahunty. Book it!
It's interesting to see WL Craig having conversations with other Christian apologetics, this is not the first video I've seen lately.
And - unlike on WL Craig's own channel - you may even write comments.
pannonia77 ok?
More and more christian channels block the comments section. How predictable of them. Exactly what you could expect from christians.
Florin Gabor it could be because RUclips finds them kid friendly or something so the comments are blocked or it’s because Christians are against mocking and cursing and comment sections especially comment sections involving religious debate and discussion are full of it so I guess that’s why they block comments or maybe your right idk
@@HolyRainbowism Not really most christian channels I see do not.block comments, but.Craig does have a aversion towards swearing which I never understood.
@@Metalhead98793 Those are poor reasons to stifle speech
That pithy characterization of Craig’s debate with Lewis Wolpert really sums up the New Atheism: Wolpert: “There are no good reasons for believing in God.” Craig: “Yes, there are, and here are a few of them.” Wolpert: “There are no good reasons for believing in God.” Craig: “Yes, there are, and here are a few of them.” Rinse and repeat ad infinitum, with plenty of atheistic ad hominem in place of actual counterargument. Ugh.
I think you missed a step: Wolpert: Those aren't good reasons and here's why. If you have any good reasons for believing in God, I'd be happy to hear them and say whether and why I think they aren't so good.
@@tomandrews1429: Hmm, it’s like we watched a totally different debate. So then, in your view, how, exactly, did Wolpert: 1) adequately refute Craig’s presentation of the Kalam cosmological argument and the Leibnizian cosmological argument - both buttressed, as Craig clearly outlined, by modern cosmology, namely the BVG theorem and Lemaitre’s Big Bang Theory?; 2) how, exactly, did Wolpert adequately refute Craig’s presentation of the fine-tuning argument?; and 3) how did Wolpert adequately refute Craig’s presentation of the moral argument?
@@rgvonsanktpauli6250 1. The Kalam doesn't even reference God, so how can it be a good reason for believing in (the Christian) God? The first 2 premises of the Kalam are unsubstantiated, how do we know the universe began or that all things need a cause? Even if I agree with the conclusion of the argument, how does Craig know that cause is God?
2. Fine tuning is just an argument from ignorance about what would happen if the constants and equations were different. We don't know enough about how changing the constants would change the universe to make conclusions about unfounded probabilities.
3. Again in Craig's moral argument the first 2 premises are unfounded. How does he know that only the Christian God could be the source of objective morals and how does he know that objective morals do actually exist?
@@tomandrews1429 1. First, basic logic dictates that every contingent, non-necessarily existing thing requires a cause. Second, both the Big Bang Theory and the BVG Theorem (i.e., modern cosmology) point to a beginning of the universe roughly 13.8 billion years ago, which would mean the universe is a contingent, non-necessarily existing system. And if the universe is contingent, if it began to exist, it also logically follows that the cause of the universe is outside the universe, and hence that this cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, seeing as time, space, and matter are components inside the universe.
A "timeless, spaceless, immaterial entity” is part of the Christian definition of God -- a big part. Naturally, however, there is more to the definition -- it’s a cumulative case; at this point, we’re not yet at the full definition of the Judeo-Christian God, just partly there. But we have ruled out atheism.
2. The fine-tuning argument examines the cosmological constants we know exist, constants that are improbably -- most say impossibly -- fine-tuned for life. Speculating about what sort of universe we’d have were the constants different has nothing to do with the fine-tuning argument. Here is Craig’s video on that. Good for a brief refresher:
ruclips.net/video/EE76nwimuT0/видео.html
3. How exactly are the first two premises of Craig's moral argument unfounded? And if one thinks objective morality doesn’t exist, a question like this might be quite tough to answer: When is it not objectively wrong to murder for fun?
Many atheists have a big hang-up with the word “God.” Wolpert certainly seems to. This very brief snippet from the Craig-Wolpert debate might be helpful. Watch what happens: Wolpert, it seems, has no problem accepting the notion of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial creator of the universe; he just doesn’t like the word “God” as a descriptor. But, in fact, an entity that tallies perfectly with the Christian definition of God is precisely what he is, quite unwittingly, describing here -- just with a different name:
ruclips.net/video/go6m-KNUmG4/видео.html
@@rgvonsanktpauli6250 I'm just going to respond to Craig's first argument since otherwise this comment thread will get way too big.
"Second, both the Big Bang Theory and the BVG Theorem (i.e., modern cosmology) point to a beginning of the universe roughly 13.8 billion years ago, which would mean the universe is a contingent, non-necessarily existing system."
Incorrect, the Big Bang theory describes a period of rapid expansion in the universe at a point in time 13.8 billion years ago. Before that 13.8 billion year number, more specifically before the Planck time, our current models of physics break down so any assumption of what happened before (i.e. a creation or origin event) that time is unfounded. Take a look at the Carroll vs Craig debate. Actual astrophysicist don't believe that the universe began with Big Bang and Carroll provides a great description that non-experts can understand.
"and hence that this cause is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, seeing as time, space, and matter are components inside the universe" What does it mean to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial? How do you know it is possible for an entity to even have these characteristics? If you want to appeal to basic logic, basic logic says that anything that exists must have some aspect of these characteristics.
""First, basic logic dictates that every contingent, non-necessarily existing thing requires a cause". Basic logic also dictates that a cause must occur at a point in time before the effect. How does a timeless entity do something before doing something else? That would require time, which this entity does not have.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:12 🎙️ The Four Horsemen of New Atheism: None of the Four Horsemen (Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins) were considered formidable opponents in debates according to Dr. Craig.
00:53 🗣️ Sam Harris's Debate Skills: Sam Harris was seen as the least inadequate among the Four Horsemen in debates, and he presented himself well in discussions.
01:34 🧠 Formidable Atheist Today: Dr. Craig considers Graham Oppy to be the most formidable current atheist debater due to his intellectual prowess.
02:02 🤝 Ideal Debaters: Dr. Craig mentions potential debaters like Alexander Pruss, Rob Coons, and Josh Rasmussen as intellectuals who could engage in debates effectively.
03:20 ⏰ Time Management: Dr. Craig highlights the importance of time management in debates and addresses the issue of debaters not managing their time efficiently.
03:47 🤝 Craig Clones: Dr. Craig mentions the phenomenon of "Craig clones," individuals who imitate his debating style and arguments.
04:14 🚫 Avoidable Mistakes: Dr. Craig urges Christian apologists to come prepared for debates and avoid being overconfident. He also emphasizes the importance of civility and avoiding mean-spirited behavior.
06:04 🌐 Impact of New Atheism: While the public representatives of New Atheism might have receded, its cultural influence is still evident in phenomena like the rise of secularism and alignment with political progressivism.
06:54 🤝 Crossing Political Lines: Dr. Craig appreciates the ability to find common ground with atheists like Sam Harris on certain social and moral issues, even when there are political divides.
07:20 🗳️ Ethical Commitment: Dr. Craig acknowledges the alignment of Christianity with conservative politics but emphasizes ethical commitment over political correctness on issues like right to life and same-sex marriage.
I’m finna stop debating atheists and just start asking them how much they can lift, if it isn’t satisfactory I ain’t listening
John Lennox was and hopefully will continue to be the best debater to counter this lot
His arguments for the existence of a god are no better than the rest.
@@biggregg5 He doesn't have good arguments but he is a good debater.
@@biggregg5 That's your opinion. Lennox absolutely smashed Dawkins in debate and flushed his awful logic down the sink
@@Elrog3 His arguments are fantastic.
the wristwatch analogy for design is unbeatable.
@@dcmastermindfirst9418
No. Objectively false.
Such an excellent interview. Great questions!
Dr Craig's civility is possibly as good an advertisement (if not argument) for Christianity as his arguments!
As an atheist, I have to agree. Someone being civil is an absolutely terrible reason to believe that what they are saying is true. Likewise, his arguments are a terrible reason to believe in the existence of anything he would consider a god, much less the god of the bible. I would say the amount of motivated reasoning here is impressive, but that would mean deigning to call it reasoning.
You know, if you'd make up nicer imaginary friends, the rest of us would probably protest a bit less.
ahgflyguy hah, touché!
ahgflyguy *his arguments are a terrible reason to believe in the existence of anything he would consider a God*
Just as you calling his arguments terrible is a terrible reason to believe it’s true.
*You know, if you’d make up nicer imaginary friends, the rest of us would probably protest a bit less.*
If atheists spent more time presenting actual arguments and less time complaining about how they don’t like theistic arguments, theists might take them a bit more seriously.
@@nathanaelculver5308 aaaaand the burden of proof has JUST been shifted! Hooraaaayyy!
But seriously, there have been thousands of god-claims throughout history. If there's one in particular god-claim that you think deserves more attention than the others, you should clearly state what it is, what differentiates your claim from the others, and what evidence you have that supports your claim while also disproving competing (and mutually exclusive) god-claims.
And once you do that, I'll critique your arguments, because I actually DO NOT have any arguments of my own (I just have counterarguments and counterexamples to your arguments). Just like I don't have any arguments to show that leprechauns don't exist.
I mean, OR you could just show some serious evidence that shows your god, and none of the other claimed gods, exists, and that it has the properties you state. A simple demonstration would TOTALLY make all the arguing go away.
@@ahgflyguy Hey friend, thanks for watching the video!
I love you William forever.
@4:36 I tremble when 😂😂😂
I think Ravi Zacharias is really smart and a great debater
Yeah, he was smart. The coverup of his atrocities was incredible. I'm impressed.
That aged well. He was a good apologist, though
Matt - you rock, bud. Your vision of faith and culture and evangelization are spot on.
unless facts matter to you
@@darkeen42 care to explain?
@@angelicdoctor8016 it's generally accepted he lost those debates that he's trashing his opponent about.
@@angelicdoctor8016 but he's always saying the Bibles are first-hand accounts they most certainly are not it's accepted they are not they can't be they were all traditions for generations then written down anonymously they're written in the third person they account events that nobody was there to witness the gospel of Mark literally refers to Mark as a separate person they're written like third person narrative fiction. And he knows this and he keeps lying about it. He gets the order of that the gospels were written in wrong because the order they were written in pokes holes in his b*******
@@darkeen42 So Michael, the Gospel accounts are eyewitness accounts, not just according to the Gospels, but according to reliable patristic literature. This is very well known. Authorship is of course a broader attribution, but there's no doubt that the apostles and their companions are the authors of the Gospels. Only the letter to the Hebrews is of unknown authorship in the NT, yet it's approved by apostolic authority. We can get into that if you wish -- sharing authoritative sources.
WLC will be debating Oppy on Cameron Bertuzzi’s channel!
When
Jon Mayhew Anderson already happened ruclips.net/video/8WE1y00bwCU/видео.html
Well. Considering how Christopher Hitchens wiped the floor with him in debate in 2009, I'm not surprised he has 'forgotten' that encounter.
@@anahata3478 Ah yes, of course. When you have no point to make you just resort to insult. Well done.
@Matt Blaise WLC should at least have been able to define what an atheist is
Huge Hitchens fan, but i wouldnt go as far as to say he wiped the floor with him. WLC is a very good debater and I think at time Hitchens struggled a bit with some of WLC tactics. Hitchens always does much better in the less philosophical debates and more straight forward q&a. Only my opinion of course (Hitch was still a beast however).
I completely agree with the "none of them". Those debates were disapointing. They looked like children, evading Dr Craig's arguments.
The one that impressed me the most was Dr Krauss, with a very unique approach. I would also say that Steve from Rationality Rules would be very interesting!
arguments from authority(bible) and things that cannot be proven and could lead to infinite regress(everything has creation-begginging => must be a god who created it) and such weak arguments and cannot be taken seriously and thats 2/3 of his points , the last point is moral objectivitty, if we have there must be a god who gives it to us, well that doesnt answer if there is a god, we dont even know if he have objective moral values and lastly that at best can prove a deist(Hitchens rightfly said it) and Craig still has long road ahead of him to prove the theistic argument
Craig didn't mention when his face was going red as a beetroot, when Hitchens was grilling him in regard to the miracles.
I don't want to be politically correct. I want to be correct. Jesus said, I am the truth, the life, and the way. No man cometh unto the Fathet but by me.
This is not what Jesus said. This is what the Gospel of John claims Jesus said. They are not the same thing.
@@pannonia77 For you to say that this isn't what Jesus said is also a claim. Can you substantiate that claim? Now you can choose to believe Jesus didn't say it. Just like I can choose to believe He did. But I think there's adequate evidence that shows the Gospels were written by eye witnesses, who would have been in a position to know what Jesus said.
Politically correct means conforming with people that do wrong.
@@evidencebasedfaith6658 Not just that, but something that atheists will laugh at though. Problem is that is quite a big sin in itself. The Holy Spirit with whom Jesus left us with. Ps. The problem of sinning part : "“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.” - Mark 3:28-29 (CEV)"
So yeah...
@@evidencebasedfaith6658 You should take lessons on the Gospels from someone other than Christian fundamentalists, and you would know that NEITHER of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. (Luke even says so in his introduction, have you never read it?)
The synoptics may have some historical truths scattered in their writing, but John seems to me - and to most competent, not biased fundamentalist scholars - as not reliable.His theological agenda rules over any endeavour at historical authenticity.
So, the winner of a debate is not necessarily the one who's right. It's the one who is best prepared and has the greatest charism...
Not even what he said...
@@sheissuzanne I will quote some of what WLC said ;)
>>>"one of the most crucial elements in a debate is time management"
>>>"comming unprepared"
>>>"I think it's due to overconfidence and lack of preparation"
>>>"I think Christians need to be reminded of is not to be so angry and mean"
So, to me, yes he said that to win a debate you have to be extremly well prepared and show good figure on stage. He doesn't say that the winner has the best arguments or worse, that the winner is right.
@@kevinbarbe799 WLC: "I don't have any idea of these fellas debating skills... But intellectually-"
Interviewer: *interrupts* "you need both I guess"
....
Then WLC proceeds to talk about debating skills. He's just talking about skills that you need for debating. He's not saying it's what you need to win
@@sheissuzanne WLC says "Christians debater gets just skinned live [...] and they very often will lose" at 04:12.
To me, he recognizes that they lose because lack of preparation (and others things) but not because they're wrong, don't you think?
I understand the logic this way : christians debaters may lose because they're not prepared :someone can lose a debate not because he is wrong but because lack of preparation or skills in the time management. So someone can win not because he is right but because he was better prepared, has better debate skills.
So winning or losing a debate does not tell if the winner is right (or the loser wrong) about the topic. My first comment was only about that point ;)
Kevin Barbé I understand now, sorry. I actually agree with you
1:53 - "he's passed away" - in other words. he is not an atheist anymore
I am an atheist myself and would have to agree with Craig that none of the 4 horsemen were formidable in terms of clashing with Craig's arguments, but rather built a case around those arguments where Craig's arguments didn't matter in terms of being persuasive. It is more interesting to watch atheists/philosophers actually consider Craig's arguments than just dismiss them. Oppy is a fun one to watch because he truly considers the arguments in order to actually demonstrate why they fail as opposed to skirting around the arguments to make a different case for why they should be ignored.
I've noticed this with a lot of atheists. It's rare that I find one such as yourself that recognizes this intellectual deception.
Is constant debate a good thing? 1. It simply gives atheists a platform. It does not matter if they win or lose, they are heard. The debate is simply a way for them to be heard. 2. Many atheists base their arguments on emotional, mocking appeals, i.e., referring to God as your invisible friend or the spaghetti monster, referring to Christian’s are weak, stupid etc. 3. There is no end to the debate since no proof is enough for the vast majority of atheists. 4. Much of the science and theology is beyond most of us. The science behind evolution is so daunting. Yet it is cavalierly thrown around in debates with very few people having any sort of working understanding of it. Many confuse adaptation for evolution as one example. Yet many people or reject it without a good understanding of it.
James Hills it comes down to theists make supernatural claims with no physical proof that we can examine....faith is not a good tool to use
Juicelad Thanks for your response, but I think you intended it for someone else. It does not seem to address anything I was talking about.
Juicelad why couldn’t it have been aliens that used evolution to create a new species?
The ones that want to shut down debate commonly can't defend their position. You should be willing to question everything. If not, there is no need for you to be in a debate in the first place.
James Hills - you say ‘no proof is enough for atheists’? What proof? If all the proof you have is absolute garbage, than you can bring a billion ton of it and, sure, it would never be enough. Bring one ounce of good or real proof and only then you might have a leg to stand on.
Somewhat surprised he didn’t mention Shelly Kagan, who was quite formidable in engaging with and rebutting Craig’s arguments on the subject of morality, or Bart Ehrman, who quite adeptly dismantled Craig’s arguments on the subject of the “historicity” of the resurrection, or Sean Carroll, who put Craig’s misunderstandings of modern cosmology and quantum mechanics on full display, or Raymond Bradley, who probably gave Craig the most thorough beating he’s ever received from an atheist in a public debate.
Debate Matt Dillahunty. The truth of someone’s arguments has no bearing on the letters that come before or after their name.
After hearing his feeble defence of following a carnivorous diet then I don't think that he belongs to any comparison with Sam Harris
My fav is William Lane Craig, John Lennox and James Tour.
I watched Feser and Oppy debate. Over an hour of arguing about arguing then the last few minutes about Aristotelian notion of change (which is the essence of the Aristotelian argument for the existence of God).
Conclusion.... I think Oppy is overrated by WLC.
Nah if anything, Oppy is underrated. Check this video out and maybe have a look at some of his books: ruclips.net/video/mkp1QABbXnI/видео.html
I'm guessing you haven't read a single academic paper by Oppy.
Wow. Are we talking about the same debates?
Yes. First get into apologist mode. Then you would think the debates were the same ones where WLC won.
@@l0_0l45 Craig uses the same angle and statements. Simply because the opposition cannot counter them. Never heard a better argument from any atheist. Heard most of them.
@@tobiestockhoff4251 Nope. Craig has never changed his positions despite many flaws being pointed out in them. He then claims that he never heard anything that significantly countered him, despite the fact that his arguments can be demolished by even non-philosophers. His claims are of arrogance, and he does not recognize his ignorance of counter arguments, and counter evidence.
But that does not matter to a WLC fan who will defend him to hell and back. Till the time he claims he made a mistake, his fans will incorrectly assume his arguments have not been falsified. That is the situation.
@@tobiestockhoff4251 For instance, his version of the cosmological argument has been debunked several times, and yet his channel still makes videos defending the indefensible.
@@l0_0l45 Do you have any examples of of better arguments? Apart from personal and/or emotional bias by atheists.
They've got an Atheist Hotline.
They call it Nobody Answers.
I know Craig always wanted to debate Dawkins
That professional compition vibes
To dismiss the four horsemen like that shows his lack of class. He had arse handed to him by each and every one of them.
Pete Conrad I agree. WLC’s arguments are not that deep. Hitchens, for example, responds to them, quickly grows weary of them and often starts talking about other satellite problems related to WLC’s core arguments. WLC just seems to have a hard time understanding that he could be wrong.
Still Waiting on Dr. Craig to debate Matt Dillahunty....
@@PatrickInCayman
I've seen it. Doesn't explain why he is such a coward, and only selects a handful of people to debate.
@@PatrickInCayman
Sure he is. I'm willing to bed he'd win a debate against anyone he'd go against, including Dr. Craig.
@@PatrickInCayman
I love the assumptions you make. I watch more of craig, slick, CC, and such than i do atheist material.
Oppy, is one of the best atheist thinkers, we have had. No doubt. And yes, he is better than Dillahunty, but Craig isn't up to either of those standards. The atheist experience is on tomorrow...why don't you call in and show the world just how stupid Matt is.
@@PatrickInCayman
If you say so, chief. I don't see you calling to expose him. Easy to type without him responding to you. Much harder harder to do when actually talking to him.
Your opinion of him, is invalid until you call and show just how moronic he is. What elese ya got, besides ad hominems, and character assassination?
@@PatrickInCayman sounds like excuses to me, but okay. Cheers mate.
On being Angry and Mean, this is a victory of Satan that makes us more worldly, trying to score points in argument than save souls. A great point!
Dennett's gone to await judgement now.
Dr. Rob Koons who he mentioned at 2:37, is actually debating Dr. Graham Oppy: ruclips.net/video/bHw61T-zaeQ/видео.html
I don't think I've ever seen a debate with WL Craig in which he didn't go first and then pull the exact same tricks. He makes his points, the opponent has their opening remarks, Craig then gets up for his rebuttal and says "see?? They didn't address any of my arguments!" despite the opponent not having had a rebuttal turn yet. He is clearly a very skilled debator but seems more concerned with "winning" rather than having a discussion and coming to a deeper truth. And all his arguments for God (Kalam, Teleological, Ontological, Personal revelation) have all been debunked multiple times. Further, he is somewhat deceptive in some of his arguments. He will say things like "I don't understand why so many atheists won't follow the scientific evidence that points to a beginning of the universe." (many examples of this exact statement from him any time he discusses Kalam, including on this very channel.) No one still believes in the steady state universe, he is simply strawmanning in order to sound like he is making a cogent point.
Well said. It's hard for anyone to respond to the 'Gish gallop' with anything other than half-formed arguments... I used to think that Craig was at least well-educated enough to respond to scientific arguments; then I saw his debate with Sean Carroll.
You’re misrepresenting his point. When he says scientists don’t follow the evidence that points to a beginning of the universe what he means is that the evidence points to a beginning of the universe, but the beginning of the universe implies a creator and atheists won’t follow the evidence to that conclusion. Frankly, Kalam is a sound argument and I’d like to know why you make the claim that all of his arguments have been debunked because they really haven’t.
@@benjaminrippy9067 The Kalam cosmological argument is built around an equivocation fallacy, as "beginning to exist" is not clearly defined in the argument and it swaps definition within the 2 premises. Something can begin to exist ex materia or ex nihilo. If the universe began to exist ex materia, it doesn't need an immaterial cause, of it began to exist ex nihilo, then we know noting about it, as we have no experience with ex nihilo existence.
It would be like me saying "I have the right to be an atheist, therefore it is right for me to be an atheist", that is also an equivocation fallacy
A beginning of the universe doesn't necessarily imply a creator in that way. This is the problem here. It's a false dichotomy. There are a number of non-supernatural potential causes for the beginning of the Universe such as: Quantum Weirdness (L. Krauss), Simulated Universe (Nick Bostrom, I think?), the multiverse could be true, Brane theory etc. Another problem with the Kalam argument is well put by Christopher Hitchens "It gets you to Deism, but those who wish to argue for a particular theistic god still have all the heavy lifting yet to do," or something along those lines.The ontological argument he also likes to trot out is ridiculous on it's face. It essentially boils down to "I can imagine god exists and because of how I've defined god, he therefore exists." The argument form Morality he uses is also weak. He asserts that morality is objective and there are objective moral duties and then asserts that therefore there has to be a law giver, Bam! God! Morality may or may not be objective. Sam Harris seems to think it is with is moral landscape but he wouldn't use that as an argument for god. There are also reasons to think that what we see as moral is dependent on an evolutionary process of communal living and survival. Dr. Craig doesn't like evolution though.The argument from Design is no good because it's a terrible design. Otherwise giraffes wouldn't have a vagus nerve a million miles long and I wouldn't have a bunch of herniated disks in my back. If Paradise Lost is at all close to being what church doctrine says, then it was a horribly conceived plan from the beginning to create a universe knowing full well it would lead to original sin and satan and all that.Arguments from personal experience mean nothing. Same validity coming from any source, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, etc etc etc..The only argument he uses that seems have any weight to it at all whatsoever is the Teleological argument. I don't right now know why the constants are the way they are but that doesn't mean that there isn't a solid physical reason and that god did it. That's a god of the gaps.I've never head Dr. Craig use any other arguments outside of quoting scripture
@@dragan176 There's a lot to get to, so let me give it a shot:
"Begins to exist" as it pertains to this argument is pretty simple: 'before' the start of the universe (it's wrong to say before here because the Big Bang was the start of time) there was nothing, and then seemingly out of nowhere, the universe popped into existence 13.8 billion years ago. That is the beginning of existence for everything that exists. As far as I know, the only reason that in the Kalam argument (vs. other cosmological arguments) the premise says 'begins to exist' is because if it simply said 'everything that exists' that would include God and God is the eternal uncaused cause of the universe. That's not special pleading because you necessarily must have some uncaused cause in order to have anything at all, and to object would leave you with an infinite regress. You assert that something can begin to exist ex materia or ex nihilo. I would disagree that anything can begin to exist ex materia. For example, if somebody makes a piece of paper, then it began to exist ex materia; the materia in this case would be cellulose, dye, etc. However, it didn't really begin to exist; the carbon in the cellulose that is in the paper did not begin to exist with the piece of paper, it was present in the tree, and in many other forms for billions of years before that. Anything that 'begins to exist ex materia' is simply that materia changing form or chemical structure. Similarly, if the universe was created ex materia, that materia must have been present before the start of the universe, and unless that materia had a first cause and a finite past you're left with an infinite regress. However, modern cosmological evidence does point to the start of the universe as the start of everything, including time, regardless. However, if it began ex nihilo, which I think is undeniable, I would disagree with you that we know nothing about it; for example, we know that it is immaterial, timeless, spaceless, omnipotent, etc. because it had the power to create time, space, matter, and all the things we hold dear in the universe. It also created a universe with the potency for human life to arise out of inanimate matter and energy. I don't see where you find an equivocation fallacy between the first two premises of the argument. 'Begins to exist' means just what you'd think it means: begins to exist. Something didn't exist before, and it does now. And it means just that in both premises of the argument.
Didn't mean to write half a book up there, but you can read it and respond if it interests you. I can't guarantee I'll respond though, the RUclips comment section is definitely not the place for a conversation like this.
It is interesting to see these questions being answered by both sides. They tend to be similarly aligned and mirror one another. Both say there's no intelligent points made from the other side, but how can that be? That was very nonchalantly dismissive.
I like Dr. Craig. His assessment of who's the smartest atheist is a weak assessment predicated on a whim.
What I find so interesting/disingenuous about WLC is that when he debates atheists he goes back to the Kalam and various other non-specific deistic beliefs. But that doesn’t explain why he is a Christian. The arguments he uses could be used by a Muslim, a Viking, an Ancient Greek etc. that’s why it’s so unpersuasive (not to mention the logical fallacies all these arguments entail)
If the debate wasn’t on Christianity then there was no need to use resurrection arguments. So instead it was over belief in God. Also, where’s the fallacy in the Kalam? Is it in the first premise? Second premise? Or is it the conclusion about the nature of the cause? You need to provide reasons why the kalam is a fallacy.
thearmysold1er who is to say the cause of our universe isn’t an alien civilisation who created it as some sort of simulation? What if in their universe cause and effect work differently? What if their laws of physics are different? How could anyone possibly know or find out? Does that make the aliens gods? The classic theistic God implied by religious people when use the Kalam; does it have a beginning? If not, why not? How do you know it’s eternal? What if it’s bluffing? What if it does exist and it doesn’t know how it began to exist? Why does it get to exist eternally, unbound by the causality of our universe?
How does anybody know anything about any of these things at all?? How can we explore these questions? We can barely conceptualise them.
Anyone who uses the Kalam as a way of expressing why they believe in a god inevitably still has a million miles to go if they want to prove why ‘their’ god (Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Thor) is in fact the god that created the universe. The irony to all WLC using it all the time is that the Kalam was created by Muslims, not Christians.
Peasant Scrublord firstly, thanks for the ad-hom 👍 straight out of the gate. Secondly, is the Kalam the reason you believe in God?
Peasant Scrublord why would you defend a point of view you don’t agree with?
Peasant Scrublord in a discussion about truth do you think the best way to come to an understanding about truth is to say a person is a moron (your opening words were ‘you’re a moron’, not that I was having a moronic moment) if they disagree with you?
Craig’s problem is that he focuses on winning the debate from a technical perspective whereas his opponents are trying to win the debate with the audience. Case in point, Craig opens with making 4-5 claims that he wants addressed. Well guess what, that would consume all his opponents’ time and then the substance of the debate is dictated by him. Harris for example would have none of that and launched some amazing speeches to the AUDIENCE. Then Craig spends his time with “he didn’t address this and he didn’t address that” meanwhile being guilty of the same by not rebutting many things his opponents claim. You’re left with admiration with what his opponents stated and flustered that Craig is just arguing about arguing. But I suppose when you really have no substantive arguments, you turn the debate into a semantic brawl which is a smart strategy.
Atheism is a bald claim that doesn't address anything in reality. Whey I'm told, "you're claiming at least one deity exists" I reply, "No, I've never made that claim. God is not a god or any god, these are different and incompatible terms for you to be 'atheist' in denial." Someone the other day said, "But the claim *is out there!"* Talk about not addressing your opponents arguments. If I have to answer to "every claim that is out there" then it kind of ruins the point you're trying to make about 403 Federal Rules of Evidence, waste of time & prejudice.
Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Once I've convinced the godless person I'm not equivocating on God being the same as a or any miniscule 'g' god they jump ship to another, "I'm lacking belief of gods all the time just like babies. We're all atheists from birth." Hold on just a minute there fella, you a few seconds ago we're telling me you existed as something by denying a claim you were making on my behalf and now you expect me to divine that's what babies think but can't express?
"You're making the claim at least one deity exists." is every logical fallacy in the book. Philosophical theists *never* make that claim, we're on a different side _from that bald claim_ as noted above. It's at least two logical fallacies of bald claims, the one the alleged "atheist" is making and the one on our behalf (a bald claim strawman argument!). The _reason_ why your team isn't addressing any of Dr. Craig's proofs is *because they can't.* No person who claims "atheism" even claims it to themselves in the first person as a meditation or reflection, a ponderance.
Amazing
I've never heard an atheist argument that wasn't childish. "I can't see God, therefore he doesn't exist." LOL.
like the christian arguments are better? yesterday i felt hope and joy therefore god appeared to me personally i felt him, or things like HERESAY from the bible (apostoles told the story 20-30 years after Jesus supposedly died), witness testimonies that wont hold in a court today or the weakest one which Craig loves, everyting has a beggining(creation) , the world has a begining therefore => GOD, just utter 6 year old logic
@@Saskobest LOL. The Gospels are not hearsay. They were written by direct witnesses to the events they relate. Even Paul was a direct witness to the appearance of Jesus Christ. If you want to be an infidel, fine; but please don't try to bolster your arguments with lies.
Lol, same could be said for 100 other religions, there are legit "islam historians" who claim Moohamad's miracles guided by ALAH or we have even modern day thousands of direct witnesses to miracles done in India,Indonesia etc where we have 300 year old man, man who flies, miracle waters etc.@@garymathis1042
read The Best Argument against God by Graham Oppy.
@@garymathis1042 Paul never met Jesus and never saw Jesus, but he allegedly heard his voice on the road to Damascus. Outside the New Testament there are no records of him ever visiting the kings and other powerful authority figures he supposedly held audiences with, no Jewish records of a Christian-hunter gone rogue, etc. Even Josephus, Tacitus, etc, have nothing to say on Paul. The gospels were written annonymusly, and not by eyewitness. Scholars universally agree that it seems unlikely, for example, that Matthew would rely so heavily on Mark if its author had been an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry, or that the Acts of Apostles (by the same author as the gospel of Luke) would so frequently contradict the Pauline letters if its author had been Paul's companion. Instead, the two took for their sources the gospel of Mark (606 of Matthew's verses are taken from Mark, 320 of Luke's), the Q source, and the "special" material of M and L.
I must of been watching debates from another dimension when WLC was on... especially against Hitchens.
Jamie Wilson or confirmation bias... like everyone else in the world
dude, you're dreaming.
Hitchens got smoked absolutely awful he just ignored everything Craig said and went on a tantrum about how God was mean. Craig had 5 arguments and hitchens addressed zero. You could see his face turning redder and.redder.throughout the debate.
No, you were in the correct dimension, Hitchens pretty much lets WLC self implode, if you review the comments associated with that debate, you might "wonder" about which dimension you are in.
Hitchens was merely a sophist. Did not even bother to egngage WLC's arguments . Simply went on with his ranting.
How formidable does an atheist have to be with the given lack of attempts to provide any evidence to refute.
When the most formidable created finite sinful atheist dies he meets the pure, holy, infinite, all-powerful eternal Creator God on judgment day on sin, followed by the great eternal barbecue of sinners. Since most people love the devil, lies and other sins more than righteousness, don't concern yourself with leaving comments, they probably won't add up to a small hill of beans in value anyways. God is not mocked, people reap what they sow in the end. That's the way the cookie bounces, be sure your sins will find you out... it ain't rocket surgery, the proof is in the pudding, little lost sheeple.
"Rocket surgery"
😂😂😂😂
Im.gona use that. Tyvm.
Craig is such a clown. He is the one who is superficial, doesn't engage with the questions, and dismisses the answers to his points of argument.
I completely agree with him about Christians being mean and sarcastic. I really wish Christians would stop doing that.
Try telling them "I'm Christ" (It's my Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux, my only video proves it, proves I'm Christ), and you'll unleash all the devils of hell. I'm sadistically and Satanically hated by both parties in this dispute. LOL.
Man, dey ain't got nutt'n on them atheists!
I watched the Harris debate and you can see his lack of arguments
A more charitable response to the question of: "what do you wish apologists would stop doing?" would be to refrain from characterizing "Atheism" as a faith set.
Atheism state their is no god. This a knowledge claim. Knowledge claims must provide argument for the claim.
ricky roach
Let’s break this down a person who accepts God = theist.
A person that does not accept that claim = atheist (from the Greek meaning without as in not excepting)
So an atheist doesn’t say that there are no gods, just that the claim itself is not accepted, manly because of the lack of evidence.
@@cockroachvWhat is my label when I claim "There Are No Leprechauns.."? I have no "knowledge" supporting my lack of belief in Leprechauns... I must be therefore...an A-leprechaunist... a new "religion" you sir, are now forced to consider as real.. Leprechaunism...Have you heard the "Good News"?
@@cockroachv Again, when and until some well dressed "Atheists" come knocking at my door with pamphlets espousing their "religion".. It would be charitable to refrain from characterizing Atheism as a faith set.. Even I, as a Marginalized Christian, can figure this one out. I am assuming budd2nd's explanation may not be sufficient for most people.
ricky roach I’m an atheist. I’ve never stayed there is no God. I just state over and over that the arguments I hear from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. do not convince me that there is one.
I doubt you believe that Darth Vader is a real person. I wouldn’t expect you to have to waste your own time looking to back that view up. If I came to you and said Star Wars is based on real history then it’s up to me to prove that.
The problem with Dr. Craig, and every other apologist and every other christian is that they have never offered a good reason or evidence for the validity of their mythology, or for the existence of their deity, or even the existence of any deity. Nothing else matters in christian apologetics and on that ground, all have failed miserably. Don't worry though, you're in good company as no other believer in all other deities and mythologies have accomplished this either. You're just like the muslims, mormons, zoroasters, and scientologists. While that should comfort you, it is also what's so satisfyingly hilarious about your beliefs for reasonable people who know how to think. 🙏
You should have James White on! I'd love to see a dialogue between him and Craig.
I never saw Dr. Craig debating a protestant apologist
WLC is a blessing from the only king of kings Jesus Christ.
Love you William. You're awesome.
He didn't mention Shelly Kagan. Wow lol
it baffles me that the guy who said children cant suffer sudenly thinks everyone else y shallow
We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. - Romans 8:28
Amen
Maybe you should not use the term "we." And you do not KNOW this--you believe it.
“With great power comes great responsibility”- Spider-Man
Knowing is half the Battle
-Duke (ret. G.I. Joe)
@elvismilk Perhaps you'd better explain that remark. Sounds like racism to me, so correct me if I'm wrong.
@@vilicus77 Oh it's definitely "we." Read the room lol
I feel the same way about as apologetics as Craig feels about the four horseman (and he has a bit of a point). Apologetics has always, always failed to meet one of the most basic standards of science, namely Popper's standard of falsifiability. Scientists seek to test theories to figure out if they are true. The greatness of science is that it lets the outcome of experiments determine what is true. What scientists like to be true is irrelevant. Apologists only try to come up with arguments in favour of their faith. No modern apologist has ever come up with a scientific experiment that can determine whether God exists, or whether souls exist, or to test any other religious claim. Apologetics has never gone out of the realm of philosophical argument and into experimental science. It is for this reason that I find apologetics and modern apologists so disappointing.
Amen to that! ... (so to speak)
At least in theory it should be trivially easy to test if for example prayers work or to demonstrate the existence of a God who interacts with our reality in any measurable way.
So to me it seems like Apologists already know that the gods they believe in don’t interact with our reality in any measurable way and are therefore indistinguishable from all other made up gods that don’t exist.
That’s why unfalsifiable philosophical arguments are so popular among Apologists, especially arguments about the origins of our universe where the likelihood that any scientific discoveries may one day exclude God as an explanation are basically zero.
If I understand correctly, science excludes anything supernatural. How can one use the scientific method to prove something that it's existence it denies?
@@donpaco6536
Science doesn't exclude anything and the scientific method can be applied to everything that can be demonstrated to exist.
Unfortunately supernatural claims tend to be entirely unfalsifiable.
@@donpaco6536 No, science does not exclude the supernatural. Science started rejecting the supernatural when more and more natural causes for things were found which were previously believed to have supernatural causes. A good example is natural disasters, which were believed to be punishments from the gods, but are now explained by natural causes.
As long as it is possible to test an idea against a contrasting idea with experiments or observations, science can be used.
To the sceptics, he asked which of the four horsemen was the most formidable. Not which opponent ever.
This is why he does not mention Ehrman, Carrell or some others.
They are specifically talking about neo-atheism and its main representatives.
5:16 Gold! @MattFradd
I used to be intimidated by the 4 horseman until I saw saw their debates with Christians. I was quite surprised by how little knowledge of theology or philosophy these "giants of atheism" had.
Interesting information interview.
I tend to enjoy a good debate that relies little if none at all on opinions.
He is very well spoken, but failed to touch on the mechanics of nothing creating everything.
Even when I was agnostic I still couldn't understand that perspective.
God/uncaused first cause/creator is not nothing but is the best explanation of the given data and physical laws such as the second law of thermodynamics.
I wish to see William Lane Craig and Peter Singer Debate
Chris hitchens never performed poorly in a debate, you can disagree with him but to say that he didn't provide "clash" is laughable
WLC still avoiding Matt Dillahunty!
TheCosmicWarrior uneducated? How so? He’d squash all of WLC’s word salad
@TheCosmicWarrior he would absolutely tear through WLC arguments but he doesn't want to go against Matt because he knows he'd eat him alive.
Matt dillahunty would absolutely win that debate with logic and reasoning, unlike Craig’s kalam argument, which does not lead to a god, much less the Christian god, and Craig’s “ facts” about the empty tomb. They just don’t hold up. Craig has said it all doesn’t matter anyway, because any evidence is worthless against a personal experience of the Holy Spirit , which you can only have in the first person. Craig is a very educated and classy person, but he’s still relying on feelings and bad evidence.
@TheCosmicWarrior WLC is a top tier coward and narcissist. Being fake nice doesn't work on those who see through veneers. Dillahunty scares him because Matt does not swoon over the big voice preacher persona WLC tries so hard to use for hypnotizing his malliable audiences.
Dillahunty is not a very smart person. Only over-zealous devout atheists find his rhetoric compelling, mostly because they'll take anyone or anything they can get. That much is self-evident.
Go watch Craig debate Carroll. 😂 WLC got schooled
Was about to post the same. They keeping asking Cameron from Capturing Christianity to do a review lol.
“The Great Debate: Has Science Refuted Religion?” Yes, Science has refuted Sean Carroll's religious mooring based on everyone's inability to understand Sean's religion is the one where its adherents submarine the rationales of their own religious faith.
Not for nothing, but Sean's participation in the Freedom From Religion Foundation is proof he doesn't even understand the grammar of assent, how it's irrelevant to the acceptance or denial of any religious paradigm, his own. It's a book 20 years in the making. This guy wrote a book compiled over twenty years that proves Sean's religion is the same subject as Craig's, but Sean hasn't read the guy's book. 20 years for the reading.
Dallas, please try to understand, if I can give you twenty extra years of life, (I just did in this comment), wouldn't you want that? Harvard failed your dude. You don't even understand what I'm saying. These people are talking for hundreds of billions of years, and they're not really saying anything that matters.
@@trustinjesus1119 bro, you sound like you talk back out loud when you hear your imaginary friend with special benefits in your head.
he didn't get schooled. I think WLC won that debate
Do you have any links to resources re the people WLC mentions?
Notice how when asked "who was the most formidable" he says Sam Harris then goes on to explain how friendly and charming he was, which is actually entirely irrelevant to the question. This is an indication WLC perhaps interpreted and subsequently answered the question "which Atheist do you like the most" almost as if he processed the question as one of subjective preference than an evaluation of objective parameters. Interestingly, this parallels the semantics employed by WLC during discussions concerning religion, it seems to me that questions answered can often be crudely reduced to "I prefer this explanation" when he is pressed on them.
Agreed, demonstrating a correct position does not generally translate into being "pleasant"...
I found it funny that this is After the Sean Caroll debate, where Sean actually refuted every argument that Dr. Craig made. Doesn't mention him, Ahmed, Erhman or Carrier either...smh.
Can you post a link to this? I'm interested to know whether he "refuted" every argument.
@@tobetrayafriend just look up William lane Craig vs Sean Caroll.it is on RUclips.
No surprise he doesn’t mention the Sean Carroll debate, Carroll absolutely destroyed Craig and the Kalam argument definitively, and Craig disabled the comments on the RUclips video of the debate.
@@Cmez872
I know. Sean used actual facts, and decimated WLG. There wasn't a question about it, especially when he brought out Valenkin to dispute Craig's point that the BGV therum shows the universe has an absolute beginning.
I've never seen Dr. WLC beat any of those mentioned in this video in a debate. I find it hard to understand why he thinks he did.
Really like listening to WLC
Can't clash with WLC because he doesn't make any sensible arguments. He argues with himself using wordplay and age old politician/lawyer debate tactics
becoming an apostate is the second best thing I have ever done
Of course it is, I would too. But I love God more than my own flesh.
I doubt that.
Bro.... you can’t honestly believe this.
This what?
WLC is intellectually dishonest. Period.
Absolutely not, Lane Craig’s debate with Harris was very good. Craig’s assertion that the debaters did not engage with the argument is silly.
In my opinion, you don't have to go in deep philosophy to know wether or not the Christian God exists. You can disprove his existence quite easily with the problem of evil :
P1) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then it means that God deliberately created a world where he perfectly knew child cancer (or insert any horrible event) would happen but he didn't make anything to change it.
P2) God is omnipotent and omniscient.
C) It means that God deliberately created a world where he perfectly knew child cancer (or insert any horrible event) would happen but he didn't make anything to change it.
You just want to Party/Sin and make Baby Blue-eyed Jesus cry.
Yeah you nailed it. One of the several examples of this flawed myth.
wrong - God brings good out of evil and won't permit evil unless a greater good can come of it - this can be proven by reason
@Matt BlaiseHow ?
God does't behave how I want therefore he doesn't exist. All atheist arguments always come down to this. Atheism is a failure in independent thought.
No mention of Roger Pen Rose. You don’t want to relive that decimating debate do you, WLC?
Huh, what?
lorgus100 it was a discussion? How was that a “decimating debate?”
Oh Lordy! The King of the non-sequitor, the Saviour of the Straw Man, the Lord of lame-brains has the brazen gall to criticise the "intelligence" of Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, Dawkins!
Craig ... who has a "Mathematical Proof" of the resurrection!
Craig is the Trump of Apologetics ... THINKS he is brilliant, knows it all and -- what's worse -- thinks he's doing the work of an Imaginary Being!
Keep it up Craig ... every time you open your mouth to utter your sophistry, atheism moves another step forward!
Jesus Christ can give you rest for your troubled soul
Atheists worship death.
@@mixandmatch44 I didn't say, "In THIS video ..."!
In one of his debates, both "sides" could use slides and he "proved the "truth" of the "resurrection" using Bayes Theorem -- COMPLETELY WRONGLY!
If you are really interested, I'm sure you could Google it!
@@shomshomni2314 Gee, THANKS!!!!
Alas ... the "Soul" is an imaginary, man-made contrivance -- like Heaven, God, Hell, Satan, etc
So, my "Soul" is fine thanks -- just as fine & dandy as if it actually existed!
WLC is correct. I think Hitchens was the worst when it came to debating. his argument was always off topic, half baked and full of holes.
Really? just barely 20 seconds in and he can't help but lie.