It was a good strategy for Harris to not participate fully in the topic of the debate & throw out all of those red herrings. If he would've seriously engaged Craig he would have gotten floored, i.e. the pseudo-intellectualism of New Atheism would have taken a major blow, & his future book sells (along with his reputation) would have suffered. So the only way out was to attack but not engage. This way he stays popular among the "meme" generation of atheists...those who think they know a lot about religion but are really stupid in reality. the only thing they will ever seriously produce are memes that make caricatures of religion.
+SojiRo23 It is indeed disappointing that people like Harris and Hitchens are the most public representatives of atheism. However, even though in this debate Harris was not able to spot the logical fallacies in WLC's moral argument, it doesn't mean that they are not there!
***** Hmm well, to be honest, I am a bit of a technophobe so I must confess I don't even know how to set up my own blog! You can do it for me if you like though :) But seriously, I know that youtube is not the ideal forum to debate these issues but it's preferable to me because it allows one to discuss the topics back and forth with a person who wishes to address my challenges and debunk them. Plus, I have read other blogs and the reasonable faith site and there seems to be far more sporadic replies on those sites to the issues. Here seems to be where the action is at! Are you an advocate and supporter of WLC's moral argument for the existence of God! And if so, would you like to engage me in a debate about it? Or at the very least, hear my refutation of it?
+SojiRo23 "those who think they know a lot about religion but are really stupid in reality. the only thing they will ever seriously produce are memes that make caricatures of religion." YESSSS!
***** I'm an atheist and I accept that Harris lost this debate. But it was only by virtue that his performance was even more woeful than Craig's. Craig's moral argument is woeful!
Craig uses the Divine Command argument, Which is the ultimate no brainer in discussing anything about God. Who can argue against this... "God cannot be said to be morally accountable because God is above being held accountable, therefore anything God commands is moral because God is good. Really? You have a doctorate degree and this is your best argument? God is good because it is in his job description? Craig calls this a red herring. lame.
You've been duped. samharris.org/the-god-debate/ "While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.” As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate. "Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
It amazes me that those who say they seek higher knowledge, reason, intellect, science, etc...always seem to be the ones who dodge honest debate and refuse to engage in substantive discourse. What we end up with is cute sound bites and a whole lot of profanity...Isn't that the exact opposite of deep thought and intellectual debate? I applaud and admire atheists and agnostics who are willing to engage in areas of logic, reason, and philosophy, similar to the late Antony Flew......Oh wait, he ended up changing his mind about atheism...
Are you insinuating that Dr Harris dodged Craig's rhetoric. . I've watched that debate several times. Dr Harris totally made a great stand to Dr Craigs objective moral law giving position
asix Take Craig's take on the cosmological argument. It seems if the premises are false, folks would be able to address them, prove them false, and then move on...Instead, I typically see folks dodging the issues, or jumping around to other topics...
BreadBreakers Ministries *Craig's arguments have been addressed over and over again. He continues to use them in spite of the fact they have been refuted over & over again. The fact that Harris doesn't get sucked into Craig's fallacious rabbit hole, is a testament to Harris' intellectual superiority. Even if Craig's arguments were not as fallacious as they are, they are deistic arguments, not even theistic.* *Craig's "take" on the cosmological argument is no better than any other "take" on it. Defining a god to satisfy all your premises, is not difficult. Demonstrating a god's existence, is. Considering it's probably just a fairy tale character, It's fictionality would deem it impossible to demonstrate. Hence, the reason Craig tries to circumnavigate around the issue of an evidence based argument, by use of a philosophical argument. A non-believer won't be convinced of existence, by a philosophical argument. That's reserved for people already believing. Furthermore, if you can input any other deity to fill in for "God" in the argument, the best you could do, is prove the FSM exists.* *Craig's whole approach is played out. He speaks above his followers heads to make his argument sound reasonable but, unless you believe already, it's in no way convincing.* *I don't believe in magical superheros in the sky, because those that do, haven't convinced me. I'm telling those that do, what I find unconvincing but, the same arguments are used over & over. In order to convince me, you have to understand my point of view & address what I find unconvincing. Is the goal to convince those that don't believe or to keep those that do believe, to keep on believing?* *I hope you don't think I didn't address Craig's "take" on the cosmo argument. Just to reiterate, the argument does not demonstrate existence of anything. It just defines a deity to fit the premises. I didn't mention it but, defining this deity as not needing a "beginning" is of course, special pleading. The argument commits several fallacies actually. Argument from ignorance, since Craig is claiming knowledge of which he has no evidence. God of the gaps, since Craig is filling in the hole in our knowledge with his specific god, even though his argument is deistic.* *Once again, demonstrate, don't philosophize. I don't find it at all convincing.*
it's much more logical to think that altruism developed basically as a means of survival. rather than, believing that some magical wizard in the sky zapped it into us.
Sam Harris is not a 'master' of dodgeball. He and his Globo Gym team had much better practice facilities and they still got beat by Average Joe's. But you gotta respect his dedication to diet and working out. (Until he actually fell off the wagon at the end).
No, you are the one who got duped. samharris.org/the-god-debate/ While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.” As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic.
Dr Craig simply believes the Unbelievable (a personal god but is silent on 26 innocent people murdered worshiping that God at church), and refuses to hear reason. Where is your personal god?
Jonathan Gabriel That's part of my interest, to see who can reaffirm my beliefs and usually (including Dr. Craig) I tend to side with the other side of religion. I've seen something that can't be unseen. I just think it is a very interesting topic, especially since I was raised Christian and didn't question it, I want to be knowledgeable on the topic.
I see. So you consider yourself an atheist for the knowledge wasn't out there for christianity. Were your parents superticious (using god of gaps,or masking reality using god's name by affirming illogical stuff etc)? If so,my advice is for you,if you're looking for evidence, is to not look for God emotionally or in miracles(they're pretty rare,i've only seen one of those in 21 years),instead contrary to the general unneducated christian,go where the evidence leads. For example : For instance ,christianity would not exist were Jesus not alive after cruscifcxion and burial,or compare the near perfect christian moral code,against other religions and atheism's moral code. I wish i my parents said things like what i said above.
Jonathan Gabriel I was previously Christian. Now I watch these sorts of things for the interchange of ideas and I think attending church can be a more pleasant way to study the text then just plainly reading it. My mother is still religious, I mainly learned my concept of God through church. Now I just don't believe the same things, I believe that I had been mistaken in my views in Christianity. I was indoctrinated and have come to the current opinion that I am an Agnostic Atheist.
I have to agree. Talking about this really is amazing. The pleasure i get from learning about this is immense. I was just talking about my experience. As i was badly trained by highly superticious people,i became enraged by their mistakes,and following that an atheist,but for you it was different i see. I'm very happy to have had this conversation with you,take care and please post about your view or why you became un-christian if you can.
William Lane Craig is absolutely right on his points on Sam Harris. And the only point in this podcast that I found it stretching was when Kevin made an assertion which equated disagreeing with the debate format with disposing of order itself, which is quite frankly a slippery slope. I am an atheist, but I would say that Sam Harris' representation was disgraceful. I will add that, in response to a few comments below, that I would argue that the is-ought gap applies equally to is-ought from an empirical fact and is-ought from a metaphysical "truth". That "God" prescribing an ethical claim based on some fact of metaphysical truth is no more binding than an ethical claim arising from some empirical fact. Kalam's Cosmological Argument, by defining God as the greatest good conceivable would not make metaphysical truth binding by authority as much as it would set it up so that I would have to agree, almost by definition, with what I've conceived as the greatest good. And since my conception of greatest good are subjective in my mind even if I've conceived the possibility of it existing in objective space, I find no reason to believe that God's divine command on account of the Cosmological Argument is any more "objective" than Sam Harris' psychological state on account of blatant naturalistic fallacy. Which is to say that I find both of these grossly off the mark. But at least Craig was able to make a coherent point on the matter that doesn't involve throwing darts at consequentialist emotional appeals while blindfolded.
I find no reason to believe that God's divine command on account of the Cosmological Argument is any more "objective" than Sam Harris' psychological state on account of blatant naturalistic fallacy. ... But at least Craig was able to make a coherent point on the matter that doesn't involve throwing darts at consequentialist emotional appeals while blindfolded." A clear-eyed and honest account - even though you freely admit you are not sympathetic to Craig's overall point of view. Harris' infamously cringe-worthy attempt to bridge the fact values dichotomy by (figuratively) singing "Imagine" and literally redefining good (as Craig points out) as flourishing, then inviting one to take that and as proof of a naturalism based "objective value", made me wince. It was painful to witness. As a commentator marvels in effect: How could Harris, a supposed philosopher, commit such a stupendously idiotic blunder? Reminds me stylistically of the original utilitarian retort to someone who is unwilling to identify good with pleasure, with the accusation of "Misanthrope!" Ayer at least admitted that if he wished to engage in talk about what one should or should not do, it would have to be either in the nature of ends directed prescriptions wherein the ends themselves were not bearers of objective value, or in rhetorically framed emotive appeals, Harris on the other hand saws busily away at his fiddle, but never seems willing to come clean and admit that it's just a tune he happens to like, and nothing more binding than that.
Jonathan Chang I know it’s 5 years late on replying. Though I disagree with your conclusion, it is refreshing to see an atheist with a sense of reason and honest dialogue. You’re in the minority, but I commend you on your approach
"Objective morality is not a real thing" - That wasn't in question. I think perhaps that should have been part of the question. It seemed that Craig was arguing that Objective Morals cannot be derived from atheism, so theism wins by default. Even if he were to prove that there can be no morals on atheism, he still has all his work left to determine their source in theism. The way the question was phrased seemed to presuppose a zero sum game, which this is not.
I really wish there was a coherent message about something from nothing. I can understand why some people challenge the Christian faith, I get it, but there is clearly a super-intellect, who can doubt that? Yet there are people who believe a material reality came from nonmaterial and how inanimate became animate.
@@SNORKYMEDIA yes, I love it when they say something from nothing, and in its complexity it gives the appearance of a creator but it is totally random. Now that makes tons of sense, said no one ever.
All Sam Harris said was "think about the children" over and over again and got to an emotional level with the audience when we all know that atheists have no moral objective, it was a pretty childish tactic, Craig won obviously.
Sam Harris has no objective reasons to care for children. It's all just subjective in the atheist worldview. If we define what is right and wrong by just feelings.....well....
undeaddanny4 It gives you a solid, objective foundation for morality so you can know (not feel it through emotions like atheists have to) what is right and wrong.
This response to the debate was more powerful than the debate itself, which is hardly surprising, considering there was no challenge to Craig's arguments, which are highly valid, but did not always come across as such, particularly since he did not engage Harris in the wider theological aspects and implications that were placed before him. Yes, he wanted to "stay on topic", but he was so focused on bringing forth the format for the ideological debate he desired, he neglected to an extent the debate in front of him, which made it appear as though he had no answer to Harris' "red herrings". I think to some degree Harris had a point, that the broader theological issue should have been addressed, especially since his book existed in many ways to refute religion in general, and Christianity specifically. Had Craig actually followed some of Harris' arguments to their natural conclusion, it would have backfired on Harris, essentially cleaning the floor with most of Harris' natural-law-leads-to-morality hypothesis. Since it is a very strong argument against theism on the face of it, it would have been best to tackle it head-on, while defending the case for Christianity Harris was scorning. Even then, Harris did not do very well, and he did hit below the belt at least a time or two, which speaks to a weak argument. As it was, both sides were rather redundant, and the debate highly disappointing.
in my experience, when people use vague, emotional terms such as "pathetic," it's synonymous to "i don't have any reasons/arguments for why i disagree with this topic" and i think craig won. harris didn't even argue against craig's points. for example, when craig brought his "knock down argument" harris didn't even respond directly.
Sam covered this here. samharris.org/the-god-debate/ "While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.” As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate. "Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
Where did the New Atheism come from? My theory is that it is the inevitable outcome of Protestantism. 500 years of everybody making up their own doctrines, and these guys are just shouting "ENOUGH!" Dr. Craig uses classical theology to make his arguments, but not his doctrines. Kind of a dichotomy there.
Michael O'Grady my thoughts exactly. I very much appreciate WLC and his knowledge, which is why I formerly believe he will see the truth that is Catholicism.
(1) lol, thanks for your "generous" allowance. What's unique about this tomb being empty is that it was guarded by Roman soldiers (a professional military) who if not found faithful at their task would be given the death penalty. Despite their guarding of the tomb, the tomb was found empty by a group of disciples several days later. It would prove the activity of the Christian God because no person has ever risen from the grave. It proves his supernatural activity.
How is it a red herring to point out the weaknesses in the other sides position. The moral argument for God's existence is certainly coming from the point of view of revealed religion and that is pretty much the Abrahamic tradition, so pointing out how dubious that tradition is as a source of moral authority is not at all irrelevant to the debate. It's not a red herring at all. Yes, WLC was arguing a general theistic argument rather than a specifically Christian one, and I've noticed he loves to do that. He loves to disown the specific tradition his argument derives from as much as possible. Why? I think it is exactly so that he can whine about how the other sides attacks on his position are "red herrings" That may be a great debate tactic, but its pretty disingenuous if you ask me.
It is a red herring. Even in the traditional 90-minute or so debate, you can't have an exhaustive knock-down drag-out on everything wrong with Christianity, as much as that might appeal to you. The focus was what is the foundation of morality, and whether one can exist without God. That by itself is such a huge topic that there is just no time to get into whether the God of the Old Testament is a big meanie. God being a big meanie is also a huge topic that would include the context of how the nations around Israel handled similar situations (compared to which Israel is on the cutting edge of human rights), exegesis of the text, knowledge of ancient Near Eastern culture to understand when the writer is exaggerating and when he is literal, and on and on and on. It would require a separate debate or maybe even two evenings of debate, which Craig made VERY clear that he is willing to do. As far as I know, Harris has not taken him up on it. But a Sam Harris drive-by of uprooting words and events from the their context and declaring victory won't get it done.
Well, we just have to disagree then, because in a debate about whether morality has a natural or supernatural foundation, pointing out the weakness of the supposed supernatural foundation is pretty relevant. Anyway, how long does it take to understand the naturalistic foundation? After that is explained, then there is nothing left but to defend it and try and undermine the other sides position.
Pointing out the weaknesses of a supernatural foundation in general is perfectly fine but you can't do it by pounding on a particular religion because there are thousands of them and you would have to take them each in turn, which would make for a debate that would last years, never mind 90 minutes. The simpler/easier way by far would be just to show that morality can have a naturalistic foundation. If you can show that, ripping Christianity would be redundant (not to mention bad sportsmanship); if you can't, then it's futile. Unless you want to concede and take the side of another religion against Christianity, but again that would be another, separate debate. If Harris didn't understand this going into the debate, the terms of which he negotiated with Craig and agreed to, then he is not as clear a thinker as he thinks he is. If he did understand this, then in going off on Christianity, he either engaged in deception or couldn't control his temper, and he doesn't strike me as an ill-tempered man.
As a Christian myself I really appreciate the informed wisdom of WLC and the excellent work he has done in confronting the distorted reasoning of the New Atheist message. But from a biblical perspective I disagree with him on one important issue. WLC states that he was motivated by a perception that the main contemporary threat to Christianity would come from atheism. Jesus Christ Himself warned that in the latter days the primary threat to true Christianity would be wolves in sheep's clothing operating within the church. The apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3 "For a time shall come when men will not endure sound doctrine. They shall gather around themselves false teachers who shall tickle their itching ears to suit their worldly passions". This is clearly a warning against false forms of Christianity rather than atheism.
@@mgreene011 Indeed, as is the case with Catholicism. A church which, as my own pastor describes, is a "faith built on sand". And, relating to the increasing number of mainstream liberal churches who choose to serve men and politicians, rather than God, the words of 2 Peter 2:1-3 are chillingly poignant, "But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbers not". What the Bible refers to, operating within the church, poses a far greater threat to the human soul than the ilk of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
@@mgreene011 Thankyou for the link. I am unfamiliar with the organisation you refer to. I am also unfamiliar with the full mantra of their doctrine. But watching the brief video clip provided, with one of their members emphasising the importance of faith, over and above works, gives me a positive first impression. God Bless.
I've read Harris' book. I read it long before I saw the debate actually. It's perfectly obvious that Harris believes in objective morals. My point is this: if good and evil are independent of conscious experience, as Craig asserts, then he must provide an alternative foundation. To simply say "Harris failed to make his case" begs the question in favor of theism. I do have a problem with the fact that the question presupposes objective morals- and I don't fault Craig for that at all.
What Harris actually did was he explained - with great clarity - the reasons why he thought Christianity was a poor foundation for objective morality.That Craig would spend an hour going back over the debate - which he resoundingly lost in my view - would suggest that Craig also realised his arguments had been demolished & wanted another crack at it.
“Junior High School?” I’ve watched the debate multiple times. If anyone was fighting well above his weight class it was grade school Craig. Divine Command theory is a model that requires scientific age human beings to surrender reason to Iron Age thinking. Absurd proposition.
True, but English is much more complex than any theology. If you are studying English or writing in uni, there is much more involved than just interpreting language, which theology is basically all about. There is an obvious difference between primary school english and uni english, or primary school biology and uni biology, but I don't see the difference between either types of theological study.
I generally agree on issues with WLC but I do think he sometimes puts more weight on debate style points than the truth. When he debates open theism, he often resorts to "debate tricks" like straw man characterizations.
I FOUND SAM HARRIS CONSIDERATELY MORE COHERENT, LOGICAL AND ENLIGHTENED IN ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS THAT CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS HAVE IN JUSTIFYING THE OBJECTIVE MORALITY GOD POSITION ! ALTHOUGH ONE COULD NOT EXPECT MR.CRAIG TO ARGUE HIS POSITION ON THIS TOPIC OTHERWISE, MR. HARRIS WAS FAR MORE EFFECTIVE IN PRESENTING HIS CASE !
Energy is abstract?? Stick your finger in a light socket and tell me how abstract it is. If that is your definition of abstract, God is abstract too. Objective morality was the initial subject of this thread... that's why you took it out of context.
Craig's central argument is that if a god created our universe that we must then have a perfect source for moral values? We would call an entity a god on the basis of power to create the universe but that in no way requires or implies a probability that a god would care for the inhabitants of the created universe. "Oh we don't have objective morality? I'll just arbitrarily define god as the source for objective morality since I can choose to define it as pretty much anything." Pretty convenient
He didn't 'delete' part of the email. It's a debate so I'm not surprised he cut it in order to get to the real point. There are 'problems' with a current beginningless universe, doesn't mean it cannot be reconciled, and he understands that. There were problems with the initial calculations of quantum physics when it yielded infinities, yet it produced the most accurate predictions in all of physics.
Of course it is, and Craig knows this too. He also knows that 'conciousness' is one of the remaining areas in the natural world we know little about, and he's exploiting it (ditto with the origin of the universe). Morality and altruism are intellectual capacities, not mystical.
If something is wrong just because god thinks it's wrong, that makes morals subjective in the mind of god. But from what I've seen in the bible, I think god's morals are fucked up. Clearly, I wouldn't want to stone someone just for losing their virginity before marriage, that's a stupid reason to stone someone. Maybe if they did something irredeemable, then maybe it would be justified. But why is sex such a big deal? I think justice is also linked somewhat with this issue, if someone deserves it
Well I would say you must actually read the Bible and know what it is saying before criticizing. For instance, we can debate God’s morals if you want, but to say they are subjective to the God in the Bible isn’t true. If you actually read the Bible you’ll see God’s attributes are unchanging. He is unchanging as a Being. Entirely. So His moral commands are absolute.
God is the objective standard and the very source of morality. God's nature of perfect dignity and perfect unconditional love are the objective standard of morality. Meaning, that morality is already perfected, in the nature of God. Objective morality isn't based on God's opinions. Objective morality is based upon rational dignified laws of moral order; (from which eminate from God's perfect nature).
Stoning anyone is definitively wrong. The reason sex is a big issue to Christianity is bcuz it's a big deal to God. The reason that it's a big deal to God is bcuz it holds a significant amount of influence over people's lives. So, when people treat it lightly, they are failing to realize the power that sex has. And, it can quickly lead people down a dark and twisted path. People get jealous and murder themselves or their partners over infidelity. So, it important that you take time, and choose a partner wisely. People get cheated on so much that they bcum callous, and have trouble being vulnerable anymore. People become escorts. People become addicted to sex, and thus sex bcums more centrally important than love in their lives. Which causes all kinds of problems for them. People get dark fetishes that grow darker and more deranged the more they give into them. People bcum rapist. All of these things can be avoided by following God's wisdom and taking sex seriously. Treating it and your sexual body as sacred. Choosing your partner carefully. A partner that you're willing to commit the rest of your life with. And then, sexual intimacy can be reached at the deepest levels possible; as it was intended to be. Deep love, respect, vulnerability, trust, safety, loyalty, dignity, appreciation, tenderness, cherishing one another, dependable, honoring each other's presence, and honoring each others body. This is the true potential that we harness within our sexuality, when following God's wisdom of dignity and unconditional love. But, it requires sacrifices, self-control, setting limits, and real work with serious commitment. But, the rewards are so deep and beautiful beyond compare. You experience the deepest meaning of bonding, intimacy and what it means to be human.
What we need to see is a debate with an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and a representative of a few other religions. Then the atheist can sit back while all of the other religious folk argue how their own God is real and every other God is imaginary. Heck you can even have a panel of different denominations of Christianity argue how their interpretation is the correct one. The only thing Theists succeed at is SUGGESTING that the universe requires a creator. They never succeed at proving that their personal God exists.
And that is precisely ridiculous, why on earth anyone would be tempted to sacrifice his or her son even if it asked by a supernatural, supreme personal being. This is fascism. And is that morality ?
I think he's just the master of pointing out the logical flaws of others' thinking. WLC connects with people logically. He's not necessarily a feel good kinda guy and doesn't have that great of a personality in general (can even come off as arrogant at points), but what he's wonderful at and what I respect him for is that he dissects the points of atheists.
The problem is that Craig begins his argument with an A Priori assumption that God exists, therefore any arguments that follow are based upon an illusion. No, All Craig had to do was show that (1) Harris cannot derive objective morality from the natural world and (2) show that one needs a law giver or external source for morality to be objective. He didn't have to prove God exists to defend either of those positions. "Objective morality is not a real thing" - That wasn't in question.
How am I misinterpreting anything? Why is it wrong to murder a blind child? If the child grows up and procreates their child might be blind. That would make the human race weaker. I say God is the author of objective morality and tells me I should take care of the blind child. What is the reason an atheist should take care of that child?
Many of the criticisms of religion that Sam Harris made are valid criticisms. He seems to suggest that believers in a God and a supernatural foundation for morality do not like criticism of religion. Nothing can be further than the truth. Theologians and apologists criticize religion constantly as they assert the Judeo/Christian worldview, and seek to refute a non-biblical religious faith. Harris' comment about saying pig latin over pancakes and turning them into the body of Elvis Presley and comparing it to Catholic Mass is a legitimate criticism and comparison.
As someone who's asked 300+ theists for evidence of god, _I assure you theists DO NOT like criticism of their beliefs._ As a broad statement, that's the truth. You may be individually open to it. Some I've talked with were individually open to it. But the broad characterization is theists simply aren't interested in hearing about the bad logic their beliefs are based upon.
It doesn't take long before the BS begins. With possible exception of Hitchens, I think I have heard all of the new atheists very clearly state that there are big differences between religions and that by and large Christianity as it exists today is more benign that Islam in general and certainly much more so than radical Islam. In fact this tendency of liberals to try and say that religions are basically all the same is something that Sam Harris constantly criticizes them for.
Also, I should mention how he tries constant ad hominem attacks. All you have to do is look at how Sam Harris is depicted in a wacky way in this cartoon, which is in the background. He tries absolutely everything to make the listener think of his words as less credible. Such as "I cannot understand him, he often sounded self contradictory", or "there's a knockdown argument against his position". I've never known of someone as blatently dishonest in argument as him.
How in the world can people say Harris didn't address the topic of the debate? He most clearly did. He gave his idea of the meaning of moral claims, that they are claims about human (or sentient being) wellbeing, and that as such they have an epistemically subjective foundation, and then he very succinctly critiqued the divine command basis of morality that Craig offered. Sure he did not address some of the terrible arguments that Craig made, but so what? Time is limited in these debates and one has to choose what to address. The thing about bad philosophical arguments is that they can be made quickly but explaining why they are wrong can be quite time consuming. I think Harris was superb and frankly Craig was left with moral egg on his face as he always is when he has to defend the supposedly God sanctioned barbarism of the OT.
If there is a veterinarian that says "All pugs have black/white fur, but there are some which have brown fur". And I cut out a seemingly small amount of information I can change it to: "All pugs have black/white fur", and use that in an argument to say "all pugs are black/white, as Jessica Whitman of the institute of animal health "All pugs have black/white fur". As you can see, pugs clearly only have black/white fur ". This is exactly what WLC does, it's dishonest.
Yeah in most native cultures, altruism is developed from the foundation of religious/mythological believe. This is why some scientists are wondering do we natural have a god gene within us,including non-believers
Sam Harris - blablabla God is evil because he lets people die and suffer by their own sins,assuring free will and consequences for actions as he promissed to Adam,even if he as the creator has the right to do what he wants with human beings,bla bla bla.
"even if he as the creator has the right to do what he wants with human beings" this is exactly the cruelty of abrahamic religions that harris talks about, this merciless view of "god can do what he wants and i will call it good and love him". harris explicitly says it at one point "if god acts that way, then he is evil". "divine command theory" is basically saying "good is whatever the mightiest says", it is almost literally "might makes right" - now only projected onto an omnipotent being in whose camp you claim to be.
John Smith Let me be frank. First, you probably have never read the Bible, much less in honesty and without bias, since an atheist is not able to read the Bible without bias. Second, Harris is a hypocrite with an agenda who always focuses on the consequence and not the cause of God's judgment. He will cunningly appeal to your emotion just like the priests in false religions, or crooked politicians do for their own gain and tell you "oh, the poor children,..." but he will never speak about THE SINS OF MANKIND, what evil men do to children, murder them in wars, sexually abuse them as pedophiles, not to mention the satanic rituals they do in secret, or godless parents raising their children up for the devil so that the children become even worse then their parents. And then when God justly smites such an evil generation, he is the evil one? You blind hypocrite. Jeremiah 7:26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. Jeremiah 7:27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee. Jeremiah 7:28 But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth. In America, Europe and the rest of the world today, truth is perished also. Harris is proof of this, since he won't mention the just cause of God's judgment. Harris will bring out that God killed the firstborn of Egypt, but he will never tell you that it was Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who first gave out the decree to murder all the Hebrew male babies, all their firstborn males and all the male babies, not to mention how they cruelly oppressed the Hebrews as slaves. Harris will tell you how God gave the command to kill all of the Amalekites, young and old, even their herds, but he will never tell you that Amalekites FIRST attacked unprovoked the most feeble among the Hebrews when they came out of Egypt, the children, the old, and the women and slayed them, murdered them. The Hebrews did nothing to them, the Amalekites killed them in cold blood. You atheist pagans call it Karma, since you're brainwashed with eastern pagan false demonic religions. I hear it everywhere, Karma, Karma, Karma,... But we Christians call it what it really is, God's judgment. God always repays and returns the evil man do, upon their own heads. God was just in smiting all the firstborn of Egypt. They reaped what they sowed. They enslaved the Hebrews and oppressed them with rigour and murdered their male babies. In return God destroyed them with the plagues and killed their firstborn. They killed the firstborn of the Israelites, their firstborn were killed in return by God himself. As he says, vengeance is mine, I will repay. GOD ALWAYS HAS A JUST CAUSE TO PUNISH THE REPROBATE. Exodus 1:13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: Exodus 1:14 And they MADE THEIR LIVES BITTE WITH HARD BONDAGE, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. Exodus 1:15 And THE KING OF EGYPT SPAKE to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: Exodus 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; IF IT BE A SON, THEN YE SHALL KILL HIM: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. Deuteronomy 25:17 REMEMBER WHAT AMALEK DID unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; Deu 25:18 How he met thee by the way, AND SMOTE THE HINDMOST OF THEE, EVEN ALL THAT WERE FEEBLE BEHIND THEE, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Harris either did not study the Bible enough which tarnishes his credibility or is a hypocrite and willingly lies. No other option. Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: Jeremiah 9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. Lamentations 3:33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men. Lam 3:34 To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth, Lam 3:35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High, Lam 3:36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not. That being said when Harris speaks truth I listen, since he does speak truth from time to time, for example concerning Islam and the delusion of free will (though he lacks the Biblical view of the delusion of free will and ends up in fatalism, that men are not responsible for their actions) and so on.
Bozz#37 "First, you probably have never read the Bible, much less in honesty and without bias, since an atheist is not able to read the Bible without bias." Pretty evil to call me a hypocrite and a moron straight out the door, but at least you're representing christian hatred faithfully. "And then when God justly smites such an evil generation, he is the evil one? You blind hypocrite." a god that creates, sustains, and gives choice to evil people to commit finite damage with and them punishes them infinitely is vicious and complicit in his creation's evil. "Harris will bring out that God killed the firstborn of Egypt, but he will never tell you that it was Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who first gave out the decree to murder all the Hebrew male babies, all their firstborn males and all the male babies, not to mention how they cruelly oppressed the Hebrews as slaves." and that somehow made the egyptian babies in their cribs so evil that they needed to be slaughtered to the last, and god could not possibly think of a better solution to all this. he intervenes with miracles, so if he wasnt a cruel and barbaric character, he might find more appeal with this novel's readers. there really is no more cruel character in all of fiction than the abrahamic god. "Harris will tell you how God gave the command to kill all of the Amalekites, young and old, even their herds, but he will never tell you that Amalekites FIRST attacked unprovoked the most feeble among the Hebrews when they came out of Egypt, the children, the old, and the women and slayed them, murdered them. The Hebrews did nothing to them, the Amalekites killed them in cold blood." the difference is, harris would recognize the actions of the amalekites as evil, but you want him to consider the choice of god to wage genocide not only on the aggressors but their children and livestock to be the most perfectly just and good and merciful way to deal with it. thats the difference. "You atheist pagans call it Karma, since you're brainwashed with eastern pagan false demonic religions. I hear it everywhere, Karma, Karma, Karma,... But we Christians call it what it really is, God's judgment. God always repays and returns the evil man do, upon their own heads." im not a pagan and i dont believe in demons or karma. you christians call it gods judgment and think it is the most beautiful and just and good way to solve issues. i call it what i see, genocide and bloodthirst. if omniscience and omnipotence cannot come up with anything smarter or kinder than "torture them all to death, and once they are dead, i will torture them for eternity. if you dont do what i say, i will torture you for eternity too", then im morally better than god. i dont think there ever has been a real person morally worse than that. "God was just in smiting all the firstborn of Egypt. They reaped what they sowed." babies in cribs dont sow, they cant even crawl. "Harris either did not study the Bible enough which tarnishes his credibility or is a hypocrite and willingly lies. No other option." heres another option: the bible is a book of fictitious myths that codifies myths that are qualitatively similar to those of the more bloodthirsty ancient societies we have insight into, and you are biased towards wanting to confirm it instead of testing whether it stands up to scrutiny. Your whole diatribe confirms the sheer hatred and bloodlust inherent in your religion. I don't think I will respond to a hundred lines of insults and curses a second time, I see no reason to indulge your vicious hatred.
John Smith First, we have to lay down some basics here. We're talking about people guilty of murder and a lot of other things, we're not talking about innocent people. God never kills an innocent person. I am against persecution of innocent people. God is against persecution of innocent people and condemns such actions, you have many Scripture references in the Bible that prove that. God judges evil, guilty persons and leaves the innocent alone, since they obey his commands like LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT OTHERS DO UNTO YOU. Now to your objections: 1. I didn't call you a moron. Don't put words into my mouth. What I said is, your knowledge of the Bible is superficial at best and laced with bias. It's a big difference if you know the Bible in its entirety or just parts of it and even that superficially. 2. It's explained in the Bible why evil exists until the Lord Jesus Christ comes back. Your misrepresentation is not it. As I said, you're biased and dishonest and lack understanding. That's what I called you from the start. It's not God that sins, it's me and you and everybody else, our sins are our own. God is not the author of sin. You're a typical "It's everybody elses fault but mine" guy. 3. God did not slaughter the Egyptian firstborn. He took their spirits out of them. They died in their sleep. And as expected you completely ignored what Pharaoh and the Egyptians did to Hebrew firstborn, murdering them in the Nile with drowning and so on, while cruelly oppressing the Hebrews as slaves. Your bias is shown once again. Was it unjust when the German Nazis genocided the young and old of Jews and the Slavs and other people IN THE MILLIONS, that they and their country was bombed to smithereens by the Allies? MANY CHILDREN THAT HAD GERMAN NAZI PARENTS DIED IN THAT BOMBING. But when God does it, he is unjust, cruel and barbaric? You hypocrite. That does not mean I find it ok if whole population of people is bombed without discrimination, this is not ok, but I am exposing your hypocrisy. Do you have a wife and children? Family? If someone would cruelly oppress some of them, torture them or even murder them, what would you do hypocrite? Would you pat him on the back? Or would you give him over to authorities and demand the death penalty for him? Let me tell you what most people say when they're HONEST unlike you, especially the non-religious atheists, they say they would torture them in return before they would kill them. That makes them the same as those who first tortured them. At least I as a Christian would not torture them, since this is not according to the law of God and I find it horrible, but would give them over to lawful authorities which would give them immediate death sentence in the court of law where their guilt is proven to them by a just unbiased jury. Like the Nurenberg trials. THAT'S CALLED JUSTICE. YOU MURDERED A LIFE, YOUR LIFE IS TAKEN IN RETURN. That's how evil is put away from society and one less murderer walks the streets and other people are safe from his evil. But when God does it, it's evil and barbaric and cruel? You hypocrite. I come from a country that had an atheist communist revolution in its past, which memory still haunts many people today. You know what the atheist communists did in their revenge against Nazi collaborators in my country? They didn't set up a just court with a jury and put on a trial every individual like on the Nurenberg trials (btw done by a protestant Christian America and England), who collaborated with the Nazis, proving whether he was innocent or guilty, and punish the guilty ones with death by hanging INSTEAD THEY BUTCHERED PREGNANT WOMEN, YOUNG GIRLS, OLD MEN, CHILDREN, EVERYBODY WHO WAS A THREAT TO THEIR REVOLUTION AND THREW THEM IN MINE SHAFTS, CAVES, PITS, IN THEIR TENS OF THOUSANDS, EVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS,...THEY DIDN'T CARE IF THEY WERE CHILDREN WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAZIS. THEN THE ATHEIST COMMUNISTS STOLE ALL THEIR FARMS AND LANDS. THIS HISTORY WAS HUSHED UP BECAUSE OF FEAR, AND FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS THEY STARTED DISCOVERING ALL THESE MASS GRAVES AND FOUND OUT THIS HORRIBLE MURDEROUS TRUTH. THE OLDER GENERATION KNEW BUT THEY DID NOT SPEAK OPENLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF FEAR OF THE STILL PRESENT COMMUNISM. THEY FOUND MANY YOUNG GIRL SKELETONS, CHILDREN WHO HAD BRAIDED LONG HAIR STILL ON THEM AND SO ON. NOW THEY'RE DIGGING UP ALL THESE MASS GRAVES ONE BY ONE. IT'S HORRIBLE. My country is one big mass grave. To be fair the Nazi collaborators did many evil things too and if they would win, they would probably do the same to the other side or put them on wagons and send them to concentration camps. Therefore I know perfectly well what even you godless atheists are capable of doing if driven by blind revenge, rage and a deluded ideology. A (protestant) Christian who follows the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ would never do such a thing because we have teaching of the Apostles that specifically forbid and condemn such things as evil. So don't be all sanctimonious on me here and accuse God for what you falsely call unjust and falsely accuse him and me. God did not murder those young girls in my country, the atheists driven by communist ideology did. YOU SEE NOTHING CHANGED. THEY, THE ATHEIST COMMUNISTS AND THE NAZIS AND THEIR COLLABORATORS, DID THE SAME THINGS AS THE AMALEKITES DID. Now if you would be a father of those murdered girls and would witness all this evil, all this rape, torture, murder, that the atheist communists did, what punishment would you demand for them? You would just stand idly by? Yeah, right. You would be outraged and would be perfectly fine if they rot in hell for eternity. 4. The same with Amalekites. If God was so unjust when he demanded that the Israelites wipe out the evil Amalekites, why did the Allies bomb Nazi Germany that took the lives of many Nazi children and Nazi livestock? Was that just? Is bombing a nation who knew what was going on in the concentration camps but silently consented and agreed to the torture and murder of Jews, Slavs, etc., to which their sons and daughters in the army participated with the approval of their Nazi parents, a nation guilty of murder, or an individual guilty of murder, different than slaying him with a sword, because in those times they did not have rifles and tanks and planes and bombs? You hypocrite. Some wars are just wars. Not to mention certain prisons today where they torture people to extract information from them or torture them just for fun because they have become so deranged. You saw the pictures on the news. That is unjust. That's what people do without the doctrine of Christ. Atheist soldiers or others who don't care about the Bible. Either you prove a man guilty and convict him of murder or whatever he is guilty of or he is pronounced innocent by the jury, not guilty, and you let him go free. You don't torture people. But what men do, is perfectly okay and just? God does not torture people in prison, deranged men do. Having said all that, who really is genocidal and bloodthirsty here? Men or God? But you'll blame God because he allowed this to come to pass? Men chose this. I would tell you read the Genesis account, but since you don't believe it, it's of no use. But God will also make and end of evil soon just as he did in Noah's day. You can rant about God's justice all day long, but you don't understand it. Maybe you would, if I give you some links that expose evil that would scare you, make you mad, and make your stomach turn what evil men do in the world. Then you would understand the punishment of everlasting fire. I read many atheist comments how they would torture such people who do such things and so on, but when you bring God into picture, suddenly they become all sanctimonious and angry at God who is the ultimate and just Judge. I am glad that for sinners who do acknowledge and confess our sins before him and believe in the blessed hope, his Son, who is the propitiation for our sins, and turn from our sins and repent of them daily, there is grace and everlasting life. 1Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Craig is a great debator, in that he is all technique and no content. He knows the arguments against God so well and tries to keep the atheist from using them , that I bet he is really an atheist himself .
Yeah... no....I wasn't referring to any particular argument of his, rather this entire grasping exercise - rehashing a debate without giving an opportunity to your opponent to respond or clarify your misapprehension & restating their points kind of runs counter to the spirit of debate ne c'est pas? & the use of 'Craig' & 'knock down argument' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
7) In every debate, he lists all of the points his opponents have not answered, like a true dishonest debater. 8) In every debate, he repeatedly says, even when the opponent has answered a certain proposition "There has been no argument against X today". WLC is a mess of a debater. He's the equivalent to a boxer who not only punches in a match, he kicks, bites, scratches and screams his way to victory. No one who is aware of his bullshit would debate him, good thing Dawkins declined.
Presenting objections to your opponents position is not dishonest, neither is reminding them and the audience that they have not responded to them. Pointing out that your opponent has not responded to your counterarguments against defenses to your objections is not dishonest. When your opponent fails to respond to they in essence concede your arguments in a formal debate.
LOL. WLC accuses Sam of redefining good as what's best for people. As if WLC has a copyright on what good is. The problem is I think WLC is bright enough to understand this in which case he is just intellectually dishonest. I think he likes being on stage and hearing his own voice.
He changes the definition into the one theists believe. Harris’s argument is nil if his definition doesn’t align. It doesn’t matter if it’s a “correct” definition or not.
Cherry-picking? I didn't cherry pick any verse. You did! In fact, the verse you chose is interesting. Abraham DIDN'T murder his son! Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his only son... but you forget, he was promised by a good and moral God that this son would be the father or "many nations." How was he to be a father to anyone dead? It seems to me the story of Abraham and Isaac is the story of a prophet having faith that God would somehow save this son.
I struggle with the term ”objective morals”. Universal or at least nearly universal morals we can observe but how could we ever determine if some morals are objective? If they are god’s morals then they would be subjective to him but perhaps prescribed or universal to us. Objective to me seams to suggests something could be absolute or self evident even outside of god which seams like a paradox.
William Lane Craig fans can complain about red herrings and emotional appeals all they like but I'm yet to see a religious apologist produce anything more than that. I do think Sam could have done a better job though, there are plenty of points in his book about morality that were better than anything he said in the debate, but all in all I think he still won
The debate was a little rigged from the start. samharris.org/the-god-debate/ "While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.” As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate. "Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
1)The whole conundrum about the unbelievers movie. 2)His constant use of quote mines and arguments from authority. 3)His constant misquotes of other people, including people like Stephen Hawking. 4)His claims the only logical conclusion to the kalam is a god (when it doesn't even come close). 5)The constant stream of cheap tactics in argument, and the distortion of opponents positions (such as gish galloping). 6)He cares about scoring points in arguments, not the truth.
You nailed it. Too bad others missed it. samharris.org/the-god-debate/ "While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.” As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
WLC in this says he didn't want to debate God and follow Sam down a litany of "irrelevancies" I find it interesting that his premise is that a personal God is the sound moral founation, but he thinks challenging the existence of God is irrelevant and a poor move for his opponent.
You got it. samharris.org/the-god-debate/ "While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.” As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate. "Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris Harris agreed to the format. Harris agreed to the topic. Harris had no arguments, just word salad and red herrings. Harris got his ass clapped.
he didn't say he was worried about it. he said he wanted to stick to the core of the debate by sticking on topic but it was harris who was scoring the "emotional points"
WLC's point is NOT that CRAIG has a copyright on good, but that objective morality is grounded in God's nature. Your comment proves his point that on the atheist view, morality IS up to the individual with no objectivity. Interestingly enough, you then condemn Craig for a percieved fault without acknowledging that even if he WERE being intellectually dishonest, you really have no basis for saying it's wrong of him to be so, is up to him.
Even if God exists does not mean that he has made the universe and the universe has a purpose. It proves nothing . The second proposition there is no God . So there are no questions possible Which one makes the most sense , thank you.
No. There is no better argument because objective morality is a human construction, albeit a very useful construction. Objective morals would apply in every situation and for any possible moral you can think of I can propose a continuum of consequences for adhering to that moral with no quantitative means for determining when adherence becomes morally wrong. For example, would it be wrong to torture a single 9 year old to death if it meant saving the lives of 6 billion people. 10 9 year olds?
I don't know what world you live in where you can't grapple with the idea that morally, good is synonymous with human well-being. You say morality is separate from human well-being, Sam says, that's where you're wrong and what allows you to redefine moral as following God's laws, regardless of how much discrimination, misogyny and homophobia it espouses. This ideology is immoral if you define morality as synonymous with human-wellbeing.
It probably wasn't right for him to do that, but you have to see where he is coming from. He quoted that specific part because he was just trying to demonstrate to not be too 'certain', as there are always different avenues in science, even if they seem to have problems, but even he agreed that the universe most likely has a beginning, not in a certain way like WLC is. Notice how, like you said, Krauss said not to take one specific thing with absolute certainty, as the future is unknown.
What William Lane Craig calls red herrings is so far from the truth. Sam didn't ignore WLC's points. He GRANTED THEM. Each of Sam's points were against a Christian God; made to illustrate if you believe this or if what WLC is true look how obviously immoral to a 21st century worldview a 1st century religion is. I think WLC is very smart which makes this breadown of the debate so confusing. This is why I think Sam is ahead of his time because his moves in the debate may have been perplexing but only because they were two steps ahead.
So Harris' debate strategy was to concede that his opponent's position was correct? LOL, no wonder he was so salty about it. He concedes that God is a foundation of morality, which is Craig's position, but then begs the question in assuming his own objective moral system to condemn God as immoral.
Sam Harris seemed angry with God. He gave no reasonable argument for objective morality without God. He side seemed to be “I don’t agree with how the world works so God doesn’t exist”
Try watching it again. He's not angry with god. He was pointing out why it's impossible to both believe everything is god's will as well as believe god is good. samharris.org/the-god-debate/ "While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.” As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate. "Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris //He's not angry with god. He was pointing out why it's impossible to both believe everything is god's will as well as believe god is good.// All of that is completely irrelevant and in fact concedes the point to Craig as well as begs the question. Harris concedes Craig's contention that if God exists, he is the foundation of morality he just thinks that God is evil. None of those are objections to God being the foundation of morality and so are red herrings and completely worthless. However, in doing so he begs the question in assuming his own moral system in order to condemn God.
You think it should have been the question? Read Harris' book. He believes in objective moral values. That's why he wrote the book. I think you should watch the debate again. You've missed a lot of the material. Btw, if you have problems with the topic blame notre dame.
When did Harris answer ANY of Craig's arguments? All Harris could muster was blubbering about how people who believe in God are stupid and how could God exist with all the suffering in the world. Maybe you can do a better job than Harris. How is there object morality without God?
I have a lot of respect for Sam Harris, he seems like a good man and I admire his attempt to make a moral theory. His theory needs work still though as good as it is in some ways and it looked worse than it was because William Craig is a gifted speaker.
@@juliankarst8829 He doesn't know anything about the Bible. He is misrepresenting his opponent. In turn, he is arguing against fallacies of his own creation because of his lack of perspective and understanding. His theory, therefore, being based on this flawed presupposition, is also flawed. For example, when God said, " Let there be light", and there was light, in Genesis 1:3, it is NOT merely a reference to the sun in the sky or anything directly related to physics. Think of it this way instead. Imagine being in a pitch dark room and someone turns on the light switch. You are suddenly aware of yourself, your surroundings and also others in the room with you. God has created opportunity but at the same time, dilemma. Sam Harris doesn't know that. The story of the garden of Eden is not simply a story of two naked people, an apple tree and a snake, but an analogy. Accountability is relative to the revelation given. The more you know, the more accountable you are. Like a pilot of an airplane as opposed to a passenger. One is more accountable than the other. Genesis 2:17, 3:10-11 Sam Harris doesn't know that either. He may understand the guiding principle, but he doesn't know it comes from the Bible. Being 'created in the image of God' is a reference to the awareness and capability of moral reasoning, not merely a reference to biology. Something else Sam Harris doesn't seem to know. Adam and Eve being naked in the garden is not a physical nakedness; but spiritual. Human beings being aware of their flaws 'cover' their nakedness. E.G.; A homeless person hooked on methamphetamines lying in an alley would be an example of 'exposed' nakedness. Again, Mr. Harris doesn't seem to know that either.. The paradox is that the interpretation of biblical principle that Mr Harris is arguing against doesn't actually exist. That's why he thinks he is correct. He doesn't actually know what the Bible is says.
His actions were justified in a way I have already described, but still I think it may have been a better choice to leave the full letter intact. I think the problem of the 'messy singularities' would have gave a layman audience the wrong idea, so that is probably why he cut it out. The main idea he was demonstrating is that there are still other possible avenues in physics, regardless if they have problems or not. There are other ways to bypass the singularities too so he wasn't 100% correct.
I'm not surprised, people get afraid of smoke and mirrors, sometimes they don't realize his arguments are really just a bunch of facades. I've vigorously looked through all of his arguments, and they are all nothing but cheap semantic games: For example: WLC maintains the Kalam proves god's existence, it doesn't. It only proves a cause, if you accept a pre-concieved theory of time which WLC already accepts. Even if you do, a material cause is still completely plausible.
I said I don't know what is the source of morality. I did not say anything about having or not having objective morality. Having morality has nothing to do with being religious or not. It is just ridiculous how you reformed my command and totally misinterpret it.
But what I really do think is: Generally, most people know what is a right action from a wrong action, which is why I think on a whole, most people on Earth have a correct view of what is good and what is not. It's not that I 'follow the herd', but the 'herd' in general does seem to know right from wrong, which is why I think generally what is a popular view is more likely to be a good view than a bad view.
This was only one scenario, and like I said, what he said still holds. There is no telling what tomorrows physics will hold, and placing all your chips on a universe with a beginning isn't a smart move. The BVG theory may be destroyed tomorrow by certain observations or be replaced by new theories. What Krauss said still holds up, even if he did remove some parts of the letter. How is it being dishonest then in this case?
You've just demonstrated why he's dishonest: How he says "atheism is true", it's assuming outright and making an assertion that atheism has a large burden of proof, and we must prove it to be true. Theism has the burden of proof. He says that because he's dishonest and does nothing more than try to score as many fake points for himself. A good argument doesn't involve point scoring.
DId you watch the debate??? Sam Harris was a terrible debater who couldn't make an argument that was at all coherent. He never engaged in Craig's arguments against Harris' wackey theory. It was embarrasing. Simply Harris was punching way above his weight class.
Off-topic does means irrelevant. It diverts the listener from the agreed-upon topic. It's what a person does when their points are not strong enough to overcome the opponents position. Why would Harris agree on the debate topic then go away from it? If Harris wanted to criticize "God is good" then he should've made that the topic of the debate. Craig does not laugh at science, nor do I (a Christian). What evidence do u require to believe God is good?
But that's the whole point. He's misquoting them. He quote mines from whatever he likes, finds something which he can use to defend his preconceived notions (even if the authors intentions is to the complete opposite) then throws out quote after quote, of quotes seemingly supporting his view, but when you read the entire quotes, not the small snippet he cuts out, you can see he used them for his own twisted purposes.
Actually, I take that back, there are TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of different possible combinations. The DNA sequence is so long that the amount of different sequences that are possible is mind boggling.
That line was actually added in recently, from what I remember. But even disregarding that: So Jesus did come to reform Jewish laws? Such as stoning? Then God's rules aren't so objective after all. God seems to change his mind a lot over time! Like I said: God's morals just seem completely conjured up on the spot, and arbitrary. Also, I would also like to ask: Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
I, myself agree that the universe had a beginning, mostly because I think it's highly likely, also because I agree that the multiverse scenario is highly likely. I still see no reason to think this is the only universe to ever exist.
I never said he was an 'unsophisticated philosopher', but he seems to be more fond of playing semantic games rather than getting at the truth. Philosophers like Peter Milican play by the rules, the same with Dennett and Harris. They don't quote mine, they don't gish gallop, they don't straw man their opponents positions (I'm looking at you WLC, with the straw man statement: "Is atheism true?"). WLC just seems more dishonest than any of the other philosophers I have encountered.
No not exactly. I watched the debate again. Guth said you could avoid the beginning with a contraction, but you'd end up with a bunch of messy singularities. There are still other scientific theories which avoid initial singularities, such as Stephen Hawkings no boundary principle. Here's something else Velinkin has said: (I'll put it in another comment)
because a blind child is a human being, a conscious loving being who has a right to enjoy the world as much as I do. He also can create things, learn and know the universe may be by using other senses or intellect. I do not need a god's prescription to teach myself what to do with a blind child. And as you said about the natural selection believe, atheists as me does not believe that natural selection is the right policy for progressing society. That is nothing to do with atheism itself.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That doesn't answer the question of moral values and duties. Are there objective moral values and duties? If there are, how does the atheist ground those values and duties. To the atheist rape and murder is not wrong, maybe uncomfortable, but not wrong. In fact the child rapist can't help it, because according to atheists there is no freewill. Let's focus like a laser beam. Where does moral values and duties come from?
Does anybody else think Sam Harris looks like Ben Stiller?
everybody does
Everyone does and he even mentions it on one video I saw.
this is how a bad loser sounds!!
OMG D’Souza!!!
I don't think this was a debate. WLC outlined his usual set pieces, and Harris talked past him and to his specific views.
It was a good strategy for Harris to not participate fully in the topic of the debate & throw out all of those red herrings. If he would've seriously engaged Craig he would have gotten floored, i.e. the pseudo-intellectualism of New Atheism would have taken a major blow, & his future book sells (along with his reputation) would have suffered. So the only way out was to attack but not engage. This way he stays popular among the "meme" generation of atheists...those who think they know a lot about religion but are really stupid in reality. the only thing they will ever seriously produce are memes that make caricatures of religion.
+SojiRo23 It is indeed disappointing that people like Harris and Hitchens are the most public representatives of atheism. However, even though in this debate Harris was not able to spot the logical fallacies in WLC's moral argument, it doesn't mean that they are not there!
*****
Hmm well, to be honest, I am a bit of a technophobe so I must confess I don't even know how to set up my own blog! You can do it for me if you like though :)
But seriously, I know that youtube is not the ideal forum to debate these issues but it's preferable to me because it allows one to discuss the topics back and forth with a person who wishes to address my challenges and debunk them. Plus, I have read other blogs and the reasonable faith site and there seems to be far more sporadic replies on those sites to the issues. Here seems to be where the action is at!
Are you an advocate and supporter of WLC's moral argument for the existence of God! And if so, would you like to engage me in a debate about it? Or at the very least, hear my refutation of it?
+SojiRo23 "those who think they know a lot about religion but are really stupid in reality. the only thing they will ever seriously produce are memes that make caricatures of religion." YESSSS!
*****
I'm an atheist and I accept that Harris lost this debate. But it was only by virtue that his performance was even more woeful than Craig's. Craig's moral argument is woeful!
+SojiRo23 shut the fuck up you dumb piece of shit
Harris’ right eyebrow isn’t raised enough...I do not even know why I pointed that out.
“I’ve tried to give you a basis. I’m sorry.” - Sam Harris (The best line in the debate.)
Craig uses the Divine Command argument, Which is the ultimate no brainer in discussing anything about God. Who can argue against this... "God cannot be said to be morally accountable because God is above being held accountable, therefore anything God commands is moral because God is good. Really? You have a doctorate degree and this is your best argument? God is good because it is in his job description? Craig calls this a red herring. lame.
Did we watch the same debate? William Lane Craig systematically annihilated Harris in every section of the argument.
You've been duped.
samharris.org/the-god-debate/
"While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate.
"Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
It amazes me that those who say they seek higher knowledge, reason, intellect, science, etc...always seem to be the ones who dodge honest debate and refuse to engage in substantive discourse. What we end up with is cute sound bites and a whole lot of profanity...Isn't that the exact opposite of deep thought and intellectual debate? I applaud and admire atheists and agnostics who are willing to engage in areas of logic, reason, and philosophy, similar to the late Antony Flew......Oh wait, he ended up changing his mind about atheism...
Are you insinuating that Dr Harris dodged Craig's rhetoric. . I've watched that debate several times. Dr Harris totally made a great stand to Dr Craigs objective moral law giving position
MrPatrickedwards Yes, I don't see where Harris directly engaged all the points delivered by Craig...
+BreadBreakers Ministries Such as?
asix Take Craig's take on the cosmological argument. It seems if the premises are false, folks would be able to address them, prove them false, and then move on...Instead, I typically see folks dodging the issues, or jumping around to other topics...
BreadBreakers Ministries *Craig's arguments have been addressed over and over again. He continues to use them in spite of the fact they have been refuted over & over again. The fact that Harris doesn't get sucked into Craig's fallacious rabbit hole, is a testament to Harris' intellectual superiority. Even if Craig's arguments were not as fallacious as they are, they are deistic arguments, not even theistic.*
*Craig's "take" on the cosmological argument is no better than any other "take" on it. Defining a god to satisfy all your premises, is not difficult. Demonstrating a god's existence, is. Considering it's probably just a fairy tale character, It's fictionality would deem it impossible to demonstrate. Hence, the reason Craig tries to circumnavigate around the issue of an evidence based argument, by use of a philosophical argument. A non-believer won't be convinced of existence, by a philosophical argument. That's reserved for people already believing. Furthermore, if you can input any other deity to fill in for "God" in the argument, the best you could do, is prove the FSM exists.*
*Craig's whole approach is played out. He speaks above his followers heads to make his argument sound reasonable but, unless you believe already, it's in no way convincing.*
*I don't believe in magical superheros in the sky, because those that do, haven't convinced me. I'm telling those that do, what I find unconvincing but, the same arguments are used over & over. In order to convince me, you have to understand my point of view & address what I find unconvincing. Is the goal to convince those that don't believe or to keep those that do believe, to keep on believing?*
*I hope you don't think I didn't address Craig's "take" on the cosmo argument. Just to reiterate, the argument does not demonstrate existence of anything. It just defines a deity to fit the premises. I didn't mention it but, defining this deity as not needing a "beginning" is of course, special pleading. The argument commits several fallacies actually. Argument from ignorance, since Craig is claiming knowledge of which he has no evidence. God of the gaps, since Craig is filling in the hole in our knowledge with his specific god, even though his argument is deistic.*
*Once again, demonstrate, don't philosophize. I don't find it at all convincing.*
WLC is doing a lot of spin control trying to discredit Sam Harris’ on all fronts. WLC = Sour grapes.
How so?
it's much more logical to think that altruism developed basically as a means of survival. rather than, believing that some magical wizard in the sky zapped it into us.
Sam is a master of dodgeball because he knows he’d be a loser in straight debate.
Is he?
Sam Harris is not a 'master' of dodgeball. He and his Globo Gym team had much better practice facilities and they still got beat by Average Joe's. But you gotta respect his dedication to diet and working out. (Until he actually fell off the wagon at the end).
No, you are the one who got duped.
samharris.org/the-god-debate/
While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic.
This is like a boxer that gets punch on the face and laugh acting like it didn't hurt. Hahahahahaha
Dr Craig simply believes the Unbelievable (a personal god but is silent on 26 innocent people murdered worshiping that God at church), and refuses to hear reason. Where is your personal god?
Even as an Atheist I really value Dr. Craig's intelligence & eagerness to spread his message
As an former atheist myself(the evidence was too strong),i don't see why would one care without assimilating said message's beliefs.
Jonathan Gabriel That's part of my interest, to see who can reaffirm my beliefs and usually (including Dr. Craig) I tend to side with the other side of religion. I've seen something that can't be unseen. I just think it is a very interesting topic, especially since I was raised Christian and didn't question it, I want to be knowledgeable on the topic.
I see. So you consider yourself an atheist for the knowledge wasn't out there for christianity. Were your parents superticious (using god of gaps,or masking reality using god's name by affirming illogical stuff etc)? If so,my advice is for you,if you're looking for evidence, is to not look for God emotionally or in miracles(they're pretty rare,i've only seen one of those in 21 years),instead contrary to the general unneducated christian,go where the evidence leads. For example : For instance ,christianity would not exist were Jesus not alive after cruscifcxion and burial,or compare the near perfect christian moral code,against other religions and atheism's moral code. I wish i my parents said things like what i said above.
Jonathan Gabriel I was previously Christian. Now I watch these sorts of things for the interchange of ideas and I think attending church can be a more pleasant way to study the text then just plainly reading it. My mother is still religious, I mainly learned my concept of God through church. Now I just don't believe the same things, I believe that I had been mistaken in my views in Christianity. I was indoctrinated and have come to the current opinion that I am an Agnostic Atheist.
I have to agree. Talking about this really is amazing. The pleasure i get from learning about this is immense. I was just talking about my experience. As i was badly trained by highly superticious people,i became enraged by their mistakes,and following that an atheist,but for you it was different i see. I'm very happy to have had this conversation with you,take care and please post about your view or why you became un-christian if you can.
William Lane Craig is absolutely right on his points on Sam Harris. And the only point in this podcast that I found it stretching was when Kevin made an assertion which equated disagreeing with the debate format with disposing of order itself, which is quite frankly a slippery slope. I am an atheist, but I would say that Sam Harris' representation was disgraceful.
I will add that, in response to a few comments below, that I would argue that the is-ought gap applies equally to is-ought from an empirical fact and is-ought from a metaphysical "truth". That "God" prescribing an ethical claim based on some fact of metaphysical truth is no more binding than an ethical claim arising from some empirical fact.
Kalam's Cosmological Argument, by defining God as the greatest good conceivable would not make metaphysical truth binding by authority as much as it would set it up so that I would have to agree, almost by definition, with what I've conceived as the greatest good. And since my conception of greatest good are subjective in my mind even if I've conceived the possibility of it existing in objective space, I find no reason to believe that God's divine command on account of the Cosmological Argument is any more "objective" than Sam Harris' psychological state on account of blatant naturalistic fallacy. Which is to say that I find both of these grossly off the mark.
But at least Craig was able to make a coherent point on the matter that doesn't involve throwing darts at consequentialist emotional appeals while blindfolded.
I find no reason to believe that God's divine command on account of the Cosmological Argument is any more "objective" than Sam Harris' psychological state on account of blatant naturalistic fallacy. ...
But at least Craig was able to make a coherent point on the matter that doesn't involve throwing darts at consequentialist emotional appeals while blindfolded."
A clear-eyed and honest account - even though you freely admit you are not sympathetic to Craig's overall point of view.
Harris' infamously cringe-worthy attempt to bridge the fact values dichotomy by (figuratively) singing "Imagine" and literally redefining good (as Craig points out) as flourishing, then inviting one to take that and as proof of a naturalism based "objective value", made me wince. It was painful to witness.
As a commentator marvels in effect: How could Harris, a supposed philosopher, commit such a stupendously idiotic blunder?
Reminds me stylistically of the original utilitarian retort to someone who is unwilling to identify good with pleasure, with the accusation of "Misanthrope!"
Ayer at least admitted that if he wished to engage in talk about what one should or should not do, it would have to be either in the nature of ends directed prescriptions wherein the ends themselves were not bearers of objective value, or in rhetorically framed emotive appeals,
Harris on the other hand saws busily away at his fiddle, but never seems willing to come clean and admit that it's just a tune he happens to like, and nothing more binding than that.
+Jonathan Changi know im 2 years late, but could you point out what foundation of morality you think makes sense?
Jonathan Chang I know it’s 5 years late on replying. Though I disagree with your conclusion, it is refreshing to see an atheist with a sense of reason and honest dialogue. You’re in the minority, but I commend you on your approach
WLC is great
"Objective morality is not a real thing" - That wasn't in question. I think perhaps that should have been part of the question. It seemed that Craig was arguing that Objective Morals cannot be derived from atheism, so theism wins by default. Even if he were to prove that there can be no morals on atheism, he still has all his work left to determine their source in theism. The way the question was phrased seemed to presuppose a zero sum game, which this is not.
Oh !Dr. Graig, you consulate yourself after losing the debate.
Lol what?You delusional moron even most atheists agree that sam lost because he talked more about religion than the topic at hand.
The only part of the debate anyone remembers is that ten minute takedown of Christianity an hour into the debate. That alone makes Harris the winner.
I really wish there was a coherent message about something from nothing. I can understand why some people challenge the Christian faith, I get it, but there is clearly a super-intellect, who can doubt that? Yet there are people who believe a material reality came from nonmaterial and how inanimate became animate.
hmm only christians say that - no scientist does
@@SNORKYMEDIA yes, I love it when they say something from nothing, and in its complexity it gives the appearance of a creator but it is totally random. Now that makes tons of sense, said no one ever.
All Sam Harris said was "think about the children" over and over again and got to an emotional level with the audience when we all know that atheists have no moral objective, it was a pretty childish tactic, Craig won obviously.
"when we all know that atheists have no moral objective" are you suggesting harris doesnt really care about children because he is an atheist?
I don't know about him, but I sure am.
Sam Harris has no objective reasons to care for children. It's all just subjective in the atheist worldview. If we define what is right and wrong by just feelings.....well....
What has religion got on the subject of morality that's anything more than an emotional appeal ?
undeaddanny4
It gives you a solid, objective foundation for morality so you can know (not feel it through emotions like atheists have to) what is right and wrong.
This response to the debate was more powerful than the debate itself, which is hardly surprising, considering there was no challenge to Craig's arguments, which are highly valid, but did not always come across as such, particularly since he did not engage Harris in the wider theological aspects and implications that were placed before him. Yes, he wanted to "stay on topic", but he was so focused on bringing forth the format for the ideological debate he desired, he neglected to an extent the debate in front of him, which made it appear as though he had no answer to Harris' "red herrings". I think to some degree Harris had a point, that the broader theological issue should have been addressed, especially since his book existed in many ways to refute religion in general, and Christianity specifically. Had Craig actually followed some of Harris' arguments to their natural conclusion, it would have backfired on Harris, essentially cleaning the floor with most of Harris' natural-law-leads-to-morality hypothesis. Since it is a very strong argument against theism on the face of it, it would have been best to tackle it head-on, while defending the case for Christianity Harris was scorning. Even then, Harris did not do very well, and he did hit below the belt at least a time or two, which speaks to a weak argument. As it was, both sides were rather redundant, and the debate highly disappointing.
in my experience, when people use vague, emotional terms such as "pathetic," it's synonymous to "i don't have any reasons/arguments for why i disagree with this topic"
and i think craig won. harris didn't even argue against craig's points. for example, when craig brought his "knock down argument" harris didn't even respond directly.
Sam covered this here.
samharris.org/the-god-debate/
"While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate.
"Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
Where did the New Atheism come from? My theory is that it is the inevitable outcome of Protestantism. 500 years of everybody making up their own doctrines, and these guys are just shouting "ENOUGH!" Dr. Craig uses classical theology to make his arguments, but not his doctrines. Kind of a dichotomy there.
Michael O'Grady my thoughts exactly. I very much appreciate WLC and his knowledge, which is why I formerly believe he will see the truth that is Catholicism.
(1) lol, thanks for your "generous" allowance. What's unique about this tomb being empty is that it was guarded by Roman soldiers (a professional military) who if not found faithful at their task would be given the death penalty. Despite their guarding of the tomb, the tomb was found empty by a group of disciples several days later.
It would prove the activity of the Christian God because no person has ever risen from the grave. It proves his supernatural activity.
There is nothing 'unique' about 'this tomb being empty'-it's a bullshit made-up story.
How is it a red herring to point out the weaknesses in the other sides position. The moral argument for God's existence is certainly coming from the point of view of revealed religion and that is pretty much the Abrahamic tradition, so pointing out how dubious that tradition is as a source of moral authority is not at all irrelevant to the debate. It's not a red herring at all.
Yes, WLC was arguing a general theistic argument rather than a specifically Christian one, and I've noticed he loves to do that. He loves to disown the specific tradition his argument derives from as much as possible. Why? I think it is exactly so that he can whine about how the other sides attacks on his position are "red herrings" That may be a great debate tactic, but its pretty disingenuous if you ask me.
Well said well spoken BG. I agree William Craig is full of shit
I've been saying Craig uses tricks . He is all technique and no content
It is a red herring. Even in the traditional 90-minute or so debate, you can't have an exhaustive knock-down drag-out on everything wrong with Christianity, as much as that might appeal to you.
The focus was what is the foundation of morality, and whether one can exist without God. That by itself is such a huge topic that there is just no time to get into whether the God of the Old Testament is a big meanie. God being a big meanie is also a huge topic that would include the context of how the nations around Israel handled similar situations (compared to which Israel is on the cutting edge of human rights), exegesis of the text, knowledge of ancient Near Eastern culture to understand when the writer is exaggerating and when he is literal, and on and on and on. It would require a separate debate or maybe even two evenings of debate, which Craig made VERY clear that he is willing to do. As far as I know, Harris has not taken him up on it. But a Sam Harris drive-by of uprooting words and events from the their context and declaring victory won't get it done.
Well, we just have to disagree then, because in a debate about whether morality has a natural or supernatural foundation, pointing out the weakness of the supposed supernatural foundation is pretty relevant. Anyway, how long does it take to understand the naturalistic foundation? After that is explained, then there is nothing left but to defend it and try and undermine the other sides position.
Pointing out the weaknesses of a supernatural foundation in general is perfectly fine but you can't do it by pounding on a particular religion because there are thousands of them and you would have to take them each in turn, which would make for a debate that would last years, never mind 90 minutes. The simpler/easier way by far would be just to show that morality can have a naturalistic foundation. If you can show that, ripping Christianity would be redundant (not to mention bad sportsmanship); if you can't, then it's futile. Unless you want to concede and take the side of another religion against Christianity, but again that would be another, separate debate.
If Harris didn't understand this going into the debate, the terms of which he negotiated with Craig and agreed to, then he is not as clear a thinker as he thinks he is. If he did understand this, then in going off on Christianity, he either engaged in deception or couldn't control his temper, and he doesn't strike me as an ill-tempered man.
As a Christian myself I really appreciate the informed wisdom of WLC and the excellent work he has done in confronting the distorted reasoning of the New Atheist message. But from a biblical perspective I disagree with him on one important issue. WLC states that he was motivated by a perception that the main contemporary threat to Christianity would come from atheism. Jesus Christ Himself warned that in the latter days the primary threat to true Christianity would be wolves in sheep's clothing operating within the church. The apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3 "For a time shall come when men will not endure sound doctrine. They shall gather around themselves false teachers who shall tickle their itching ears to suit their worldly passions". This is clearly a warning against false forms of Christianity rather than atheism.
Those who teach works are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
@@mgreene011 Indeed, as is the case with Catholicism. A church which, as my own pastor describes, is a "faith built on sand". And, relating to the increasing number of mainstream liberal churches who choose to serve men and politicians, rather than God, the words of 2 Peter 2:1-3 are chillingly poignant,
"But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbers not".
What the Bible refers to, operating within the church, poses a far greater threat to the human soul than the ilk of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
@@peterc9153 Have you been to the website faithalone.Org?
@@mgreene011 Thankyou for the link. I am unfamiliar with the organisation you refer to. I am also unfamiliar with the full mantra of their doctrine. But watching the brief video clip provided, with one of their members emphasising the importance of faith, over and above works, gives me a positive first impression. God Bless.
I've read Harris' book. I read it long before I saw the debate actually. It's perfectly obvious that Harris believes in objective morals. My point is this: if good and evil are independent of conscious experience, as Craig asserts, then he must provide an alternative foundation. To simply say "Harris failed to make his case" begs the question in favor of theism. I do have a problem with the fact that the question presupposes objective morals- and I don't fault Craig for that at all.
Do you realize this is exactly what I was attacking WLC for: Attacking the person, and throwing out ad hominems.
What Harris actually did was he explained - with great clarity - the reasons why he thought Christianity was a poor foundation for objective morality.That Craig would spend an hour going back over the debate - which he resoundingly lost in my view - would suggest that Craig also realised his arguments had been demolished & wanted another crack at it.
how did harris ground objective morality
“Junior High School?” I’ve watched the debate multiple times. If anyone was fighting well above his weight class it was grade school Craig. Divine Command theory is a model that requires scientific age human beings to surrender reason to Iron Age thinking. Absurd proposition.
True, but English is much more complex than any theology. If you are studying English or writing in uni, there is much more involved than just interpreting language, which theology is basically all about. There is an obvious difference between primary school english and uni english, or primary school biology and uni biology, but I don't see the difference between either types of theological study.
I generally agree on issues with WLC but I do think he sometimes puts more weight on debate style points than the truth. When he debates open theism, he often resorts to "debate tricks" like straw man characterizations.
That would make morality relativistic which is what Sam Harris criticizes and calls self contradictory.
I FOUND SAM HARRIS CONSIDERATELY MORE COHERENT, LOGICAL AND ENLIGHTENED IN ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS THAT CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS HAVE IN JUSTIFYING THE OBJECTIVE MORALITY GOD POSITION ! ALTHOUGH ONE COULD NOT EXPECT MR.CRAIG TO ARGUE HIS POSITION ON THIS TOPIC OTHERWISE, MR. HARRIS WAS FAR MORE EFFECTIVE IN PRESENTING HIS CASE !
Would someone please explain why Dr. Harris believes there are objective truths about morality when he denies that we have free will?
Energy is abstract?? Stick your finger in a light socket and tell me how abstract it is. If that is your definition of abstract, God is abstract too. Objective morality was the initial subject of this thread... that's why you took it out of context.
Craig's central argument is that if a god created our universe that we must then have a perfect source for moral values? We would call an entity a god on the basis of power to create the universe but that in no way requires or implies a probability that a god would care for the inhabitants of the created universe. "Oh we don't have objective morality? I'll just arbitrarily define god as the source for objective morality since I can choose to define it as pretty much anything." Pretty convenient
He didn't 'delete' part of the email. It's a debate so I'm not surprised he cut it in order to get to the real point. There are 'problems' with a current beginningless universe, doesn't mean it cannot be reconciled, and he understands that. There were problems with the initial calculations of quantum physics when it yielded infinities, yet it produced the most accurate predictions in all of physics.
Of course it is, and Craig knows this too. He also knows that 'conciousness' is one of the remaining areas in the natural world we know little about, and he's exploiting it (ditto with the origin of the universe). Morality and altruism are intellectual capacities, not mystical.
If something is wrong just because god thinks it's wrong, that makes morals subjective in the mind of god. But from what I've seen in the bible, I think god's morals are fucked up. Clearly, I wouldn't want to stone someone just for losing their virginity before marriage, that's a stupid reason to stone someone. Maybe if they did something irredeemable, then maybe it would be justified. But why is sex such a big deal? I think justice is also linked somewhat with this issue, if someone deserves it
Well I would say you must actually read the Bible and know what it is saying before criticizing. For instance, we can debate God’s morals if you want, but to say they are subjective to the God in the Bible isn’t true. If you actually read the Bible you’ll see God’s attributes are unchanging. He is unchanging as a Being. Entirely. So His moral commands are absolute.
God is the objective standard and the very source of morality. God's nature of perfect dignity and perfect unconditional love are the objective standard of morality. Meaning, that morality is already perfected, in the nature of God. Objective morality isn't based on God's opinions. Objective morality is based upon rational dignified laws of moral order; (from which eminate from God's perfect nature).
Stoning anyone is definitively wrong.
The reason sex is a big issue to Christianity is bcuz it's a big deal to God. The reason that it's a big deal to God is bcuz it holds a significant amount of influence over people's lives. So, when people treat it lightly, they are failing to realize the power that sex has. And, it can quickly lead people down a dark and twisted path. People get jealous and murder themselves or their partners over infidelity. So, it important that you take time, and choose a partner wisely. People get cheated on so much that they bcum callous, and have trouble being vulnerable anymore. People become escorts. People become addicted to sex, and thus sex bcums more centrally important than love in their lives. Which causes all kinds of problems for them. People get dark fetishes that grow darker and more deranged the more they give into them. People bcum rapist. All of these things can be avoided by following God's wisdom and taking sex seriously. Treating it and your sexual body as sacred. Choosing your partner carefully. A partner that you're willing to commit the rest of your life with.
And then, sexual intimacy can be reached at the deepest levels possible; as it was intended to be. Deep love, respect, vulnerability, trust, safety, loyalty, dignity, appreciation, tenderness, cherishing one another, dependable, honoring each other's presence, and honoring each others body. This is the true potential that we harness within our sexuality, when following God's wisdom of dignity and unconditional love. But, it requires sacrifices, self-control, setting limits, and real work with serious commitment. But, the rewards are so deep and beautiful beyond compare. You experience the deepest meaning of bonding, intimacy and what it means to be human.
What we need to see is a debate with an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and a representative of a few other religions. Then the atheist can sit back while all of the other religious folk argue how their own God is real and every other God is imaginary. Heck you can even have a panel of different denominations of Christianity argue how their interpretation is the correct one. The only thing Theists succeed at is SUGGESTING that the universe requires a creator. They never succeed at proving that their personal God exists.
And that is precisely ridiculous, why on earth anyone would be tempted to sacrifice his or her son even if it asked by a supernatural, supreme personal being. This is fascism. And is that morality ?
WLC is a master of rhetoric.
I think he's just the master of pointing out the logical flaws of others' thinking. WLC connects with people logically. He's not necessarily a feel good kinda guy and doesn't have that great of a personality in general (can even come off as arrogant at points), but what he's wonderful at and what I respect him for is that he dissects the points of atheists.
Justus McNeal He does make arguments.
The problem is that Craig begins his argument with an A Priori assumption that God exists, therefore any arguments that follow are based upon an illusion.
No, All Craig had to do was show that (1) Harris cannot derive objective morality from the natural world and (2) show that one needs a law giver or external source for morality to be objective. He didn't have to prove God exists to defend either of those positions.
"Objective morality is not a real thing" - That wasn't in question.
How am I misinterpreting anything? Why is it wrong to murder a blind child? If the child grows up and procreates their child might be blind. That would make the human race weaker. I say God is the author of objective morality and tells me I should take care of the blind child. What is the reason an atheist should take care of that child?
Many of the criticisms of religion that Sam Harris made are valid criticisms. He seems to suggest that believers in a God and a supernatural foundation for morality do not like criticism of religion. Nothing can be further than the truth. Theologians and apologists criticize religion constantly as they assert the Judeo/Christian worldview, and seek to refute a non-biblical religious faith. Harris' comment about saying pig latin over pancakes and turning them into the body of Elvis Presley and comparing it to Catholic Mass is a legitimate criticism and comparison.
As someone who's asked 300+ theists for evidence of god, _I assure you theists DO NOT like criticism of their beliefs._ As a broad statement, that's the truth. You may be individually open to it. Some I've talked with were individually open to it. But the broad characterization is theists simply aren't interested in hearing about the bad logic their beliefs are based upon.
The podcast we all have been waiting for, the LORD BLESSED YOU 👍🙏
Name calling: that's what children resort to on the playground. impressive. and cussing sure makes your points go very far.
It doesn't take long before the BS begins. With possible exception of Hitchens, I think I have heard all of the new atheists very clearly state that there are big differences between religions and that by and large Christianity as it exists today is more benign that Islam in general and certainly much more so than radical Islam. In fact this tendency of liberals to try and say that religions are basically all the same is something that Sam Harris constantly criticizes them for.
Thank You Dr Craig, you're the best 😁👍🙏
Also, I should mention how he tries constant ad hominem attacks. All you have to do is look at how Sam Harris is depicted in a wacky way in this cartoon, which is in the background. He tries absolutely everything to make the listener think of his words as less credible. Such as "I cannot understand him, he often sounded self contradictory", or "there's a knockdown argument against his position". I've never known of someone as blatently dishonest in argument as him.
How in the world can people say Harris didn't address the topic of the debate? He most clearly did. He gave his idea of the meaning of moral claims, that they are claims about human (or sentient being) wellbeing, and that as such they have an epistemically subjective foundation, and then he very succinctly critiqued the divine command basis of morality that Craig offered. Sure he did not address some of the terrible arguments that Craig made, but so what? Time is limited in these debates and one has to choose what to address. The thing about bad philosophical arguments is that they can be made quickly but explaining why they are wrong can be quite time consuming. I think Harris was superb and frankly Craig was left with moral egg on his face as he always is when he has to defend the supposedly God sanctioned barbarism of the OT.
If there is a veterinarian that says "All pugs have black/white fur, but there are some which have brown fur". And I cut out a seemingly small amount of information I can change it to: "All pugs have black/white fur", and use that in an argument to say "all pugs are black/white, as Jessica Whitman of the institute of animal health "All pugs have black/white fur". As you can see, pugs clearly only have black/white fur ". This is exactly what WLC does, it's dishonest.
alternate title of the video "Let's tear Sam down in his absence because we can not do that in his presence".
Yeah in most native cultures, altruism is developed from the foundation of religious/mythological believe. This is why some scientists are wondering do we natural have a god gene within us,including non-believers
There is nothing reasonable about a literal interpretation of Bronze Age Mesopotamian folklore.
Sam Harris - blablabla God is evil because he lets people die and suffer by their own sins,assuring free will and consequences for actions as he promissed to Adam,even if he as the creator has the right to do what he wants with human beings,bla bla bla.
Amen to that. Sounds a lot like Dawkins too
"even if he as the creator has the right to do what he wants with human beings" this is exactly the cruelty of abrahamic religions that harris talks about, this merciless view of "god can do what he wants and i will call it good and love him". harris explicitly says it at one point "if god acts that way, then he is evil". "divine command theory" is basically saying "good is whatever the mightiest says", it is almost literally "might makes right" - now only projected onto an omnipotent being in whose camp you claim to be.
John Smith Let me be frank. First, you probably have never read the Bible, much less in honesty and without bias, since an atheist is not able to read the Bible without bias. Second, Harris is a hypocrite with an agenda who always focuses on the consequence and not the cause of God's judgment. He will cunningly appeal to your emotion just like the priests in false religions, or crooked politicians do for their own gain and tell you "oh, the poor children,..." but he will never speak about THE SINS OF MANKIND, what evil men do to children, murder them in wars, sexually abuse them as pedophiles, not to mention the satanic rituals they do in secret, or godless parents raising their children up for the devil so that the children become even worse then their parents. And then when God justly smites such an evil generation, he is the evil one? You blind hypocrite.
Jeremiah 7:26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.
Jeremiah 7:27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.
Jeremiah 7:28 But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.
In America, Europe and the rest of the world today, truth is perished also. Harris is proof of this, since he won't mention the just cause of God's judgment.
Harris will bring out that God killed the firstborn of Egypt, but he will never tell you that it was Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who first gave out the decree to murder all the Hebrew male babies, all their firstborn males and all the male babies, not to mention how they cruelly oppressed the Hebrews as slaves.
Harris will tell you how God gave the command to kill all of the Amalekites, young and old, even their herds, but he will never tell you that Amalekites FIRST attacked unprovoked the most feeble among the Hebrews when they came out of Egypt, the children, the old, and the women and slayed them, murdered them. The Hebrews did nothing to them, the Amalekites killed them in cold blood.
You atheist pagans call it Karma, since you're brainwashed with eastern pagan false demonic religions. I hear it everywhere, Karma, Karma, Karma,... But we Christians call it what it really is, God's judgment. God always repays and returns the evil man do, upon their own heads.
God was just in smiting all the firstborn of Egypt. They reaped what they sowed. They enslaved the Hebrews and oppressed them with rigour and murdered their male babies. In return God destroyed them with the plagues and killed their firstborn. They killed the firstborn of the Israelites, their firstborn were killed in return by God himself. As he says, vengeance is mine, I will repay. GOD ALWAYS HAS A JUST CAUSE TO PUNISH THE REPROBATE.
Exodus 1:13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:
Exodus 1:14 And they MADE THEIR LIVES BITTE WITH HARD BONDAGE, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.
Exodus 1:15 And THE KING OF EGYPT SPAKE to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
Exodus 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; IF IT BE A SON, THEN YE SHALL KILL HIM: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
Deuteronomy 25:17 REMEMBER WHAT AMALEK DID unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
Deu 25:18 How he met thee by the way, AND SMOTE THE HINDMOST OF THEE, EVEN ALL THAT WERE FEEBLE BEHIND THEE, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
Harris either did not study the Bible enough which tarnishes his credibility or is a hypocrite and willingly lies. No other option.
Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
Jeremiah 9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.
Lamentations 3:33 For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.
Lam 3:34 To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth,
Lam 3:35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the most High,
Lam 3:36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not.
That being said when Harris speaks truth I listen, since he does speak truth from time to time, for example concerning Islam and the delusion of free will (though he lacks the Biblical view of the delusion of free will and ends up in fatalism, that men are not responsible for their actions) and so on.
Bozz#37
"First, you probably have never read the Bible, much less in honesty and without bias, since an atheist is not able to read the Bible without bias."
Pretty evil to call me a hypocrite and a moron straight out the door, but at least you're representing christian hatred faithfully.
"And then when God justly smites such an evil generation, he is the evil one? You blind hypocrite."
a god that creates, sustains, and gives choice to evil people to commit finite damage with and them punishes them infinitely is vicious and complicit in his creation's evil.
"Harris will bring out that God killed the firstborn of Egypt, but he will never tell you that it was Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who first gave out the decree to murder all the Hebrew male babies, all their firstborn males and all the male babies, not to mention how they cruelly oppressed the Hebrews as slaves."
and that somehow made the egyptian babies in their cribs so evil that they needed to be slaughtered to the last, and god could not possibly think of a better solution to all this. he intervenes with miracles, so if he wasnt a cruel and barbaric character, he might find more appeal with this novel's readers. there really is no more cruel character in all of fiction than the abrahamic god.
"Harris will tell you how God gave the command to kill all of the Amalekites, young and old, even their herds, but he will never tell you that Amalekites FIRST attacked unprovoked the most feeble among the Hebrews when they came out of Egypt, the children, the old, and the women and slayed them, murdered them. The Hebrews did nothing to them, the Amalekites killed them in cold blood."
the difference is, harris would recognize the actions of the amalekites as evil, but you want him to consider the choice of god to wage genocide not only on the aggressors but their children and livestock to be the most perfectly just and good and merciful way to deal with it. thats the difference.
"You atheist pagans call it Karma, since you're brainwashed with eastern pagan false demonic religions. I hear it everywhere, Karma, Karma, Karma,... But we Christians call it what it really is, God's judgment. God always repays and returns the evil man do, upon their own heads."
im not a pagan and i dont believe in demons or karma. you christians call it gods judgment and think it is the most beautiful and just and good way to solve issues. i call it what i see, genocide and bloodthirst. if omniscience and omnipotence cannot come up with anything smarter or kinder than "torture them all to death, and once they are dead, i will torture them for eternity. if you dont do what i say, i will torture you for eternity too", then im morally better than god. i dont think there ever has been a real person morally worse than that.
"God was just in smiting all the firstborn of Egypt. They reaped what they sowed."
babies in cribs dont sow, they cant even crawl.
"Harris either did not study the Bible enough which tarnishes his credibility or is a hypocrite and willingly lies. No other option."
heres another option: the bible is a book of fictitious myths that codifies myths that are qualitatively similar to those of the more bloodthirsty ancient societies we have insight into, and you are biased towards wanting to confirm it instead of testing whether it stands up to scrutiny. Your whole diatribe confirms the sheer hatred and bloodlust inherent in your religion. I don't think I will respond to a hundred lines of insults and curses a second time, I see no reason to indulge your vicious hatred.
John Smith
First, we have to lay down some basics here. We're talking about people guilty of murder and a lot of other things, we're not talking about innocent people. God never kills an innocent person. I am against persecution of innocent people. God is against persecution of innocent people and condemns such actions, you have many Scripture references in the Bible that prove that. God judges evil, guilty persons and leaves the innocent alone, since they obey his commands like LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT OTHERS DO UNTO YOU.
Now to your objections:
1. I didn't call you a moron. Don't put words into my mouth. What I said is, your knowledge of the Bible is superficial at best and laced with bias. It's a big difference if you know the Bible in its entirety or just parts of it and even that superficially.
2. It's explained in the Bible why evil exists until the Lord Jesus Christ comes back. Your misrepresentation is not it. As I said, you're biased and dishonest and lack understanding. That's what I called you from the start. It's not God that sins, it's me and you and everybody else, our sins are our own. God is not the author of sin. You're a typical "It's everybody elses fault but mine" guy.
3. God did not slaughter the Egyptian firstborn. He took their spirits out of them. They died in their sleep. And as expected you completely ignored what Pharaoh and the Egyptians did to Hebrew firstborn, murdering them in the Nile with drowning and so on, while cruelly oppressing the Hebrews as slaves. Your bias is shown once again.
Was it unjust when the German Nazis genocided the young and old of Jews and the Slavs and other people IN THE MILLIONS, that they and their country was bombed to smithereens by the Allies? MANY CHILDREN THAT HAD GERMAN NAZI PARENTS DIED IN THAT BOMBING. But when God does it, he is unjust, cruel and barbaric? You hypocrite. That does not mean I find it ok if whole population of people is bombed without discrimination, this is not ok, but I am exposing your hypocrisy.
Do you have a wife and children? Family? If someone would cruelly oppress some of them, torture them or even murder them, what would you do hypocrite? Would you pat him on the back? Or would you give him over to authorities and demand the death penalty for him? Let me tell you what most people say when they're HONEST unlike you, especially the non-religious atheists, they say they would torture them in return before they would kill them. That makes them the same as those who first tortured them.
At least I as a Christian would not torture them, since this is not according to the law of God and I find it horrible, but would give them over to lawful authorities which would give them immediate death sentence in the court of law where their guilt is proven to them by a just unbiased jury. Like the Nurenberg trials. THAT'S CALLED JUSTICE. YOU MURDERED A LIFE, YOUR LIFE IS TAKEN IN RETURN. That's how evil is put away from society and one less murderer walks the streets and other people are safe from his evil. But when God does it, it's evil and barbaric and cruel? You hypocrite.
I come from a country that had an atheist communist revolution in its past, which memory still haunts many people today. You know what the atheist communists did in their revenge against Nazi collaborators in my country? They didn't set up a just court with a jury and put on a trial every individual like on the Nurenberg trials (btw done by a protestant Christian America and England), who collaborated with the Nazis, proving whether he was innocent or guilty, and punish the guilty ones with death by hanging INSTEAD THEY BUTCHERED PREGNANT WOMEN, YOUNG GIRLS, OLD MEN, CHILDREN, EVERYBODY WHO WAS A THREAT TO THEIR REVOLUTION AND THREW THEM IN MINE SHAFTS, CAVES, PITS, IN THEIR TENS OF THOUSANDS, EVEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS,...THEY DIDN'T CARE IF THEY WERE CHILDREN WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAZIS. THEN THE ATHEIST COMMUNISTS STOLE ALL THEIR FARMS AND LANDS. THIS HISTORY WAS HUSHED UP BECAUSE OF FEAR, AND FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS THEY STARTED DISCOVERING ALL THESE MASS GRAVES AND FOUND OUT THIS HORRIBLE MURDEROUS TRUTH. THE OLDER GENERATION KNEW BUT THEY DID NOT SPEAK OPENLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF FEAR OF THE STILL PRESENT COMMUNISM. THEY FOUND MANY YOUNG GIRL SKELETONS, CHILDREN WHO HAD BRAIDED LONG HAIR STILL ON THEM AND SO ON. NOW THEY'RE DIGGING UP ALL THESE MASS GRAVES ONE BY ONE. IT'S HORRIBLE. My country is one big mass grave. To be fair the Nazi collaborators did many evil things too and if they would win, they would probably do the same to the other side or put them on wagons and send them to concentration camps.
Therefore I know perfectly well what even you godless atheists are capable of doing if driven by blind revenge, rage and a deluded ideology. A (protestant) Christian who follows the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ would never do such a thing because we have teaching of the Apostles that specifically forbid and condemn such things as evil. So don't be all sanctimonious on me here and accuse God for what you falsely call unjust and falsely accuse him and me. God did not murder those young girls in my country, the atheists driven by communist ideology did. YOU SEE NOTHING CHANGED. THEY, THE ATHEIST COMMUNISTS AND THE NAZIS AND THEIR COLLABORATORS, DID THE SAME THINGS AS THE AMALEKITES DID. Now if you would be a father of those murdered girls and would witness all this evil, all this rape, torture, murder, that the atheist communists did, what punishment would you demand for them? You would just stand idly by? Yeah, right. You would be outraged and would be perfectly fine if they rot in hell for eternity.
4. The same with Amalekites. If God was so unjust when he demanded that the Israelites wipe out the evil Amalekites, why did the Allies bomb Nazi Germany that took the lives of many Nazi children and Nazi livestock? Was that just? Is bombing a nation who knew what was going on in the concentration camps but silently consented and agreed to the torture and murder of Jews, Slavs, etc., to which their sons and daughters in the army participated with the approval of their Nazi parents, a nation guilty of murder, or an individual guilty of murder, different than slaying him with a sword, because in those times they did not have rifles and tanks and planes and bombs? You hypocrite. Some wars are just wars.
Not to mention certain prisons today where they torture people to extract information from them or torture them just for fun because they have become so deranged. You saw the pictures on the news. That is unjust. That's what people do without the doctrine of Christ. Atheist soldiers or others who don't care about the Bible. Either you prove a man guilty and convict him of murder or whatever he is guilty of or he is pronounced innocent by the jury, not guilty, and you let him go free. You don't torture people. But what men do, is perfectly okay and just? God does not torture people in prison, deranged men do.
Having said all that, who really is genocidal and bloodthirsty here? Men or God? But you'll blame God because he allowed this to come to pass? Men chose this. I would tell you read the Genesis account, but since you don't believe it, it's of no use. But God will also make and end of evil soon just as he did in Noah's day.
You can rant about God's justice all day long, but you don't understand it. Maybe you would, if I give you some links that expose evil that would scare you, make you mad, and make your stomach turn what evil men do in the world. Then you would understand the punishment of everlasting fire. I read many atheist comments how they would torture such people who do such things and so on, but when you bring God into picture, suddenly they become all sanctimonious and angry at God who is the ultimate and just Judge.
I am glad that for sinners who do acknowledge and confess our sins before him and believe in the blessed hope, his Son, who is the propitiation for our sins, and turn from our sins and repent of them daily, there is grace and everlasting life.
1Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Craig is a great debator, in that he is all technique and no content. He knows the arguments against God so well and tries to keep the atheist from using them , that I bet he is really an atheist himself .
(Alan Lloyd is really a monotheist himself. Don't tell anyone...)
Yeah... no....I wasn't referring to any particular argument of his, rather this entire grasping exercise - rehashing a debate without giving an opportunity to your opponent to respond or clarify your misapprehension & restating their points kind of runs counter to the spirit of debate ne c'est pas? & the use of 'Craig' & 'knock down argument' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
7) In every debate, he lists all of the points his opponents have not answered, like a true dishonest debater.
8) In every debate, he repeatedly says, even when the opponent has answered a certain proposition "There has been no argument against X today".
WLC is a mess of a debater. He's the equivalent to a boxer who not only punches in a match, he kicks, bites, scratches and screams his way to victory. No one who is aware of his bullshit would debate him, good thing Dawkins declined.
Presenting objections to your opponents position is not dishonest, neither is reminding them and the audience that they have not responded to them.
Pointing out that your opponent has not responded to your counterarguments against defenses to your objections is not dishonest.
When your opponent fails to respond to they in essence concede your arguments in a formal debate.
LOL. WLC accuses Sam of redefining good as what's best for people. As if WLC has a copyright on what good is. The problem is I think WLC is bright enough to understand this in which case he is just intellectually dishonest. I think he likes being on stage and hearing his own voice.
He changes the definition into the one theists believe. Harris’s argument is nil if his definition doesn’t align. It doesn’t matter if it’s a “correct” definition or not.
Cherry-picking? I didn't cherry pick any verse. You did! In fact, the verse you chose is interesting. Abraham DIDN'T murder his son! Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his only son... but you forget, he was promised by a good and moral God that this son would be the father or "many nations." How was he to be a father to anyone dead? It seems to me the story of Abraham and Isaac is the story of a prophet having faith that God would somehow save this son.
I struggle with the term ”objective morals”. Universal or at least nearly universal morals we can observe but how could we ever determine if some morals are objective? If they are god’s morals then they would be subjective to him but perhaps prescribed or universal to us. Objective to me seams to suggests something could be absolute or self evident even outside of god which seams like a paradox.
William Lane Craig fans can complain about red herrings and emotional appeals all they like but I'm yet to see a religious apologist produce anything more than that. I do think Sam could have done a better job though, there are plenty of points in his book about morality that were better than anything he said in the debate, but all in all I think he still won
The debate was a little rigged from the start.
samharris.org/the-god-debate/
"While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate.
"Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
By their fruits ye shall know them.
"I don't appreciate that strategy" Really? You don't appreciate the strategy that Sam Harris used? Imagine that...
1)The whole conundrum about the unbelievers movie.
2)His constant use of quote mines and arguments from authority.
3)His constant misquotes of other people, including people like Stephen Hawking.
4)His claims the only logical conclusion to the kalam is a god (when it doesn't even come close).
5)The constant stream of cheap tactics in argument, and the distortion of opponents positions (such as gish galloping).
6)He cares about scoring points in arguments, not the truth.
You nailed it. Too bad others missed it.
samharris.org/the-god-debate/
"While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
WLC in this says he didn't want to debate God and follow Sam down a litany of "irrelevancies"
I find it interesting that his premise is that a personal God is the sound moral founation, but he thinks challenging the existence of God is irrelevant and a poor move for his opponent.
Yep. I agree.
You got it.
samharris.org/the-god-debate/
"While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate.
"Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
Harris agreed to the format. Harris agreed to the topic. Harris had no arguments, just word salad and red herrings. Harris got his ass clapped.
he didn't say he was worried about it. he said he wanted to stick to the core of the debate by sticking on topic but it was harris who was scoring the "emotional points"
WLC's point is NOT that CRAIG has a copyright on good, but that objective morality is grounded in God's nature. Your comment proves his point that on the atheist view, morality IS up to the individual with no objectivity. Interestingly enough, you then condemn Craig for a percieved fault without acknowledging that even if he WERE being intellectually dishonest, you really have no basis for saying it's wrong of him to be so, is up to him.
Even if God exists does not mean that he has made the universe and the universe has a purpose. It proves nothing . The second proposition there is no God . So there are no questions possible
Which one makes the most sense , thank you.
No. There is no better argument because objective morality is a human construction, albeit a very useful construction. Objective morals would apply in every situation and for any possible moral you can think of I can propose a continuum of consequences for adhering to that moral with no quantitative means for determining when adherence becomes morally wrong. For example, would it be wrong to torture a single 9 year old to death if it meant saving the lives of 6 billion people. 10 9 year olds?
I don't know what world you live in where you can't grapple with the idea that morally, good is synonymous with human well-being. You say morality is separate from human well-being, Sam says, that's where you're wrong and what allows you to redefine moral as following God's laws, regardless of how much discrimination, misogyny and homophobia it espouses. This ideology is immoral if you define morality as synonymous with human-wellbeing.
It probably wasn't right for him to do that, but you have to see where he is coming from. He quoted that specific part because he was just trying to demonstrate to not be too 'certain', as there are always different avenues in science, even if they seem to have problems, but even he agreed that the universe most likely has a beginning, not in a certain way like WLC is. Notice how, like you said, Krauss said not to take one specific thing with absolute certainty, as the future is unknown.
What William Lane Craig calls red herrings is so far from the truth. Sam didn't ignore WLC's points. He GRANTED THEM. Each of Sam's points were against a Christian God; made to illustrate if you believe this or if what WLC is true look how obviously immoral to a 21st century worldview a 1st century religion is. I think WLC is very smart which makes this breadown of the debate so confusing. This is why I think Sam is ahead of his time because his moves in the debate may have been perplexing but only because they were two steps ahead.
So Harris' debate strategy was to concede that his opponent's position was correct? LOL, no wonder he was so salty about it. He concedes that God is a foundation of morality, which is Craig's position, but then begs the question in assuming his own objective moral system to condemn God as immoral.
Sam Harris seemed angry with God. He gave no reasonable argument for objective morality without God. He side seemed to be “I don’t agree with how the world works so God doesn’t exist”
Try watching it again. He's not angry with god. He was pointing out why it's impossible to both believe everything is god's will as well as believe god is good.
samharris.org/the-god-debate/
"While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”
As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. "
@@juliankarst8829 Craig already demolished all of these points in the video. Sam Harris has to hide behind outright falsehoods and gish gallop since he got slapped so hard in the debate.
"Waah, I didn't like the rules I agree to! Waah!" - Sam Harris
//He's not angry with god. He was pointing out why it's impossible to both believe everything is god's will as well as believe god is good.//
All of that is completely irrelevant and in fact concedes the point to Craig as well as begs the question. Harris concedes Craig's contention that if God exists, he is the foundation of morality he just thinks that God is evil. None of those are objections to God being the foundation of morality and so are red herrings and completely worthless. However, in doing so he begs the question in assuming his own moral system in order to condemn God.
You think it should have been the question? Read Harris' book. He believes in objective moral values. That's why he wrote the book. I think you should watch the debate again. You've missed a lot of the material. Btw, if you have problems with the topic blame notre dame.
When did Harris answer ANY of Craig's arguments? All Harris could muster was blubbering about how people who believe in God are stupid and how could God exist with all the suffering in the world. Maybe you can do a better job than Harris. How is there object morality without God?
I have a lot of respect for Sam Harris, he seems like a good man and I admire his attempt to make a moral theory. His theory needs work still though as good as it is in some ways and it looked worse than it was because William Craig is a gifted speaker.
What was your fundamental disagreement with his argument?
@@juliankarst8829 He doesn't know anything about the Bible. He is misrepresenting his opponent. In turn, he is arguing against fallacies of his own creation because of his lack of perspective and understanding. His theory, therefore, being based on this flawed presupposition, is also flawed.
For example, when God said, " Let there be light", and there was light, in Genesis 1:3, it is NOT merely a reference to the sun in the sky or anything directly related to physics. Think of it this way instead. Imagine being in a pitch dark room and someone turns on the light switch. You are suddenly aware of yourself, your surroundings and also others in the room with you. God has created opportunity but at the same time, dilemma.
Sam Harris doesn't know that.
The story of the garden of Eden is not simply a story of two naked people, an apple tree and a snake, but an analogy. Accountability is relative to the revelation given. The more you know, the more accountable you are. Like a pilot of an airplane as opposed to a passenger. One is more accountable than the other. Genesis 2:17, 3:10-11
Sam Harris doesn't know that either. He may understand the guiding principle, but he doesn't know it comes from the Bible.
Being 'created in the image of God' is a reference to the awareness and capability of moral reasoning, not merely a reference to biology.
Something else Sam Harris doesn't seem to know.
Adam and Eve being naked in the garden is not a physical nakedness; but spiritual. Human beings being aware of their flaws 'cover' their nakedness. E.G.; A homeless person hooked on methamphetamines lying in an alley would be an example of 'exposed' nakedness.
Again, Mr. Harris doesn't seem to know that either..
The paradox is that the interpretation of biblical principle that Mr Harris is arguing against doesn't actually exist. That's why he thinks he is correct. He doesn't actually know what the Bible is says.
His actions were justified in a way I have already described, but still I think it may have been a better choice to leave the full letter intact. I think the problem of the 'messy singularities' would have gave a layman audience the wrong idea, so that is probably why he cut it out. The main idea he was demonstrating is that there are still other possible avenues in physics, regardless if they have problems or not. There are other ways to bypass the singularities too so he wasn't 100% correct.
I'm not surprised, people get afraid of smoke and mirrors, sometimes they don't realize his arguments are really just a bunch of facades. I've vigorously looked through all of his arguments, and they are all nothing but cheap semantic games: For example: WLC maintains the Kalam proves god's existence, it doesn't. It only proves a cause, if you accept a pre-concieved theory of time which WLC already accepts. Even if you do, a material cause is still completely plausible.
I said I don't know what is the source of morality. I did not say anything about having or not having objective morality. Having morality has nothing to do with being religious or not. It is just ridiculous how you reformed my command and totally misinterpret it.
But what I really do think is: Generally, most people know what is a right action from a wrong action, which is why I think on a whole, most people on Earth have a correct view of what is good and what is not. It's not that I 'follow the herd', but the 'herd' in general does seem to know right from wrong, which is why I think generally what is a popular view is more likely to be a good view than a bad view.
This was only one scenario, and like I said, what he said still holds. There is no telling what tomorrows physics will hold, and placing all your chips on a universe with a beginning isn't a smart move. The BVG theory may be destroyed tomorrow by certain observations or be replaced by new theories. What Krauss said still holds up, even if he did remove some parts of the letter. How is it being dishonest then in this case?
You've just demonstrated why he's dishonest: How he says "atheism is true", it's assuming outright and making an assertion that atheism has a large burden of proof, and we must prove it to be true. Theism has the burden of proof. He says that because he's dishonest and does nothing more than try to score as many fake points for himself. A good argument doesn't involve point scoring.
Any chance craig will ever address the absurdity of christian dogma?
DId you watch the debate??? Sam Harris was a terrible debater who couldn't make an argument that was at all coherent. He never engaged in Craig's arguments against Harris' wackey theory. It was embarrasing. Simply Harris was punching way above his weight class.
Off-topic does means irrelevant. It diverts the listener from the agreed-upon topic. It's what a person does when their points are not strong enough to overcome the opponents position.
Why would Harris agree on the debate topic then go away from it?
If Harris wanted to criticize "God is good" then he should've made that the topic of the debate.
Craig does not laugh at science, nor do I (a Christian).
What evidence do u require to believe God is good?
If you look up some other videos of "Dr." Craig, you will find that all the "comments" have been turned off. Why?
They are free to turn off comments.
he doesnt like his echo chamber disturbed
I think WLC is so disgustingly HONEST that its hilarious!!! Lol
Facts can be disgusting when discussing creation with non believers, they hate facts.
A decision is metaphysical phenomenon
But that's the whole point. He's misquoting them. He quote mines from whatever he likes, finds something which he can use to defend his preconceived notions (even if the authors intentions is to the complete opposite) then throws out quote after quote, of quotes seemingly supporting his view, but when you read the entire quotes, not the small snippet he cuts out, you can see he used them for his own twisted purposes.
Actually, I take that back, there are TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of different possible combinations. The DNA sequence is so long that the amount of different sequences that are possible is mind boggling.
That line was actually added in recently, from what I remember. But even disregarding that: So Jesus did come to reform Jewish laws? Such as stoning? Then God's rules aren't so objective after all. God seems to change his mind a lot over time! Like I said: God's morals just seem completely conjured up on the spot, and arbitrary. Also, I would also like to ask: Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
I, myself agree that the universe had a beginning, mostly because I think it's highly likely, also because I agree that the multiverse scenario is highly likely. I still see no reason to think this is the only universe to ever exist.
I never said he was an 'unsophisticated philosopher', but he seems to be more fond of playing semantic games rather than getting at the truth. Philosophers like Peter Milican play by the rules, the same with Dennett and Harris. They don't quote mine, they don't gish gallop, they don't straw man their opponents positions (I'm looking at you WLC, with the straw man statement: "Is atheism true?"). WLC just seems more dishonest than any of the other philosophers I have encountered.
No not exactly. I watched the debate again. Guth said you could avoid the beginning with a contraction, but you'd end up with a bunch of messy singularities. There are still other scientific theories which avoid initial singularities, such as Stephen Hawkings no boundary principle. Here's something else Velinkin has said: (I'll put it in another comment)
because a blind child is a human being, a conscious loving being who has a right to enjoy the world as much as I do. He also can create things, learn and know the universe may be by using other senses or intellect. I do not need a god's prescription to teach myself what to do with a blind child.
And as you said about the natural selection believe, atheists as me does not believe that natural selection is the right policy for progressing society. That is nothing to do with atheism itself.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That doesn't answer the question of moral values and duties. Are there objective moral values and duties? If there are, how does the atheist ground those values and duties. To the atheist rape and murder is not wrong, maybe uncomfortable, but not wrong. In fact the child rapist can't help it, because according to atheists there is no freewill. Let's focus like a laser beam. Where does moral values and duties come from?