Well if you think Mohammed split the moon on a winged horse is silly but some guy walked on water is reasonable, then yea some people could think that.
Carrier won this debate hands down. Esposito's argument is based on ignorance, we don't know therefore, God. What he seems to fail to realize is that all of his argument for how something can come from nothing and the human mind can't be the result of evolution MUST apply to his God unless he can explain how something can come from nothing, in which case God is irrelevant.
As Christians we need to become better with our own understanding of why we believe . What the actual reasons are that can be supported. The key is to convince the person who is sitting on the fence. From what I have objectively observed is that the top atheist thinkers seem to be much or intellectually honest in their search for the truth. The most important thing to discover in life is what is in fact true about existence. Let's get better with being intellectually honest about reality
Esposito's using not just William Lane Craig's exact arguments but in the same order, with the same techinques and vocabulary. When I heard "contentions" and "objective moral values" I just had to smile.
The Christian failed to leave his script and actually address many of Carrier's finer points, instead opting to simply repeat his arguments over and over as if their repetition constituted a rebuttal. Then he concluded with a pathetic call to faith just like his idol WLC -- from whom he copied his script/arguments right down to particular phrases and grammar usage. What an embarrassing display. I don't even tend to like Carrier, yet here we watched him mop the floor with this Christian hack.
I got the impression that Lenny thought that, by advancing multiple arguments, he was erecting an extremely sturdy edifice that Richard would struggle to overcome... Only to have each and every component of those arguments bulldozed with very little expenditure of effort on Richard's part.
Esposito's ignorance on neurology is cringeworthy: _"People with half of their brain removed and half remaining can still function, therefore the mind can't reside in the brain"_ Huh? Richard clearly pointed out that there's enough redundancy in the brain that even if you lose half your brain, its still possible to survive. If the mind was not physical then we would expect the person to still survive just as well with NO BRAIN AT ALL. But in reality people need a brain, and usually injuries to the brain impair the person to bigger or lesser degree!
"whatever has a beginning must have a cause"... actually, no. Virtual particles are created all the time in a vacuum. They have no "cause". They arise solely from the statistical chance in Quantum Mechanics that energy will change into a particle/anti-particle pair. So... something created without a cause. It's entirely possible that the universe and indeed an infinite number of universes can be created without a cause just like virtual particles do in space.
Carrier refutes the guy's points but it's like he doesn't even hear it...he just keeps repeating the arguments again and again. What's the point of debating someone like that?
last first you described every atheist vs. theist debate ever :) Imo the point is the audience, especially since we can share it on YT. If 1 of 100 people realizes what you summed up the debate was already worthwhile.
It's always good to have this kind of debate because we get to see how the inner workings of a creationist mind work. I find it amusing how they think and assemble "evidence".
Esposito is outmatched here. Carrier constantly gives specific reasons why god is improbable and Esposito appears as though he wasn't paying attention at all.
Wait, at around 1:09:45 where he talks about jumping from a bottomless pit regarding an infinite past, does he not foresee an infinite future? Why is an infinite future feasible but not an infinite past, while at the same time believing that God has an infinite "past" (while being outside of time)?
Ethical naturalism/materialism holds that people have an inherent value because they are *persons*. Just because personhood arises from material foundations, doesn't negate it. A person missing a limb, or with a disability is still just as much a person. They still meet the criteria of personhood. Personhood is not measured based on having limbs or not being disabled. We don't measure people's humanity and value in traits like strength, intellect or wealth because we deem those to be less important compared to personhood. We grant every human certain inalienable basic rights merely because they are a human being, which is still a physical condition.
As an atheist that's all I ask is intellectual honesty. And to be fair I think there are lots of believers who are intellectually honest. Only none of them appear to work in the area of apologetics. I mean the idea that the brain has nothing to do with consciousness is bizarre.
I really like both of these guys!! I don't understand the negative comments for just a difference of understanding the evidences. Thanks for the great debate guys!!
I wish Carrier had hit harder on morality, and how Christians cannot point to a divine lawgiver without acknowledging serious confusion about what that law actually is. Morality is one of the weakest theistic arguments.
Eventually Esposito just starts repeating his arguments without acknowledging or dealing with Carrier's refutations to them lol. Either he is too stupid to realize the problems of his arguments or too dishonest to want to acknowledge them and incapable of handling them
Lenny, Lenny, I just find your arguments in this debate really stretching the real world to confirm to your beliefs. Really hope that some day you can stop fighting and join the atheist side.
I used to think that as well, but now I'm not sure. Could you point out some evidence for Jesus of Nazareth (this is not a 'gotcha' at all. I am sincerely interested in the evidence).
I'm really curious as to where these Christian apologetics are coming from. There are a few of them that are nearly identical in content to William Lane Craig (and sometimes even pacing and intonation in this case). I hear them from WLC most often and I heard them from him first (listening to him go up against Harris and Hitchens) but there could be an older source. Is WLC the "prime mover", the "uncaused cause" of this nonsense, or is he cribbing from somewhere and he's just the popularizer of some earlier work?
prolucifer I find he's growing on me and I'm starting to like him. Not that I find his arguments any more convincing and I think he's become a liability to Christianity; any time you hear him speak, you immediately get the links to the refutations in the UA-cam suggestions. Free and open access to information is the enemy of apologetics. But man, if you heard his bit on the modal ontological argument for the greatest possible pizza.... I was laughing for an hour.
The societal construct of driving on one particular side of the road over another as an arbitrary non-dilemma, does not have an objectively negative benefit to the well-being of people… …that is why it doesn’t have anything to do with morality. Morality pertains to the social capacity to OBJECTIVELY increase or decrease the well-being of conscious life.
+Bjørn Iversen ; the way the argument is worded makes it near impossible for the theist to win. Think if the debate was "is naturalism real" who would win then? it is easy to say "well you have not proved evolution is true yet, and you have not proven how the universe came into being." The person on defense when neither side has been proven to be true will always lose.
Carrier would still win. He knows how to make a positive case, weighing one against the other. He does this in his book Sense and Goodness Without God (and in his related blog posts). You don't have to achieve 100% certainty, you just need a far higher probability than the competing hypothesis.
bpansky your example is still 2 things that make a claim. The title "is naturalism true" is only one thing. You cannot weigh one against nothing. "goodness" cannot be defined so it just shows you his ignorance for attempting to prove it exists with no definition.
spartacus the bringer of rain Um, I've read the book he does often talk about alternatives. You can see for yourself in the table of contents: books.google.ca/books?id=oFdMzq56qyEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Goodness can be defined. Otherwise we wouldn't find it to be a useful or meaningful word at all, it would be gibberish like a made up word, such as "dofulprew". Goodness means something has the quality of being desirable. How on earth did you come to believe that it couldn't be defined?
bpansky just dive right on in. www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp13_tanner.pdf the word good is just a way of expressing emotions and does not need a definition. Another world like this is the F world. You can look at another word like beautiful which does the same thing. The only way you can attempt to define beautiful is if you base it off evolution or some religion. Any other use which is not based off those meanings like clothing nature and flowers is just an expression of your emotions. --i would think it is much like a dog or infant reading your emotions with no knowledge of the human language. to counter what you said. It is good to help the poor but i do not desire it.
+QuakePhil Holy Sh$t!! This is the first I've heard this gentleman and I thought the same thing. I was only listening to this whilst I'm at work and was about to leave a quotes calling this guy a cut-rate William Lying Craig. He even inflects words in the same way as WLC in the exact same places WLC would in a sentence.
+QuakePhil "As a matter of fact Dr. 'blahblahbla' states that something 'blah blah' is the case and my opponent doesn't agree so fuck him!" WLC in a nutshell
The Kalam argument is so weak and outdated and is getting very tiresome indeed. Like most professional apologists, Esposito is a well spoken brainwashed unscientific ignoramus drone with a limited number of arrows in his quiver.
Even if the Kalam was a sound argument (it isn't), all it could conclude is that the universe had a cause. This could be a simple physical cause. No intelligence required.
Sorry for the late reply. I addressed your first point in the previous reply, but to expand on it; many 1st century Jews actually did share the Christian belief in a physical resurrection, albeit Messiah or not. Christianity appealed to Hellenistic Jews and to Gentile God-fearers because it offered Jewish morality. Better yet, Hellenistic Jews considered Christianity to be a godsend. The closest thing that we have for evidence are Paul's letters, I really can't think of anything else.
Mr. Esposito seems like a decent fellow and expressed his points with a pleasant demeanor, and indeed, I'm sure he sincerely believes everything he said, but - I really grow tired of apologists continually asserting that the resurrection of Jesus is a settled matter of fact. Folklore based on heresay from nameless sources recounted by unknown authors meets no measurable standard of evidence. The rest of the points he raised just fall into the category of arguments from ignorance/incredulity, again, simply assertions with nothing approaching evidence to support a positive claim.
Amen to that. Though I think that a big part of the problem is that lots of theists first draw their conclusions based on often subjective/personal experiences and then try to find evidence to back it up to make it sound more reasonable. That's just top down logic. It's more valid if you follow the evidence where it leads and then draw your conclusions i.e. bottom-up logic. But you're right, they often are not very convincing in their speeches. BTW I'm an atheist.
42:33 - Also, if we had not chosen to create an orderly society then this debate wouldn't be hapening. You're back to many possibilities again. In fact, perhaps on many life bearing worlds there might not be morality - those words will never produce debates about questions such as this.
...The universe exists, therefore god. The universe is complicated, therefore god. Morality exists, therefore god. This is not evidence of a god. The representatives of an alleged all powerful entity should be able to do better.
This debate has missed the major point of Defining who or what God is.There are billions of people who don't believe in a Christian God.so the definition should be the most inclusive.If one where to define God as the intelligent consciousness behind the Universe it would be an entirely new debate.
It's in Carrier's advantage to argue against a well defined deity. Why would he push for a global & obscure construct. Often in debates theists retreat to a near deistic god when there arguments are refuted (See William Lane Craig, Reza Aslan, etc.).
***** Carrier's background also includes many years as a Taoist. The debate focused on a supernatural universe creating deity. This description is the prevailing sentiment of the majority of the worlds theists; even polytheists.
The idea of a supernatural deity is of relatively recent conception of the Abrahamic religions particularly Judeo- Christianity. A review of the ancient vedic and pagan philosophies will show that there was a commonly held belief that God /consciousness was immanent in all existence.This is called "Panentheism" which has a much longer history of belief than judean monotheism . It reigned for thousands of years and is the basis for much of the mythology of the ancient civilizations. It very simple argument to negate the possibility of a supernatural deity , particularly if " he " is a tribal God , its quite another argument to disprove consciousness is the essence of the universe.Which implies there are no super-natural inventions as the universe and humanity are all forms of consciousness.
The crucifixion of Jesus would actually have been readily embraceable as a means of salvation. It was a familiar religious conception, even in Hellenistic Judaism, where martyrdom is often set forth as expiations for the sins of Israel. This is because of the familiarity of the dying and rising god mytheme in that era. Consider the myth's of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Baal etc, of which some are even pre-Christian. So I don't get how Jesus' narrative would have been embarrassing for the Jews.
Con Hedrick God is eternal. Nobody is claiming that God was made. He is supernatural -- outside of space, time, and matter. The question is who made the space, time, and matter that make up our universe, since the evidence points to the universe having a definite beginning? Something can't come from nothing. Therefore, the Christian position is that something outside of space, time, and matter -- something supernatural -- made the universe.
andthereisntone Your view is not science, but philosophy. It is called philosophical naturalism. It is the assumption that nature is all there is. Your philosophical assumptions prevent you from objectively looking at the evidence, and from following the evidence to its logical conclusion, because you refuse to even entertain the possibility of the existence of God. In other words, no amount of evidence for God could persuade you, because you already come to the table with your mind made up that God does not exist because He can't exist. To prove my point, what would it take to convince you that God exists?
Liar. See Sense and Goodness Without God, it is not an assumption. It is based on the evidence. It could change with the evidence. Most opportunities are gone, the universe just doesn't look like how a god would do things. But the god could start giving consistent communications to everyone around the world. That should be easy, and it would be very convincing. Now put away your conspiracy theories, and face the fact that you've been duped by propaganda against atheists and naturalists.
How would a person in a coma not have the properties of being human? Unless he's referring to someone in a vegetative state; from Wikipedia: "The vegetative state is a chronic or long-term condition. This condition differs from a coma: a coma is a state that lacks both awareness and wakefulness."
For the love of humanity, can someone please teach Lenny Esposito how the burden of proof works and what the default position is regarding accepting claims! Also, his almost verbatim rip-off of William Lane Craig is frankly, pathetic.
The crux of Esposito's belief is revelation (as evidenced by his closing arguments). He says god/christ will reveal himself to you, despite billions of us who have asked as he implores. He also ignores the billions who've received revelation contrary to his. He believes his revelation is more correct than theirs, but gives no method as to why. It's just bias leading to false conclusions.
in christian faith God is the most high... yet he sacrificed his son for the sins of man.. now man makes sacrifice to god for forgiveness... why would god need forgiveness? and there must be a god higher than him if he made an offering.. and i say he because the religion makes god a man
+Chez iz Christ (God-King) Jesus is god look up the trinity. --if god is maximally good and maximally just then how can you save humans that have no faith in god and or sin. --you sacrifice yourself.
Your a christian... So go read the Noah Story and replace the God with The Earth... And then tell me how is it that we all know Earth is a living conscious being thats very old that we can connect with... She feeds you she sustains your life in every way but i bet you if supermarkets and money dissappeared and there was a famine and you had to get your food directly from her, i bet you then you forget about jesus.. I bet u wake up real fast.... Earth is supreme deity we live in her
then how did the earth get here derp. who or what made the earth, --if that was true then earth would have killed us all by now because we are like cancer.
the big bang is unknown and not complete because it uses infinity in its definition. to say that is a fact just means you lack knowledge in that area. ---what is nature? what is natural? if someone or something fabricates something is it still natural? if god created everything can you still call it nature and natural ? we do not call robots natural.
I am sorry Mr. Esposito when you claim a god exists you have to prove it. Just because you don´t understand it or science can´t explain something it does not mean god did it. It might surprise you Mr. Esposito when asking a child it does not understand the complexity of the universe but actuelly when we grow up we can. By the way be careful not to get sued by Craig for copying his same line of arguments he uses over and over again. Here is once more the god of ther gap argument in a new dress.
Esposito sounds like he's reading off of a script that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything his opponent says. He acts as if he can't hear anyone talking. His final argument was, "Big bangs need big bangers". I think that my seven year old niece could have debated Carrier more creatively, if not more efficiently as well.
7:15 The Lenny claims Carrier has to substantiate the non existence of God in order to hold that position. The kills the debate for me if he thinks this way. I don't believe in unicorns because I can prove their non-existence. It's just a dumb premise. Around 8:30 the stupidity continues in saying there had to be a beginning to matter (breaking a fundamental law of physics... soooo that's where he will insert his unknown, unidentifiable god of the gaps.... Oy I don't know if I can stomach much more.
Well, this is a debate titled "Does God Exist?". In debates like this, the person taking the negative position has to substantiate it. In this case, the position is "No, God does not exist." That's a claim that has to be justified in the debate, regardless of whether Dr. Carrier actually adheres to this position or not. To give an analogy, if this were a debate about climate change titled "Is Climate Change Real?", we wouldn't merely expect the denier to refute the evidence for climate change; we would also expect him to present evidence that the climate is *not* changing. So, I don't see why that has to be different in this case.
It's just false to say that natural selection only works when you have something that can reproduce by itself. Natural selection will also work on non-replicating molecules as long as there is some, possibly indirect, effect of the existence of a given molecule that enhances the chances of a new molecule being formed(Such as its shape making some long chain of other molecules more likely to form, one of which in turn makes the original more likely to form). So natural selection is known to be a mechanism that increases the power of replication of a system that doesn't have any full fledged replicators. Even completely without such mechanisms and only considering the random formation of molecules by random bumping together of atoms natural selection will operate and whatever molecules are the more stable will end up dominating.(Assuming equal probability of all molecules) This stuff has been understood since the origin of species and is why the theory of evolution got accepted. Such a misunderstanding really destroys Esposito's credibility as even marginally knowledgeable about evolutionary processes.
Not ANOTHER "does god exist" debate. If there were a god, there ought to be no need for these debates. Crayon marks and the universe mentioned in the same sentence! Gasp! I would be a whole lot more impressed to hear quantum physics and the universe mentioned in the same sentence, but no, "crayon marks" it is! "Immaterial, outside of space and timeless" - a weak attempt to define away (ie sweep under the carpet) the biggest problem creationists have - the creation of the creator. Fine tuning. How fine tuned does a creator have to be, to be the kind of creator who could create such a fine tuned universe?
If you can not get something from nothing ( the universe ) then something made God. I don't get how so many people can believe that such a powerful being ( God ) can come from nothing but everything else had to be created. Use logic people!
God doesn’t come from nothing. He is outside time, thus He never begins to exist. The claim is anything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.
@@comereason by that logic you have refuted the entire basis of theism. The moment such a being interacted with reality, it would initiate the beginning of an existence. Therefore no creation, no miracles, no sending part of himself in the form of a son, no revelation, etc, etc.
@@patersonplays No, you misunderstand. When God creates the material universe, he creates time as well, thus it only entails the beginning of time. This is completely compatible with how we understand modern cosmology. And Christianity has held that God is by definition a simple being (e.g. not a being separable into parts.)
@@comereason no, I think you misunderstand. By interacting with any part of reality (of which time is a part of), even by the very act of creating it in the first place, that implies he has an existence and a timeline and therefore needs a beginning by your own logic.
cut god or gods away from so-called holy books and clergy and once again we would have peace in just believing or not believing in gods. === one cannot proves that god[s] exists by solely thinking: conjecturing, assuming, explaining, or defining god[s].
I'm skeptical of Richard's claim that a person would still "be there" in a corpse given decay of the brain. Personality, memories, and such would be lost with the decay of the neurons that contain them. Although as an interesting thought experiment, if my current living body including the brain was somehow copied (let's say 3D printed with all molecules exactly the same), even if that clone would have my exact memories and personality, it would surely have its own "perspective" and branch off and be different from me over time given that it would have a different geometric point of view, would be in different situations, would experience different things, make different choices as a result of different experiences and stimuli, etc. I don't concede that this is because of a soul, but it's still an interesting concept nevertheless.
angels exist or do not exist. demons exist or don't exist. spirits exists or do not exist. gods exist or don't exist. werevolves either exist or do not exist. god's word exists or doesn't exist. unicorns exist or do not exist. but, please, try not prove anything.
Correct, we have been searching for hundreds of years for a sign from god and still no evidence. At this point don't you think there's no evidence because there is no god? I'm not ruling out a god but it just drives me crazy a god worshiped by so many tries so hard to conceal himself. Why doesn't he just come out and reveal himself to the world and tell everyone we are on the wrong path? Instead, he's just going to wait for humans to continue doing wrong and then he'll come to earth kill everybody and take his followers to heaven. Sounds like a great god to me.
biodude68 BINGO ! That's exactly what I always say. If God can make the earth in a few days, why doesn't he just talk to me with some "magic mind voice"? Why do we need the services of other men to communicate with him? Note: other men. And don't we all just know how corruptible man is. God, in his wisdom would surely have devised some fail safe method of communication :-)
nothing needs to be defined here...............and who has the right to claim that nothing existed before something?.................what is something is the default and the universe as we know it is a reconfiguration of that something...........and that nothing (no matter, no time in either direction and no dimensions/space) has never been a part of reality but only exists as a concept of philosophy............... Theology is lost in philosophical ideas that objective empirical reality does not demonstrate those ideas as existing in reality.....
How the hell does anyone think Esposito won this debate?
Well if you think Mohammed split the moon on a winged horse is silly but some guy walked on water is reasonable, then yea some people could think that.
@@surfk9836 lol thank you.. trrruuuueeee
Faith
Richard Carrier slammed this one.
Carrier won this debate hands down. Esposito's argument is based on ignorance, we don't know therefore, God. What he seems to fail to realize is that all of his argument for how something can come from nothing and the human mind can't be the result of evolution MUST apply to his God unless he can explain how something can come from nothing, in which case God is irrelevant.
As Christians we need to become better with our own understanding of why we believe . What the actual reasons are that can be supported. The key is to convince the person who is sitting on the fence. From what I have objectively observed is that the top atheist thinkers seem to be much or intellectually honest in their search for the truth. The most important thing to discover in life is what is in fact true about existence. Let's get better with being intellectually honest about reality
voting "up" to promote carrier's clear refutations.......
Esposito's using not just William Lane Craig's exact arguments but in the same order, with the same techinques and vocabulary. When I heard "contentions" and "objective moral values" I just had to smile.
I never get sick of watching carrier smack down ridiculous Christian arguments
Esposito, how about not plagiarizing William Craig near verbatim? Zero effort.
The Christian failed to leave his script and actually address many of Carrier's finer points, instead opting to simply repeat his arguments over and over as if their repetition constituted a rebuttal. Then he concluded with a pathetic call to faith just like his idol WLC -- from whom he copied his script/arguments right down to particular phrases and grammar usage.
What an embarrassing display. I don't even tend to like Carrier, yet here we watched him mop the floor with this Christian hack.
If god was real, there would be no need for religious apologists.
Lenny.....your speech contained an infinite of none sequiturs...
Good debate. Richard did a good job refuting all of the Esposito points with specific examples and still had a few minutes left over.
How do you begin an argument debunking the idea of infinity but then turn around and promote the idea of a god that has no beginning and no end?
because God is timeless
@@ceceroxy2227 Something that's timeless doesn't exist in reality.
Richard Carrier is superb.
Absolutely
I'm late to that party.
Better late than never.
I got the impression that Lenny thought that, by advancing multiple arguments, he was erecting an extremely sturdy edifice that Richard would struggle to overcome... Only to have each and every component of those arguments bulldozed with very little expenditure of effort on Richard's part.
Esposito's ignorance on neurology is cringeworthy:
_"People with half of their brain removed and half remaining can still function, therefore the mind can't reside in the brain"_
Huh? Richard clearly pointed out that there's enough redundancy in the brain that even if you lose half your brain, its still possible to survive. If the mind was not physical then we would expect the person to still survive just as well with NO BRAIN AT ALL. But in reality people need a brain, and usually injuries to the brain impair the person to bigger or lesser degree!
"whatever has a beginning must have a cause"... actually, no. Virtual particles are created all the time in a vacuum. They have no "cause". They arise solely from the statistical chance in Quantum Mechanics that energy will change into a particle/anti-particle pair. So... something created without a cause. It's entirely possible that the universe and indeed an infinite number of universes can be created without a cause just like virtual particles do in space.
Carrier refutes the guy's points but it's like he doesn't even hear it...he just keeps repeating the arguments again and again. What's the point of debating someone like that?
last first you described every atheist vs. theist debate ever :)
Imo the point is the audience, especially since we can share it on YT. If 1 of 100 people realizes what you summed up the debate was already worthwhile.
It's always good to have this kind of debate because we get to see how the inner workings of a creationist mind work. I find it amusing how they think and assemble "evidence".
Esposito is outmatched here. Carrier constantly gives specific reasons why god is improbable and Esposito appears as though he wasn't paying attention at all.
This guy has definitely listened to William Lane Craig debate
Wait, at around 1:09:45 where he talks about jumping from a bottomless pit regarding an infinite past, does he not foresee an infinite future? Why is an infinite future feasible but not an infinite past, while at the same time believing that God has an infinite "past" (while being outside of time)?
The trick is to sound like Lenny and WLC and get paid for it. Brilliant.
... Carrier telling it like it is. Good stuff - Thanks for posting!
Great debate. Carrier did well specifically refuting Espositos every point. It's also funny how he strictures his debate like William Lane Craig.
It's quite obvious that the God of the OT is nothing more than a tribal god. He had nothing to do with the formation of the universe.
I'm not a Carrier fan but honestly, where does his opponent get off literally repeating all of Craig's arguments, almost word-for-word
Richard Carrier ... huge applause!
Ethical naturalism/materialism holds that people have an inherent value because they are *persons*. Just because personhood arises from material foundations, doesn't negate it. A person missing a limb, or with a disability is still just as much a person. They still meet the criteria of personhood. Personhood is not measured based on having limbs or not being disabled. We don't measure people's humanity and value in traits like strength, intellect or wealth because we deem those to be less important compared to personhood. We grant every human certain inalienable basic rights merely because they are a human being, which is still a physical condition.
Carrier should debate in IntelligenceSquared. I want to see if he changes the audiences minds on the subject.
I was reading the comments comparing Lenny to WLC (while the intro was going). As soon as he started the resemblance was uncanny.
"Bangs have bangers."
Hahahahaha, and I thought WLC was bad. OMG, I'm going to start using that!
Man Lenny Esposito is just repeating himself as though his arguments just have been blown out of the water
As an atheist that's all I ask is intellectual honesty. And to be fair I think there are lots of believers who are intellectually honest. Only none of them appear to work in the area of apologetics. I mean the idea that the brain has nothing to do with consciousness is bizarre.
Well it's easier than actually thinking for himself.
I really like both of these guys!! I don't understand the negative comments for just a difference of understanding the evidences. Thanks for the great debate guys!!
I wish Carrier had hit harder on morality, and how Christians cannot point to a divine lawgiver without acknowledging serious confusion about what that law actually is.
Morality is one of the weakest theistic arguments.
THANK YOU!
Gotta love the Christian ‘morality is objective’ (except when Jesus is mad and wants to drown babies)
Eventually Esposito just starts repeating his arguments without acknowledging or dealing with Carrier's refutations to them lol. Either he is too stupid to realize the problems of his arguments or too dishonest to want to acknowledge them and incapable of handling them
Lenny, Lenny, I just find your arguments in this debate really stretching the real world to confirm to your beliefs. Really hope that some day you can stop fighting and join the atheist side.
Oh look, Esposito just became William Lane Craig Jr. , how original
Carriers point on nothing was brilliant around 34:00.
I used to think that as well, but now I'm not sure. Could you point out some evidence for Jesus of Nazareth (this is not a 'gotcha' at all. I am sincerely interested in the evidence).
Wow. Poor guy. What a waste of Dr. Carrier's time. Richard should pick a better opponent next time.
this debate clearly demonstrates that atheism is a more educated position than theism.
Begins @ 5:30
I'm really curious as to where these Christian apologetics are coming from. There are a few of them that are nearly identical in content to William Lane Craig (and sometimes even pacing and intonation in this case). I hear them from WLC most often and I heard them from him first (listening to him go up against Harris and Hitchens) but there could be an older source.
Is WLC the "prime mover", the "uncaused cause" of this nonsense, or is he cribbing from somewhere and he's just the popularizer of some earlier work?
WLC is reviving long dead arguments he just sharpens so that they are smoother and mean even less.
WLC is a jerk-off who thinks he knows everything from biblical theology to quantum physics. He's a No. 1 Nutjob.
prolucifer I find he's growing on me and I'm starting to like him. Not that I find his arguments any more convincing and I think he's become a liability to Christianity; any time you hear him speak, you immediately get the links to the refutations in the UA-cam suggestions. Free and open access to information is the enemy of apologetics.
But man, if you heard his bit on the modal ontological argument for the greatest possible pizza.... I was laughing for an hour.
James Alan Good grief! Could you please share that link! I'm sure it's hilarious!
Anyone else notice that Lenny was pretty much arguing deism, not theism here? And quite poorly I might add.
+briantherabbit Well, he tried to argue for the resurrection of Jesus...but it wasn't very good.
The societal construct of driving on one particular side of the road over another as an arbitrary non-dilemma, does not have an objectively negative benefit to the well-being of people…
…that is why it doesn’t have anything to do with morality.
Morality pertains to the social capacity to OBJECTIVELY increase or decrease the well-being of conscious life.
Its so easy to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. Thank you science god
very weak arguments for God... wonder if he himself really belives in them?
+Bjørn Iversen ; the way the argument is worded makes it near impossible for the theist to win. Think if the debate was "is naturalism real" who would win then? it is easy to say "well you have not proved evolution is true yet, and you have not proven how the universe came into being." The person on defense when neither side has been proven to be true will always lose.
Carrier would still win. He knows how to make a positive case, weighing one against the other. He does this in his book Sense and Goodness Without God (and in his related blog posts). You don't have to achieve 100% certainty, you just need a far higher probability than the competing hypothesis.
bpansky your example is still 2 things that make a claim. The title "is naturalism true" is only one thing. You cannot weigh one against nothing. "goodness" cannot be defined so it just shows you his ignorance for attempting to prove it exists with no definition.
spartacus the bringer of rain
Um, I've read the book he does often talk about alternatives. You can see for yourself in the table of contents:
books.google.ca/books?id=oFdMzq56qyEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Goodness can be defined. Otherwise we wouldn't find it to be a useful or meaningful word at all, it would be gibberish like a made up word, such as "dofulprew". Goodness means something has the quality of being desirable. How on earth did you come to believe that it couldn't be defined?
bpansky just dive right on in. www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp13_tanner.pdf
the word good is just a way of expressing emotions and does not need a definition. Another world like this is the F world. You can look at another word like beautiful which does the same thing. The only way you can attempt to define beautiful is if you base it off evolution or some religion. Any other use which is not based off those meanings like clothing nature and flowers is just an expression of your emotions.
--i would think it is much like a dog or infant reading your emotions with no knowledge of the human language.
to counter what you said. It is good to help the poor but i do not desire it.
The debate was held May 23, 2012
Glad I'm not the only one who thought this guy was reading WLC's crib sheets
+QuakePhil Holy Sh$t!! This is the first I've heard this gentleman and I thought the same thing. I was only listening to this whilst I'm at work and was about to leave a quotes calling this guy a cut-rate William Lying Craig. He even inflects words in the same way as WLC in the exact same places WLC would in a sentence.
+QuakePhil "As a matter of fact Dr. 'blahblahbla' states that something 'blah blah' is the case and my opponent doesn't agree so fuck him!"
WLC in a nutshell
+QuakePhil Only WLC doesn't give you part of the derpbate and then charge you for the rest. Does he?
The Kalam argument is so weak and outdated and is getting very tiresome indeed. Like most professional apologists, Esposito is a well spoken brainwashed unscientific ignoramus drone with a limited number of arrows in his quiver.
Even if the Kalam was a sound argument (it isn't), all it could conclude is that the universe had a cause.
This could be a simple physical cause. No intelligence required.
Sorry for the late reply. I addressed your first point in the previous reply, but to expand on it; many 1st century Jews actually did share the Christian belief in a physical resurrection, albeit Messiah or not. Christianity appealed to Hellenistic Jews and to Gentile God-fearers because it offered Jewish morality. Better yet, Hellenistic Jews considered Christianity to be a godsend. The closest thing that we have for evidence are Paul's letters, I really can't think of anything else.
Mr. Esposito seems like a decent fellow and expressed his points with a pleasant demeanor, and indeed, I'm sure he sincerely believes everything he said, but - I really grow tired of apologists continually asserting that the resurrection of Jesus is a settled matter of fact. Folklore based on heresay from nameless sources recounted by unknown authors meets no measurable standard of evidence.
The rest of the points he raised just fall into the category of arguments from ignorance/incredulity, again, simply assertions with nothing approaching evidence to support a positive claim.
Amen to that. Though I think that a big part of the problem is that lots of theists first draw their conclusions based on often subjective/personal experiences and then try to find evidence to back it up to make it sound more reasonable. That's just top down logic. It's more valid if you follow the evidence where it leads and then draw your conclusions i.e. bottom-up logic. But you're right, they often are not very convincing in their speeches. BTW I'm an atheist.
@44:10 Lenny doesn't know what evidence is.
esposito's argument is almost a verbatim of william lane craig's template argument
thanks for upload
42:33 - Also, if we had not chosen to create an orderly society then this debate wouldn't be hapening. You're back to many possibilities again. In fact, perhaps on many life bearing worlds there might not be morality - those words will never produce debates about questions such as this.
I would've loved to see a debate Esposito vs. Hitchens on the intelligent design ...
...The universe exists, therefore god.
The universe is complicated, therefore god.
Morality exists, therefore god.
This is not evidence of a god. The representatives of an alleged all powerful entity should be able to do better.
date of the event please!
This debate has missed the major point of Defining who or what God is.There are billions of people who don't believe in a Christian God.so the definition should be the most inclusive.If one where to define God as the intelligent consciousness behind the Universe it would be an entirely new debate.
Yes, both these debaters come from a common, Christian background and didn't lay out the map of where and what this God is.
It's in Carrier's advantage to argue against a well defined deity. Why would he push for a global & obscure construct. Often in debates theists retreat to a near deistic god when there arguments are refuted (See William Lane Craig, Reza Aslan, etc.).
***** Carrier's background also includes many years as a Taoist. The debate focused on a supernatural universe creating deity. This description is the prevailing sentiment of the majority of the worlds theists; even polytheists.
The idea of a supernatural deity is of relatively recent conception of the Abrahamic religions particularly Judeo- Christianity. A review of the ancient vedic and pagan philosophies will show that there was a commonly held belief that God /consciousness was immanent in all existence.This is called "Panentheism" which has a much longer history of belief than judean monotheism . It reigned for thousands of years and is the basis for much of the mythology of the ancient civilizations. It very simple argument to negate the possibility of a supernatural deity , particularly if " he " is a tribal God , its quite another argument to disprove consciousness is the essence of the universe.Which implies there are no super-natural inventions as the universe and humanity are all forms of consciousness.
The crucifixion of Jesus would actually have been readily embraceable as a means of salvation. It was a familiar religious conception, even in Hellenistic Judaism, where martyrdom is often set forth as expiations for the sins of Israel. This is because of the familiarity of the dying and rising god mytheme in that era. Consider the myth's of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Baal etc, of which some are even pre-Christian. So I don't get how Jesus' narrative would have been embarrassing for the Jews.
I think Q&A is up.
if god is creator of everything, then what created god???
"The software is not in the hardware"....
lol where is it then?
Just because you say something doesnt make it true....
If anything exists it has a cause, really whats the cause for cancer?
kerner530 ...god.
If diamond's were the size of electrons they'd be worthless.
What made God
Con Hedrick God is eternal. Nobody is claiming that God was made. He is supernatural -- outside of space, time, and matter. The question is who made the space, time, and matter that make up our universe, since the evidence points to the universe having a definite beginning? Something can't come from nothing. Therefore, the Christian position is that something outside of space, time, and matter -- something supernatural -- made the universe.
Andy Manning I think you are spot on: Yahweh exists outside of space and time - in other words, he exists nowhere and never.
andthereisntone Your view is not science, but philosophy. It is called philosophical naturalism. It is the assumption that nature is all there is. Your philosophical assumptions prevent you from objectively looking at the evidence, and from following the evidence to its logical conclusion, because you refuse to even entertain the possibility of the existence of God. In other words, no amount of evidence for God could persuade you, because you already come to the table with your mind made up that God does not exist because He can't exist. To prove my point, what would it take to convince you that God exists?
Andy Manning Re: "what would it take to convince you that God exists?"
I have no idea, but according to your definition of Yahweh, he would know.
Liar. See Sense and Goodness Without God, it is not an assumption. It is based on the evidence. It could change with the evidence. Most opportunities are gone, the universe just doesn't look like how a god would do things. But the god could start giving consistent communications to everyone around the world. That should be easy, and it would be very convincing. Now put away your conspiracy theories, and face the fact that you've been duped by propaganda against atheists and naturalists.
How would a person in a coma not have the properties of being human? Unless he's referring to someone in a vegetative state; from Wikipedia: "The vegetative state is a chronic or long-term condition. This condition differs from a coma: a coma is a state that lacks both awareness and wakefulness."
Astonishing people are yet debating this unfalsifiable claim.
For the love of humanity, can someone please teach Lenny Esposito how the burden of proof works and what the default position is regarding accepting claims!
Also, his almost verbatim rip-off of William Lane Craig is frankly, pathetic.
reading notes..dont you know it if you believe it
If life cannot come from non-life, whilst God is omnipotent. It conflicts!!!!
The crux of Esposito's belief is revelation (as evidenced by his closing arguments).
He says god/christ will reveal himself to you, despite billions of us who have asked as he implores. He also ignores the billions who've received revelation contrary to his. He believes his revelation is more correct than theirs, but gives no method as to why. It's just bias leading to false conclusions.
in christian faith God is the most high... yet he sacrificed his son for the sins of man.. now man makes sacrifice to god for forgiveness... why would god need forgiveness? and there must be a god higher than him if he made an offering..
and i say he because the religion makes god a man
+Chez iz Christ (God-King) Jesus is god look up the trinity.
--if god is maximally good and maximally just then how can you save humans that have no faith in god and or sin.
--you sacrifice yourself.
Your a christian... So go read the Noah Story and replace the God with The Earth... And then tell me how is it that we all know Earth is a living conscious being thats very old that we can connect with... She feeds you she sustains your life in every way but i bet you if supermarkets and money dissappeared and there was a famine and you had to get your food directly from her, i bet you then you forget about jesus.. I bet u wake up real fast.... Earth is supreme deity we live in her
then how did the earth get here derp. who or what made the earth,
--if that was true then earth would have killed us all by now because we are like cancer.
+spartacus the bringer of rain Who or what made the earth? Natural forces. This is well established in a basic understanding of astrophysics.
the big bang is unknown and not complete because it uses infinity in its definition. to say that is a fact just means you lack knowledge in that area.
---what is nature? what is natural? if someone or something fabricates something is it still natural? if god created everything can you still call it nature and natural ? we do not call robots natural.
I am sorry Mr. Esposito when you claim a god exists you have to prove it. Just because you don´t understand it or science can´t explain something it does not mean god did it. It might surprise you Mr. Esposito when asking a child it does not understand the complexity of the universe but actuelly when we grow up we can. By the way be careful not to get sued by Craig for copying his same line of arguments he uses over and over again. Here is once more the god of ther gap argument in a new dress.
Esposito sounds like he's reading off of a script that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything his opponent says. He acts as if he can't hear anyone talking. His final argument was, "Big bangs need big bangers". I think that my seven year old niece could have debated Carrier more creatively, if not more efficiently as well.
'Win' For Carrier
Putting this debate (with how bad Richard made this gentleman look), on a Christian channel, is way to funny
Did Lenny Esposito really compare the human brain to a tomato?
The mind is not only the brain?
7:15 The Lenny claims Carrier has to substantiate the non existence of God in order to hold that position. The kills the debate for me if he thinks this way. I don't believe in unicorns because I can prove their non-existence. It's just a dumb premise. Around 8:30 the stupidity continues in saying there had to be a beginning to matter (breaking a fundamental law of physics... soooo that's where he will insert his unknown, unidentifiable god of the gaps.... Oy I don't know if I can stomach much more.
Well, this is a debate titled "Does God Exist?". In debates like this, the person taking the negative position has to substantiate it. In this case, the position is "No, God does not exist." That's a claim that has to be justified in the debate, regardless of whether Dr. Carrier actually adheres to this position or not.
To give an analogy, if this were a debate about climate change titled "Is Climate Change Real?", we wouldn't merely expect the denier to refute the evidence for climate change; we would also expect him to present evidence that the climate is *not* changing. So, I don't see why that has to be different in this case.
Stripped directly from the books of William Lane Craig
It's just false to say that natural selection only works when you have something that can reproduce by itself. Natural selection will also work on non-replicating molecules as long as there is some, possibly indirect, effect of the existence of a given molecule that enhances the chances of a new molecule being formed(Such as its shape making some long chain of other molecules more likely to form, one of which in turn makes the original more likely to form). So natural selection is known to be a mechanism that increases the power of replication of a system that doesn't have any full fledged replicators. Even completely without such mechanisms and only considering the random formation of molecules by random bumping together of atoms natural selection will operate and whatever molecules are the more stable will end up dominating.(Assuming equal probability of all molecules)
This stuff has been understood since the origin of species and is why the theory of evolution got accepted. Such a misunderstanding really destroys Esposito's credibility as even marginally knowledgeable about evolutionary processes.
this lenny guy has OLD arguments ...
Isn't Esposito doing W.L. Craig's shtick?
Painful to listen to Lenny Esposito.
God is using Lenny God bless him.
Great debate but Carrier won for sure.
Not ANOTHER "does god exist" debate. If there were a god, there ought to be no need for these debates.
Crayon marks and the universe mentioned in the same sentence! Gasp! I would be a whole lot more impressed to hear quantum physics and the universe mentioned in the same sentence, but no, "crayon marks" it is!
"Immaterial, outside of space and timeless" - a weak attempt to define away (ie sweep under the carpet) the biggest problem creationists have - the creation of the creator.
Fine tuning. How fine tuned does a creator have to be, to be the kind of creator who could create such a fine tuned universe?
If you can not get something from nothing ( the universe ) then something made God. I don't get how so many people can believe that such a powerful being ( God ) can come from nothing but everything else had to be created. Use logic people!
God doesn’t come from nothing. He is outside time, thus He never begins to exist. The claim is anything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.
Those who do believe this unfalsifiable (god exists) claim then have bragging rights. Similar to "I believe in donkeys orbiting exoplanet HB-3719-T."
@@comereason by that logic you have refuted the entire basis of theism. The moment such a being interacted with reality, it would initiate the beginning of an existence. Therefore no creation, no miracles, no sending part of himself in the form of a son, no revelation, etc, etc.
@@patersonplays No, you misunderstand. When God creates the material universe, he creates time as well, thus it only entails the beginning of time. This is completely compatible with how we understand modern cosmology. And Christianity has held that God is by definition a simple being (e.g. not a being separable into parts.)
@@comereason no, I think you misunderstand. By interacting with any part of reality (of which time is a part of), even by the very act of creating it in the first place, that implies he has an existence and a timeline and therefore needs a beginning by your own logic.
cut god or gods away from so-called holy books and clergy and once again we would have peace in just believing or not believing in gods.
===
one cannot proves that god[s] exists by solely thinking: conjecturing, assuming, explaining, or defining god[s].
I'm skeptical of Richard's claim that a person would still "be there" in a corpse given decay of the brain. Personality, memories, and such would be lost with the decay of the neurons that contain them.
Although as an interesting thought experiment, if my current living body including the brain was somehow copied (let's say 3D printed with all molecules exactly the same), even if that clone would have my exact memories and personality, it would surely have its own "perspective" and branch off and be different from me over time given that it would have a different geometric point of view, would be in different situations, would experience different things, make different choices as a result of different experiences and stimuli, etc. I don't concede that this is because of a soul, but it's still an interesting concept nevertheless.
angels exist or do not exist. demons exist or don't exist. spirits exists or do not exist. gods exist or don't exist. werevolves either exist or do not exist. god's word exists or doesn't exist.
unicorns exist or do not exist.
but, please, try not prove anything.
"Does God exist?"
What a stupid, pointless theme for a debate, since NO human being (including me) will ever know....
+Ralph Bernhard Then I guess you agree he doesn't exist since you wont ever see him, even after death.
biodude68 There is no evidence for "a God/Gods". I need evidence, not belief in hypothetical possibilities....
Correct, we have been searching for hundreds of years for a sign from god and still no evidence. At this point don't you think there's no evidence because there is no god? I'm not ruling out a god but it just drives me crazy a god worshiped by so many tries so hard to conceal himself. Why doesn't he just come out and reveal himself to the world and tell everyone we are on the wrong path?
Instead, he's just going to wait for humans to continue doing wrong and then he'll come to earth kill everybody and take his followers to heaven. Sounds like a great god to me.
biodude68 BINGO !
That's exactly what I always say.
If God can make the earth in a few days, why doesn't he just talk to me with some "magic mind voice"?
Why do we need the services of other men to communicate with him?
Note: other men. And don't we all just know how corruptible man is.
God, in his wisdom would surely have devised some fail safe method of communication :-)
nothing needs to be defined here...............and who has the right to claim that nothing existed before something?.................what is something is the default and the universe as we know it is a reconfiguration of that something...........and that nothing (no matter, no time in either direction and no dimensions/space) has never been a part of reality but only exists as a concept of philosophy...............
Theology is lost in philosophical ideas that objective empirical reality does not demonstrate those ideas as existing in reality.....
How do you prove the non existence of something. That's ridiculous