Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
"Does God Exist?" William Lane Craig vs Stephen Law. Westminster Central Hall, London, October 2011
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2012
- This was the first event of The UK Reasonable Faith Tour and took place at Westminster Central Hall, London on 17 Oct 2011 in front of an audience of 1,700.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He affirms the existence of God.
Stephen Law is Provost of the Centre for Enquiry UK and lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, London. He denies the existence of God.
The debate was hosted by Justin Brierley, presenter of the faith debate show "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
The Reasonable Faith Tour was sponsored by UCCF, Damaris Trust and Premier Christian Radio. More resources: www.bethinking.org/reasonablefaithtour
This video was produced with the help of the Christian Evidence Society.
![Chuckyy - Devil Hours [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f3wZGj0VnZU/mqdefault.jpg)
No matter who you fall in line with more, you simply can't deny that Craig dominated this debate.
+ClusiveC I actually can and will deny that. This is one of those few debates where Craig didn't dominate...in my opinion.
Jonathan G. 'Dominated' is more of a powerful word, but I honestly feel that Law not only failed to adequately defend his sole argument denying the existence of god, but that he couldn't come up with any solid responses to Craig's arguments for the existence of god save for one
I didn't see that.
I think Craig "spectacularly failed" (Law's words) with the moral argument. Craig didn't give us a good reason to think premise 1 is true.
With the resurrection, Craig never really responded to Law's' point that "evidence supports a hypothesis to the extent that..". We'd expect miracle claims and unexplainable miracle claims to pop up whether or not they actually happened and whether or not the claims are true. No response from Craig.
As Law explained, the KCA was a red herring argument in this particular debate. As such, Law didn't need to respond to it.
Craig had to resort to skeptical theism against not only the ePoE, but also the evil-god challenge. If skeptical theism leads one to the conclusion that they can't rule out evil Creator, based off of the goodness in world, that's a reductio ad absurdum of skeptical theism or at least a point against skeptical theism!
I'm happy with saying that Craig "won". But no, it's not obvious that Craig "dominated" Law.
+ClusiveC Only if by " dominated ", you mean " lost "
+Jonathan G. I'm not happy with saying Craig " won " at all.
I'm not even happy with entertaining the idea that he " won " ... he was smacked on this particular day. I'd like to see him try to debate this topic again to see if he could come up with any better responses.
No, Craig said: "The cosmologic Argument doesn't give any moral description of God"
I am a Christian, but honestly, I think Steven Law won this debate. Applause to them both.
to william lane craig:
you ask where the universe came from.
my answer is in the form of a question: where did god come from??
@@soriya011 Right, we all need a starting point. God is more explanatory.
Honestly I think Stephen Law is agnostic not atheist. And he (nor anyone) shouldn’t feel any stigma about saying so. I think it takes a number of leaps of faith, or whatever the atheist equivalent of faith might be, to hold the atheist position. If it emotionally feels like he did a humble, credible job of holding a “I’m not sure but I therefore I cannot be sure of any position including yours Dr Craig” that feels fair but to me it seems he just hasn’t thought things through in that he is asserting (just with a wrapper of humility) that it can’t be known (as if he knows it can’t be known). It’s a very standard debate - one believes in God the other inherently believes that scientific progress will unravel it all (which could be argued as therefore human progress and science is his “God”) and there wasn’t all that much credible engagement as a result. Bit disappointing in that respect.
@@davidkang3705 I agree
Kudos to you for being honest about it .
I liked how pleasant Dr. Law was throughout it. Not all of Craig's opponents are that way.
Peter Atkins!
Are you kiding? His first point was that theists are insane
@@oldscorp Straw man's fallacy as a defense mechanism.
probably cos craig is a twat who pretends he knows what god thinks.
@@HarryNicNicholas Craig is a little to taken with conventional doctrine, and needs some schooling in the meaning of Jesus´ teachings about spiritual practice and social movement activism. But, you´ve got more serious problems than he does, since Craig makes it clear that science isn´t disconnected from God, nor is Jesus worth ignoring, nor is morality.
The biggest problem I have with philosophy is that there are no sanity checking measures in place. If you are a scientist, experiments can fail. If you're a programmer, programs can contain bugs and crash, but with philosophy, you're allowed to postulate without bound, and build upon concepts that were never vetted against the base reality we all collectively share. This lack of sanity checking is evidenced by Craig's comfortability with a disembodied, all powerful, intelligent mind with free will as an impenetrable brute fact of nature. To anyone playing by the rules (even badly) of grounding their reality on conservative axioms, this is about as unparsimonious an axiom as you could imagine. On par with supposing a supercomputer that can do anything as your starting point. Of course God works as an axiom, because God is defined to be an explanation for anything you would ever need to explain. The question is, is it reasonable to do so? For context, would it be reasonable for a scientist searching for dark matter to propose a mysterious entity that produces dark matter as a starting point? Would a programmer who was tasked with writing a program to do "X" be justified in simply writing out the line "Do X" in the text editor? The answer here is an obvious no, because we all know that in the first case, we have no evidence and no good reason to believe the dark matter entity exists, and in the second, we know the line of code wouldn't run. We come face to face with reality in these cases, and we scoff at childish examples like the ones I gave, yet when it comes to philosophy, no one seems to care when the same (more or less) childish tactics are displayed. Craig lacks the sanity checking of science and the rigor of math, and is left only with the flexibility of the English language which can produce any fantasies his mind can muster. He is welcome to it, but there's no reason for the rest of us to take any of it seriously.
I could not have said this better myself and I was thinking the exact samething.
The English language has its limits and William Lane Craig understands it to cross the line and play word games. When scientists use a particular word it does not have the same connotation when we use it and somehow gets lost in translation because of its every day usage.
We all do this, but WLC turned miscommunication into a business.
Anyways, good thought piece and I appreciate those type of comments.
I think you are misunderstanding how philosophy works. What you are talking about is Empiricism, which is a form of Philosophy based on what you can experience in the world. It’s my personal opinion that after David Hume introduced his skeptical approach to reason much of the modern world is influenced by this way of thinking. There is an assumption that skepticism and empiricism is somehow superior to Aristotelian metaphysics and it must be the natural starting point for interpreting the world. We take this for granted today and just assume skepticism as a norm of reality. The scientific method is amazing and incredibly useful for inductive reasoning but discussing God and the metaphysical nature of reality simply takes a deductive approach. It’s not wrong or fallacious to do so, it’s simply a method of philosophy. Philosophy does have checks and balances, btw. The process of logic and reason is tied to a rational model of thinking which is very structured, that’s why many early philosophers were also mathematicians.
Are you arguing that the only thing we can know is that which we can measure with science/math?
@@generichuman_ Sanity checking .... That is a big expression
Was it new to you at the time you commented , a year ago ? Or did you start putting such practice into place in your own world ? Do you have a PR ?
Dark matter .... stand outside a building at night and imagine away all the stars ,Sun and moon and all the streetlights and city lights and see the "darkness" ; there is the dark matter for you . Without light there is only darkness ,or dark matter
A supercomputer was created by humans using that which was already inside off this physical universe you and I find ourselves awake and conscious inside of in a human body of flesh and bone and blood.... This is the reality ! Somehow you've awakened and became conscious and aware that you have received Life
So where did this Life come from that was put inside of this human body yiu find yourself inside of ? Who choose that body of yours to put you inside of that specific body ?.
@@generichuman_ Everything you said about him is applicable to you the same way....
If you don't even understand the things of the world when we tell you, how wil you understand if we tell you about the things of heaven and of God..
This was better than Hitchens or Harris!
Why on earth are Atheists so confused with the moral arguments? It's not that hard to understand.
There's no confusion...the moral arguments fail.
cf. Euthyphro Dilemma.
I absolutely love how the moderator does a good job of maintaining a neutral disposition.
Moreover... I dunno if I'm the only one who feels this way but... Am I the only one who feels like the "debate" could have been skipped, and instead just have the dialogue that took place at the end?
+mmmmSmegma No, you're not.
I somewhat agree. I tire of opponents of WLC not addressing his points directly. Law finally did that in his final timed rebuttal and then again in the discussion period.
@@Shake69ification I actually welcome the veering off the central topic a bit. Law was totally within his bounds to focus on other very related topics (and it's not like he probably had much choice in what the debate subject was to begin with anyway). The response to his points was rather revealing, especially at the end.
Craig has done many debates on god's existence and the kalam argument already. Of course this is his specialty and he's well-honed at it. In other debates, I've watched him obstinately refuse to go off topic to the slightest degree (even in Q&A sessions) even when relevant, tangentially related subjects come up because at the end of the day, it seems to be more about winning the debate for him.
The most disturbing part of this debate though was Craig's total denial of animal suffering with the citation of one book by a religious apologist who's not even a veterinarian or scientist. I'm fairly certain that doesn't represent the current scientific consensus:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals
probably religion could be skipped altogether, people still haven't worked out that a god, whether he exists or not, does nothing for humans. that people who die saty dead, and if they don't stay dead they were alive all the time, and that if you are an immortal god, and you are jesus who is god, and therefore immortal, you can'r frigging die, so all this dying for our sins, which i still haven'r figured out, was bollocks, cos, no one died.
WLC's assertion that animals don't feel pain or experience suffering is in defiance of a vast body of evidence to the contrary and offensive to anyone who knows animals and works with them.
Can you give me name of music at the beginning
He didn't say animals don't feel pain. He said they aren't consciously aware of it when they do. They don't know they're in pain.
This point of Craig is often misunderstood. His point is that animals lack the “ego” inherent to human consciousness to know that they as a “person” are in pain. It sound odd, I agree, but the research is leading in that direction. Animals feel pain, but they are not aware that they as “persons” are in pain.
@@drew2fast489 if you believe animals are not conscious of pain you are hugely ignorant of scientific study of animal neurology.
@@Matthew_Holton Since you said so it must be true. It's not that they're not conscious of pain, they're not aware of the fact that they are in pain.
Dr. Craig OWNED Dr. Law.
Dr. Craig is on another level. He is absolutely correct.
Dr. Law isn't stupid, but he can only do so much while defending false ideas.
Theo .Getic Dr Craig is on another level...
.. unfortunately it's a level that lost this debate.
LOL
How exactly did Craig lose? Law tip toes, throughout the entire debate, into pure subjective madness. "Well we can't know that, or anything for that matter, so show me that I can know something outside of my subjective conscious experience, and maybe we can talk".
Andrew Fruend Ahh.. Craig lost because he couldn't deal with Law's position.
Law didn't sidestep anything.
What didn't you understand?
Note, Craig has won every single debate ever. I can't believe Atheists would stoop so low as to claim one of Craig's more simple opponents such as Law (to be fair, Craig makes all his opponents look simple).
I will be honest, Law did do very well against the Moral Argument, but he simply couldn't touch the Kalam, and by the end of the debate, Law took the bait, actually tried to take on the Resurrection, and was utterly embarrassed. You simply don't challenge a guy like Craig on the Resurrection Argument, out of all his arguments.
"Even though sentient animals are in pain, they are not aware of it" Rite.
That is good to hear from a person who would only tell God's truth about such things.
I wonder if WLC is aware of what a shyster he is.
It literally makes no sense. Pain means the unpleasant conscious awareness of damage to the body. To have pain means you are aware of it.
Animals like dogs, horses, cats and that water buffalo absolutely and without question feel and are aware of every bit - every tiny bit of the pain they suffer. What they lack is the ability to cognate the implications of what that pain MEANS - that they are dying. THAT is what they dont understand and that alone is the difference.
And - some animals, like elephants, primates, dolphins...understand death quite well also.
+Stalicone No. You are sorely misinformed. I thumped my dog once when he was sleeping and he didn't even wake up.
+Stalicone This was really one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard from WLC. He doesn't seem to have a dog or any pets. My dogs are shaking when they sit in the waiting room of the vet. If this isn't a prove that they consciously have an idea of what is going on "in the pain department" then I don't know. Further he admits that primates do have the ability to sense pain in a more extended way. He uses the term primates to fool the audience or just not make them think that apes and monkeys belong to that group, too. Poor, but it seems to work on these bible-students!
+InTheSh8 Where in the debate does WLC talk about animal suffering?
what? you literally just asserting something without backing it up in the slightest. prove those animals are self-conscious. did you even listen to his argument?
What’s really annoying here is that Law does not need to engage Craig on his moral argument as for decades now moral philosophers have been grounding objective morality in many many forms using secular moral philosophical explanations.
Craig’s catastrophic failure here is to fail to show that any of these secular explanations are flawed or fail, just as Dr Law points out, add in the problem of an evil god and Craig is sunk.
The sad thing is that few theist commentators here understand this, no doubt because they have been blinded by the bluff of Craig ignoring the tons of not only objections to his arguments but all those secular explanations that Craig needs to refute to argue objective morals can only be grounded in god.
Finally, of the small number of theist philosophers, a number of notable theist moral philosophers, quite apart from Swinburne, have mounted insurmountable objections that Craig has not even attempted to refute.
In my view. Craig is being incredibly dishonest and will seemingly do anything not to concede valid objections to what is widely considered to be a very poor argument for the origins and grounding of objective morality.
Law is right in his conclusion. Craig has failed spectacularly in his defence.
his argument was essentially "nothing." he admits he came there to talk about something not related to Craig's arguments. he never responds to Craig's argument. in other words, he does not refute the arguments; he states so often "i dont know." so yes, his argument IS "nothing." he was toasted
Stephen Law is undoubtedly a great popularizer of philosophy, but it's clear that Craig crushed him in this debate.
+Ian Anthony Davatos You'll have to do better than that... because Craig lost this debate to a " populariser of philosophy ".
He should be even more poplar after that.
+Roper122 Can you give me reasons for your assertion? Law's Evil God Argument does not prove there is no God. As Craig argued, it would imply that there is a Creator but is evil, but Law would not be called atheist if he believe in such a being.
Ian Anthony Davatos Well, you just answered your own question. Craig's god ( and virtually every god ) must be good, by definition.
Whatever it is that you think you're arguing about, once Law proves it isn't good... he wins.
Now if you ( or Craig ) wants to have a separate debate that there's something else ( which you can no longer call god ) ... fine.
But regardless of what label you want to put on Law, he won this debate.
+Roper122 How come he won there? Also, Law has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that such being isn't good. Finally, you need to provide evidence that Law won this debate. He keeps repeating himself when Craig has already answered his challenge. Maybe, you're assuming he won the debate because his view agrees with yours, don't you think?
Ian Anthony Davatos OK.. first of all, you are more than welcome to have a different opinion on who won. But let's be clear, your first post showed that you didn't understand what was going on.
So that doesn't auger well.
It makes zero difference whether you think there may be something else out there that Law didn't deal with.
What matters to this debate is Law and the Evil god Challenge...which Craig couldn't answer.
So.. no, I'm not assuming he won because of any other reason that the fact that I understood the debate.
Law reasonably concludes that an Evil god does not exist ( and Craig agrees ), and by the same logic reasonably rules out a Good god.
Craig only had two possible responses to establish that a Good god was significantly more reasonable... and both those attempts were easily dealt with.
I'd be happy to explain further.
That argument around 46 minutes from Craig about suffering in animals is a disgusting lie
WLC’s argument animals don’t know they’re in pain is refutable by anyone familiar with the training of law enforcement service dogs. When a service dog preforms a wanted behavior it gets a reward. When the service dog preforms an unwanted behavior the dog gets a shock from it’s shock collar. The dogs quickly make choices which lead to rewards and away from choices which leads to shocks. WLC is simply mistaken that animals are unaware of their pain.
Dr Craig is unbelievably well prepared and on point-- these atheists have no shot---it isnt fair
+Beau LaVergne Then why did he lose this one so convincingly?
MrTubestubestubes Would you like me to explain it to you? Because I have no idea why you think he won.
Would you care to explain to me what you think the evil god challenge is?
+Beau LaVergne You are dead on this was not even fair, atheists go right to natural evil, it is just about all they have left, this can and is explained but hey they have to latch ontu something.
Eric Day "can and is explained "
Well by all means go ahead... Craig just had an entire debate and failed, maybe you can succeed?
+Roper122 What would be the sense, no matter what I say you will say that it is not, reasonable or whatever, and the truth is you folks I do not think when you hear an answer, even know what is coherent or not, this is just about trying to continue on in your ways, no we are all accountable for what we have done. What will you say to him , " but Lord what about natural evil", give me a break, are you really concerned about someone suffering, if you are what were your feelings on Jesus suffering, explain that to me first then I will explain about natural evil.
Nice to see WLC videos finally having comments section opened
This is 5 years later but youtibe comment sections are often pointless insults, jokes, rants, and lies rather than meaningful discussion.
@@Terry-nr5qn It also offers an opportunity to refute the arguments made or point out the fallacies that have been committed. It is no coincidence that having comments blocked is much more common in apologetic videos, and almost the norm in those where the bible is taken literally.
@@vejeke never mind the fact that he has openly debated Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and the intellectual cream of the crop of atheism. Yes..he’s clearly afraid of having his argument unraveled by the masses on youtube.
@@splintchesthair100 I didn't say he was afraid, but if you think so... Don't forget to mention that Craig has also refused to debate Matt Dillahunty (that atheist who has shared the stage with Harris or Dawkins but instead of doing science as they do he has dedicated his time to knowing how to debate and expose fallacies) with the excuse that he doesn't have a terminal degree.
Classic debates are a subject he masters extremely well. The way he obfuscates his fallacies or misses the point on purpose is a fine art. Having an open platform where anyone can point out what he really does shouldn't have been too much fun for him... Why else would he have the comments blocked in his videos for so many years apart from the fact that he doesn't want people to comment on them?
@@vejeke So you're in essence claiming that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Law, and the whole host of others were unable to match the debate skills of William Lane Craig , and therefore unable to make any significant headway in proving that God does not exist. Those people are the representative brain trust of your entire movement, yet they couldn't collectively overcome the challenges of a Christian Philosopher who happens to be a sharp debater. But Matt Dillinhoffer...he's the one...he's got Craig running scared.
Another one bites the dust under the logic of Craig.
***** yes
*****
Was the goal of a "Does God Exist" debate really to show that God is good rather than evil? Pretty misleading title, eh? They should have called it "Is God Good?"
*****
Then why does Stephen refer to an "Evil God" as a possible candidate for the "cause" of the Kalam Argument? Wouldn't that be a contradiction in terms? You see, the Kalam gives us a God of some sort, which the atheist worldview should not be able to tolerate. Law may say "that isn't God at all, since you haven't shown it to be morally good", but then he immediately contradicts himself by suggesting an "Evil God" (which obviously would not be morally good). Moreover, the God of the Kalam *may, for all we know,* be good also, so the Kalam may very well be pointing at God, focusing in on particular attiributes (creatorship, power, eternity, non-physical nature, etc) and leaving other attributes open for other arguments.
*****
You missed the point. I know that Law isn't actually granting the Kalam's soundness or that any kind of God exists. My point was in response to your claim that doesn't show the being in question as *good* isn't an argument for "God" at all; but it is rather an argument for some interesting, transcendant being. You said that Law could ignore the Kalam because it isn't an argument for "God" at all, since it leaves out His goodness. But then, if that were Law's excuse for ignoring the Kalam, then he can't turn around and even *mention* an "evil God" since that would be a contradiction. You've changed your position in this post. You say that he allows that *some* "god" exists, but that that could be either a good or an evil being. This goes contrary to your previous insistence that if it ain't "good", it ain't "God" at all. You're making the same mistake that Law did.
Craig shows that the cause of all physical reality would have to be non-physical, and then makes the rest of his inferences from there. And he doesn't need any appeal to Cartesian dualism to make it work. Moreover, the Kalam does *not* commit either of the fallacies you mentioned. People think it commits the first one because they think that Craig is reasoning from cases of "creatio ex materia" to all cases of "creatio". That's incorrect. He is reasoning from the broad idea of "creatio" from the get-go. And they only think it commits the second fallacy because they imagine that Craig bases the first premise on observations within the Universe. That's also incorrect. He gives several justifications for P1, and only one of them appeals to all of our experience of watching things come into being. Got anything else?
Craig's goal is to make Christians. If he can get atheists in the audience to give up atheism and think that *some* sort of god-like being must exist because of the Kalam argument, then he has made a step in the direction of his goal.
*****
But you can't consider the one possibility when it would hurt Craig's argument, and then the other possibility when it helps yours. That's just a double-standard. You should at least be consistent in which of the possibilities you're considering.
Craig's God isn't composed of any material; He has no constitutive parts at all. This is the simplest explanatory postulate that he could possibly make. Swinburne often invokes Occam's Razor here, and I think Craig would agree. That *our* minds are brain-dependent doesn't in any way show that *all* minds have to be. We haven't shown any logical or metaphysical necessity in that relation. Just as all life we know of is terrestrial, but that hardly warrants the conclusion that *all* life is terrestrial.
Now, we do know that minds act on the world in direct ways. I can freely choose to move my arm, and I don't have to go through any intermediate steps to get to that first-order behavior. And so, it seems that a powerful God could do the same in creating.
God exists.. Some people just rather say he doesn't than hate him. Truth is God is in the science as well as everything else. You let other people give you a false image of God its no wonder you don't believe or hate him.
GFFprod17 Some people would rather say a god exists, than accept that it's all made up.
Doesn't matter what image you have... they're all made up.
No one hates make believe characters.
You can believe that Craig is the greatest apologist in the world, and that he may be. However, it's 2020, and we still haven't seen a good response to the evidential problem of suffering.
The origin of the universe can come after. First, though, please explain why billions of babies have died in agony in a universe designed by an all good God. Thanks
Yes but suffering can not be an argument for the non-existance of God. Even Jesus was not immune to suffering greatly when He was crucified. It seems that God does not shy away from the suffering of the world but rather uses it for good. It may be that humankind as a whole should be held accountable for our actions, even if seemingly innocent people suffers in the wake of our decisions...
@@SavedbyHim Well, I do wonder if you even watched the debate? Stephen Law laid out the argument several times before addressing your very objections with the evil god analogy. Both free will and divine mysteriousness can be invoked in defence of an evil god just as they can for a good god. The defences don't work for an evil god, so why do they work for a good god. That's the argument.
You can't claim it's not an argument by citing the biblical explanation for suffering. Of course, if we just start out by assuming that god would have good reasons for allowing suffering, then there is no problem of suffering. Unfortunately, though, we can't make arguments whose conclusions are already granted at the beginning.
@@levi5073 You are correct, I did not watch the whole thing. The point of view where this argument is coming from is so different than a Christian's understanding of God that it almost makes no sense arguing in this manner. It's like I'm talking about the characteristics of a tennis ball and you're talking about a basketball. What is Law's viewpoint of Satan then?
@@SavedbyHim The argument isn't dependent on any particular view of God. All it requires is that the Christian God possesses the property of being good. Once that's granted, the argument can be run, regardless of any biblical context. I think you must have missed a step in the argument, so I'll attempt to explain it very briefly.
Once we grant that the Christian God is good, the problem of suffering (POS) is introduced.
However, this initial move is not intended to disprove God (and it doesn't, as you've already noticed).
Instead, Law's argument predicts that the theist will offer several explanations for why god allows suffering. This is where the argument actually begins. It says that such explanations aren't persuasive, because they can be mirrored precisely by someone defending the existence of an all evil god. An evil god faces not the problem of worldly suffering, but the mirror problem of worldly pleasure. Call it the problem of pleasure (POP). The problem of pleasure is to an evil god what the problem of suffering is to a good god.
That all considered, who outside of a mental hospital would believe that free will and mysteriousness explanations rescue the evil god hypothesis from POP? The answer is: nobody. So, if these explanations don't rescue an evil god from POP, they don't rescue a good god from POS.
Here's the pattern of augment in each context:
1 God is good
2. POS is introduced
3. explanations of free will and mystery are given in response
4. POS is supposedly solved
1. God is evil
2. POP is introduced
3. explanations of free will and mystery are given in response
4. POP is clearly "not" solved
Both patterns are identical, but the conclusions are contradictory. That is the crux of the argument (no pun intended). If 3 is not sufficient to explain 2 for an evil god, then it's not sufficient for the good god hypothesis either. And if such explanations aren't good enough for the problem of suffering, then the problem of suffering has not been solved.
@@levi5073 Thank you for your detailed response. This is a very interesting argument from Law. The problem is our perceptions of how to classify God from what we experience in life is not accurate. Whether me or my peers experience pleasure or suffering is not all up to God but my own free will (yes I know, here we go again). Let's suppose God made this reality we experience: I think His character will only be known once He has brought this fairytale which He has started to an end.
William Lane Craig never loses a debate, ever he is simply too prepared and his position is the correct one, just ask Sam Harris, crag is just too prepared, and he has an edge.
+Eric Day He lost this one. He lost to Shelly Kagan... just for starters.
He is a good debater, but he loses.
+Roper122, I still can't believe that Craig conceded that we can't rule the existence of an evil-god based off all the good in the world. Incredible.
Aristotle He has to, otherwise he loses all of his arguments for the goodness of his god. It's why the evil god challenge is so much mire difficult than people realise.
Roper122 , it just shows how absurd skeptical theism is. "For all we know, evil god has reasons for allowing good stuff in the world". Lol, we all know that isn't true
***** Only in his mind
William Craig is a Beast. He decimates his opponents. I've been following his debates for quite some time. He's a real pro. Lays Atheism open like a bad Quentin Tarantino horror movie. I mean come on, that's all Atheism really is... Bad slapstick and angry birds. Who could take atheist serious when they don't even take themselves serious. They come to debates knowing they lack any real evidence, just anger. After blithering along for over an hour when they finally open the floor for questions their angry minions attack like Scientologist at a e-meter sale. Atheism and Evolution are religions for adult thumb suckers
Nice rant... but Craig lost this debate, which kinda undermines your point.
Does Bill have any actual new arguments? Or does he just repeat himself in every debate? Because I've seen him crushed by Harris and Hitchens, but he's still singing the same old song.
You can listen to his opening statements from any of his debates, and it will sound like stereo.
Mr Law was so nervous,shaking really, the evil god argument is really weak to disprove God existence, he better try harder next time. Total failure.
+SJTurbolt Didn't see that at all... he won the debate easily. Perhaps you should pay less attention to whether you think someone is nervous and more to the actual arguments.
he probably was feeling like i do - shaking with anger at how stupid WLC is, and how theists just make excuse after excuse for an immoral god. WLC needs a slap if he thinks animals don't feel pain.
Craig's arguments for God:
1) Kalam Argument: Establishes an uncaused, transcendant, powerful, non-spatiotemporal person who intentionally, freely created the physical world. Law's response? 1:28:46. "I'm pretty sure it's a terrible argument, but I have no specific reason why and I change my mind every day". Score 1 for the theist side. The God of the Kalam may very well be all-good, may very well have resurrected Jesus, it leaves all such things open, while proving the existence of a being that no atheist worldview can possibly tolerate. The field has been narrowed to only theistic worldviews, and then further arguments can narrow the field further. That's why it's called a "cumulative" case, which is something Law did not seem to understand at all.
2) Moral Argument: Establishes that an all-good, transcendant, necessarily existing, eternal person exists whose commands constitute our moral duties. Law's response: Swinburne and other philosophers disagree with the first premise, you haven't justified it, and we should be willing to abandon the second premise if necessary. Well, appealing to consensus or popular opinion among philosophers isn't an argument, and Craig *did* give substantiation for both premises. Craig sketched the usual naturalistic account of our origins, and showed that there is no room in that Grand Story for any transcendant and binding moral values or duties. Now, Law says that atheists don't need to be naturalists, and that is true. However, he didn't even give an *outline* of a non-naturalistic moral theory for Craig to respond to. So, in the absence of that, premise 1 holds. Premise 2 is based on a fundamental part of our cognitive package, and giving it up opens the door to complete radical skepticism about our entire cognitive foundation. Craig was very clear on this point. Saying "we should be open to disproof" is not itself even the beginning of a refutation of premise 2.
Finally, Law says that coupling the Moral Argument with the Problem of Evil yields "there are no objective moral values or duties". That is true, but it should be part of the THEIST'S arsenal, rather than the atheist's! Since it does yield that completely irrational conclusion which defies our most basic intuitions and opens the door to radical skepticism, then that counts *against* the Problem of Evil! Moreoever, Craig gave arguments against the Problem of Evil which went unrefuted (see below). Score 2 for the theists.
3) Resurrection Argument: Establishes that the God of Christianity exists and raised Jesus as confirmation that Jesus was His son and sent by Him. Law's response is basically to indict eye-witness testimony in general (which would compromise the scientific and legal processes completely, if taken seriously) and then to give a completely non-analogous example about a UFO sighting. Craig patiently explained why this example isn't analogous, but Law wasn't listening. Score 3 for the theist.
Law's arguments for atheism:
The Evidential Problem of Evil was the only one. Craig responds by giving several reasons to think that we should expect to routinely and regularly be wrong in judging the moral character of an omniscient being by an inductive survey of what He permits. This is especially so if there are after-life considerations.
Law's response is the Evil God Challenge. All this challenge requires is that the theist be consistent and say that an Evil God also could not be ruled out by inductive survey. To which Craig responds: "yep, we already know that". And just like that the EGC is dead. Law can keep demanding that the theist give a reason why Evil God is absurd (if not on inductive grounds), but the theist is not required to give any such reason. It is not part of the theist's case to establish that Evil God is absurd or doesn't exist or doesn't have smelly armpits, etc etc. The theist believes lots of things which he does not need to justify in this debate context. So he may believe that Evil God is absurd, but it's not part of the debate question to establish that.
Score 0 for the atheist.
Small addendum: I came back to watch this video to see if I'd missed something before. I hadn't. Law's case really is completely bankrupt. And his responses on key issues in the debate are basically just off-hand dismissals. I'll give a few time-stamps to illustrate why I'm so disappointed in Law's performance here. I like Stephen Law and his work. He is a very intelligent man. Too much so for this:
50:17 - 51:06 (you can run the problem of evil without... evil??... Why is suffering difficult at all to square with a morally perfect God, unless permitting or causing suffering is... EVIL? If it's morally neutral to do so, then there is no challenge to anything about God, since God can do morally neutral things all day.)
51:15 - 51:45 ("we all know that's not true" is not an argument)
52:42 - 52:53 ("pull the other one"... also not an argument)
1:28:45 - 1:29:19 (there's just... no excuse for this)
Mentat1231
"Dr." Craig is a charlatan and a proven liar. And your defense of him is pathetic.
Regardless of what may or may not of been said in this exercise in futility (this so-called 'debate'), the god of the bible can be and has been refuted many, many times over - by using logic and rational thinking alone.
"Dr." Craig has obviously chosen to disregard logic, and reality, and instead made a conscious decision to make a lucrative career out of supplying delusional christians with ever-more complicated and baffling reasons to continue believing the unbelievable. His artfully made and eloquently tossed word salads fill bowls with absolutely nothing.
sevven1
So... when were you going to point out an actual specific flaw in any of his arguments?
Mentat1231 I think a better question to be asked is: When are _you_ going to be able to accept that there are indeed many flaws in his arguments? Am I wrong to assume that, like Craig, you've heard these refutations before and just simply chosen to disregard them? Tell me, why should I even bother arguing over that which should already be common knowledge?? Why should I argue with those who have demonstrated such a complete lack of integrity and such an intense and irrational delusion??
Look, pal, Craig's 'arguments' can be, and have been, thoroughly refuted. Google it, take the bible glasses off, and learn for yourself what delusion and faith have blinded you from seeing.
sevven1
You're really going to come onto a comments section and proclaim the weakness of Craig's arguments, but then, when someone asks for an example, you say "go Google it"? Really? And you think *other people* lack intellectual integrity?
This dude doesn't get that infinity isn't a number.
Warning: Watching too many Lane Craig videos will tempt you into jumping out off a window - especially if you know it is way way way up off the ground.
You haven't proven there's a god in the first place, much less that it can speak things into existence.
The only way you can prove The Reality of God is through his Manifestations.
The thing is, the problem of evil says absolutely nothing about weather or not God exists. It's completely irrelevant. Why bring it up?
Jeff D. It certainly does, if your definition of god is as an absolutely good being...
which is... pretty much every definition of god.
So yeah... very relevant.
its the only one they have
kazan qroxy No... it's not the only one.
But it's a damn good one.
***** Actually without wasting too much time on it.
One of the first things Law points out, is that the Free Will Defence works equally well for an evil god... so it's totally useless here.
So... nice try.
Roper122
"It certainly does, if your definition of god is as an absolutely good being..."
True
"which is... pretty much every definition of god."
Do you mean there can be evil gods or that all are good? Because if the latter is true, you are wrong.
"So yeah... very relevant."
Yep
Mr. Craig, even if you are not aware that you are in pain, it hurts when you are in pain, you don't need to be aware that you are suffering.
As iI have stated before, the dilemma persists: According to whose standards is god's nature good?
Thanks.
Law's absolute refusal to engage the Cosmological Argument was perplexing, notwithstanding his assertion regarding the contrary aim of the debate. One can't help wonder whether he actually finds the argument compelling. I also found puzzling his suggestion that WLC's failure to rule out all other possible causes of our moral instincts counted against Bill's argument for a moral law giver. To a layman like me, this sort of evasiveness lends strength and credence to Bill's overall point of view.
Law was using a reductio ad absurdum argument. So he was assuming Bill's argument to be true in order to show it leads to a conclusion that neither would accept. This is done alot in philosophy.
+Free Spirit I did not detect his use of the absurd...I understand the tactical use of such in philosophy...in the video. Care to elaborate?
oldschoolsaint That's the whole point of Evil God hypothesis. It's designed to be evidentially on par with Christian theism. So the burden of proof is on the Christian to say why he rejects the evil God over the good one. Of course Law doesn't actually believe there is an evil God, but the assumption of which is designed to bring out the contradiction of Craig's own belief system. To engage with deistic arguments would undermine the reductio.
+Free Spirit I was under the impression that the debate was supposed to be centered on the existence of God not on whether or not God is good or evil. Am I mistaken about that?
oldschoolsaint Depends how you define 'God'. The majority of people would consider God as something more than a being that created the universe. Craig is clearly arguing for the Christian God, otherwise why bring the resurrection into it?
Considering that he is a professional philosopher, I am extremely disappointed in Stephen Law in this debate. His objection to God on the basis of evil is both disingenuous and intellectually lazy.
***** Well one would have to ask, if such a thing as God actually exists, by what standard can one accuse Him of being "immoral"? I assume the assertion of God's immoral nature is one that suggests it as being objectively immoral, no? Otherwise, I see no basis to argue against it. This should highlight to you how fundamentally flawed you perception of "God" truly is.
***** The point you are missing is that the concept of good/evil is an evidential reason to prefer the "Christian" God to any conflicting notion of god. This is the fundamental point that Law was missing. His "evil god" notion has no basis to suggest an evil or immoral characteristic in God's nature because he has no objective standard to make such a moral adjudication on. In other words, his same "evil" god could be a "morally just" god in the eyes of someone else. If there is in fact such a thing as an objectively evil/immoral nature then this indicates the Christian God as being more likely rather than less likely.
______________________________________________________________
"Evil" is not equally synonyms with causal suggesting. Evil has more to do with the malicious intentions of sentient beings as opposed to any actions taken. A person can have the desire to do "evil" things and even go so far as to attempt to carry the evil intentions out without ever actually causing bodily damage or harm to anyone. What is considered "evil" is not the harm being done in itself, but rather the desire to cause harm that precedes the action. That is the fundamental difference between such things as murder and involuntary manslaughter. Not only this, but "suffering" is an subjective notion. What some consider suffering others take great pleasure in.
We all have the desire to never suffer regardless of what we consider to be suffering as opposed to pleasure. But what basis does anyone have to suggest that suffering is something that we should not be subject to as an aspect of life? Not only does Law's objections fail, WLG missed this as a counter argument.
______________________________________________________________
Maybe YOU should try to understand Law's argument before you try to support it. This way you'd see it is extremely fallacious.
***** immoral by who's standard? If God does in fact exist then who am I to stay to Him what is or is not moral? He is the standard by which we make moral claims (even if we do not directly acknowledge Him as the standard). God never "tells" anyone to cause suffering to other people as a divine command. This is one aspect of the Bible that most people have a misconception about. Whenever the Bible speaks of God telling anyone to cause harm to someone else it is extremely vital that the reader of these passages have an comprehensive understanding of the context given the historical inclinations as well as the author's intentions. Let's use Abraham nearly sacrificing his son as an example. When the Bible speaks of God ordering him to sacrifice his son it is speaking of his intuition being compromised with the traditions of the times. In other words, he know he had to show a greater trust in God and was going to attempt to do so the only way people of that time know how, through sacrifice. Just before he actually kills his son his intuition speaks to him again and this time his line of reading is made clear. He saw that God's divine will is not that he kill his son and that he had genuine trust in God's authority with or without the appropriate line of reasoning.
I disagree with your presentation of "God". It certainly does not represent the God that I believe in. God does not "deem anything immoral" in the same way that we do. What I mean is, God is an omniscient being in which His perspective is not a matter of opinion but one of absolute knowledge. God does not make adjudications, fore this would imply that He comes to new conclusions that He did not previously know; thus contradicting His omniscience. To understand God however you must first understand all of His fundamental characteristics: benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. All of these things are interconnected. There is nothing that God can do that He has yet to do (omnipotence) thus He knows all the manifestations of His will (omniscience). Moreover, because He has done all and He knows all the manifestations of His will, He then is the cause of all things and is in all things (omnipresence). Finally, because He has done all, and knows all, and is in all, this makes Him completely just and righteous in all that He has done (benevolence). So, the question "If god switched cards, though, and made murder moral, would you do it?" does not fit my notion of God because God to me does not change. If God could change is mind and, as you said "switched cards" this again would contradict His omniscient characteristic, because His perspective would then be of something that He did not have foreknowledge of.
______________________________________________________________
Please see my most recent response to ***** for my response regarding the issue of evil and suffering. It is quite clear that the both of you (as most people do) have a misconception of the two concepts and how relevant they are to each other. The existence of suffering in no way indicates that God is not loving and it certainly does not indicate that He is evil. What basis do we have to suggest that suffering is not something that should be an aspect of life? On the contrary, the existence of suggesting is something that more greatly accounted for within the principles of Christianity than any other religion. Why? Because if Christianity is correct, then we do not have a God who is separate from human suffering, but through Jesus Christ's death of the cross, God has became apart of human suffering.
***** God's "commands" are never arbitrary. This again would contradict His omniscient characteristic if they were. If He could "change His mind" regarding moral actions then He does not posses foreknowledge of what His "moral commands" are, and thus is not omniscient.
____________________________________________________________
"The acceptance or dismissal of an objective morality has no bearing on one's ability to run Stephen's evil God argument."
-Absolutely it does and it's quite troubling that most do not see it. The "evil god" is fair less likely to exist than the Christian because there is no objective standard to assert the "evil god" as actually having an "evil" nature. By what standard is such a claim valid? His suggestion of "evil" is being an aspect of God's nature is a subjective one. Even if God's commands were arbitrary, what used to be considered "evil" would no longer be considered as such so God would still be just in His own right. The only way Law's "evil god" argument even begins to have the slightest of legs is if you first acknowledge the existence of an objective moral standard, but the moment you do that you must also give an account for such a standard, thus refuting the "evil god" claim all-together. This is why God is the standard for morality and is not subject to it. There is nothing that He can do that He has yet to do so the standard will never change.
***** "Remember, we're making inferences about God based on our experience of the world. We can't start off by presupposing any additional, unnecessary properties of God."
-If we are not presupposing anything then I would have to ask how one even comes to the conclusion of the God concept as an inference? There are certain prerequisites for a theistic notion of God.
______________________________________________________________
"Anything you attribute to your Christian God besides omni-benevolence can be attributed to an evil (pain loving) God; I.e. An objective basis for good and evil."
-And this implies what exactly? This is hardly an argument to suggest that the Christian God (a just God) is unlikely to exist. If the "evil god" actually exists, he must then be both good and evil by his own standard of morality, making him either arbitrary or making the concept of good and evil equally meaningless toward one another; thus the labeling of such a god as "evil" completely vacuous.
Why would a 'god' thing, sitting there being all eternal with absolutely no wants whatsoever ..... why would that 'god' thing suddenly think that it would be cool to create things that have to breathe and wee and poo all over the place, to wither and ultimately die?
Why? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Craig's arguments are so weak:
1) animals don't suffer? Well, you need to prove that animals don't have feelings: remember sagan standard...
Even if it was true, it's coherent with evil god as well
2) you can't have an objective morality without god... why? Because there aren't other explainations. That's a god of the gaps fallacy...
3) resurrection is true because it is expected to happen in that historical context... well guess what: people tend to see things they expect even when they are not there, or they just invent stories coherent with their expectancy.
But what's funnier is that at the end he claims that actually resurrection was unexpected. Is that a contradiction? Anyway Meaningless argument
....
So you believe that something which has a beginning (our universe) can just begin to exist without a cause?
I find it unbelievable.
Argument from incredulity. Well done.
Dr Craig is at times really painful to listen to because of how obviously false or irrelevant the things he asserts are. His weird argument that animals aren’t aware of their pain and therefore the problem of animal suffering isn’t actually a problem is just insane motivated reasoning, it makes no real sense. So too much many other things he says, like that God per definition HAS to be good, that’s just not intellectually honest.
YEAH. It looks that he knows that he's saying bullshit. (Hope I'm wrong)
Anyway , Stephen, at the end, really destroyed him
Craig lost in the first few minutes. He argues that an eternal, always having existed universe is absurd and claims that some atheists make that argument. The later is about the only thing he is right on but no serious atheist would make such an argument. The problem with a god is it's also an infinite regression since it's usually defined as having always existed, has no creator, etc. When that's brought up, then the theists will say well, god is not bound by time. How convenient. If you can just define god as you please to make the argument work, what's the point in debating that? God is nothing more than the creation of man... and unsophisticated men at that.
" You cannot logically say that:"I am talking about univ-creation, but I don't mean it to be a supernatural work"
- But you can happily say
" I am denying that you have any evidence for your version of universe creation, or indeed that your concept of ' universe creation ' is even valid at all "
Easy.
Dr law does't really make any arguments against the existence of God, but just say we can't know whether he is Good or Evil. I wonder why he chose this route. Interesting.
He chose that route because it won him the debate.
He was not arguing that god could be good or evil,
he was arguing that a good or an evil god does not exist.
+Roper122 nope he lost it fair and square!
The evil god argument to disprove God's existence was just catastrophic.
SJTurbolt Oh really?
By all means explain to me why you think that.
What exactly do you think the evil god challenge is?
The argument is that whatever argument you have for not believing in anti-god is an argument for not believing in god. You have reasons for not believing in anti-god, likely evidentiary, and so it is unreasonable to believe in god.
I thought he made it very convincingly to be honest.
@@Roper122 but the debate was whether God exists, not whether a good God or bad God exists. He was literally debating entirely different topic, while Craig was giving reason to believe God exists.
WLC lost horribly.
1: Law granted the world began.
2: WLC presented the moral argument and the resurrection.
3: Law debunked the moral argument with his Evil/suffering God hypothesis.
4: That’s when the audience asked “ why can’t God’s property be neutral?” The audience noticed that both hypothesis is true based on a world view. WLC couldn’t answer.
5: @ 1:50:50 WLC basically states “ it’s a mystery why God does what it does. We don’t know.” Law then says “ the same can be said for an Evil God. You can’t play the mystery card. You have to provide an actual argument not present a mystery.” WLC then states “ I did provide an argument. Because our life is finite, we can’t determine if something deemed evil now is not good later.”
Law wins the debate after this discussion.
Maybe I'm repeating a point Dr. Craig made when he spoke first. But if Dr. Law believes that evil shows that theism is probably false, I wish he would define goodness and evil. To me, Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas seem right when they say that evil is a lack of goodness. If they're right, we need to know what explains the goodness in the world. But I don't see how any purely natural, blind, unguided process can be or cause goodness when causal power seems at least good for something.
The Kalam works just as well as the unmoved mover and this case it would be just as irrelevant.
Law’s can only use the definition of God as provided by his opponent. He does not in anyway suggest that there might be other gods.
Law doesn’t;’t care in the slightest about other Gods.
Law doesn’t need to define good or evil, that’s Craig’s problem. It makes no difference to Law’s argument.
You could call it whatever you like.
Craig likes to go first because he thinks it puts the opponent on the back foot because they have to respond. Law circumvented this strategy.
@@BSFree-es5ml To me, the Aristotelian and Thomistic first-cause arguments still seem better than the Kalam argument. That's because you can deduce God's omnicompetence from what Aristotle and St. Thomas teach about the difference between possibility and actuality. But Craig believes that if the Kalam argument is sound, we still need to argue separately for omnicompetence. The
The Thomistic argument has another good point, too. It doesn't presuppose that a caused object needs to begin to exist. Even if the world has always existed, it still needs someone or something to keep it existing. As I may have tried to explain here on RUclips, some causes need to exist with their effects. For example, when a refrigerator magnet sticks to a refrigerator door, the cause, magnetism, and the effect, i.e., sticking, need to stay there together. Demagnetize the magnet, and it'll fall off the door.
In my opinion, the Aristotelian and Thomistic first-cause are still relevant to Law's evil-god hypothesis because if God is purely actual without any potential, then the evil God wouldn't be purely actual, since evil is a privation of the good. Maybe it would even be a category error to lump them together when "A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit, and after being given a demonstration of each player's role, asking which player performs the "team spirit": team spirit is not a task in the game like bowling or batting, but an aspect of how the team behave as a group.[2]
To show that a category mistake has been committed, one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true." See Wikipedia's article about category errors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
I suggest that if there were no God, there would be nothing at all. God's existence is underived. It's built-in, if you will. He doesn't get it from another source. But his creatures get their existence from him. If there's no difference between God is existence in itself, then atheism is self-contradictory because it implies that existence doesn't exist.
@@williammcenaney1331 _To me, the Aristotelian and Thomistic first-cause arguments still seem better than the Kalam argument_
- Well neither are relevant to Law, so it doesn’t really matter.
_That's because you can deduce God's omnicompetence from what Aristotle and St. Thomas teach about the difference between possibility and actuality. But Craig believes that if the Kalam argument is sound, we still need to argue separately for omnicompetence_
- Craig is right. But as I said, it doesn’t really matter.
_The Thomistic argument has another good point, too. It doesn't presuppose that a caused object needs to begin to exist. Even if the world has always existed, it still needs someone or something to keep it existing. As I may have tried to explain here on RUclips, some causes need to exist together. For example, when a refrigerator magnet sticks to a refrigerator door, the cause, magnetism, and the effect, i.e., sticking, need to stay there together. Demagnetize the magnet and it'll fall off the door_
- This is all a bit of a tangent. But no, the universe is not a fridge magnet. You assume that the universe would cease to exist without a God. That’s a big assumption.
@@BSFree-es5ml From what I can tell, Thomistic metaphysics relates to Dr. Law's point about an evil God. If God is purely actual without any potential, the evil God can't be purely actual, since evil is a privation of the good. Maybe it's even a category error to group God and the evil God together. Wikipedia says that "A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit, and after being given a demonstration of each player's role, asking which player performs the "team spirit": team spirit is not a task in the game like bowling or batting, but an aspect of how the team behave as a group.[2]
To show that a category mistake has been committed one must typically show that once the phenomenon in question is properly understood, it becomes clear that the claim being made about it could not possibly be true."
It seems to me that if there were no God, there would be nothing at all. Classical theists say that God is the uncaused cause because his existence and causal power are built into him. If they are built into him, he doesn't derive them. He doesn't get them from another source. But that doesn't mean that he causes his existence. The self-causation idea is self-contradictory. A cause needs to come somehow before its effect. But in self-causation, the effect is exactly the same thing as the cause, which means that the cause would need to exist and not exist in the same respect at the same time. Since God exists in himself, he prevents a vicious infinite regress of causes.
So it's absurd for Shermer or anyone else to ask, "If everything has a cause, then what caused God?" when no classical theist has ever said that everything has a cause. God creates someone or something by giving existence to him or it. So even if the universe has always existed, it still needs a sustaining cause. If God is existence, then atheism is self-contradictory because it'd self-contradictory to deny that existence exists.
Classical theists aren't arguing that God comes numerically before the second, third, and fourth causes. We mean that each other cause always depends on him to sustain it and give it causal power. So Dr. Peter Kreeft and I compare God to a train engine.
Suppose there's a train with an engine, a dining car, a passenger car, and a caboose. Since the cars can't propel themselves, they need the engine. For the train to travel on its track, pulling power needs to flow from the engine to each car. A car could roll down a hill. But for it to do that, it would need gravity to pull it. In the train analogy, the pulling power stands for God and the existence each creature gets from him. If the engine, i.e., God, left the cars, that would annihilate them. Since God is purely actual, he turns the possible existence of each creature into actual existence because change consists of actualizing a potential. Maybe now you see why I tell you that there would be nothing at all if there were no God.
@@williammcenaney1331 _If God is purely actual without any potential, the evil God can't be purely actual, since evil is a privation of the good_
- Before you go any further, you can’t simply declare evil is a privation of good. That seems a particularly Catholic viewpoint, and I know Law doesn’t share it ( and in fact I don’t think Craig does either ). But even if I granted that argument you still haven't put a dent in the Evil God Challenge because it does not rely on the actual existence of an Evil God.
_Maybe it's even a category error to group God and the evil God together_
- It doesn’t matter to Law, you can label Evil God whatever you want.
_Wikipedia says that_
- We don’t need quotes about Category errors thank you.
_It seems to me that if there were no God, there would be nothing at all_
- It doesn’t seem to me at all…but again that has little do with Law’s argument.
_Classical theists say that God is the uncaused cause_
- Yes yes we all know this...it has zero effect on Law’s argument.
_So it's absurd for Shermer or anyone else to ask, "If everything has a cause, then what caused God?”_
- It’s not, but why are you now bringing Michael Shermer into this?
_If God is existence, then atheism is self-contradictory because it'd self-contradictory to deny that existence exists_
- And if God isn’t existence, then it’s not.
_So Dr. Peter Kreeft and I compare God to a train engine_
- Zzzzzzzz
_Maybe now you see why I tell you that there would be nothing at all if there were no God_
- What I see if that you have no answer to anything I pointed out about Law’s successful argument. Instead you’ve attempted to distract and drone on about irrelevant points. Very revealing.
NO, in the formal debate Law was spectacularly successful.
In fact Craig was so bad, that Law was left with little to do.
Craig hoped, as do you, that he could somehow hide behind irrelevant arguments, but he was out-debated.
Ironically Craig suffered from poor time management, and just had to hope no one would notice.
Animals DO feel pain. What a joke.
Yeah, that one book he cited was probably total pseudoscience. The guy who wrote it's not even a vet or scientist (unsurprisingly just another religious apologist). Pretty sure that's not the current scientific consensus at all:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals
Pretty disturbing that according to what Craig said, he should be totally okay with doing live surgeries on his dog because even though it may appear to be in pain, it's "not aware of it" and therefore "cannot be suffering like a person would." Obviously an animal isn't going to suffer in the exact same way a human would, but if they are suffering at all, that's a pretty big problem.
I agree with most of what Dr Craig says, except this part. I think it's obvious that animals feel pain.
drew2 fast There really is no good justification for all the animal suffering in the world and I don’t see how anything we could go on to accomplish as a species can possibly be worth the sheer immensity of the collateral damage (both animal and human). That’s why people like Craig have to come up with bullshit rationalizations or some pseudoscience debunking it because they can’t come up with any way to reconcile that reality with an omnibenevolent, omniscient deity.
@@user-md3wm7vu1f Okay, but you're implying that animals and humans have intrinsic value. You know where I'm going with this....
drew2 fast I am strongly inclined to believe that something that is conscious and sentient has some kind of moral worth, but I’m okay with us not being able to 100% prove that for now and I don’t believe any religion can make a better case for it either. I remember Craig trying to claim that because we somehow know for certain that God exists and he is all-good, that proves that objective morality exists and consequently beings have moral worth. Even if I were to concede God’s existence (there is ample room for a great deal of skepticism on this), this still doesn’t make any sense because in order to know that something is all-good in the first place, you would already need to know not only that objective morality exists but also precisely what it is too in full detail in order to be able to recognize with certainty that the deity is in fact all-good. You would also need to know everything there is to know about this deity, and the Bible is both extremely vague and scarce on information pertaining to God.
As for morality, the Bible doesn’t make any convincing case that objective morality exists, much less provide a comprehensive, exhaustive description of what it actually is. For the most part, all it has is occasional basic precepts, parables, directives, and generalizations which might have some occasional wisdom here and there but there are plenty of contradictions and a lot of what is there is extremely dubious at best or just outright savage at worst (the old testament in particular). I see much more moral nuance and complexity in something like the works of Shakespeare or in modern works of both fiction and nonfiction than in the Bible.
If it exists at all, objective moral worth is not decided or made possible by an arbitrary deity. They are two separate things. Does a dog have moral worth just because I exist and decide it does? Of course not. Even if I were to embody the concept of "goodness" or "moral worth", it's still an abstract concept inherently separate from the existence of any kind of entity.
Interestingly... this was supposed to be an easy debate on the tour, Craig was more concerned with playing the Dawkins publicity card.
But not only did he lose unexpectedly, ( and in the process ironically give Law and the Evil god Challenge publicity )... but he also made those ridiculous comments about animal suffering that are still haunting him today.
Ouch.
Stephen Law was too hung up on responding rapidly and looking good to the audience, rather than trying to take in Craig's arguments and responding to them honestly.
So... what exactly is WLC's response to the evil god argument?
1) Every argument you make for God can be made equally for evil god.
2) Every moral defence of God can be made as a moral defence of evil god.
3) It's unreasonable to believe in evil god.
4) So it's unreasonable to believe in God.
1/4 are wrong. And yes, FYI based on cosmological reasons, an EVIL god would be more logical than naturalism yes. How does me saying that help the atheists case?
@@timothyha4783 Because of the argument outlined above.
@@RaRa-eu9mw Again, every argument from natural theology makes the existence of an evil god AND God more plausible than Atheism. However some of them like an ontological type argument tilt the base case towards a moral God. Can you explain to me where that statement is wrong?
I'm actually trying to understand your POV fyi. I used to believe in naturalism/materialism
@@timothyha4783 It's not necessarily wrong. It just has nothing to do with the argument in the original post. It seems like WLC didn't actually give any counter-argument, and neither have you.
@@RaRa-eu9mw ok well I don't see any reason to believe your 2, 3, 4 so your argument doesn't work for me
At first I thought Law's evil god premise was lazy and low hanging, but he actually made some interesting and strong arguments for it. I'm bought.
This is my first exposure to Stephen Law. It's disappointing to see him just play the part of the skeptic, essentially sitting back and saying "naw" to any argument offered. I understand a burden of proof on one attempting to make the positive case, but Law seemed to assert that his "naw" was good enough for now, and that Theistic belief wouldn't even be viable until the Theist refutes all arguments -- even those not yet dreamt of.
The value of watching this interaction is to confirm that Theism and Atheism do seem to be a priori positions. The Theist could easily take Craig's arguments to be forceful, and the Atheist could easily take Law's passive skepticism to be warranted.
Jonathan Kelly I think you misunderstood what Law was saying.
He wasn't simply saying " nah " to the moral argument.
He was pointing out that there are many, many different options, and Craig can't simply declare his correct. Theists can certainly take Craig's argument to be forceful, but they can't avoid that problem. Anyone can happily assume that all of Craig's arguments are correct.. but that doesn't mean they avoid the problems at all.
Roper122 "He was pointing out that there are many, many different options, and Craig can't simply declare his correct."
That's how I understood his position, and that's exactly what I found to be distasteful. I appreciate the intellectual sparring during debates like these, but this sort of never-satisfied skepticism is tiring. I just picture folks like this deriding their neighbor for buying a car without driving every car in existence.
Jonathan Kelly Well, that only applies if the neighbour declares that his car is the only possible car.
No other cars work at all... ever.
His car is the only possible car in the world... because he saw another car once that didn't work.
If you consider that " never satisfied " ...
then you must have a strange definition of the term.
Roper122 But let's be fair about this - Craig said, in effect, "I see two possibilities for P - namely C1 and C2. C1 doesn't work because of these reasons, so I'm justified in believing C2." It is fair to respond "You haven't considered C3, C4, ... " ad infinitum. But, if you're going to make that criticism, you've got an obligation to at least hint at what those causes might look like.
The neighbor isn't claiming his car is the only possible car / the only one that works at all, etc. (You have to realize this is a caricature of the Theist's position.) He's saying in light of any better alternatives, I bought this car. If you were to then say to your neighbor that he's not justified in his choice; that he just happened to be brought up in a family that drove Fords so that's why he picked a Ford; that there are more suitable cars out there - I can't name any, but you have to act as if they're out there; you should hold out for them to make a car that runs on water; etc. Your neighbor would be justified in looking at you sideways.
Jonathan Kelly No...
Craig is saying " I see two possibilities "
Law is saying " there are far more than two... and besides you have to rule them all out if you want to claim yours is the only one possible "
And no the car metaphor was not a misrepresentation. Craig is literally saying that his " car " is the only one possible.
What you're misunderstanding is this...
Law isn't simply saying
" Oh there might be something else but no one's thought of it "
( although that's a valid thought )
His words were this...
_He has to show that there is no atheist friendly account that can be constructed, there are so many possibilities here_
He is not saying
" Oh there must be another possibility, but I can't think of one "
He specifically mentions the fact that even christian philosophers do not universally agree with Craig.
Craig is saying
" this is the only car that could ever work, because I saw one other car that didn't work "
Law is saying
" I can name lots of cars that might work, but if you want to claim that yours is the only possible one, you'll have to rule all of them out, and rule out even the cars that I haven't driven yet "
As usual, it's Craig claiming to know something that no one knows
what he craig said about animals not being aware of pain if i understand correctly what about say a dog if you drop it in a vat of boiling water it writhes in agony, so is this just the nervous system?
" I just wish people on both sides could be more tolerant "
- Do you?
I just wish people wouldn't go around accusing atheists of being " incredibly arrogant ".
Doesn't seem very tolerant to me.
I'm not lecturing you.. just answering what you said.
This post represents a typical reaction of many atheists.
In this particular example, this person believes that s/he had a theist opponent who believed "rejection of things" equaled religion, and s/he won the "battle" by being angry and calling them pseudo-intellectuals and moron. :-)
Such Don Quixotes "triumph", as always.
Lane Craig looked a bit unsettled here, his arguments weren’t working...
i missed that
@@ceceroxy2227 listen to the arguments- laws one argument undermines all of Craig’s
I wonder how long they would sit across from each other arguing if there wasn't a time limit.
The un-Jewish nature of the resurrection proves that Jesus resurrected? How about the fact that it was another Jewish sect that developed in order to cause a reform?
Law got throttled.
@115577700720539801877 Did he get throttled on his way home afterwards?
Because he smashed the debate.
When of the few times where I saw WLC lose a debate quite handily. Great debate though.
I don't see that at all.
@@chuckmcphail4400 Watch it again!
And since he defines the nature of reality and arbitrarily assigns value with no constraints, wouldn't it be easier to just forgive all now and forever in order to display the boundless magnitude of his love?
ye payed the price for that on the cross and everyone has a free choice to accept the gift of forgiveness, he doesnt force it onto us
[P1={1,2,3,4,5,6,...,∞}, P2={2,4,6,8,10,12,...,∞} versus P1=(∞,..., ∞), P2=(∞,..., ∞); Every entry of P2 is 2 times its corresponding entry in P1] - While it is true that the relationship between the sets guarantee that orbits of one will be greater than the other at every pairing, when viewed from the standpoint of the sets as a whole they necessarily equal ∞. Worse, when viewed from a past infinity, there is only ∞ to be claimed for both sets.
As usual Craig gets the definition of atheism wrong, despite having it pointed out to him in nearly every debate he has been in. This man is incapable of learning new information if it doesn't fit his presuppositions.
***** agreed, I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt but that's getting harder and harder with William Lane Craig. like Ray Comfort Dinesh D'Souza and several others it's getting to the point where it's almost impossible for me to believe that they genuinely are not aware how bad their arguments are .
Craig knows his audience won't know the difference. He is only interested in winning the debate. Truth has nothing to do with it.
How did Craig define atheism? I watched the debate but skipped a lot of Craig's speeches because they're so repetitive.
Surroundx Early in his first speach he says: "...now the atheists says there is no god..." and then attempts to shift the burden of proof onto atheists. He's basically saying "if you can't prove that my god does not exist then my god must therefore exist..."
Granted that's a bit of my own strawman of craigs position but it effectively boils down to that. He is desperate to avoid the burden of proof because he knows he can't meet it. His best bet is to try and convince the audience that atheism is something it's not and hope for a tie.
Ian G What are you talking about? How does he "shift the burden of proof" when he PROVIDES A POSITIVE CASE FOR THEISM instead of simply saying, "hah! Atheists...you have to do all the work." In the philosophy of religion, there is a clear distinction made between different 'levels' or 'degrees' of atheism (ex. weak atheism, strong atheism). Each has its own implications, and Craig SHOULD make this clear, but he's not simply shifting the burden of proof. That's a ridiculous assertion, Ian. Peace!
The amount of circular reasoning that Stephen Law makes per sentence is astonishing!
Depends... if you're talking in the context of this debate, then Craig defines god as being good... it's vital to the description.
So if the argument is " a good god does not exist "
Then yes, the atheist is saying that god doesn't exist.
If you want to change the definition of god and claim that an indifferent god might exist... that's a different argument.
Snakes 🐍 talk. Virgins bear immortals. And the dead rise of the Graves and enter into Jerusalem ...Come.on. it's a wrap. It's over
"There is just no way this was all accident and no example to suggest that thought."
In other words... you don't know X, therefore God did it.
No, you´re misrepresenting the logical argument by presenting a second-tier description or informal comment instead of the primary virtually empirical evidence.
The empty tomb, the witnesses to Jesus´ appearances, and the Apostles´ switch from despair to fervor indicate a coherent account that corresponds to historical sociological evidence. Your inaccurate rendering version is a kind of projection fallacy based on scientific materialism.
I started with an interest in psychosomatic medicine and my spiritual path. The medical attestation to medically improbable and impossible healings that come with spiritual-religious testimony is a much neglected source of empirical evidence for experience. Craig Keener´s book Miracles is a good source around that.
@@robinhoodstfrancis You sound like you have no friends
@@gerhitchman Gee, since you care so much, I´ll just have to forget all the dinners out and beers I´ve shared. Or, maybe, whatever I have or don´t have, it sounds like you have no argument, but do worry about what others will do if you don´t say what they want to hear. I guess any friends you have aren´t really that reliable when it comes to doing the right things. Oops for you.
@@robinhoodstfrancis You just sound like a real pain in the ass to be around
He defeats his own arguments as he rebutes the "anti god" or evil god argument.
+Michael Collins
Your personal attacks say a lot about your ignorant view
Eehhhh, I would have put more thought into that response. It's better to explain what exactly you mean rather then just stating something without thought behind it just because you disagree with the opposite side.
even an evil god hypothesis is more reasonable than atheism/naturalism
@@timothyha4783 If God is omnipotent, he can create any type of universe he wants without constraint. That means literally every possible type of universe would be consistent with having been created by a God.
It therefore follows logically that there cannot be evidence for the existence of God. The only way to falsify this claim is to point to something within the universe that could not exist if an omnipotent god did not exists. In logical terms, what is the contradiction in a universe existing without having been created by a god?
If you cannot answer those questions then I don’t see how you are justified in your claim that an evil god is more likely than no god.
Fair enough. The things to take away at this point are:
1) You acknowledge the gospels (or Mt, at least) contain deliberate fabrication, and these are your primary source of evidence for the resurrection.
2) Even if we overlook for the sake of discussion the uncertainty of the gospels and the eyewitness accounts they purport to record, your argument comes down to disciples knowingly inventing a story vs. a dead body coming back to life.
3) You admit to presupposition to make your argument work.
So I have to retract from my initial comment that Law lost because he did not address the 3rd argument. I don´t think his argument against Craigs 3rd is on target, but that is another matter all together. I respect your opinion, and you have defend it with intelligence and good posture. thanks again.
Law's first rebuttal was strange. He didn't seem to realize Craig had moved on from the Evil God argument, by agreeing, and pointing to a much stronger argument for a Good God by discussing morals and suffering. It was as if he was absent-minded for Craig's first rebuttal. That was disappointing.
Lastly, I dont know if Law knows it, but his arguments about an evil or good God are irrelevant to him. His logical issue is he'd have to appeal to the existence of God to even discuss it meaningfully. He argued much more like a deist, rather than an atheist, forgetting the topic.
_He didn't seem to realize Craig had moved on from the Evil God argument_
- Actually Law was clearly taken aback by how bad Craig’s response was.
_by agreeing, and pointing to a much stronger argument for a Good God by discussing morals and suffering_
- He didn’t move on, the Moral Argument was his only chance. Law eviserated it, but it was the only card he could possibly play.
_It was as if he was absent-minded for Craig's first rebuttal. That was disappointing_
- Craig’s first rebuttal failed, that. Was why Law was dissappointed.
_Lastly, I dont know if Law knows it_
- Riiiiiight
_His logical issue is he'd have to appeal to the existence of God to even discuss it meaningfully_
- No he absolutely doesn’t. He can appeal to the concept of a god, but he in no way has concede anything about the existence of.
_He argued much more like a deist, rather than an atheist, forgetting the topic_
- 100% wrong. Craig defined god. Craig’s god must be good, or he is not god, and Law wins. If you or Craig have to backpedal to a deist god, then Law wins. And as you just pointed out, that’s what happened.
The Evil God Challenge really has to be among the weakest additions to the atheist arsenal that I've ever heard. The theist philosopher has explanations for how the evil in the world doesn't make God unlikely, and Law wants to respond to that by saying "but then all the good in the world doesn't make an evil creator unlikely either". To which the theist simply responds "yeah, so?". To confirm or disconfirm God's goodness or evilness based on looking around at the world is a mistake (which is what their explanations show symmetrically for *either* Good God or Evil God).
If you want to confirm that God is good you can reason on the definition of "God", which usually includes "being worthy of worship". An evil being wouldn't be worthy of worship. Or you can reason in line with one of the moral arguments, which basically say that the only reason there are correct and incorrect moral statements is because there is an ontological grounding for moral facts in the perfect nature of God. Therefore, an evil God would actually be impossible, since "evil" means "failing to live up to the true moral values" and God is Himself the ontological *ground* of those values! So He *can't* fail to live up the true standard, and therefore He cannot be evil.
It seems like Stephen Law tries to get around this by saying that it's not about "evil" or "good" as objective moral truths; it's just about suffering. But the problem is that, in the absence of objective moral facts of the matter, suffering is no more "evil" than kindness or joy! If you leave aside the idea that causing or permitting needless suffering is *morally* evil, then the theist doesn't need to even address the matter. God could LOVE watching people suffer, and still not be morally evil, because we've left aside notions of real evil and real good. But, if you try to go back and say that enjoying people's suffering is an objectively *evil* thing, then you're back to the ontological ground on which moral statements are objectively correct or incorrect, which is God's nature itself.
So, I really think that Law was lost from Craig's first rebuttal. And I don't see why anyone considers this a win on Law's part (though, to be fair, many atheist bloggers acknowledged that Law did not do well here).
Seriously, start at 50:17 and go to 50:52. This is amazing. Why would theists even need to "explain" the multitude of suffering at all if causing suffering isn't *evil*???
Guy Wonder
The definition of God does standardly include "being who is worthy of worship". That isn't my opinion; it's part of the definition. Evidence that the good God exists would be the moral argument, for example. Or perhaps some form of the ontological argument.
"Evil" just *is* "failing to live up to the true moral values". So, "God is evil" is the same sentence as "God is failing to live up to the true moral values". My point was that, if there is such a standard, there are reasons to think that the standard itself is ontologically grounded in God Himself, and therefore He *cannot* fail to live up to them, and therefore cannot be evil. Craig made this same point in the debate.
Mentat1231 Guy Wonder Absolutely, to try to simply " define " god into goodness is laughable. No one confirms god is good simply by reasoning on the definition of god... they need to attempt something like the moral argument ( "attempt" being the key word... )
To quote
" Evidence that the good God exists would be the moral argument "
So it once again, falls to the moral argument, which failed handsomely in this debate. And as Stephen Law quite clearly points out, he doesn't even need to make any moral judgement to run the evil god challenge, it can simply be defined as " suffering ".
Now Craig could then concede that he has no idea whether his god enjoys suffering and that doesn't matter.
But of course he didn't....
No matter how much certain individual would like to run the debate differently.
Tantrums and *bold* words aside
( and there are even christian bloggers who agree... gosh )
Mentat1231 But for an evil god, the "ontologically grounded standard" would simply be evil, and it would be still be living up to its own moral values.
punnet2 There's even a case to be made
( although Law himself doesn't make it, he thinks it would be feasible ) that the moral argument itself still doesn't help.
Because as you say... the moral argument just states that we have absolutes... or standards... but those standard can be evil.
You can say that the essence of evil god is evil, and we only know what good is by comparing it to evil.
So the fact that we have what appear to be objective values of good... doesn't discount evil god at all.
It's not needed to win this debate.. but interesting
Yes, tacking on "efficient" post-fact is still an equivocation. Here is the argument, with the definitions substituted for the equivocated terms. If you see any errors in my re-wording, point them out:
P1. Everything [already-existing within time and space] which [takes on a new form] has a [agent acting within time and space]
P2. The universe [came from nothing (according to a loose interpretation of the current science)]
C. The universe has a [agent acting OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE]
As I said...for more than 50 years I was an atheist. Now I am not any more. Does it make be a bad person? My "fear" is that many atheist will answer this question now with a YES. What I a saying is: no side can ever prove that they are right or wrong. I accept atheism as much as I accept believe. I just wish people on both sides could be more tolerant. It would make life easier...So, Roper122, no point of "lecturing" me )))
Here is the point :
Postulate a all knowing agent.
It's highly plausible that we can't possibly understand their reasonning.
So whatever we see in the world around us can not inform us about their intent.
Therefore we must not try to obey God, since we don't know what his orders are.
You can't infer those attributes entirely from nature, but we can read Holy Revelation from God and have a personal relationship with God.
ah 2011, timbalands were still big
This wasn't a debate. Craig wiped the floor with Law.
Bill just won't admit he fails as a philosopher. Morals are not necessarily objective, even if they are, God is not necessary, even if God is necessary for morals to exist, He is not necessarily good. In fact, morals were never objective to begin with.
Religious debates all come down to credibility versus irrationality and credibility wins each time as is shown here by Stephen Law.
When ya gotta go ya gotta go 1:37:00
Craig doesnt argue 'no infinite' can exist. he is saying that their is One Infinite that must exist, and we call it God.
Putting aside whether you think my capacity to understand infinities is sufficient, you are aware that I am correct, so, depictions which suggest that all infinities are of the same size are wrong. So, it follows that Craig is wrong in suggesting in his depiction that all infinities are the same. 7:00-8:00 makes the error fairly clear from a simple analytic standpoint...
This evil god argument is such trash. I am surprised it's used in this high level debate let alone be the main theme of Mr. Law's argument
Mr. Law is defining the intention an "evil god" by his own definition and doesn't even realize it! He's saying that an "evil god" would create a world with pure evil and since there is obvious "good" in our world, therefore an evil god cannot exist". He uses this to state that the Good Christian God doesnt exist since there is obvious evil in this world. Lol.
Heres where the problem lies in this argument. For this argument to have any validity, he would have to define the intention of an evil god that is the exact opposite to that of a christian God.
It would have to be an evil god that is all powerful that decided to create a world with some good in it and then deceive humanity by sending whoever he calls on to be believers to hell and all evil people to heaven in paradise. Rewarding all evil doing and punishing all good eternally.
If he used that that version of an evil god, then the answer is YES, there can be an evil god in a world where good exists. And that evil god would be MORE evil than the evil god that he defined in the debate because it would be an evil god that deceived, punished, tortured, and rewarded pure evil.
I wonder how one cannot realize that flaw before presenting it on stage to the worlds best christian philosopher.
+John Nguyen But that is not what he is saying at all.
Law is not arguing that an Evil god can't exist. He is saying that we universally agree that he doesn't exist. We simply do not consider the evidence backs up that claim.
Now if you want to turn around and say that he can ( or does ) exist, you now have two problems.
One you have to somehow go against the opinion of virtually everyone on the planet.
And
Two, you've just undermined christianity completely because you've said that an all evil god could most likely exist.
Craig didn't do either of those things, and he lost the debate.
So no... no problem with Law's argument at all
***** If you put it that way... it still rules out Craig's god.
As someone has said you missed the point and that’s not what he’s saying. But for the sake of argument let say Law is making up his own definition of an evil god. By extension so is Graig and every other theist who claims you can prove the existence of a “good” god.
Amazing, WLC doesn't understand that infinity isn't a number.
he starts out with believeing in pixies so what do you expect?
@@HarryNicNicholas Fair point.
Craig loses this debate by miles.His usual arguments are blown away by Law's clever 'evil god' construction. Even if the universe did have a beginning the spaceless,timeless story holds no water as to be 'God'.We do not know! Transcendent does not mean ='God'!!!!!!
OK.. this is going to take a while.
First of all.. Craig didn't use the Ontological Argument.
Secondly, Law rendered the Cosmological Argument useless, and Craig agreed.
So to say Law focused on one of Craig's arguments is entirely correct... he only needed to focus on one.
That's the point.
If you find an infinite past problematic, try contemplating and infinite past with a beardy guy floating in it. If you think modern scientific explanation of the universes' origins are problematic, try contemplating the biblical origin theory.
It is just untrue to assume that from nothing comes nothing. The fact is, particles and anti-particles pop in and out of existence in every point at every moment.
Ok, buddy.
キリストは主である Prove it? You'd also need to prove that things can exist outside of time. Good luck.
キリストは主である Your statement is just irritating sophistry that all proponents of the KCA engage in, the actual reality is that for Big Bang models where the universe is closed at T=0 there exists no time before the universe and so the problems don't apply to the universe and models where it is open at t=0 there is no definitive beginning of the universe. This is the fallacy of composition the Kallam Cosmological argument makes, equivocating explanations that are applicable inside the universe with explanations that are applicable to the universe as a hole.
You want to make that leap from the universe having a beginning to the universe having a cause this in itself is problematic but then to make the leap that this cause must be God is plain unreasonable and to make the further leap that this God must in fact be the theistic perfectly good God who resurrected an apocalyptic Jewish preacher 2000 years ago is just silly.
Bruh 😐😐
That is because there is always an amount of energy in the vacuum due to the uncertainty principle. That energy allows creation of particle/anti-particle pairs.
I can't stand Craig's Zeus-like God and American biblical literalism in general.
"He suggests that all infinities are of the same size... "
What he suggests, and what is absolutely correct, is that the infinity of whole numbers and the infinity of even whole numbers are the same size infinity. As is the length of an infinite line and the length of an infinite line with half of it removed.
You assert that "He suggests that all infinities are of the same size..." The fact that an idea popped into your head does not mean that he suggested it. Learn to quote.
this means that you don't seem to understand what infinite is.
The debate was " Does god exist? "
Craig defines god as good.
Law was trying to win the debate ( as Craig often tries to do ) so he set out to show that Craig's god does not exist.
Craig could have won if he had simply let go of the " goodness " angle...
but he didn't, he couldn't... he was out-debated.
Stephen Law... LAMBASTED
Craig: We cannot tell why God permits evil
Law: You can say the same thing for an evil God, saying you cannot tell is not good enough
Craig: I did not say we cannot tell
Law: Then what is your argument?
Craig: We cannot tell why God permits evil
Law: -_-
+Mark B
No, what actually happened was this:
Craig: We shouldn't expect to be able to see an omniscient being's motives for permitting evil.
Law: You can say the same thing for an evil God.
Craig: I agree.
Law: Oh come on! We all know there's too much sunshine and rainbows for there to be an Evil God.
Craig: No, as I said, induction is the wrong way to tell God's moral character.
Law: Oh come on! We all know....
Law's "we all know" argument ought to go down in history as one of the most ridiculous and worthless in history.
Mentat1231 Suffering and pain of humans and animals is something that goes contrary to the idea of an all loving, all powerful god. If god is all powerful then he should be able to make a world where suffering can not occur that is compatible with free will.
SoldierGeneral64
So, you think it's logically coherent to *make* someone do something *freely*?
Mentat1231 You fail to understand that technically impacting the constraints and the parameters does not impact free will (only indirectly). First off god could prevent anyone who would disobey him from being born or kill off anyone that was going to disbelieve in him. Such a stance would be more humane than an eternity in hell if such a god refuses to budge on that issue. You fail by reducing an argument to absurdity without actually addressing it. An example would be god could make humans in a way that pleasure could not be earned from rape or a man could not get a hard on when performing said task. That would limit a man's choices, but not take away his free will. That is merely one way an actual benevolent god could change the world. This nonexistent god would have already put constraints on us so how could you argue additional constraints are not valid. We can not fly without the aid of technology, etc.
Mentat1231 I'll give you two different well developed against your theistic god. Here is a short one.
1. Are there things that are impossible? Yes
2. Can what is impossible be possible? No
3. Can god do what is impossible? No
4. God is limited to logic and coherency. (based on inability to do the impossible)
5. If god is bound by logic and coherency he is not all powerful.
6. If god is bound by concepts or rules other than himself then why call him god.
7. If god is not bound by such concepts and is Omni-benevolent then why allow such needless suffering when a world can be created without it that still permits free will.
1. Something can not come from nothing. (not necessarily true, but theists proclaim it so)
2. God is classified as something.
3. God is bound by rules or concepts other than what he creates and is not all powerful.
4. God can not create something from nothing or have been created from nothing.
That is the case..
and no, he didn't establish a new religion..
He simply won this debate.
If you still don't understand why... I'm happy to explain it to you.
By the way... you notice that Craig never said this during the debate.
So from that you can draw two things.
1 - Craig lost
2 - Even when losing Craig didn't use what you consider the only argument that could've saved him.
So either you know better than William Lane Craig,
or the argument doesn't do what you think it does and is just a word game.
Call evil god " Steve " if you like, it doesn't help.
And no one is arguing for an evil god - you still don't get that.
Stephen Law was amazing omg
Ironic that you say "oh my god"
Ahhhhh snap! Law got PWNED!
He did not engage the 3rd argument, he gave an argument from authority ( Plantinga does not like it) and he stated that it is weak, or not enough, that is not an argument, that are just assertions. He did not engage in why it is weak, or why it is a bad inference, or why the historical case is lacking.
A circle is an example of roundness. So carry your analogy (by which you try to avoid the dilemma again, having already chosen A): god is an example of "goodness"; which means the definition of "goodness" is comprehensible whether or not there's a god to exemplify it. (If you're simply defining "good" as "what god is", your use of circularity is more apt than you think).
And the dilemma persists: Is rape wrong because god condemns it, or does god condemn it because it' wrong?
Dziękuję.
I like how Craig, in his origin of the universe argument, slips in "personal" in his description of god. Come on dude... that's 100% garbage, pure intentional deceit.
An impersonal but eternal creator of a past-finite universe would have no way to change its state such that it would become the sufficient cause of that past-finite universe.
Intelligence and awareness mean personal. An orderly fine tuned universe that began existing in the past, prove it was designed. DESIGN + FINE TUNE = awareness and intelligence.
@@oldscorp Is god orderly? Then who designed god?
@@oldscorp I disagree that intelligence and awareness = personal. Typically a "personal god" is used to describe the character of god as being personal to you, not just god is a person. God having those two traits does not mean god cares about you. This being if we accept any of that as proof of god or more absurdly that any person knows god.
It seems to be that Craig misunderstood the *entire* point of the evil God challenge. It's especially laughable when Craig plays the "mystery card" and says that a world with suffering is consistent with an all-good God. Fine... then a world with happiness is consistent with an all-evil God.
Jesus Christ, Craig is a joke.
An “evil God” is a contradiction in terms... apparently you didn’t listen to Craig’s speech. Jesus Christ is right!
@@BRNRDNCK That's irrelevant. Let's call an evil creator of the universe "eGod" instead then. The question is still: how do we know that our universe (given both happiness and suffering) was created by God or eGod?
@@gerhitchman You fail to understand that the contradiction between evil and God isn’t just in the definitions assigned to those words, it’s in the very nature of an all powerful creator. So you don’t avoid the problem by using a different word.
@@BRNRDNCK I'm not sure how you can tell the difference between a contradiction due to definition and one due to nature? That seems really odd.
But anyways the semantics don't matter at all. We're trying to assess whether the creator of this universe is consistent with particular moral properties. If you just assume from the start that God is good and that God created the universe, then this argument won't sway you.
I grant that the "count" of entries (infinite) within the sets are equal, however, the idea of there being equal orbital counts is NOT valid, which is the error suggested in his depiction.
I think that Punnet2 described it very well what you're trying to figure out. Let me quote him:
'The disciples mistaking someone else for jesus; or even knowingly dying for a lie -- however unlikely and hard to believe -- is still more likely and easier to believe than a dead body coming magically back to life.'
This is where your logic falls apart... people CAN be mistaken about identifying other people. People CAN hallucinate and experience things which aren't real. Magic is something else.