WLC's question was "why is it wrong for humans to murder when it's not wrong for animals to murder?" Kagan's answer was "Because we can recognize and appreciate reasons not to do it." That answer makes more sense than "because God told me not to do it." You can always push the regress further, but as Kagan noted, sooner or later everyone has to say "because it just is (or so it seems to me)."
Craig is right that there is no innate "right" or "wrong". However, there are logical and illogical actions. Murdering, stealing and lying makes life for a social species like us who depend on each other for survival impossible. Therefore we have labelled those behaviours "wrong" and instituted punishments to deter these behaviours.
Why am I not surprised that WLC "fails" to understand. It's an argument from credulity substituting for a rational argument. I'm never quite sure whether WLC is not as bright as he thinks, or whether he considers it reasonable to be dishonest in order to pander to his cherished beliefs in a big SkyFairy. Both, perhaps. BS is probably lucrative, though he's fighting a losing game.
I should be more clear: Morality as we currently think of it isn't SOLELY the result of evolution, but the roots of it are. It is also the result of inculturation, including our everyday experiences, what we are taught, what we read, and what causes pain/pleasure. It is the result of many different things, but the foundation is evolutionary. We do not need a cosmic enforcer to tell us what is moral, and even if we had such a being, on what grounds could it say we ought to obey him?
@Hektor88 From the Time Magazine article "Einstein on Faith" - "For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe."
The point not understood by Kagan is a philosophical one. He argues from a developmental and contingent point of view: "we don't murder because there are auxiliary reasons to not do so. We are reasonable enough to know." Instead the point is: murder is wrong in itself. There are no pros and cons that decide. Indeed, there are scenarios where murder seems permissible (plotting to kill Hitler). However, 'reasoning' does not change murder as an evil act. Craig's point Kagan Nutwit couldn't grasp.
that has ascended to such a high level of intellect. And that's us humans. We are lightyears ahead of our "cousins" AND COUNTING, as they have yet to evolve. As an evolutionist, if that's not humility i don't know what is
To reject those feelings like guilt that tell you you are in the wrong, because of naturalistic beliefs, is to be mentally unhealthy. That is why murder is wrong. Becoming nihilistic does not wipe out morality. 2:36 Sam Harris correctly bases morality on the implications of our behaviour on ourselves and others.
@lfzadra I Dont see it like that, If WLC wants to debate in the style he likes why is he here debating? Why do all the debate s differ in openings, rebuttals and closings? It appears to be a standard Format for all debates. I cant see why Hichens, Krauss, Harris cant put together decent arguments and rebuff WLC's Arguments in the time they are given. Could you please give examples of why the format favors WLC and the Tricks he pulls?
@corioa " However, 'reasoning' does not change murder as an evil act " - That's only because you are conflating murder with killing. If you have a reason to kill someone, ie: self defence... then it is no longer murder. Murder is simply what we call killing when there are reasons not to do it. Playing with words doesn't help your case. " Craig's point Kagan Nutwit couldn't grasp " - Kagan not only grasped it... he answered it... and he did it without calling anyone names.
@Fishqueen1972 "failure to apply logic consistently to use a natural law of creation which are bound by the natural laws to account for the natural laws before they existed".... I am not sure what you are referring to?
"Murder is simply what we call killing when there are reasons not to do it. Playing with words doesn't help your case." Are you playing with words when you define murder in that way? Let me explain why I ask: If I were to kill someone, I would think that there would ALWAYS be a reason not to do have done it. I can come up with a reason to do anything (but that doesn't change the fact that I personally think some reasons are ridiculous). I stole it because I did. Is that a valid reason?
@Hektor88 "The problem with the Christian moral view is that the ultimate motivating factor is fear"... you are obviously not a Christian, so you can't really know what is is about. Craig explains this beautifully in his debate against Harris - you should treat yourself and watch it. NOTE, I am not arguing for Christainity here, merely the neccesity for a overall authority (intelligent entity) to set the moral law
@heinno777 To quote Albert Camus, "It was previously a question of finding out whether or not life had to have a meaning to be lived. It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning." The universe, and our lives, have no objective meaning, and I for one am happy with that. It allows me to create meaning and value for myself. I can assert myself as an individual, and not be crushed by the weight of some authoritarian value that i must adhere to.
@heinno777 The question can be asked in reverse. "Why not be good for goodness sake?" Once a living creature can reflect & understand the good vs bad concepts and understand right & wrong actions, then the creature can understand whether or not his action would be labeled good or bad. Just because someone chooses a bad action would not change the fact that it is a bad action.
@Hektor88 “I am growing frustrated ... constant equivocation of atheism with nihilism”... Sorry if you are offended by my view, but I think it is a question of terminology. I see nihilism as the view that there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we artificially give to it - is that not the same as atheism’s view?
If a christian argues that God's command is the ONLY thing that makes murder and rape wrong, then they cannot argue that a God who permitted those things would be worse than a God who forbade them. Thus, they destroy their own arguement. If you argue that how humans feel about murder is not as important as what we are simply told to do by an unseen God, then you are arguing against morality.
@Fishqueen1972 "Again you suffer from the Trickle Down fallacy"... we both have digressed from the topic a long long time ago, but I think it is of great value to talk/think about the underpinning building blocks of our individual viewpoints. It helps to gain insight and respect for each others thoughts (at least in my opinion)
Why are people hating on Craig just because he is smart and can't be refuted.... Don't people ever think that maybe his arguments are the same because no one has refuted them? Sigh, really sad...
I prefer the term 'evisceration'. But yes. Brilliant. :) What bothers me is Craig's intellectual dishonesty: he continues making these same (obliterated) arguments again and again, despite the fact that it has repeatedly been spelled out for him in very clear terms why he is wrong.
@Omnicron777 The reason why he looks so bad here is the debate format, not the opponent. Craig´s is a master of his usual debate format, where he can use his bag of tricks, for example: - Raise several points in your turn - The opponent can´t answer all in time - After that, claim victory because the opponent didn´t asnwer all points. Sam Harris explicity denied this trap in his debate with Craig, and used all his time to counter attack instead of just give a point to Craig. A wise move.
@Hektor88 “Dennett asserts, as an atheist, that there IS free will”.... yes, but it is his view that it (free will) just got to do with “bringing your body parts into the best position” so that you have the best opportunity to survive. The one that can foresee the future the best is the best adapted to survive. See Plantinga argument: Evolutionary argument against Naturalism.
@heinno777 Yes there can be. To put it simply, good is what helps people, bad it was harms people. You can ask "why should I care?" or "Why should I do things that help others if atheism is true?" but that same complaint holds for the theist as well: So what if God says X is good? Why should I do it? The atheist would say "because good is worth doing for it's own sake," while the Christian would say "because if you don't do it God will kick your ass." So Christian morality is ultimately coersive
@heinno777 He didn't attack the individual. He essentially attacked Craigs method of objection as being childish naysaying. When you're presented with the statement roughly like "Wrongness of action is a property that arises when agents reach a level of insight that lets them reflect on the consequences of their actions to themselves and others", that's a definition by the way, you can't just reply that you don't see how that morality could come about.
@Hektor88 "good is what helps people, bad it was harms people" The concept that you are missing is that on atheism there is no "good" and "bad" concepts. We are simply animals - if one dog kills another dog - it is not murder - there is no "good" or "bad". "while the Christian would say "because if you don't do it God will kick your ass"... I see your point, but ask yourself - why do you want to be "good" - Why, "be good for goodness sake"
@Fishqueen1972 ... because a BMW and a Toyota both has 4 wheels and a steering wheel, does not mean that they come from the same factory - but it points to the fact that they are designed by a mind that understand what is needed to make a motor-vehicle function - simple yes?
I agree WLC was defeated !!! ESPECIALLY at the end when WLC has to appeal to morality based on consequences of an after life and meaning only matters due to eternal life. Shelly wiped the floor with WLC - of course we can live a life of meaning & value even if life is temporary and of course we dont need to appeal to afterlives to justify morality !!! Well done S.Kagan ! WLC deliberatelly uses sophistry and rhetoric and does sound good.
@Fishqueen1972 " I claimed that God had no freewill." .... I do see what this have to do with the fact that I said robots cannot do anything that we have not designed it to do. Your point is simply a red herring, because you have no counter argument. To refute my point you have to proof that matter can create direction, without a "mind"
[How does reasoning create morality? At best it allows us to recognize morals.] How does reason create knowledge? At best it allows us to recognize that there are some truths to be found out there. Reason does not grant that there´s such thing as knowledge and can't even say if we already found some. Craig invoking God to explain moral knowledge is an attempt to solve a mystery with another. It´s moral because it's consistent with God's moral nature. I know it because God told me. Crap.
@heinno777 pt 1Yes, there are good and bad concepts: bad is what HARMS PEOPLE, good is what HELPS PEOPLE. That is the standard, we don't need Big Brother. The difference between humans and other animals, as Kagan explains in this vid, is that we can appreciate reasons to not inflict harm. Even if you say "All i want to do is maximize my own well being and don't care about others," then you would STILL have to help others, because your own well being is contingent on other people not hating you.
Kagan does a great job of teasing out Craigs flawed reasoning, who even falls foul of the naturalist fallacy! - can his thinking be really that simplistic? I guess Craig has built up his world view around the acceptance of Christianity as a driving force. An atheist with no such agenda, does not have the same built in naivety
@Hektor88 "To quote Albert Camus".....Camus' whole life was defined by wanting to be a rebel, some people don't like to be told what to do - this quote confirms this once again - it does not really have any wisdom locked up in it - it just says he want to make his own choices - on atheism though there is no free will (as per Dennett et al.) , so the phylosophy once again implodes.
@Gnomefro "he seemed to be repeatedly insisting implicitly that naturalistic morality is impossible because it doesn't refer to his God".... that is not quite his argument... he is saying that if there is no "moral law" giver - there can be no "moral law" to be broken. On Atheism, humans are just a grouping of molecules - therefore is is no different killing a person than chopping down a tree..... cont
@heinno777 The difference is that insects are mostly not social species. Bees (for ex.) are, and they have a kind of herd mentality that hasn't developed further since they don't have the brain capacity for it. Humans and other primates are social species with much greater brain capacity, so a more complex system can evolve than just the herd mentality. Humans naturally gravitate to each other and create communities, and morality is useful for keeping the community peaceful and functional.
@Hektor88 "then I have no reason to accept nihilism as an atheist" .... your logic make sense - I agree with that statement. The counter argument though, is that self fabricated meaning cannot be have a real value if it is based on the chemical reactions in your brain. I UNDERSTAND that atheists argue is if for the "overall well being" on consious creatures, but the question remains - why does these creatures need to be well, if wellness is just a series of reactions in the brain?
@aaronstately "why is he here debating?" Kagan is clearly less hostile to Craig´s position than others. "Could you please give examples" Misquoting and the suggestion that the opponent accepted some of your points. You can build entirely bogus speeches without being interrupted and make impact on the audience. The damage is irrecoverable. Another tactic is to raise more points than the opponent can handle in the time given. Such thing is not possible when opponents can interact.
@heinno777 Technically speaking, what creative story someone may write may not be freewill. You just assume it is.There may just be a deterministric and random factor going on there.How can you account for WHY you wrote a particular story instead of a different story?Does everyone have the ability to compose a musical. If freewill is true, then I should be able to create a new melody tomorrow without any musical talent. Do we choose our talents? Can we account for why we might not like liver?
And have you actually read any of it? Also, no, actually, there are not *hundreds of peer-reviewed* Craig articles. And any average Joe can get a Ph.D and normal articles published. To call his collective offerings 'philosophy' is a huge stretch.
@heinno777 Your absolutely right! It is still wrong even if you can get away with it. This means that right/wrong are independent of any accountability, removing the need for God as a kind of cosmic judge. My explanation was supposed to relate how evolution would favor morality, since it helps keep people alive and able to reproduce, but i agree wholly that right/wrong are independent of accountability.
@heinno777 5.What I am saying is that whenever creatures like us come to be, objective morality automatically comes to be. Even if God created earth and created us the way we are, he would have no NEED to create objective morality. He would have no need to dictate it or account for it. All it takes are self valuing social creatures dependent upon one another & placed in the same environment for objective morality to exist. So objective morality CAN come about independently of our origin.
@Fishqueen1972 . "You are basically saying the same thing with objective morality".... thanks for explaining your point so clearly. I think what you do not understand about my view is the fact that I am not arguing that God has to have his own set of morals for him to create a set of morals for us. The morals he created for us has an intended outcome - there is no outcome intended for Him - because he will simply be forever.... see the difference?
@Fishqueen1972 "engineer will choose the simplest of the two models"... you are correct, one of the enginering principals is - simpler is better - because complexity is hard to control - all things naturally default to simplicity. The focus here is on "choose" - only a mind can "choose".... you should be getting the picture now
@heinno777 If no human removed driftwood from a bank, then the driftwood builds up undirected over time. It builds up into a huge wall of driftwood. Let's compare the driftwood wall to a brick wall which we know was designed. Which one of the two walls is more complex? The driftwood wall is far more complex. It wasn't designed for the purpose of a wall, but it functions as a wall just the same. So here you have undirected complexity which can function without forsight.
Starting at 4:25, but specifically at 4:53 onward, it sounds to me like this gentlemen is offering evidence for creationism. That us as humans are set apart from the other animals, rather than simply being an evolved ape...
@MrDarkbloom "Craig has not changed his arguments here in any significant way" The answer is simple: Craig is not interested in advances in human understanding of the world, just proceed with his crusade for Jesus. He doesn´t need good arguments, just keep repeating the bad ones with a straight face. This is all he needs to impress his audience and give the impression that belief in God is a rational endeavour. He is a rhetorical magician, maybe some kind of lawyer, not a thinker.
@Gnomefro "He essentially attacked Craigs method of objection as being childish naysaying."... I did no see his arguments as naysaying. He was simply trying to explain why the statement is illogical based on an atheistic worldview. There logically cannot be "good' or "bad" concepts on atheism - like Dawkins said - it all just pittyless indifference.
@Hektor88 - what I mean by "reason" to "reproduce" is that if organisms were matter alone - there would be no reason why there would be "survival" competitiveness build into their make-up. To compete points to a will or a purpose to win - evolution cannot have a purpose - threfore I cannot logically bring the 2 together, but you might help me to undertand it better. I will check out "Existence precedes essence" - is it on youtube?
@heinno777 You just contradicted what you said in your last post. You said that if God says killing is good then it is good. now you are saying the opposite.
@Fishqueen1972 "The driftwood wall is far more complex"... it is not more complex - simply more chaotic. The end result of chaos is decay - the driftwood wall is a fstage of decay of a forrest - in the end there wood rots and ends up in the lowest complexity possible for life - simple carbon
@Hektor88 - I have read Freedom Evolves and found it interesting and insightful. He has plausible theories about consciousness and free will; by the same token it’s speculative; you have to admit. Obviously consciousness/decision-power is seated in the functions of the brain; nobody argues that. He makes the same mistake so many naturalists make though; he thinks that when we understand how things work there is no reason for a creator. The fact that it works is sound evidence of a creator
@Fishqueen1972 "For example, birds have genes for teeth".... yes, and we have genes for laying eggs, but that does not mean we layed eggs before - like a car has nuts and bolds - also used in mortorcycles - does not mean the nuts and bolds came from a motorcyle - they simple look the same - man I can'st see why this is such a hard concept - it just seems so obvious.
@Hektor88 "how can you know what atheism is".... isn't atheism just the absence of any doctrine? "I have offered real responses to your objections".... they were utterly lagging "If you're satisfied by your delusion, your welcome to be"... okay, if you want to leave on that note... I will leave with the final thought. Julian Huxley (famous evolutionist) cried out on his deathbed “So it is true after all, so it is true after all.”
@Fishqueen1972 - Mind is not matter - example: if you weigh a person and he learns something very complex while you are weighing him - his weight does not go up - so mind is not matter, as there is more mind involved learning something that not. Information (product of mind) is information not Matter or Energy, it can never be reduced to material origins - Norbert Wiener (Information scientists)
@Fishqueen1972 "Remember, an engineer designs for the purpose of simplicity, optimal function, and less waste".... because engineers have limited resources, time and energy - the creator of these, do not have any limitations of these, so he cannot logically be wastefull
@Hektor88 "This means that right/wrong are independent of any accountability, removing the need for God as a kind of cosmic judge" - the question then remains on atheism - why is it wrong? How can matter "judge" on what is "good" or "bad" - why do people want to be "good"
@heinno777 The goal of evolution isn't actually survival of the individual, but survival of the gene, meaning reproduction. Why? Because that's how the chemicals interact. It begins with very basic chemistry, and evolves to be more complex chemistry like we are. The traditional ideas of "alive" and "not" don't really work here. You're right that life seems to be the opposite of nature's patterns. It is incredibly rare in this universe, and seems to be more of a biproduct than an inevitability.
@heinno777 The problem with the Christian moral view is that the ultimate motivating factor is fear: Follow God's commands or else you will be punished. It denies the importance of a human moral sense, since the entire thing is based on coercion. I can say "act moral to alleviate suffering," and say that is my basic statement. Why should you do that? Because alleviating suffering is something we are all interested in; no one likes to suffer. That is my axiomatic statement, my bedrock.
@lfzadra I asked for examples. anyone can claim someone misquotes, name the debate and the misquote. It dosnt matter the amount of points made. if the other debater makes attempts to anwser them and runs out of time then one can not be accused of not answering them. Simply answer the questions that demand answering the most. That is why i thought Kagan did so well, because he did that. The reason this format is not used because it tends to go off in a tangent of conversation not relative.
Bit hard to get a idea from this clip alone of the total debate. I have watched it and I thought both Argued remarkably, Kagan is easily the best i have seen against WLC, My opnion is that they both left us off at where they started... What is Wright and Wrong? where does it come from ? And a question i dont hear much which is very Chicken and egg.... What came first...the Right... or the Wrong? With KAgan this is relative there is no real right or wrong, we know WLC though.
@Hektor88 "Morals laws do not dictate what we MUST do, rather they say what we OUGHT to do'....correct, but only because you have free will. If you wish not to you can pay the consequences. Example - you ought to stop at a red traffic light, but you do not have to, if you are willing to pay the consequences. You see how our laws follow the same pattern as moral laws - its got all the characteristices of a "mind-created" thing - designed to achieve something.
Craig clearly makes all the points and refutes the frank equivocations of Harris in the debate who seems intent upon presenting people who believe in a rational foundation for moral law as irrational. How paradoxical. Like the pictures above, the objective is just to get an emotional response to the argument. I think there's a real issue here of actual intelligence and intelligent consideration of the issues. Craig relies on reason. Harris simply begs the question. Disappointing.
@heinno777 It is far more complex, if you want to describe it as chaotic then fine, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it has function. And really helped my point given the fact that nature is chaotic & undirected at the macro-level. Species go extinct. We all die & decay. Stars burn out in heat death. Galaxies collide. Etc. Nature is more like the driftwood wall, not the brick wall.
Nope I'm not. Sure you can come up with reasons to do or not do anything... and you have to weigh up those reasons. If you were defending yourself from death, is that murder? Not in a legal sense... So are the law courts playing with words? It's all semantics.
@heinno777 "just a series of reactions in the brain?" If that's what well-being is, then that's what well-being is. I don't think it devalues it to explain it as chemical interactions. That may be all it is, but that's all that's needed. The point is that the more parsimonious something is, the better fit it is in evolutionary terms, because it takes less resources. Seeing the world that actually exists takes far less effort than constructing an elaborate illusion.
No. murder is wrong because we have concious brains that have adapted in an environment that does well when people are empathetic, and try to better the comunity.in which they live.
@Hektor88 Plantinga's argument says that: given evolution is true and naturalism is true, you cannot trust that your thoughts are logical. How does occam's razor come into play, as this argument does not envoke any claimed causes or explanations.
@Hektor88 "because your own well being is contingent on other people not hating you"... I agree with your statement, but it causes a problem. Example: If you cause harm to somebody and nobody can find out that you have done so - it is still wrong, the fact that other people know is irrelevant to "right" or "wrong" - so your argument does not stand.
@Fishqueen1972 "intrinsic value from his subjective perspective".... you finally got it - we are the way we are because of who created us' mind, example if we build a robot, it can only do what we design it do - matter simply is not self directional....
@heinno777 because replication requires that the replicator be healthy enough to replicate, which means having resources like food and water. So as populations grow, there will be competition for limited resources. You are correct that specific things need to happen in certain sequences, but why would that be a problem for a naturalist perspective? Remember this process has very simple beginnings, and it gains complexity over time. It's not spontaneous creation of complex creatures.
@heinno777 People want to be "good" because people want to maximize their well being, and often doing things that doesn't he any return to them (like donating to charity) can increase that feeling of well being. Something is wrong if it diminishes the well-being. Therefore, if we want to increase well being, we ought to do good. Sorry to sound tautological, but that's what it boils down to. Well being is preferable to suffering.
@heinno777 It is not an illusion. Personal meaning can only be granted by the person. Even if you say that as a Christian, the meaning is fulfilled in God, you are still choosing that perspective. You are forfeiting your right to determine for yourself what your life is worth. It's a comforting thought, since no one wants to have to confront objective meaninglessness. It's easier to surrender to a placebo to simply tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it less or more illusory.
@heinno777 I think some of the problem here is the term "moral law." You seem to be thinking that it must function in the same ways civil laws do, that we shouldn't do it or else we will be punished. Morality is an evolutionary advantage: If we aren't interested in each others well being, our own well being is compromised, and our chances of surviving and reproducing are lowered. It is an understanding, a sense. It is not a treatise or a dictum.
@heinno777 Pt 1: I don't mean to sound irritable, but I am growing frustrated with your constant equivocation of atheism with nihilism. I have described how atheism does not entail nihilism, that the absence of a creator god increases our value as individuals, since we can *create* meaning for ourselves (not *find* it, we *create it*), and that asserts us as individuals. You have put forward no argument that meaning/value/etc is contingent on god, so I am justified is asserting it as an atheist.
@Fishqueen1972 "but that doesn't take away from the fact that it has function".... obviously - all matter has function - it is just used creatively by minds
@heinno777 "Craig still easily won the debate." How? As far as I could tell he seemed to be repeatedly insisting implicitly that naturalistic morality is impossible because it doesn't refer to his God, because he simply refuses to call any naturalistic phenomena morality, even if it is a satisfactory explanation for why humans behave in ways that we call moral. It's possible he could gain sympathy among other people who aren't interested in learning anything, but winning debates takes more.
@heinno777 Well if you look at it from that standpoint then I agree. However, there is more than one way of looking at this. Because we are part of nature, we are dependent upon it. Therefore, not above it, but bound to it.
@heinno777 Civil laws are not the same as laws of physics or moral laws. The laws of physics are not restrictions on how matter may behave, they are restrictions on how scientists may describe that behavior. The only "purpose" is ease of explanation. Morals laws do not dictate what we MUST do, rather they say what we OUGHT to do. There are many morals systems out there, an objective morality cannot be said to exist, unless we create one. All these laws can be traced back to human minds.
@Fishqueen1972 "How can an immaterial eternal mind exist in a dimension with no time?" ... most astronomers and physicists agree there are other dimensions that we cannot comprehend - God simply exists in one of those.
@heinno777 pt 3: Lastly, why did you say "on atheism though there is no free will (as per Dennett et al.)?" Dennett asserts, as an atheist, that there IS free will, hence his book "Freedom Evolves." That's largely his life's work. Why would you reference a supporter of atheistic free will to argue that atheism has no free will? With all due respect, are you even paying attention to what you're writing?
@Fishqueen1972 "Animals with lesser brains don't have our amount of freewill, they are mostly determined"... I agree, the lower the life form the lower the free-will level - all the way up to God with the highest level of free-will, because He is not bound by matter time and space, so He has perfect control over the matter/space/time.
@aaronstately "demand answering the most" Useless. If you can´t answer all (and you can´t, given the time), the next move of Craig is "Oh, but he did not answer ALL my points, so I win" "because he did that" He did that because in this format he can interact with the opponent to address points on demmand, wich does not give Craig chance to spit unanswered points like a machine gun. The time for answers is not fixed, and the debate moves forward only when both finish with a given point.
@Omnicron777 "morality is not objective" I´m shure Kagan will disagree with you. To show that morality is objective is the goal of his arguments in this video. Morality has nothing to do with sympathy, although it is a biological trait of our brains that helps the occurence of moral behaviour. A world full of pshycos would not have the ability to understand morality at emotional level, but would have to build moral codes by rational means if they desire to survive and live well in the group.
@richp860 on that logic, why would it be bad or good for God to command rape is okay or not okay? i don't see how that is a relevant or meaningful point u just made..
@Fishqueen1972 "what the person is learning is information imprinted on material that is already in the brain"... exactly, it is not matter - but it exists - agreed - it changes matter, just like any mind can do - mind over matter
@DrEvolutionQuest i understand what his stance is and what view he INTENDS to express. However his WORDS speak more to creationism as opposed to evolution
WLC's question was "why is it wrong for humans to murder when it's not wrong for animals to murder?" Kagan's answer was "Because we can recognize and appreciate reasons not to do it." That answer makes more sense than "because God told me not to do it." You can always push the regress further, but as Kagan noted, sooner or later everyone has to say "because it just is (or so it seems to me)."
Craig is right that there is no innate "right" or "wrong". However, there are logical and illogical actions. Murdering, stealing and lying makes life for a social species like us who depend on each other for survival impossible. Therefore we have labelled those behaviours "wrong" and instituted punishments to deter these behaviours.
Why am I not surprised that WLC "fails" to understand. It's an argument from credulity substituting for a rational argument.
I'm never quite sure whether WLC is not as bright as he thinks, or whether he considers it reasonable to be dishonest in order to pander to his cherished beliefs in a big SkyFairy. Both, perhaps. BS is probably lucrative, though he's fighting a losing game.
I should be more clear: Morality as we currently think of it isn't SOLELY the result of evolution, but the roots of it are. It is also the result of inculturation, including our everyday experiences, what we are taught, what we read, and what causes pain/pleasure. It is the result of many different things, but the foundation is evolutionary. We do not need a cosmic enforcer to tell us what is moral, and even if we had such a being, on what grounds could it say we ought to obey him?
@Hektor88 From the Time Magazine article "Einstein on Faith" - "For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe."
What debate is this from?
The point not understood by Kagan is a philosophical one. He argues from a developmental and contingent point of view: "we don't murder because there are auxiliary reasons to not do so. We are reasonable enough to know." Instead the point is: murder is wrong in itself. There are no pros and cons that decide. Indeed, there are scenarios where murder seems permissible (plotting to kill Hitler). However, 'reasoning' does not change murder as an evil act. Craig's point Kagan Nutwit couldn't grasp.
that has ascended to such a high level of intellect. And that's us humans. We are lightyears ahead of our "cousins" AND COUNTING, as they have yet to evolve. As an evolutionist, if that's not humility i don't know what is
This whole debate is great. Kagan almost seems to have convinced Craig by the end. Craig seems positively shaken to me.
I agree. You make a good point.
To reject those feelings like guilt that tell you you are in the wrong, because of naturalistic beliefs, is to be mentally unhealthy. That is why murder is wrong. Becoming nihilistic does not wipe out morality. 2:36 Sam Harris correctly bases morality on the implications of our behaviour on ourselves and others.
@lfzadra I Dont see it like that, If WLC wants to debate in the style he likes why is he here debating?
Why do all the debate s differ in openings, rebuttals and closings?
It appears to be a standard Format for all debates.
I cant see why Hichens, Krauss, Harris cant put together decent arguments and rebuff WLC's Arguments in the time they are given.
Could you please give examples of why the format favors WLC and the Tricks he pulls?
@corioa " However, 'reasoning' does not change murder as an evil act "
- That's only because you are conflating murder with killing.
If you have a reason to kill someone, ie: self defence... then it is no longer murder.
Murder is simply what we call killing when there are reasons not to do it.
Playing with words doesn't help your case.
" Craig's point Kagan Nutwit couldn't grasp "
- Kagan not only grasped it... he answered it... and he did it without calling anyone names.
@Fishqueen1972 "failure to apply logic consistently to use a natural law of creation which are bound by the natural laws to account for the natural laws before they existed".... I am not sure what you are referring to?
"Murder is simply what we call killing when there are reasons not to do it.
Playing with words doesn't help your case."
Are you playing with words when you define murder in that way?
Let me explain why I ask: If I were to kill someone, I would think that there would ALWAYS be a reason not to do have done it. I can come up with a reason to do anything (but that doesn't change the fact that I personally think some reasons are ridiculous).
I stole it because I did. Is that a valid reason?
@Alexdurrant7 How did they decide who loses or not?
@Hektor88 "The problem with the Christian moral view is that the ultimate motivating factor is fear"... you are obviously not a Christian, so you can't really know what is is about. Craig explains this beautifully in his debate against Harris - you should treat yourself and watch it. NOTE, I am not arguing for Christainity here, merely the neccesity for a overall authority (intelligent entity) to set the moral law
@heinno777 To quote Albert Camus, "It was previously a question of finding out whether or not life had to have a meaning to be lived. It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning." The universe, and our lives, have no objective meaning, and I for one am happy with that. It allows me to create meaning and value for myself. I can assert myself as an individual, and not be crushed by the weight of some authoritarian value that i must adhere to.
Domination
@heinno777 The question can be asked in reverse. "Why not be good for goodness sake?" Once a living creature can reflect & understand the good vs bad concepts and understand right & wrong actions, then the creature can understand whether or not his action would be labeled good or bad. Just because someone chooses a bad action would not change the fact that it is a bad action.
Wow! I'm magically convinced!
That's debatable.
@Hektor88 “I am growing frustrated ... constant equivocation of atheism with nihilism”... Sorry if you are offended by my view, but I think it is a question of terminology. I see nihilism as the view that there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we artificially give to it - is that not the same as atheism’s view?
If a christian argues that God's command is the ONLY thing that makes murder and rape wrong, then they cannot argue that a God who permitted those things would be worse than a God who forbade them. Thus, they destroy their own arguement. If you argue that how humans feel about murder is not as important as what we are simply told to do by an unseen God, then you are arguing against morality.
This is excellent! See this one isn't hosted by Craig! :)
@Fishqueen1972 "Again you suffer from the Trickle Down fallacy"... we both have digressed from the topic a long long time ago, but I think it is of great value to talk/think about the underpinning building blocks of our individual viewpoints. It helps to gain insight and respect for each others thoughts (at least in my opinion)
Why are people hating on Craig just because he is smart and can't be refuted.... Don't people ever think that maybe his arguments are the same because no one has refuted them? Sigh, really sad...
I prefer the term 'evisceration'. But yes. Brilliant. :)
What bothers me is Craig's intellectual dishonesty: he continues making these same (obliterated) arguments again and again, despite the fact that it has repeatedly been spelled out for him in very clear terms why he is wrong.
@Omnicron777 The reason why he looks so bad here is the debate format, not the opponent. Craig´s is a master of his usual debate format, where he can use his bag of tricks, for example:
- Raise several points in your turn
- The opponent can´t answer all in time
- After that, claim victory because the opponent didn´t asnwer all points.
Sam Harris explicity denied this trap in his debate with Craig, and used all his time to counter attack instead of just give a point to Craig. A wise move.
@Hektor88 “Dennett asserts, as an atheist, that there IS free will”.... yes, but it is his view that it (free will) just got to do with “bringing your body parts into the best position” so that you have the best opportunity to survive. The one that can foresee the future the best is the best adapted to survive. See Plantinga argument: Evolutionary argument against Naturalism.
Dr Craig is just a skilled user of sophistry and rhetorics
@heinno777 Yes there can be. To put it simply, good is what helps people, bad it was harms people. You can ask "why should I care?" or "Why should I do things that help others if atheism is true?" but that same complaint holds for the theist as well: So what if God says X is good? Why should I do it? The atheist would say "because good is worth doing for it's own sake," while the Christian would say "because if you don't do it God will kick your ass." So Christian morality is ultimately coersive
@heinno777 He didn't attack the individual. He essentially attacked Craigs method of objection as being childish naysaying. When you're presented with the statement roughly like "Wrongness of action is a property that arises when agents reach a level of insight that lets them reflect on the consequences of their actions to themselves and others", that's a definition by the way, you can't just reply that you don't see how that morality could come about.
@Hektor88 "good is what helps people, bad it was harms people" The concept that you are missing is that on atheism there is no "good" and "bad" concepts. We are simply animals - if one dog kills another dog - it is not murder - there is no "good" or "bad".
"while the Christian would say "because if you don't do it God will kick your ass"... I see your point, but ask yourself - why do you want to be "good" - Why, "be good for goodness sake"
@Fishqueen1972 ... because a BMW and a Toyota both has 4 wheels and a steering wheel, does not mean that they come from the same factory - but it points to the fact that they are designed by a mind that understand what is needed to make a motor-vehicle function - simple yes?
I agree WLC was defeated !!!
ESPECIALLY at the end when WLC has to appeal to morality based on consequences of an after life and meaning only matters due to eternal life.
Shelly wiped the floor with WLC - of course we can live a life of meaning & value even if life is temporary and of course we dont need to appeal to afterlives to justify morality !!! Well done S.Kagan ! WLC deliberatelly uses sophistry and rhetoric and does sound good.
@Fishqueen1972 " I claimed that God had no freewill." .... I do see what this have to do with the fact that I said robots cannot do anything that we have not designed it to do. Your point is simply a red herring, because you have no counter argument. To refute my point you have to proof that matter can create direction, without a "mind"
[How does reasoning create morality? At best it allows us to recognize morals.]
How does reason create knowledge? At best it allows us to recognize that there are some truths to be found out there. Reason does not grant that there´s such thing as knowledge and can't even say if we already found some.
Craig invoking God to explain moral knowledge is an attempt to solve a mystery with another. It´s moral because it's consistent with God's moral nature. I know it because God told me. Crap.
@heinno777 pt 1Yes, there are good and bad concepts: bad is what HARMS PEOPLE, good is what HELPS PEOPLE. That is the standard, we don't need Big Brother. The difference between humans and other animals, as Kagan explains in this vid, is that we can appreciate reasons to not inflict harm. Even if you say "All i want to do is maximize my own well being and don't care about others," then you would STILL have to help others, because your own well being is contingent on other people not hating you.
Kagan does a great job of teasing out Craigs flawed reasoning, who even falls foul of the naturalist fallacy! - can his thinking be really that simplistic? I guess Craig has built up his world view around the acceptance of Christianity as a driving force. An atheist with no such agenda, does not have the same built in naivety
@Hektor88 "To quote Albert Camus".....Camus' whole life was defined by wanting to be a rebel, some people don't like to be told what to do - this quote confirms this once again - it does not really have any wisdom locked up in it - it just says he want to make his own choices - on atheism though there is no free will (as per Dennett et al.) , so the phylosophy once again implodes.
@Fishqueen1972 'Or was this dimension a default?'.... it is default - just note, it is a timeless/spaceless/matterless dimention.
@Gnomefro "he seemed to be repeatedly insisting implicitly that naturalistic morality is impossible because it doesn't refer to his God".... that is not quite his argument... he is saying that if there is no "moral law" giver - there can be no "moral law" to be broken. On Atheism, humans are just a grouping of molecules - therefore is is no different killing a person than chopping down a tree..... cont
@heinno777 The difference is that insects are mostly not social species. Bees (for ex.) are, and they have a kind of herd mentality that hasn't developed further since they don't have the brain capacity for it. Humans and other primates are social species with much greater brain capacity, so a more complex system can evolve than just the herd mentality. Humans naturally gravitate to each other and create communities, and morality is useful for keeping the community peaceful and functional.
@Hektor88 "then I have no reason to accept nihilism as an atheist" .... your logic make sense - I agree with that statement. The counter argument though, is that self fabricated meaning cannot be have a real value if it is based on the chemical reactions in your brain. I UNDERSTAND that atheists argue is if for the "overall well being" on consious creatures, but the question remains - why does these creatures need to be well, if wellness is just a series of reactions in the brain?
@aaronstately "why is he here debating?" Kagan is clearly less hostile to Craig´s position than others.
"Could you please give examples" Misquoting and the suggestion that the opponent accepted some of your points. You can build entirely bogus speeches without being interrupted and make impact on the audience. The damage is irrecoverable. Another tactic is to raise more points than the opponent can handle in the time given. Such thing is not possible when opponents can interact.
@heinno777 Technically speaking, what creative story someone may write may not be freewill. You just assume it is.There may just be a deterministric and random factor going on there.How can you account for WHY you wrote a particular story instead of a different story?Does everyone have the ability to compose a musical. If freewill is true, then I should be able to create a new melody tomorrow without any musical talent. Do we choose our talents? Can we account for why we might not like liver?
And have you actually read any of it?
Also, no, actually, there are not *hundreds of peer-reviewed* Craig articles. And any average Joe can get a Ph.D and normal articles published. To call his collective offerings 'philosophy' is a huge stretch.
@heinno777 Your absolutely right! It is still wrong even if you can get away with it. This means that right/wrong are independent of any accountability, removing the need for God as a kind of cosmic judge. My explanation was supposed to relate how evolution would favor morality, since it helps keep people alive and able to reproduce, but i agree wholly that right/wrong are independent of accountability.
@heinno777 5.What I am saying is that whenever creatures like us come to be, objective morality automatically comes to be. Even if God created earth and created us the way we are, he would have no NEED to create objective morality. He would have no need to dictate it or account for it. All it takes are self valuing social creatures dependent upon one another & placed in the same environment for objective morality to exist. So objective morality CAN come about independently of our origin.
@Fishqueen1972 . "You are basically saying the same thing with objective morality".... thanks for explaining your point so clearly. I think what you do not understand about my view is the fact that I am not arguing that God has to have his own set of morals for him to create a set of morals for us. The morals he created for us has an intended outcome - there is no outcome intended for Him - because he will simply be forever.... see the difference?
@Fishqueen1972 "engineer will choose the simplest of the two models"... you are correct, one of the enginering principals is - simpler is better - because complexity is hard to control - all things naturally default to simplicity. The focus here is on "choose" - only a mind can "choose".... you should be getting the picture now
He's a religious apologist with a Ph.D. Nothing more.
@heinno777 If no human removed driftwood from a bank, then the driftwood builds up undirected over time. It builds up into a huge wall of driftwood. Let's compare the driftwood wall to a brick wall which we know was designed. Which one of the two walls is more complex? The driftwood wall is far more complex. It wasn't designed for the purpose of a wall, but it functions as a wall just the same. So here you have undirected complexity which can function without forsight.
+Akron162 What about anti-matter? What about radiation? What about light and time? Is time matter or energy or does it not exist?
Starting at 4:25, but specifically at 4:53 onward, it sounds to me like this gentlemen is offering evidence for creationism. That us as humans are set apart from the other animals, rather than simply being an evolved ape...
@MrDarkbloom "Craig has not changed his arguments here in any significant way" The answer is simple: Craig is not interested in advances in human understanding of the world, just proceed with his crusade for Jesus. He doesn´t need good arguments, just keep repeating the bad ones with a straight face. This is all he needs to impress his audience and give the impression that belief in God is a rational endeavour. He is a rhetorical magician, maybe some kind of lawyer, not a thinker.
@Gnomefro "He essentially attacked Craigs method of objection as being childish naysaying."... I did no see his arguments as naysaying. He was simply trying to explain why the statement is illogical based on an atheistic worldview. There logically cannot be "good' or "bad" concepts on atheism - like Dawkins said - it all just pittyless indifference.
@Hektor88 - what I mean by "reason" to "reproduce" is that if organisms were matter alone - there would be no reason why there would be "survival" competitiveness build into their make-up. To compete points to a will or a purpose to win - evolution cannot have a purpose - threfore I cannot logically bring the 2 together, but you might help me to undertand it better. I will check out "Existence precedes essence" - is it on youtube?
@heinno777 You just contradicted what you said in your last post. You said that if God says killing is good then it is good. now you are saying the opposite.
@Fishqueen1972 "The driftwood wall is far more complex"... it is not more complex - simply more chaotic. The end result of chaos is decay - the driftwood wall is a fstage of decay of a forrest - in the end there wood rots and ends up in the lowest complexity possible for life - simple carbon
@Hektor88 - I have read Freedom Evolves and found it interesting and insightful. He has plausible theories about consciousness and free will; by the same token it’s speculative; you have to admit.
Obviously consciousness/decision-power is seated in the functions of the brain; nobody argues that. He makes the same mistake so many naturalists make though; he thinks that when we understand how things work there is no reason for a creator. The fact that it works is sound evidence of a creator
@Fishqueen1972 "For example, birds have genes for teeth".... yes, and we have genes for laying eggs, but that does not mean we layed eggs before - like a car has nuts and bolds - also used in mortorcycles - does not mean the nuts and bolds came from a motorcyle - they simple look the same - man I can'st see why this is such a hard concept - it just seems so obvious.
@Hektor88 "how can you know what atheism is".... isn't atheism just the absence of any doctrine?
"I have offered real responses to your objections".... they were utterly lagging
"If you're satisfied by your delusion, your welcome to be"... okay, if you want to leave on that note... I will leave with the final thought. Julian Huxley (famous evolutionist) cried out on his deathbed “So it is true after all, so it is true after all.”
@Fishqueen1972 - Mind is not matter - example: if you weigh a person and he learns something very complex while you are weighing him - his weight does not go up - so mind is not matter, as there is more mind involved learning something that not. Information (product of mind) is information not Matter or Energy, it can never be reduced to material origins - Norbert Wiener (Information scientists)
@Fishqueen1972 "Remember, an engineer designs for the purpose of simplicity, optimal function, and less waste".... because engineers have limited resources, time and energy - the creator of these, do not have any limitations of these, so he cannot logically be wastefull
@Hektor88 "This means that right/wrong are independent of any accountability, removing the need for God as a kind of cosmic judge" - the question then remains on atheism - why is it wrong? How can matter "judge" on what is "good" or "bad" - why do people want to be "good"
@heinno777 The goal of evolution isn't actually survival of the individual, but survival of the gene, meaning reproduction. Why? Because that's how the chemicals interact. It begins with very basic chemistry, and evolves to be more complex chemistry like we are. The traditional ideas of "alive" and
"not" don't really work here.
You're right that life seems to be the opposite of nature's patterns. It is incredibly rare in this universe, and seems to be more of a biproduct than an inevitability.
@heinno777 The problem with the Christian moral view is that the ultimate motivating factor is fear: Follow God's commands or else you will be punished. It denies the importance of a human moral sense, since the entire thing is based on coercion. I can say "act moral to alleviate suffering," and say that is my basic statement. Why should you do that? Because alleviating suffering is something we are all interested in; no one likes to suffer. That is my axiomatic statement, my bedrock.
@lfzadra I asked for examples. anyone can claim someone misquotes, name the debate and the misquote.
It dosnt matter the amount of points made. if the other debater makes attempts to anwser them and runs out of time then one can not be accused of not answering them. Simply answer the questions that demand answering the most.
That is why i thought Kagan did so well, because he did that.
The reason this format is not used because it tends to go off in a tangent of conversation not relative.
Bit hard to get a idea from this clip alone of the total debate. I have watched it and I thought both Argued remarkably, Kagan is easily the best i have seen against WLC,
My opnion is that they both left us off at where they started... What is Wright and Wrong? where does it come from ? And a question i dont hear much which is very Chicken and egg.... What came first...the Right... or the Wrong? With KAgan this is relative there is no real right or wrong, we know WLC though.
@Hektor88 "Morals laws do not dictate what we MUST do, rather they say what we OUGHT to do'....correct, but only because you have free will. If you wish not to you can pay the consequences. Example - you ought to stop at a red traffic light, but you do not have to, if you are willing to pay the consequences. You see how our laws follow the same pattern as moral laws - its got all the characteristices of a "mind-created" thing - designed to achieve something.
Craig clearly makes all the points and refutes the frank equivocations of Harris in the debate who seems intent upon presenting people who believe in a rational foundation for moral law as irrational. How paradoxical. Like the pictures above, the objective is just to get an emotional response to the argument. I think there's a real issue here of actual intelligence and intelligent consideration of the issues. Craig relies on reason. Harris simply begs the question. Disappointing.
@heinno777 It is far more complex, if you want to describe it as chaotic then fine, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it has function. And really helped my point given the fact that nature is chaotic & undirected at the macro-level. Species go extinct. We all die & decay. Stars burn out in heat death. Galaxies collide. Etc. Nature is more like the driftwood wall, not the brick wall.
Nope I'm not.
Sure you can come up with reasons to do or not do anything...
and you have to weigh up those reasons.
If you were defending yourself from death, is that murder?
Not in a legal sense...
So are the law courts playing with words?
It's all semantics.
@heinno777 "just a series of reactions in the brain?" If that's what well-being is, then that's what well-being is. I don't think it devalues it to explain it as chemical interactions. That may be all it is, but that's all that's needed.
The point is that the more parsimonious something is, the better fit it is in evolutionary terms, because it takes less resources. Seeing the world that actually exists takes far less effort than constructing an elaborate illusion.
No. murder is wrong because we have concious brains that have adapted in an environment that does well when people are empathetic, and try to better the comunity.in which they live.
@Hektor88 Plantinga's argument says that: given evolution is true and naturalism is true, you cannot trust that your thoughts are logical. How does occam's razor come into play, as this argument does not envoke any claimed causes or explanations.
@Hektor88 "because your own well being is contingent on other people not hating you"... I agree with your statement, but it causes a problem. Example: If you cause harm to somebody and nobody can find out that you have done so - it is still wrong, the fact that other people know is irrelevant to "right" or "wrong" - so your argument does not stand.
@Fishqueen1972 "intrinsic value from his subjective perspective".... you finally got it - we are the way we are because of who created us' mind, example if we build a robot, it can only do what we design it do - matter simply is not self directional....
@heinno777 because replication requires that the replicator be healthy enough to replicate, which means having resources like food and water. So as populations grow, there will be competition for limited resources. You are correct that specific things need to happen in certain sequences, but why would that be a problem for a naturalist perspective? Remember this process has very simple beginnings, and it gains complexity over time. It's not spontaneous creation of complex creatures.
@heinno777 People want to be "good" because people want to maximize their well being, and often doing things that doesn't he any return to them (like donating to charity) can increase that feeling of well being. Something is wrong if it diminishes the well-being. Therefore, if we want to increase well being, we ought to do good. Sorry to sound tautological, but that's what it boils down to. Well being is preferable to suffering.
@DrEvolutionQuest Set apart from all other species.... exactly my point.
@heinno777 It is not an illusion. Personal meaning can only be granted by the person. Even if you say that as a Christian, the meaning is fulfilled in God, you are still choosing that perspective. You are forfeiting your right to determine for yourself what your life is worth. It's a comforting thought, since no one wants to have to confront objective meaninglessness. It's easier to surrender to a placebo to simply tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it less or more illusory.
@heinno777 I think some of the problem here is the term "moral law." You seem to be thinking that it must function in the same ways civil laws do, that we shouldn't do it or else we will be punished. Morality is an evolutionary advantage: If we aren't interested in each others well being, our own well being is compromised, and our chances of surviving and reproducing are lowered. It is an understanding, a sense. It is not a treatise or a dictum.
@heinno777 Pt 1: I don't mean to sound irritable, but I am growing frustrated with your constant equivocation of atheism with nihilism. I have described how atheism does not entail nihilism, that the absence of a creator god increases our value as individuals, since we can *create* meaning for ourselves (not *find* it, we *create it*), and that asserts us as individuals. You have put forward no argument that meaning/value/etc is contingent on god, so I am justified is asserting it as an atheist.
@Fishqueen1972 "but that doesn't take away from the fact that it has function".... obviously - all matter has function - it is just used creatively by minds
@heinno777 "Craig still easily won the debate."
How? As far as I could tell he seemed to be repeatedly insisting implicitly that naturalistic morality is impossible because it doesn't refer to his God, because he simply refuses to call any naturalistic phenomena morality, even if it is a satisfactory explanation for why humans behave in ways that we call moral. It's possible he could gain sympathy among other people who aren't interested in learning anything, but winning debates takes more.
@richp860 not trying to be rude, I just don't see what the problem is there
@heinno777 Well if you look at it from that standpoint then I agree. However, there is more than one way of looking at this. Because we are part of nature, we are dependent upon it. Therefore, not above it, but bound to it.
@heinno777 Civil laws are not the same as laws of physics or moral laws. The laws of physics are not restrictions on how matter may behave, they are restrictions on how scientists may describe that behavior. The only "purpose" is ease of explanation. Morals laws do not dictate what we MUST do, rather they say what we OUGHT to do. There are many morals systems out there, an objective morality cannot be said to exist, unless we create one. All these laws can be traced back to human minds.
@Fishqueen1972 "How can an immaterial eternal mind exist in a dimension with no time?" ... most astronomers and physicists agree there are other dimensions that we cannot comprehend - God simply exists in one of those.
@heinno777 pt 3: Lastly, why did you say "on atheism though there is no free will (as per Dennett et al.)?" Dennett asserts, as an atheist, that there IS free will, hence his book "Freedom Evolves." That's largely his life's work. Why would you reference a supporter of atheistic free will to argue that atheism has no free will? With all due respect, are you even paying attention to what you're writing?
@Fishqueen1972 "Animals with lesser brains don't have our amount of freewill, they are mostly determined"... I agree, the lower the life form the lower the free-will level - all the way up to God with the highest level of free-will, because He is not bound by matter time and space, so He has perfect control over the matter/space/time.
@aaronstately "demand answering the most" Useless. If you can´t answer all (and you can´t, given the time), the next move of Craig is "Oh, but he did not answer ALL my points, so I win"
"because he did that" He did that because in this format he can interact with the opponent to address points on demmand, wich does not give Craig chance to spit unanswered points like a machine gun. The time for answers is not fixed, and the debate moves forward only when both finish with a given point.
@Omnicron777 "morality is not objective" I´m shure Kagan will disagree with you. To show that morality is objective is the goal of his arguments in this video. Morality has nothing to do with sympathy, although it is a biological trait of our brains that helps the occurence of moral behaviour. A world full of pshycos would not have the ability to understand morality at emotional level, but would have to build moral codes by rational means if they desire to survive and live well in the group.
@richp860 on that logic, why would it be bad or good for God to command rape is okay or not okay? i don't see how that is a relevant or meaningful point u just made..
Craig's reputation is falling apart....
@Fishqueen1972 "what the person is learning is information imprinted on material that is already in the brain"... exactly, it is not matter - but it exists - agreed - it changes matter, just like any mind can do - mind over matter
@DrEvolutionQuest i understand what his stance is and what view he INTENDS to express. However his WORDS speak more to creationism as opposed to evolution