The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Lenny Esposito versus Richard Carrier

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 4 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 314

  • @Mike-mc3sh
    @Mike-mc3sh 9 років тому +43

    How the hell does anyone think Esposito won this debate?

    • @surfk9836
      @surfk9836 4 роки тому +7

      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.

    • @ChillAssTurtle
      @ChillAssTurtle Рік тому

      @@surfk9836 lol thank you.. trrruuuueeee

    • @lamalama9717
      @lamalama9717 8 днів тому

      Faith

  • @CorndogMaker
    @CorndogMaker 10 років тому +30

    Richard Carrier slammed this one.

  • @amandine512
    @amandine512 9 років тому +36

    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.

  • @JJstock
    @JJstock 11 років тому +4

    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

  • @standswithawinedwb
    @standswithawinedwb 11 років тому +18

    voting "up" to promote carrier's clear refutations.......

  • @Manuelucci2
    @Manuelucci2 11 років тому +25

    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.

  • @brickwitheyes1710
    @brickwitheyes1710 7 років тому +12

    I never get sick of watching carrier smack down ridiculous Christian arguments

  • @VeganTruth
    @VeganTruth 10 років тому +25

    Esposito, how about not plagiarizing William Craig near verbatim? Zero effort.

  • @mikecheswick9377
    @mikecheswick9377 11 років тому +20

    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.

  • @gnagyusa
    @gnagyusa 7 років тому +26

    If god was real, there would be no need for religious apologists.

  • @tonyrelignisilly3633
    @tonyrelignisilly3633 9 років тому +18

    Lenny.....your speech contained an infinite of none sequiturs...

  • @TheNameOfMyTribe
    @TheNameOfMyTribe 11 років тому +5

    Good debate. Richard did a good job refuting all of the Esposito points with specific examples and still had a few minutes left over.

  • @darcydj
    @darcydj 11 років тому +14

    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?

    • @ceceroxy2227
      @ceceroxy2227 2 роки тому

      because God is timeless

    • @betsalprince
      @betsalprince 3 місяці тому

      ​@@ceceroxy2227 Something that's timeless doesn't exist in reality.

  • @Ploskkky
    @Ploskkky 8 років тому +21

    Richard Carrier is superb.

    • @1234siza
      @1234siza 8 років тому +3

      Absolutely

    • @corylohanlon
      @corylohanlon 3 роки тому +2

      I'm late to that party.
      Better late than never.

  • @purgatoriprytania5382
    @purgatoriprytania5382 5 років тому +6

    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.

  • @thefinnishbolshevik2404
    @thefinnishbolshevik2404 5 років тому +7

    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!

  • @DeusExAstra
    @DeusExAstra 11 років тому +10

    "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.

  • @Demonizer5134
    @Demonizer5134 7 років тому +4

    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?

    • @sophonax661
      @sophonax661 6 років тому

      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.

  • @VersionBest
    @VersionBest 11 років тому +6

    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".

  • @AzimuthTao
    @AzimuthTao 11 років тому +2

    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.

  • @_PatrickStar
    @_PatrickStar 5 років тому +6

    This guy has definitely listened to William Lane Craig debate

  • @RogerWazup007
    @RogerWazup007 7 років тому +3

    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)?

  • @0VistaDelMar0
    @0VistaDelMar0 11 років тому +5

    The trick is to sound like Lenny and WLC and get paid for it. Brilliant.

  • @glutinousmaximus
    @glutinousmaximus 6 років тому +4

    ... Carrier telling it like it is. Good stuff - Thanks for posting!

  • @Btothadot
    @Btothadot 11 років тому +3

    Great debate. Carrier did well specifically refuting Espositos every point. It's also funny how he strictures his debate like William Lane Craig.

  • @sauniz1
    @sauniz1 10 років тому +12

    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.

  • @AR333
    @AR333 11 років тому +2

    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

  •  11 років тому +3

    Richard Carrier ... huge applause!

  • @thefinnishbolshevik2404
    @thefinnishbolshevik2404 5 років тому +2

    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.

  • @RB3Vids
    @RB3Vids 11 років тому +2

    Carrier should debate in IntelligenceSquared. I want to see if he changes the audiences minds on the subject.

  • @ThePOPOVICI
    @ThePOPOVICI 10 років тому +3

    I was reading the comments comparing Lenny to WLC (while the intro was going). As soon as he started the resemblance was uncanny.

  • @codedlogic
    @codedlogic 10 років тому +4

    "Bangs have bangers."
    Hahahahaha, and I thought WLC was bad. OMG, I'm going to start using that!

  • @FreakazoidDK33
    @FreakazoidDK33 7 років тому +3

    Man Lenny Esposito is just repeating himself as though his arguments just have been blown out of the water

  • @MsNilbymouth
    @MsNilbymouth 11 років тому +1

    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.

  • @rsr789
    @rsr789 11 років тому +2

    Well it's easier than actually thinking for himself.

  • @upsguyups
    @upsguyups 10 років тому +2

    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!!

  • @mrmaat
    @mrmaat 5 років тому +5

    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.

    • @timgwallis
      @timgwallis 2 роки тому

      THANK YOU!

    • @poerava
      @poerava 2 роки тому

      Gotta love the Christian ‘morality is objective’ (except when Jesus is mad and wants to drown babies)

  • @thefinnishbolshevik2404
    @thefinnishbolshevik2404 5 років тому +5

    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

  • @TadCaudill
    @TadCaudill 11 років тому +6

    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.

  • @alxacm7
    @alxacm7 5 років тому +2

    Oh look, Esposito just became William Lane Craig Jr. , how original

  • @RB3Vids
    @RB3Vids 11 років тому +3

    Carriers point on nothing was brilliant around 34:00.

  • @metalpunk89
    @metalpunk89 11 років тому +1

    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).

  • @erikjohnson4876
    @erikjohnson4876 11 років тому +3

    Wow. Poor guy. What a waste of Dr. Carrier's time. Richard should pick a better opponent next time.

  • @levicarpus
    @levicarpus 10 років тому +2

    this debate clearly demonstrates that atheism is a more educated position than theism.

  • @ksan1648
    @ksan1648 8 років тому +4

    Begins @ 5:30

  • @JamesAlanMagician
    @JamesAlanMagician 11 років тому +2

    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?

    • @TorianTammas
      @TorianTammas 11 років тому +3

      WLC is reviving long dead arguments he just sharpens so that they are smoother and mean even less.

    • @prolucifer
      @prolucifer 11 років тому

      WLC is a jerk-off who thinks he knows everything from biblical theology to quantum physics. He's a No. 1 Nutjob.

    • @JamesAlanMagician
      @JamesAlanMagician 11 років тому +1

      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.

    • @prolucifer
      @prolucifer 11 років тому

      James Alan Good grief! Could you please share that link! I'm sure it's hilarious!

  • @heliumbiscuits
    @heliumbiscuits 8 років тому +2

    Anyone else notice that Lenny was pretty much arguing deism, not theism here? And quite poorly I might add.

    • @CorndogMaker
      @CorndogMaker 8 років тому

      +briantherabbit Well, he tried to argue for the resurrection of Jesus...but it wasn't very good.

  • @knotlock
    @knotlock 3 роки тому +1

    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.

  • @jordankimball2104
    @jordankimball2104 9 років тому +7

    Its so easy to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. Thank you science god

  • @bjrniversen9008
    @bjrniversen9008 9 років тому +12

    very weak arguments for God... wonder if he himself really belives in them?

    • @spartacusthebringerofrain6455
      @spartacusthebringerofrain6455 9 років тому

      +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.

    • @bpansky
      @bpansky 8 років тому +1

      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.

    • @spartacusthebringerofrain6455
      @spartacusthebringerofrain6455 8 років тому

      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.

    • @bpansky
      @bpansky 8 років тому +2

      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?

    • @spartacusthebringerofrain6455
      @spartacusthebringerofrain6455 8 років тому

      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.

  • @comereason
    @comereason  11 років тому +1

    The debate was held May 23, 2012

  • @QuakePhil
    @QuakePhil 9 років тому +1

    Glad I'm not the only one who thought this guy was reading WLC's crib sheets

    • @jamesstew4791
      @jamesstew4791 9 років тому

      +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.

    • @jamesstew4791
      @jamesstew4791 9 років тому

      +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

    • @jamesstew4791
      @jamesstew4791 9 років тому

      +QuakePhil Only WLC doesn't give you part of the derpbate and then charge you for the rest. Does he?

  • @Brammy007a
    @Brammy007a 10 років тому +7

    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.

    • @gnagyusa
      @gnagyusa 7 років тому

      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.

  • @metalpunk89
    @metalpunk89 11 років тому

    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.

  • @carne_verde
    @carne_verde 10 років тому +1

    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.

  • @metalpunk89
    @metalpunk89 11 років тому

    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.

  • @clintronnow264
    @clintronnow264 9 років тому +1

    @44:10 Lenny doesn't know what evidence is.

  • @SEEANDPEA
    @SEEANDPEA 11 років тому +7

    esposito's argument is almost a verbatim of william lane craig's template argument

  • @i.kaminskiy7563
    @i.kaminskiy7563 6 років тому +1

    thanks for upload

  • @KipIngram
    @KipIngram 11 місяців тому

    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.

  • @andreisrr
    @andreisrr 2 роки тому

    I would've loved to see a debate Esposito vs. Hitchens on the intelligent design ...

  • @jamessoltis5407
    @jamessoltis5407 7 років тому +1

    ...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.

  • @Константин-и3в3о
    @Константин-и3в3о 11 років тому

    date of the event please!

  • @taucetii3412
    @taucetii3412 11 років тому +2

    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.

    • @vivalaleta
      @vivalaleta 11 років тому

      Yes, both these debaters come from a common, Christian background and didn't lay out the map of where and what this God is.

    • @pilsung26
      @pilsung26 11 років тому +1

      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.).

    • @pilsung26
      @pilsung26 11 років тому

      ***** 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.

    • @taucetii3412
      @taucetii3412 10 років тому

      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.

  • @metalpunk89
    @metalpunk89 11 років тому

    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.

  • @MsNilbymouth
    @MsNilbymouth 11 років тому

    I think Q&A is up.

  • @shaunswift7325
    @shaunswift7325 10 років тому

    if god is creator of everything, then what created god???

  • @IMautodidact
    @IMautodidact 8 років тому +1

    "The software is not in the hardware"....
    lol where is it then?
    Just because you say something doesnt make it true....

  • @kerner530
    @kerner530 10 років тому

    If anything exists it has a cause, really whats the cause for cancer?

  • @0VistaDelMar0
    @0VistaDelMar0 11 років тому +1

    If diamond's were the size of electrons they'd be worthless.

  • @conhedrick1846
    @conhedrick1846 10 років тому +1

    What made God

    • @andy_manning
      @andy_manning 9 років тому +1

      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.

    • @andthereisntone1
      @andthereisntone1 9 років тому +1

      Andy Manning I think you are spot on: Yahweh exists outside of space and time - in other words, he exists nowhere and never.

    • @andy_manning
      @andy_manning 9 років тому +1

      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?

    • @andthereisntone1
      @andthereisntone1 9 років тому +1

      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.

    • @bpansky
      @bpansky 8 років тому

      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.

  • @RogerWazup007
    @RogerWazup007 7 років тому +1

    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."

  • @Patrick77487
    @Patrick77487 3 роки тому

    Astonishing people are yet debating this unfalsifiable claim.

  • @rsr789
    @rsr789 11 років тому

    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.

  • @karinataylor3946
    @karinataylor3946 9 років тому

    reading notes..dont you know it if you believe it

  • @calvin88821
    @calvin88821 10 років тому

    If life cannot come from non-life, whilst God is omnipotent. It conflicts!!!!

  • @RobBates
    @RobBates 10 років тому +4

    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.

  • @WiseSolace
    @WiseSolace 9 років тому +1

    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

    • @spartacusthebringerofrain6455
      @spartacusthebringerofrain6455 9 років тому

      +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.

    • @WiseSolace
      @WiseSolace 9 років тому

      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

    • @spartacusthebringerofrain6455
      @spartacusthebringerofrain6455 9 років тому

      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.

    • @Reepecheep
      @Reepecheep 9 років тому

      +spartacus the bringer of rain Who or what made the earth? Natural forces. This is well established in a basic understanding of astrophysics.

    • @spartacusthebringerofrain6455
      @spartacusthebringerofrain6455 9 років тому

      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.

  • @TorianTammas
    @TorianTammas 11 років тому +3

    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.

  • @erik424
    @erik424 5 років тому

    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.

  • @wellsgb1957
    @wellsgb1957 10 років тому

    'Win' For Carrier

  • @T2revell
    @T2revell 4 місяці тому

    Putting this debate (with how bad Richard made this gentleman look), on a Christian channel, is way to funny

  • @BernardRobbins
    @BernardRobbins 11 років тому

    Did Lenny Esposito really compare the human brain to a tomato?

  • @luvpinas123
    @luvpinas123 8 років тому

    The mind is not only the brain?

  • @rychei5393
    @rychei5393 10 місяців тому

    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.

    • @CosmoPhiloPharmaco
      @CosmoPhiloPharmaco 2 місяці тому

      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.

  • @JnWayn
    @JnWayn 2 роки тому

    Stripped directly from the books of William Lane Craig

  • @Gnomefro
    @Gnomefro 10 років тому +2

    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.

  • @gregbalteff1529
    @gregbalteff1529 11 років тому +2

    this lenny guy has OLD arguments ...

  • @dvydoo
    @dvydoo 7 років тому

    Isn't Esposito doing W.L. Craig's shtick?

  • @davidbrasher3595
    @davidbrasher3595 5 років тому +1

    Painful to listen to Lenny Esposito.

  • @prabingolapi2807
    @prabingolapi2807 2 роки тому +1

    God is using Lenny God bless him.

  • @RB3Vids
    @RB3Vids 11 років тому +1

    Great debate but Carrier won for sure.

  • @andresmith7105
    @andresmith7105 10 років тому

    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?

  • @thomasbrown2760
    @thomasbrown2760 3 роки тому

    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!

    • @comereason
      @comereason  3 роки тому

      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.

    • @Patrick77487
      @Patrick77487 3 роки тому

      Those who do believe this unfalsifiable (god exists) claim then have bragging rights. Similar to "I believe in donkeys orbiting exoplanet HB-3719-T."

    • @patersonplays
      @patersonplays Рік тому

      @@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.

    • @comereason
      @comereason  Рік тому

      @@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.)

    • @patersonplays
      @patersonplays Рік тому

      @@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.

  • @MyBozhidar
    @MyBozhidar 9 років тому

    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].

  • @RogerWazup007
    @RogerWazup007 7 років тому

    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.

  • @MyBozhidar
    @MyBozhidar 9 років тому

    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.

  • @ralphbernhard1757
    @ralphbernhard1757 9 років тому +1

    "Does God exist?"
    What a stupid, pointless theme for a debate, since NO human being (including me) will ever know....

    • @Mike-mc3sh
      @Mike-mc3sh 9 років тому

      +Ralph Bernhard Then I guess you agree he doesn't exist since you wont ever see him, even after death.

    • @ralphbernhard1757
      @ralphbernhard1757 9 років тому

      biodude68 There is no evidence for "a God/Gods". I need evidence, not belief in hypothetical possibilities....

    • @Mike-mc3sh
      @Mike-mc3sh 9 років тому +3

      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.

    • @ralphbernhard1757
      @ralphbernhard1757 9 років тому

      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 :-)

  • @jacopman
    @jacopman 10 років тому

    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.....

  • @dougzembiec9995
    @dougzembiec9995 7 років тому +1

    How do you prove the non existence of something. That's ridiculous