When Dr. Atkins seeks to refutes Dr. Craig’s claims about what science can’t justify/prove/explain, notice how he goes for the weakest of the list instead… And it’s ironic because he was presupposing the laws of logic to do so. Scientism is self defeating. Don’t bother arguing with someone who holds to anything remotely close to an epistemology that is rooted in Scientism; waste of time and energy.
I’ve gotta admit (in my own ignorance), after Atkins’s first speech I thought he made the case against Craig. Then Craig absolutely demolished him with SIMPLE LOGIC in his response.
I hope you've rewatched his opening with a more critical view. Whereas Craig lays out the foundational logic and evidence for his position, Atkins actually spent almost his entire opening just implying that theists are lazy, uninformed, not serious, etc. He actually never even made supporting arguments for his own position other than just declaring it so and conflating his position with intelligence and proper scientific belief. You'll see this from all the notable atheist apologists, which is why I personally believe that atheism is a religion that requires significantly more faith than either agnosticism or theism. At least the latter two don't make you pick between either nihilism or unfounded assertions of authority.
@@mewster1818 You should watch WLC debate Sean Carroll. Sean humiliates WLC by showing WLC doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to physics and cosmology and basically demonstrates that WLC lies. As for you seeing this from all notable atheist apologists, that's utterly false. First off there are not theist apologists. Second, saying atheism is a religion is like saying people who don't collect stamps are stamp collectors. Third, when you claim it takes more faith to be an atheist, the theist admits faith is a indefensible position, yet practically the entire theists position really comes down to faith. Fourth, you don't seem to know anything about epistemology and that beliefs and knowledge are two different things. Agnosticism and gnosticism are about knowledge while atheism and theism are about belief. You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic theist or gnostic atheist.
@@jameslay1489 I think you are missing his point. He's comparing atheism in the religon in the sense that it's accept by many uncritically. As for the rest, I think there is a ton more nuance, that I am not going to bother with on a youtube comment.
@@whitevortex8323 Craig is speaking out of his posterior. Most active atheists I know have become atheists because they have thought critically about it, most of us were former christians after all. Then there is the fact that he's really projecting because most christians have accepted their religious view uncritically because most christians were told to believe from moment when they are born.
He also called them "arm chair brains". There are a lot of disciplines which do purely a priori or at least use a lot of a priori knowledge and reasoning which are the philosophers, mathematicians, theologians, logicians and even theoretical physicists. But it obviously doesn't mean that they deny the existence of a posteriori knowledge and reasoning.
@@metaforicallyI've actually noticed a theme where atheist debaters seem like they've never bothered to read the publications of the theists they're debating, meanwhile the theists will almost always reference the atheists works and display that they did their research. I've seen it in so many debates at this point that it honestly seems like the atheist position is built upon being too prideful to even prepare properly... which then shows in the debates because they almost never actually engage the actual points made by their opponents in favor of red herrings and strawman arguments.
He continually assumes that ALL religion arose as an attempt to explain the physical universe, rather than at least some religions arising as a direct and natural result of experience with a real and living God .
@@emmanuel8310 suspect and assume are different words with different meanings. But yes, no one really knows anything for certain. So assume away my friend, assume away.
@@curious_thinker Why do you think so? Atheists love to point out the anthropic principle to rebut fine tuning so it sounds unpersuasive, although I personally love it and use it in my arsenal.
@@2007enthusiast There are multiple coutner arguments to fine tuning such as multi-verse, nature of life, etc. Nevertheless, I do think it's a good argument but it's not enough to establish the existence of a God like entity at least to me. But I can understand why thiests find it convincing.
I agree fine-tuning is on shaky ground, but I was specifically wondering why you thought the cosmological argument wasn't good enough? @@curious_thinker
I like the contingency argument more than good if one knows the objections to it though it's not for masses for masses cosmological is good but you to explain it further
"no charge separated into charge, nothing separated"--hold up there, boss. "No charge" doesn't equal "nothing". What is charge? Charge is something a thing HAS rather than something a thing IS. We speak of electrons having charge and protons having charge, rather than them BEING charge, and calling them "charge carriers" doesn't change that fact. Thus, it isn't "no charge" separating, but a particle with no charge collectively separating into other particles with positive and negative charges. This statement by Atkins is stupid at best, disingenuous or even deceitful at worst.
Some say that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. But it seems to me Atkins is terrified that God might exist, without seeming particularly wise.
I find myself pitying Dr. Atkins. To have your mind so blinded by Satan as to be convinced of the verity of and to publicly express such foolish statements as "there is truly nothing here", "no one knows how spacetime came into being acausally", and "no charge separated into charge--nothing separated" is pitiable. I will try to remember to pray for him, that the blinders be removed before he dies and forever ceases being a fool who says God does not exist. If he dies without coming to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, he will KNOW God exists and it will be too late. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Atkins demands that it is on the religious to prove that his simple scientific view of the universe is inadequate, while ignoring that his simple scientific view couldn’t and still can’t provide a satisfactory origin of our existence.
@@ats0930 except they don't which is why most cosmologists reject theists explanations. Even the Jesuit priest who came up with the Big Bang theory warned theists not to take his work as proof god created the universe.
@@jameslay1489 that was a lot of words spent to say "I disagree" when asked for an explanation. You provided no answer to the question ,and no specific facts or logic to answer the question. Which part of the theists theory of origin is unsatisfactory?
@@ats0930 I don't have an answer to your question, which doesn't automatically mean yours is correct. Give me a theist theory of origin first. Which theists? Not all theists are the same nor do they believe in the same deity.
I can understand why the majority of people from the dawn of history would be desperate to believe in the existence of God. What I can't understand why a minority relatively very late in the course of history would desperately wish that God never existed.
I can in one word. Narcissism. We (Our brains) ultimate goal for our entire life is what ? self preservation/ survival. Why would our psyches prioritise living, and life and thus be so fearful of death if we TRULY believed in an afterlife. We are also SOCIAL creatures and our survival actually depends upon being accepted by another FROM BIRTH so we also wish to protect ourselves against the devastation and hopelessness we would feel if we accepted that our loved ones no longer exist , so it’s pacifying to hope we may be reunited in death. It’s essentially a necessary delusion for the brain to remain functioning and participate in what the rest of nature and animal do, which is avoid extinction.
@@izabellapinker9705Nah, y’all hate God and the very idea of him because you hate the idea of moral culpability. I pray 🙏🏻 you find him before we’re judged.
@@JudoMateo ok but you haven’t provided any examples or explanations for you holding that assumption/knowledge toward complete strangers moral culpability…. Also, unintelligent personal attacks toward people who don’t agree with you isn’t the way to win an argument, OR the favour of your God. Go pray for some forgiveness and the gift of self awareness and come back to us :)
@@izabellapinker9705 There’s myriad examples of atheists admitting just that, I’ll provide one as an example of such thinking ruclips.net/user/shorts0sOae6zIvQQ?si=LbqYyctT9KrXIVue As for your assertion that I’ve made “unintelligent personal attacks” the reply you made that all all Theists are “narcissistic” which is demonstrably an unintelligent personal attack. As far as our arguments go I’m sure I can find many more examples of atheists saying they reject God because they don’t like his moral standards than Theists who claim they’re believers due to narcissism.
@@izabellapinker9705 You have to admit many people become atheists because they don’t want to be held accountable, it’s mainly the uneducated atheists, the ones that use stupid arguments like “WhO MaDE GoD” Or “If BaD ThiNg hAppEn no gOd.” Though I have met more coherent and challenging ones.
He said he is on the brink of understanding everything. This was 25 years ago. How's that working out for ya, Dr. Atkins? Understand everything now, do you? Please elucidate. Surely you weren't just asking us to have blind faith that your understanding of all things was right around the bend. Surely you will now tell us all things, thus proving your wisdom and foresight conclusively, rather than asking us to have FAITH in you, who are just another human no different from ourselves, though more foolish than some of us are(though not more foolish than some of us were, perhaps, as I was once a fool who said God didn't exist, though my youth at the time is an excuse you didn't have here). I hope God shows you mercy as He did me and you let go of your foolishness and put your faith in Jesus Christ before you die and the truth of the part of God 's word that references the Lake of Fire is something you can no longer deny, having personal and terrifying experience of the reality there represented.
It is shocking that Dr Atkins is so poorly educated in other fields like history, philosophy and other branches of science. For example, He really made a fool of himself in not understanding the principle of how Occam's razor works and misapplying it repeatedly even after being corrected. I mean this is very basic undergraduate stuff...inexcusable.
I love how atheists claim that the claim God exists is a false “God of the gaps” argument, while simultaneously invoking the extremely lazy “Science of the gaps” argument. I have heard the statement “Science can not explain this… yet” too many times. It’s lazy and a poor argument to “prove” that everything can be explained by Science.
i tought Atkins will play with the Genesis 1 account of separating light and dark and the waters above and below… and no he did not. separating matter and antimatter sounds a lot like Gen 1.
Dr. Atkins admitted in his opening statement that science cannot account for the origins of the universe, life, and consciousness, but then proclaims science explains everything. He is in contradiction to his own thesis. Yet, he professes himself to be wise. Now, where did I read an explanation for Atkins’ thinking? I think I read something about this in a first century A.D. publication by a Jewish scholar named Saul who was Paul who put stylus to parchment and said-“Although they claim to be wise, they became fools.”
@@justchilling704 no it’s a fact - philosophy has never revealed a scientific fact, it only speculates on facts the scientific method has discovered or debates the moral implications
@@Kratos40595 Where tf are you getting this nonsense? Science is from philosophy, specifically natural philosophy, the scientific method is by definition philosophical. And why tf would philosophy reveal how many genes an organism has? That’s not what philosophy is about.
@@justchilling704 …no, no it’s not… philosophy uses philosophical arguments and philosophical principles, science makes use of empirical data and objective evidence.
I don’t understand why atheist always begin their arguments by insulting the “ignorance” and “prejudice” of their audience. Why start here and close communication before it even starts?
Oh heavens, Atkins. I took you seriously for a minute and actually put myself in the condition of perfect agnosticism and then you go into antiquity. My dear boy, why should I believe you know anything of antiquity besides that society and education have conditioned me to believe we know something about the ancient past? I can’t approach you with intellectual nakedness if you’re then going to jump into an argument demanding my intellectual clothing.
This is a debate of the metaphysical and the philosophical logic vs the materialistic and naturalistic position held by Atkins. Is it any wonder the are talking right past each other. Atkins like Mike Dillihunty, Dawkins et al would ignore any empirical proofs no matter how strong
I wonder what evidence does Scientist have when they pressumed BIG BANG is the most accurate evidence of creations before creation?! I guess they also rely on "FAITH"
"Science can account for everything in the world" show me empirically where the laws of logic are contained. Empirically demonstrate a mind. Empirically demonstrate knowledge.
Atkins looks nervous; as he is spewing his blasphemy, he speaks timidly, with a hurried sense of urgency, as his eyes dart around wildly, often looking up & wincing, as if he is scared terrified of something. This guy already is or knows he is about to have a really bad day. His profuse sweating, clammy hands, rapid eye blinking, and shrill, rigid, stiff, snakelike frail body frame don’t help. Did some research on ol’ Atkins, turns out he’s had a few hangups due to his alcoholism & gambling addiction. Witness’s reporter seeing Atkins “stumbling” back to his hotel room after long, late night binges at the bar
Atkins: "God didn't need to create anything. It was already there." God: Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
In a binary world of good vs evil, belief and disbelief, worship of god, or worship of ourselves, which side of atheism vs theism is the "good" side? One has order brought down from a creator, the other has chaos which assumes no objective moral, which assumes moral relativism which proves anyone can be right or wron depending on the circumstance. Speaking of the simple to complex argument, in its simplest form, god is good, humanism is evil by virtue of order vs chaos.
I haven’t watched the whole thing and I’m a Christian. But I have to say that I really think Dr. Atkins approach doesn’t seem very effective. By that I mean he is constantly belittling the theistic position without proving his own. Dr. Craig had just shown that there is a rational and theistic explanation of how things came to be, so for Dr. Atkins to begin with such assertions of his side’s superiority, etc is very off putting.
Peter Atkins was married 3 times. He can't figure out the basic elements of a personal relationship yet he claims to that he figured out the nature of the Universe. A Narcissist of the first order.
Genetic fallacy. Being divorced has no bearing on him being about to figure out the nature of the universe. I know preachers who have been married more times than Atkins.
You're saying that atheists say the universe came from nothing. But you're also saying that God came from nothing. Clever! How can Craig talk such dribble of an argument. He's not arguing for God or time, he's fighting against his opponent. Trying to tell him what he's going to say, when he hasn't even stood yet.
I like Craig because he provides evidence, hope and truth. Atkins presents suspicion, doubt and a meaningless existence. Given that both sides can not give 100% evidence of their case, I'll go for a happier and more optimistic life experience and stick with Craig. You da Man William Lane Craig.
You actually can experimentally prove that nothing is faster than light. Yes, there could be an experiment disproving this, but just like every established scientific fact can be disproven in the future!
He calls Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein intellectually lazy but he is one step away from dying of old age and has nothing to show for all his arrogance. He hasn't accomplished 10% of what they did for the advancement of science.
Wow, he just keeps insulting all religious people and asserting that science can explain everything without actually explaining anything over and over and over.
Dr. Atkins simply doesn't understand, it pretend not to understand, anything of the points Dr. Craig is making. Paul said it best 1900 years ago people suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them for God has made it plain to them. How proud do you have to be to state outright that science can explain everything. He didn't even understand when Craig pointed out that that's not a scientific statement.
@@forplaylistsetc You call it a brief description if you like. I call it a long winded load of excuses. You think that God has been around forever, I don't. You think that the big bang is a singularity, I don't. You're welcome to your childish beliefs in a thing that created the universe. I'll stick to the fact, YES, the fact that I don't know, but there's no God out there worth praying to.
@@ronarprefect7709 The proponent of the Kalam tries to prove the existence of god simply by defining god as the only thing that defy the main premise of the argument. Ok, it’s not quite circular, but it’s not far off.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. So how did God begin to exist, if he exists? Oh, God is eternal? So he didn't begin to exist. So he has no cause of existance. So not everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence...
You literally spelled it out yourself. God didn't begin to exist, as you said. The point is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God didn't begin to exist, as you said in your conclusion, so he requires no beginning or cause. He is the "unmoved mover."
An intelligent creator outside of physical space and time, outside our plane of understanding is required, otherwise you're exactly right, what comes before the beginning of time? What started it all? Obviously something outside of time and our understanding and God fits that perfectly, big bang doesn't at all.
@@p.as.in.pterodactyl1024one does not believe in God and the other believes in a tri-union diety bathed completely in pagan rituals and traditions i.e Christmas, Easter ect
Dr. Craig does not seem to want to understand that In the old days, people did not have the mentality to understand what goes around them and so they allotted it all to say " a Father Christmas did it all!". Now that belief is helpful and advisable and is permissible when one is a child and does not understand, but that analogy that Father Christmas did it all, was later proven that Father Christmas was in fact a lump of Energy with fantastic qualities, even if we assume that the original energy was an Electromagnetic Radio Energy that is emitted from every mobile phone and according to Albert Einstein it is all us contained in the transformation E= m.c^2.. I do not think it is fair for Dr. Craig to keep asking for the proof that father Christmas does not exist when in fact Father Christmas is the Energy that science speaks about, and it raises its voice often, and is seen and heard all over he universe. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed and we may assume that Energy always existed or indeed there was no Energy and nothing was separated into positive and negative energy as the charges that make up electromagnetic fields and energy in Radio waves that circle around the universe very second of the day. *Electromagnetic Energy components ( Fourier elements) could have come into synchronisation/in phase and caused an impulse which created the big bang. that changed energy into matter...............this Energy we shall call God or Father Christmas.. * Through contact and closeness Matter evolved through 15 Billion years and made us what we are now and when we die will return and transform our mass back into energy to be what we were before, in Energy form. * Ethics came around because of our evolved sensitivity to pain which we do not want to transfer it to our neighbour and neither our neighbour to transfer pain on us. Art and beautiful things are all due to sensitivity to pain and colour contrast and the rate od change of colours can hurt the eye, and so does sound. Artistic pieces take the pain out of what we look at and what we hear adding a pleasant emotion without pain . Any consonant in language is impulsive and any vowel is more harmonious when sung. It all had to do with the Fourier contents od the frequency and also the colour. There are many social reforms that came about because we are sensitive to pain and prefer pleasure and comfortable emotions and sentiments.. *Consciousness came about as our sensors make us aware, note aware, of smell, sights, touch, sounds, and some other issues around us as emotions and sentiments. this we become an encyclopedia of memorised experiences. Once the brain cells are filled with information these can be fetched and redistributed in many forms . Consciousness is the brain sensing its own thoughts and memories , recursively. THis is awareness and consciousness and it may bring about inventions and new creations which can be painless or painful which decides their acceptance or rejection. * When we die we resurrect back to energy form and may be our electromagnetic spirits and souls are modulated by the personality we developed on earth while we were in mass form. What Dr Craig prefers is to keep referring to the existence of a Father Christmas, as that is all he can understand, but in real fact the Father Christmas that Craig refers to ,is only the Energy that has been with us for a long time and it is what we shall resurrect into . Since we have adopted Father Christmas for children then it would be fair to refer to the Energy and Mass as Father Christmas so many people prefer to call the Energy .... God and to the mentality of people God was a reference that came before a Father Christmas. . * Energy transferred in mass form produced evolution and evolution produced human sensors which are sensitive to pain, and ethics and order were formed on that, pain and pleasure, which decided on what we shall accept as humans. When we die our mass changed back into energy so in fact we were part of God, we transformed into mass as Christ did and we shall all resurrect back in to Energy as Christ resurrected. We were always energy and as such we are all part of God or Father Christmas. does not make any difference to me! . Animals have no qualms in going around looking for basic food and water and not being perturbed to discuss their own "Father Christmas", as long as "Energy" from the sun God changes into plants which they can eat.
You cannot prove a negative. It's childish of Craig and shows his disdain for Christian intelligence. Anyone who understands logic knows you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove Leprechauns or Jesus didn't exist, the same for God and Unicorns.
What in the heck are you asserting…the point was Atkins is suggesting there is a better idea about these events,(big bang or resurrection) than what Craig is suggesting when in reality he is refusing to see that logically what he is suggesting is so ludicrous it would be just as absurd as believe an all powerful, omniscient, and omnipotent being created everything and resurrected himself.
Something doesn't need to be "proven" by a presupposed structure of reasoning in order for whatever is trying to be reasoned to exist. One can know something by experiencing it directly rather than proving it instrumentally. "Proof" is not tantamount to knowledge and if it was you wouldn't exist.
neither one stated that their position can be "proven" in a sense of unambiguous undeniable-by-all proof (well, Atkins sometimes suggests it nominally but himself said that it's not a "matematical proof"), just in terms of "better evidence".
@@danthesolarman6480 People who believe God doesn't exist have no care other than the thought to simply believe whatever they believe is the right belief even if they cannot scientifically prove anything, their pre-conceived belief that there is no God supersedes all logic & reasoning, it is simply their belief but they will never admit this and will keep attacking all who believe God is real.
"In the atheistic view there is nothing WRONG with raping someone." Where does Dr. Craig get this nonsense? You certainly don't need religious delusions to know you are inflicting pain and suffering on someone else. Almost all cultures have determined rape to be "wrong". The interesting thing is rape is MORE acceptable in religious societies like Saudi Arabia and India for example.
This answer might be coming a bit late, but what Craig refers to is the atheist's inability to postulate some form of transcendent sense of what is "right" and "wrong". You say that raping "inflicts pain and suffering on someone else". But how is it OBJECTIVELY wrong to inflict pain and suffering on someone else on an atheistic worldview? There cannot be any objective standard of goodness to measure what is right and wrong, and your idea of "inflicting pain is bad" is completely arbitrary as a groundwork for your moral guidelines. Similarly, I could just say that, on a naturalistic, atheistic worldview, that which gives someone pleasure is objectively good, which leads me to the problem of, for example, rape: the rapist derives pleasure, the victim derives pain: If pleasure is good and pain is bad, how can you objectively claim that the rapist is wrong? You are right in saying that we don't need religion to KNOW what is right and wrong, but we need God in order to JUSTIFY our belief in the objectivity of morality. I hope that clears it up a bit.
@@markusoberschneider4615 Truly a silly response. The God of the Bible commands gang rape, infanticide, genocide, and condones slavery and a soldier burning his own daughter alive. According to the Bible rape and murder are not only OK then, but commanded by the creator. I would say anyone who follows the Bible then has proven they have no moral compass, as these things are not considered acceptable to most human beings.
Good and Evil are zorohastrian ideas that Christianity empowered. Set aside all things blur to - probably - a more realistic status, gynechologic tests are rape, medical treatments are torture, school is abuse, life in prison is murder. We construct and see what we choose to see. Most of times we're not even sure or in agreement what truly is good and what truly is evil. We just use the abstract consense of the concepts on our own and beneficts.
@@mateosmind751 Just because its in the Bible, does not mean it condones it. That's like me saying that, in your comment you talk about rape, infanticide, and slavery, therefore you condone it. That's childish. The Bible does not condone those things. It talks about how people have done those things and it protects the people who have been effected by those things. Talk about a silly response. This is why its so easy to see who actually studied the Bible themselves, and who just heard blatant lies that you just ate up and chose to believe it. Either do the full study and know WHY you believe something, or keep your mouth shut. The definition of a bigot is someone who has an opinion about something that they have not even took the time to look into. Do not talk about something you don't even know.
The atheist guy spent the first 5 minutes calling christian ignorant and lazy probably would say that's not the best way to start a debate. 😉
Yes he did
Most debates with atheist start this way . Did you see Dr tour and Dave . He spent the whole time attacking tour instead of debating abiogenesis
If he only knew God, I feel sorry for him, as i feel sorry for old me when I didn’t knew Christ. ❤
@@eugenehvorostyanov2409Apparently, theists don't even know which way time goes.
@@duxnihilo God bless you and your family. 🙏 Let good health and prosperity accompany you in your life. ❤️
When Dr. Atkins seeks to refutes Dr. Craig’s claims about what science can’t justify/prove/explain, notice how he goes for the weakest of the list instead…
And it’s ironic because he was presupposing the laws of logic to do so. Scientism is self defeating. Don’t bother arguing with someone who holds to anything remotely close to an epistemology that is rooted in Scientism; waste of time and energy.
1:03:32 is where the hard smackdown occurs.
LOL. Smackdown indeed
Thank u
so put that in your pipe and smoke it lmfao
Rubbish. He Gish-gallops through his assertions. All these points can be decomposed into scientific analysis.
Dr Craig is a legend
a legend at being wrong.
I’ve gotta admit (in my own ignorance), after Atkins’s first speech I thought he made the case against Craig. Then Craig absolutely demolished him with SIMPLE LOGIC in his response.
I hope you've rewatched his opening with a more critical view. Whereas Craig lays out the foundational logic and evidence for his position, Atkins actually spent almost his entire opening just implying that theists are lazy, uninformed, not serious, etc. He actually never even made supporting arguments for his own position other than just declaring it so and conflating his position with intelligence and proper scientific belief.
You'll see this from all the notable atheist apologists, which is why I personally believe that atheism is a religion that requires significantly more faith than either agnosticism or theism. At least the latter two don't make you pick between either nihilism or unfounded assertions of authority.
@@mewster1818 You should watch WLC debate Sean Carroll. Sean humiliates WLC by showing WLC doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to physics and cosmology and basically demonstrates that WLC lies.
As for you seeing this from all notable atheist apologists, that's utterly false. First off there are not theist apologists. Second, saying atheism is a religion is like saying people who don't collect stamps are stamp collectors. Third, when you claim it takes more faith to be an atheist, the theist admits faith is a indefensible position, yet practically the entire theists position really comes down to faith. Fourth, you don't seem to know anything about epistemology and that beliefs and knowledge are two different things. Agnosticism and gnosticism are about knowledge while atheism and theism are about belief. You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic theist or gnostic atheist.
@@jameslay1489 I think you are missing his point. He's comparing atheism in the religon in the sense that it's accept by many uncritically. As for the rest, I think there is a ton more nuance, that I am not going to bother with on a youtube comment.
@@whitevortex8323 Craig is speaking out of his posterior. Most active atheists I know have become atheists because they have thought critically about it, most of us were former christians after all. Then there is the fact that he's really projecting because most christians have accepted their religious view uncritically because most christians were told to believe from moment when they are born.
@@jameslay1489 Every human knows God exists. The alternative is foolishness. People reject God for emotional reasons.
Wow. The more Atkins talks, the more he buries himself in his own sophistry. This was brutal to watch.
He also called them "arm chair brains". There are a lot of disciplines which do purely a priori or at least use a lot of a priori knowledge and reasoning which are the philosophers, mathematicians, theologians, logicians and even theoretical physicists. But it obviously doesn't mean that they deny the existence of a posteriori knowledge and reasoning.
"There is truly nothing here..."--this to a room full of people that are seeing, hearing, and experiencing things. Pretty convincing, right?
The unpreparedness and open speculation given by Dr. Atkins is very disturbing
It almost seems like they got him because many others said no and had better things to do with their time
@@metaforicallyI've actually noticed a theme where atheist debaters seem like they've never bothered to read the publications of the theists they're debating, meanwhile the theists will almost always reference the atheists works and display that they did their research.
I've seen it in so many debates at this point that it honestly seems like the atheist position is built upon being too prideful to even prepare properly... which then shows in the debates because they almost never actually engage the actual points made by their opponents in favor of red herrings and strawman arguments.
He continually assumes that ALL religion arose as an attempt to explain the physical universe, rather than at least some religions arising as a direct and natural result of experience with a real and living God .
You assume he assumes that.
@@shankz8854 Did you not watch the video? He said it at least five times.
@@ronarprefect7709 yeah he thinks that, but how do you know it’s an assumption? I suspect he has very good reasons for thinking that as I do.
@@shankz8854
Your suspect? 🤣😂
Is that not an assumption?
I suspect you don't really know what you're talking about 🤣😂
@@emmanuel8310 suspect and assume are different words with different meanings. But yes, no one really knows anything for certain. So assume away my friend, assume away.
Craig's cosmological argument is actually the most powerful and persuasive argument for God. I've never heard an atheist debate it.
It's not a good argument. Fine tuning is a better argument. Although I personally don't find it convincing.
@@curious_thinker Why do you think so? Atheists love to point out the anthropic principle to rebut fine tuning so it sounds unpersuasive, although I personally love it and use it in my arsenal.
@@2007enthusiast There are multiple coutner arguments to fine tuning such as multi-verse, nature of life, etc. Nevertheless, I do think it's a good argument but it's not enough to establish the existence of a God like entity at least to me. But I can understand why thiests find it convincing.
I agree fine-tuning is on shaky ground, but I was specifically wondering why you thought the cosmological argument wasn't good enough? @@curious_thinker
I like the contingency argument more than good if one knows the objections to it though it's not for masses for masses cosmological is good but you to explain it further
"no charge separated into charge, nothing separated"--hold up there, boss. "No charge" doesn't equal "nothing". What is charge? Charge is something a thing HAS rather than something a thing IS. We speak of electrons having charge and protons having charge, rather than them BEING charge, and calling them "charge carriers" doesn't change that fact. Thus, it isn't "no charge" separating, but a particle with no charge collectively separating into other particles with positive and negative charges. This statement by Atkins is stupid at best, disingenuous or even deceitful at worst.
Atkins: we should choose simpler explanations.
Also Atkins: NOTHING EXIST
Some say that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. But it seems to me Atkins is terrified that God might exist, without seeming particularly wise.
I had no idea that William F. Buckley, moderated this. I love listening to old Firing Line episodes.
me too
After watching this, I believe in God more.
Lol you either believe or you don’t. You can’t believe more dipshit.
Me too! ❤
I find myself pitying Dr. Atkins. To have your mind so blinded by Satan as to be convinced of the verity of and to publicly express such foolish statements as "there is truly nothing here", "no one knows how spacetime came into being acausally", and "no charge separated into charge--nothing separated" is pitiable. I will try to remember to pray for him, that the blinders be removed before he dies and forever ceases being a fool who says God does not exist. If he dies without coming to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, he will KNOW God exists and it will be too late. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
the only thing that really sounds intellectual about Dr Atkins is his accent.
True, hes quite the philosophical cretin actually
Dr Atkins whole argument is like his proposed universe, a reorganisation of nothing.
Atkins demands that it is on the religious to prove that his simple scientific view of the universe is inadequate, while ignoring that his simple scientific view couldn’t and still can’t provide a satisfactory origin of our existence.
and that's not his problem, theists can't provide a satisfactory origin for our existence either.
@@jameslay1489theists provide a perfectly coherent theory of the origin of the universe. What makes it unsatisfactory to you?
@@ats0930 except they don't which is why most cosmologists reject theists explanations. Even the Jesuit priest who came up with the Big Bang theory warned theists not to take his work as proof god created the universe.
@@jameslay1489 that was a lot of words spent to say "I disagree" when asked for an explanation. You provided no answer to the question ,and no specific facts or logic to answer the question. Which part of the theists theory of origin is unsatisfactory?
@@ats0930 I don't have an answer to your question, which doesn't automatically mean yours is correct. Give me a theist theory of origin first. Which theists? Not all theists are the same nor do they believe in the same deity.
I can understand why the majority of people from the dawn of history would be desperate to believe in the existence of God. What I can't understand why a minority relatively very late in the course of history would desperately wish that God never existed.
I can in one word. Narcissism. We (Our brains) ultimate goal for our entire life is what ? self preservation/ survival. Why would our psyches prioritise living, and life and thus be so fearful of death if we TRULY believed in an afterlife. We are also SOCIAL creatures and our survival actually depends upon being accepted by another FROM BIRTH so we also wish to protect ourselves against the devastation and hopelessness we would feel if we accepted that our loved ones no longer exist , so it’s pacifying to hope we may be reunited in death.
It’s essentially a necessary delusion for the brain to remain functioning and participate in what the rest of nature and animal do, which is avoid extinction.
@@izabellapinker9705Nah, y’all hate God and the very idea of him because you hate the idea of moral culpability. I pray 🙏🏻 you find him before we’re judged.
@@JudoMateo ok but you haven’t provided any examples or explanations for you holding that assumption/knowledge toward complete strangers moral culpability…. Also, unintelligent personal attacks toward people who don’t agree with you isn’t the way to win an argument, OR the favour of your God. Go pray for some forgiveness and the gift of self awareness and come back to us :)
@@izabellapinker9705 There’s myriad examples of atheists admitting just that, I’ll provide one as an example of such thinking ruclips.net/user/shorts0sOae6zIvQQ?si=LbqYyctT9KrXIVue
As for your assertion that I’ve made “unintelligent personal attacks” the reply you made that all all Theists are “narcissistic” which is demonstrably an unintelligent personal attack. As far as our arguments go I’m sure I can find many more examples of atheists saying they reject God because they don’t like his moral standards than Theists who claim they’re believers due to narcissism.
@@izabellapinker9705
You have to admit many people become atheists because they don’t want to be held accountable, it’s mainly the uneducated atheists, the ones that use stupid arguments like “WhO MaDE GoD”
Or
“If BaD ThiNg hAppEn no gOd.”
Though I have met more coherent and challenging ones.
His opponents know what he's gonna say and yet can't beat him
He said he is on the brink of understanding everything. This was 25 years ago. How's that working out for ya, Dr. Atkins? Understand everything now, do you? Please elucidate. Surely you weren't just asking us to have blind faith that your understanding of all things was right around the bend. Surely you will now tell us all things, thus proving your wisdom and foresight conclusively, rather than asking us to have FAITH in you, who are just another human no different from ourselves, though more foolish than some of us are(though not more foolish than some of us were, perhaps, as I was once a fool who said God didn't exist, though my youth at the time is an excuse you didn't have here). I hope God shows you mercy as He did me and you let go of your foolishness and put your faith in Jesus Christ before you die and the truth of the part of God 's word that references the Lake of Fire is something you can no longer deny, having personal and terrifying experience of the reality there represented.
It is shocking that Dr Atkins is so poorly educated in other fields like history, philosophy and other branches of science. For example, He really made a fool of himself in not understanding the principle of how Occam's razor works and misapplying it repeatedly even after being corrected. I mean this is very basic undergraduate stuff...inexcusable.
I love how atheists claim that the claim God exists is a false “God of the gaps” argument, while simultaneously invoking the extremely lazy “Science of the gaps” argument.
I have heard the statement “Science can not explain this… yet” too many times. It’s lazy and a poor argument to “prove” that everything can be explained by Science.
Is English your second language?
@@melvinmokayamagori7743 Do you have something of value to add, or is critiquing my writing the best you could come up with?
This is like the Gospel vs. the snake in the Garden
Glorifying God vs. “Glorifying the Human Spirit”
A very interesting debate. It's a shame the host kept interrupting them and making unnecessary comments.
i tought Atkins will play with the Genesis 1 account of separating light and dark and the waters above and below… and no he did not. separating matter and antimatter sounds a lot like Gen 1.
Dr. Atkins admitted in his opening statement that science cannot account for the origins of the universe, life, and consciousness, but then proclaims science explains everything. He is in contradiction to his own thesis. Yet, he professes himself to be wise. Now, where did I read an explanation for Atkins’ thinking? I think I read something about this in a first century A.D. publication by a Jewish scholar named Saul who was Paul who put stylus to parchment and said-“Although they claim to be wise, they became fools.”
He’s saying it’s our best method as philosophy never discovers the actual truth
@@Kratos40595That’s literally a philosophical claim and view.
@@justchilling704 no it’s a fact - philosophy has never revealed a scientific fact, it only speculates on facts the scientific method has discovered or debates the moral implications
@@Kratos40595 Where tf are you getting this nonsense? Science is from philosophy, specifically natural philosophy, the scientific method is by definition philosophical. And why tf would philosophy reveal how many genes an organism has? That’s not what philosophy is about.
@@justchilling704 …no, no it’s not… philosophy uses philosophical arguments and philosophical principles, science makes use of empirical data and objective evidence.
Love WLC, mans is unstoppable and a complete force of destruction to athiest lol absolute genius.
Glory BE TO TO GOD KING YAHWEH KING YESHUA HAMASCHIACH AND KING HOLY SPIRIT RUACH HA-KOD’ESH🙏🏻❤️✝️
Except against Sean Carroll, who humiliates WLC.
It is no wonder that Dawkins doesn’t want to debate Craig. It’s really not fair to pit todays irrational atheists against Craig’s debate skills.
You should watch WLC debate Sean Carroll, WLC gets demolished.
"Inherent simplicity of the world..."--only simpletons believe it is simple. The world and the universe are incredibly complex.
Was that Ravi Zacherius in the audience?
Why is Atkins trying to convince anyone? Those who are convinced, are chemically destined to believe his view, and those who aren't, the same.
If nothing exists, PeterAt,ins doesn’t exist. Which means that his argument doesn’t exist. Which means he LOST!
I don’t understand why atheist always begin their arguments by insulting the “ignorance” and “prejudice” of their audience. Why start here and close communication before it even starts?
WLC wrecked him with his opening statement. Case closed
Really? The Kalam argument? Lol! This has been thoroughly obliterated by numerous people.
@@shankz8854 he gave five reasons to believe in God in his opening statement though.....
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 none of them were good arguments though. The Kalam is the only one I remember and it is thoroughly flawed.
@@shankz8854 you should debate him then
@@jordanduran859 I’d love to. He actually seems like a lovely guy.
36:51 Ravi Zacharias in the house
And at 0:30 too. Such an unexpected cameo.
I saw that too. Such a cataclysmic fall from grace for Ravi. It upset and angered me greatly.
Wait, this is the Peter Atkins who wrote the Physical Chemistry textbook??
Craig always win
Only if you are too ignorant to understand what is being said. His arguments are juvenile, not supported by evidence and easily refuted.
@@mateosmind751 not true. None of what you said is true. Craig always win.
Always
I don't know if Craig has always won, there are times when the opponent has stood strong.
@@mateosmind751 give an example.
Oh heavens, Atkins. I took you seriously for a minute and actually put myself in the condition of perfect agnosticism and then you go into antiquity. My dear boy, why should I believe you know anything of antiquity besides that society and education have conditioned me to believe we know something about the ancient past? I can’t approach you with intellectual nakedness if you’re then going to jump into an argument demanding my intellectual clothing.
1:12:05
Sheesh, did the moderator just insult a debater’s mother?
It's great to know that somebody understands the universe.
I don't even understand lightning.
So there must be a god
who s here because of the documentary "the signs" ? 😅
Found it 🙏🏻
This is a debate of the metaphysical and the philosophical logic vs the materialistic and naturalistic position held by Atkins.
Is it any wonder the are talking right past each other.
Atkins like Mike Dillihunty, Dawkins et al would ignore any empirical proofs no matter how strong
"praise not to the Lord - thank goodness…" - ok that does not make a lot of difference :) the Lord _is_ goodness in himself :)
I wonder what evidence does Scientist have when they pressumed BIG BANG is the most accurate evidence of creations before creation?!
I guess they also rely on "FAITH"
The Big Bang theory says nothing about the origin of the universe.
WLC is a very good speaker, it's not a chore to listen to him speak.
Atkins lost with his opening speech. He just babbles on about nothing. Thats all ive ever heard from him any time he speaks.
1:01:16 this was my face too.... For most of the time when Dr Atkins attempted to rebut Dr Craig...
Hes been spouting this for over 40 years.
I didn't know that CP30 was such a staunch advocate for atheism.
C3P0 has actual interactions on a daily basis with his creators. Then there is the fact that his creators are also physical beings.
"Science can account for everything in the world" show me empirically where the laws of logic are contained. Empirically demonstrate a mind. Empirically demonstrate knowledge.
I can empirically demonstrate that the mind is the product of the brain and without a physical brain, the mind can't exist.
1:13:45 - sorry it's hard to be impartial toward these stupid arguments
Atkins looks nervous; as he is spewing his blasphemy, he speaks timidly, with a hurried sense of urgency, as his eyes dart around wildly, often looking up & wincing, as if he is scared terrified of something. This guy already is or knows he is about to have a really bad day. His profuse sweating, clammy hands, rapid eye blinking, and shrill, rigid, stiff, snakelike frail body frame don’t help. Did some research on ol’ Atkins, turns out he’s had a few hangups due to his alcoholism & gambling addiction. Witness’s reporter seeing Atkins “stumbling” back to his hotel room after long, late night binges at the bar
If theres no purpose to existence, as Dr. Atkins asserts, then why bother showing up to a debate? Why get out of bed? What an absurd argument.
Atkins: "God didn't need to create anything. It was already there."
God: Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
In a binary world of good vs evil, belief and disbelief, worship of god, or worship of ourselves, which side of atheism vs theism is the "good" side? One has order brought down from a creator, the other has chaos which assumes no objective moral, which assumes moral relativism which proves anyone can be right or wron depending on the circumstance.
Speaking of the simple to complex argument, in its simplest form, god is good, humanism is evil by virtue of order vs chaos.
Wasn't a fair fight.
The few exchanges before WFB's "Put that in your pipe and smoke it." are perpetual inspiration for metaphysics.
You may not agree or like Dr. Atkins, But what you can't refute is he helped a lot of people lose weight with his Atkins diet!! 😂😂😂😂😅
The "moderator" of this is terrible. He needs to talk far less because it makes it look like a 2v1 debate.
I haven’t watched the whole thing and I’m a Christian. But I have to say that I really think Dr. Atkins approach doesn’t seem very effective.
By that I mean he is constantly belittling the theistic position without proving his own. Dr. Craig had just shown that there is a rational and theistic explanation of how things came to be, so for Dr. Atkins to begin with such assertions of his side’s superiority, etc is very off putting.
Peter Atkins was married 3 times. He can't figure out the basic elements of a personal relationship yet he claims to that he figured out the nature of the Universe. A Narcissist of the first order.
Genetic fallacy. Being divorced has no bearing on him being about to figure out the nature of the universe. I know preachers who have been married more times than Atkins.
Sounds like Trump😂
You're saying that atheists say the universe came from nothing. But you're also saying that God came from nothing. Clever! How can Craig talk such dribble of an argument. He's not arguing for God or time, he's fighting against his opponent. Trying to tell him what he's going to say, when he hasn't even stood yet.
I like Craig because he provides evidence, hope and truth. Atkins presents suspicion, doubt and a meaningless existence. Given that both sides can not give 100% evidence of their case, I'll go for a happier and more optimistic life experience and stick with Craig. You da Man William Lane Craig.
1:03:30 here is the mic drop movement
There are many lottery drawings where no one wins.
Case closed
Dr. Peter Atkins speaks with so much certainty about probability which to me, is insanity.
You actually can experimentally prove that nothing is faster than light. Yes, there could be an experiment disproving this, but just like every established scientific fact can be disproven in the future!
Or therefore that the speed of light is constant.
The second guy is reading from paper but still trying to keep eye contact with the audience 😂 keeps looking down and up it’s stupid
I find it hilarious that the atheist doesn't know how to pronounce "apotheosis".
He calls Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein intellectually lazy but he is one step away from dying of old age and has nothing to show for all his arrogance. He hasn't accomplished 10% of what they did for the advancement of science.
Wow, he just keeps insulting all religious people and asserting that science can explain everything without actually explaining anything over and over and over.
Amazing that in this day of science and discovery we are still discussing God.
Dr. Atkins simply doesn't understand, it pretend not to understand, anything of the points Dr. Craig is making. Paul said it best 1900 years ago people suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them for God has made it plain to them. How proud do you have to be to state outright that science can explain everything. He didn't even understand when Craig pointed out that that's not a scientific statement.
Craig destroyed Atkins arguments.
but why did G_d make it so plausibly deniable that He existed? why is his message delivered in so many ways? which is the one true religion?
The fact that there is an unlimited amount of answers to 2+2 it does not mean that there is no answer to it.
who is the host
William F Buckley is the host
I cannot disprove gravity but I cannot accept the fact a penguin cannot fly - Dr Atkins😊
"Low-Bar Bill Craig". Still "LYING FOR JESUS".
Typical atheist ad hominems
@@justchilling704 Typical Thiest Ad Hominems
Turns out doctors can talk a lot of bollocks too
Hosted by William Buckley no less
So God popped out of nothing, and came from nowhere, just like the "big bang". 😂
@@forplaylistsetc You call it a brief description if you like. I call it a long winded load of excuses.
You think that God has been around forever, I don't.
You think that the big bang is a singularity, I don't.
You're welcome to your childish beliefs in a thing that created the universe.
I'll stick to the fact, YES, the fact that I don't know, but there's no God out there worth praying to.
1:17:14
Atkins lost at minute 50
Denying God is like denying that you have a tongue with your own tongue!
Atkins: often wrong, never in doubt.
"No one knows how spacetime came into being acausally..."--laughs in Kalam cosmological argument. No one knows how it happened because it didn't.
The Kalam is erroneous and circular
@@shankz8854 How is it circular? Surely you can support this claim?
@@ronarprefect7709 The proponent of the Kalam tries to prove the existence of god simply by defining god as the only thing that defy the main premise of the argument.
Ok, it’s not quite circular, but it’s not far off.
Dr Craig wins again with this atheist
1:20:37 why did do they look like some sort of low graphics GTA NPCs in this shot..? 💀
What?
@@dyerseve07I think he's saying that Lars is one of the drummers of all time.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
So how did God begin to exist, if he exists?
Oh, God is eternal?
So he didn't begin to exist.
So he has no cause of existance.
So not everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence...
You literally spelled it out yourself. God didn't begin to exist, as you said. The point is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God didn't begin to exist, as you said in your conclusion, so he requires no beginning or cause. He is the "unmoved mover."
An intelligent creator outside of physical space and time, outside our plane of understanding is required, otherwise you're exactly right, what comes before the beginning of time? What started it all? Obviously something outside of time and our understanding and God fits that perfectly, big bang doesn't at all.
They're both wrong
What's the correct view then?
@@p.as.in.pterodactyl1024one does not believe in God and the other believes in a tri-union diety bathed completely in pagan rituals and traditions i.e Christmas, Easter ect
2nd comment
Dr. Craig does not seem to want to understand that In the old days, people did not have the mentality to understand what goes around them and so they allotted it all to say " a Father Christmas did it all!". Now that belief is helpful and advisable and is permissible when one is a child and does not understand, but that analogy that Father Christmas did it all, was later proven that Father Christmas was in fact a lump of Energy with fantastic qualities, even if we assume that the original energy was an Electromagnetic Radio Energy that is emitted from every mobile phone and according to Albert Einstein it is all us contained in the transformation E= m.c^2.. I do not think it is fair for Dr. Craig to keep asking for the proof that father Christmas does not exist when in fact Father Christmas is the Energy that science speaks about, and it raises its voice often, and is seen and heard all over he universe.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed and we may assume that Energy always existed or indeed there was no Energy and nothing was separated into positive and negative energy as the charges that make up electromagnetic fields and energy in Radio waves that circle around the universe very second of the day.
*Electromagnetic Energy components ( Fourier elements) could have come into synchronisation/in phase and caused an impulse which created the big bang. that changed energy into matter...............this Energy we shall call God or Father Christmas..
* Through contact and closeness Matter evolved through 15 Billion years and made us what we are now and when we die will return and transform our mass back into energy to be what we were before, in Energy form.
* Ethics came around because of our evolved sensitivity to pain which we do not want to transfer it to our neighbour and neither our neighbour to transfer pain on us. Art and beautiful things are all due to sensitivity to pain and colour contrast and the rate od change of colours can hurt the eye, and so does sound. Artistic pieces take the pain out of what we look at and what we hear adding a pleasant emotion without pain . Any consonant in language is impulsive and any vowel is more harmonious when sung. It all had to do with the Fourier contents od the frequency and also the colour. There are many social reforms that came about because we are sensitive to pain and prefer pleasure and comfortable emotions and sentiments..
*Consciousness came about as our sensors make us aware, note aware, of smell, sights, touch, sounds, and some other issues around us as emotions and sentiments. this we become an encyclopedia of memorised experiences. Once the brain cells are filled with information these can be fetched and redistributed in many forms . Consciousness is the brain sensing its own thoughts and memories , recursively. THis is awareness and consciousness and it may bring about inventions and new creations which can be painless or painful which decides their acceptance or rejection.
* When we die we resurrect back to energy form and may be our electromagnetic spirits and souls are modulated by the personality we developed on earth while we were in mass form.
What Dr Craig prefers is to keep referring to the existence of a Father Christmas, as that is all he can understand, but in real fact the Father Christmas that Craig refers to ,is only the Energy that has been with us for a long time and it is what we shall resurrect into . Since we have adopted Father Christmas for children then it would be fair to refer to the Energy and Mass as Father Christmas so many people prefer to call the Energy .... God and to the mentality of people God was a reference that came before a Father Christmas. .
* Energy transferred in mass form produced evolution and evolution produced human sensors which are sensitive to pain, and ethics and order were formed on that, pain and pleasure, which decided on what we shall accept as humans. When we die our mass changed back into energy so in fact we were part of God, we transformed into mass as Christ did and we shall all resurrect back in to Energy as Christ resurrected. We were always energy and as such we are all part of God or Father Christmas. does not make any difference to me! .
Animals have no qualms in going around looking for basic food and water and not being perturbed to discuss their own "Father Christmas", as long as "Energy" from the sun God changes into plants which they can eat.
You cannot prove a negative. It's childish of Craig and shows his disdain for Christian intelligence. Anyone who understands logic knows you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove Leprechauns or Jesus didn't exist, the same for God and Unicorns.
You could say the same about Darwin.
@@mateosmind751 If I said there are no blue cars in New York, could you prove it? If I said that my mother never existed, could you disprove it?
What in the heck are you asserting…the point was Atkins is suggesting there is a better idea about these events,(big bang or resurrection) than what Craig is suggesting when in reality he is refusing to see that logically what he is suggesting is so ludicrous it would be just as absurd as believe an all powerful, omniscient, and omnipotent being created everything and resurrected himself.
Dr. Craig’s usual naive gibberish!
Argument about things that can not be proven a pointless debate and waste of time
Something doesn't need to be "proven" by a presupposed structure of reasoning in order for whatever is trying to be reasoned to exist. One can know something by experiencing it directly rather than proving it instrumentally. "Proof" is not tantamount to knowledge and if it was you wouldn't exist.
neither one stated that their position can be "proven" in a sense of unambiguous undeniable-by-all proof (well, Atkins sometimes suggests it nominally but himself said that it's not a "matematical proof"), just in terms of "better evidence".
God is proven. It's just hidden by those in power.
The concept of God is a human creation, that is why you can have a thousand arguments but not one single bit of evidence.
Did you watch the debate at all?
@@danthesolarman6480 People who believe God doesn't exist have no care other than the thought to simply believe whatever they believe is the right belief even if they cannot scientifically prove anything, their pre-conceived belief that there is no God supersedes all logic & reasoning, it is simply their belief but they will never admit this and will keep attacking all who believe God is real.
"In the atheistic view there is nothing WRONG with raping someone." Where does Dr. Craig get this nonsense? You certainly don't need religious delusions to know you are inflicting pain and suffering on someone else. Almost all cultures have determined rape to be "wrong". The interesting thing is rape is MORE acceptable in religious societies like Saudi Arabia and India for example.
This answer might be coming a bit late, but what Craig refers to is the atheist's inability to postulate some form of transcendent sense of what is "right" and "wrong". You say that raping "inflicts pain and suffering on someone else". But how is it OBJECTIVELY wrong to inflict pain and suffering on someone else on an atheistic worldview? There cannot be any objective standard of goodness to measure what is right and wrong, and your idea of "inflicting pain is bad" is completely arbitrary as a groundwork for your moral guidelines. Similarly, I could just say that, on a naturalistic, atheistic worldview, that which gives someone pleasure is objectively good, which leads me to the problem of, for example, rape: the rapist derives pleasure, the victim derives pain: If pleasure is good and pain is bad, how can you objectively claim that the rapist is wrong? You are right in saying that we don't need religion to KNOW what is right and wrong, but we need God in order to JUSTIFY our belief in the objectivity of morality. I hope that clears it up a bit.
@@markusoberschneider4615 Truly a silly response. The God of the Bible commands gang rape, infanticide, genocide, and condones slavery and a soldier burning his own daughter alive.
According to the Bible rape and murder are not only OK then, but commanded by the creator. I would say anyone who follows the Bible then has proven they have no moral compass, as these things are not considered acceptable to most human beings.
Good and Evil are zorohastrian ideas that Christianity empowered.
Set aside all things blur to - probably - a more realistic status, gynechologic tests are rape, medical treatments are torture, school is abuse, life in prison is murder.
We construct and see what we choose to see.
Most of times we're not even sure or in agreement what truly is good and what truly is evil. We just use the abstract consense of the concepts on our own and beneficts.
Yeah but what exactly is it that makes inflicting pain and suffering universally and objectively wrong? That’s the question that is being asked.
@@mateosmind751 Just because its in the Bible, does not mean it condones it. That's like me saying that, in your comment you talk about rape, infanticide, and slavery, therefore you condone it. That's childish. The Bible does not condone those things. It talks about how people have done those things and it protects the people who have been effected by those things. Talk about a silly response. This is why its so easy to see who actually studied the Bible themselves, and who just heard blatant lies that you just ate up and chose to believe it. Either do the full study and know WHY you believe something, or keep your mouth shut. The definition of a bigot is someone who has an opinion about something that they have not even took the time to look into. Do not talk about something you don't even know.
4:56