William Lane Craig and CosmicSkeptic Discuss The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/c...
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic....
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
William Lane Craig is an American philosopher and Christian theologian. He holds two PHDs in philosophy and theology, and is a professor of philosophy at both Houston Baptist University and Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.
Dr. Craig is arguably the world's most famous Christian apologist, and often cited as its most effective public defender. He has taken part in high-profile debates with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Anthony Flew, among others.
Dr. Craig is the man who gave the kalam cosmological argument its name, and he speaks to Alex in this episode about that argument, and answers a number of objections to it.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
My essay, 'The sly circularity of the kalam cosmological argument': cosmicskeptic....
Reasonable Faith: 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument': www.reasonable...
Dr. Craig (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: amzn.to/2NbYfyN
Dr. Craig's lecture, 'Objections so bad I couldn't have made them up': • Objections So Bad I Co...
Actual vs potential infinites: www.iep.utm.ed...
Thompson's lamp paradox: • [1] Thomson's lamp and...
Dr. Craig on God and time: www.iep.utm.ed...
David Albert's review of Krauss' A Universe From Nothing: www.nytimes.co...
Lawrence Krauss (lecture), 'A Universe From Nothing': • 'A Universe From Nothi...
Lawrence Krauss (book), 'A Universe From Nothing': amzn.to/37INKwk
A.C. Grayling, 'The History of Philosophy': amzn.to/2CoUhkg
Mereological nihilism Wikipedia entry: en.wikipedia.o....
Aristotle, types of causes (efficient vs material): plato.stanford...
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
James O'Neill
John Early
Austin Chiappetta
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
J.Jay Berthume
Julia Albrecht
Hans
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskept...
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Tiktok: @someonetookcosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These conversations are much better than formal debates.
I like both, this was particularly good though
Debates are more like a battle I feel like people would rather get the crowd on there side than actually get somewhere.
Atheists when low profile theists get debunked: "haha stupid puny theist haha simple mind lol"
Atheists when an atheist gets absolutely shattered "Wow what a respectful debate"
MLG Frog way to kill a vibe
Dumb Things You are so right. Frog is a stick in the mud. I really enjoyed their polite exchange.
Whatever side you’re on, there’s no denying how well articulate and respectful both of them were. Imagine a world where political discourse was held this way.
Probably won’t happen anytime soon, sadly.
Great comment and irrefutably true. 👍
Totally agree! This was great!
Too polite for my taste, lining with boring.
@@mykhailohohol8708 "Too polite for my taste, lining with boring." So should they have locked both Alex and Dr. Craig in an MMA octagon and waited for survival of the fittest to assert itself? Perhaps you are too used to the sight of Christopher Hitchens breaking every debating rule to enforce his world view upon others while always managing to dodge the difficult questions. The truth of the matter is that far more was achieved and agreed upon in this discussion than would otherwise have been the case with an actual debate where neither party would have been allowed the time or the opportunity to fully articulate their position without having this undermined by the kind of sophistry that Hitchens was famous for.
Great interview, Alex! You’re very sharp.
It’s so cool that you and Alex can differ on something as profound as God’s existence and be so supportive of one another
Hi Cameron, how is the debate with RR going to be released and how often
I consider Alex and I good friends at this point :)
Capturing Christianity
I hope this kind of relationship will become more common among people of opposing views
@@CapturingChristianity I'm Your Fan ! ^^
I have to congratulate Alex. Asking the right questions and, as Dr Craig said, raising the bar a lot. If all conversations where like this, imagine how different our world would be.
He was mocking him for raising the bar for atheists.
@Jørgen Storm And the level goes down to the Hitchens level of name calling, non answer, and diversion
@@joemahony4198
thats a very em0ti0naI resp0nse j0ey
and surprising, t00
m0st 0f his 0pp0nents had a very high 0pini0n 0f hitchens integrity and articuIateness
it was aIs0 a very irrati0naI resp0nse t00 j0ey
hitchens was n`t part 0f this debate
yet he manages t0 trigger y0u fr0m bey0nd the grave as it were
where were y0u hurt j0ey?
did the nasty man p0ke fun at y0ur imaginary friend ?
at an entireIy different event ??!!!
@jrgenstorm6536 LOL I'd like to see you debate William Lane Craig about this "low-IQ" subject matter.
@jrgenstorm6536the defensive snowflake nature of Atheists reveals itself
"Joined today by William Craig, who has famously debated God." Damn, I need to get that video!
Absolutely! Talk about begging the question....
Oh come now! Put yourself in front of a camera and a microphone and let's make sure every word comes out correctly. He did correct himself after all.
@@loriweatherford9471 I believe it wasn't an attack, but merely a point of laugh.
Might well be that Alex will laugh about this himself, because the idea of this debate happening is funny.
I heard it that way, too, Jerry. 🙂
Flamer Lamer well then Nietzsche is right. God is dead
I've got MAD respect for Cosmic Skeptic now. This was such a civil, thorough, and direct debate that I don't even want to call it a debate. It was a productive discussion and I appreciate it so much.
I agree
Exactly! It was an intellectual discussion. 🙌👏👍
Actually, that's exactly what I call a debate.
The events where speakers are arrogant and use an incredible amount of fallacious arguments, interrupt each other, raise their voices, etc, aren't debates imho.
@@e4r281 Actually, you have a good point there. 👍
@@e4r281 yeah that's a small point that, on a very minor level, got on my nerves. Debate has a negative connotation that seems identical with the colloquial "argument", but that is simply not the case. A civil exchange of ideas and epistemology with a sincere intent to understand the opposing interlocutor is *exactly* what a debate is
Still an atheist but found a new respect for Dr Craig. I do like his approach and I gained a better understanding of his cosmological argument. So thank you both.
Something I think they both missed as it relates to the first premise is that we don’t actually have any examples of anything “beginning to exist” in the way that they mean it (i.e. In the way that the universe would have “began to exist”). These are two very different concepts of “begin” and to use our observance of one to make claims of the other is a horrible conflation. Everything that we know of that “comes into existence” is actually just matter and energy changing forms. When it comes to the universe/cosmos “beginning”, that would be separate from all other “beginnings” we could possibly imagine because instead of matter/energy changing forms, we’re talking about matter/energy originating. So when the first premise says that “everything that begins to exist has a cause” - what that really means in every situation we know if is: “everything that changes from one state of matter/energy to another has a cause”… and that’s no longer applicable to any supposed origin of the cosmos (I.e. origin of energy/matter itself). It’s all one big conflation in the part of Craig and theists.
Turns out I missed the part they talked about this 😅
It’s not his argument. It’s a Muslim argument modified for Christians. Dr. Craig is intellectually honest enough to attribute it to its sources. He kept the Arabic word Kalam. He’s also a real philosopher unlike the new atheists who have no real training in theology, logic other than inductive, or philosophy.
@@mtom2237 WLC is also scientifically illiterate and talk about the start of the universe from personal incredulity. He might be civil but he is wrong.
I have never disliked Bill Craig, I have always had an issue with the Olympian leap from "a cause for the universe's origin" to "a transcendental, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal creator that cares about human beings."
I, too, appreciate this courteous, respectful dialogue between two intelligent, well-educated men with opposing viewpoints.
Even as a Christian. I adore Alex as such an intelligent, nice, and genuine people I’ve ever had the honor of watching. God bless William Lane Craig and Alex 😇
Is there an equivocation fallacy in WLCraig’s argument? To support the first premise he has to point to our experience of things beginning to exist from from pre-existing material; children; chairs; plants; etc. But the second premise is about a thing (the universe) coming into existence from nothing.
@@matthewphilip1977 I believe he already covered that in the video but I’d have to rewatch it all go find the instances in which he talked about it. One potential answer in my head that I’m interested to here a response to is something I’ve been thinking for a min now… Craig says that god’s decision to create and creation occurred simultaneously. That includes the beginning of time, why wouldn’t it include matter as well? So god created fundamental particles in the same moment he thought to do it, and from these fundamental particles, which are not made up of any smaller particles to our current knowledge, come everything since.
I remember Craig in the video bringing up something about how you can substitute “the universe” in the premise with fundamental particles. We don’t know how they came to be though, but despite that lack of knowledge, we know they are not composite things and so it raises and interesting question… they arguably came into existence with the Big Bang, but where did they come from before? So perhaps it was the efficient cause of the deity that led to all that in the same instant…
That emoji is so cute.
@@matthewphilip1977 Hope you're not holding on to this argument?? It's too bad one couldn't have made them up
@@raphaelfeneje486 Hi, Raphael.
How else could one argue for the first premise?
P1 Things that begin to exist have a cause
P2 The Universe began to exist
C Therefore the Universe has a cause
*edit
This felt like a student talking to his professor. Student challenging his professor and the professor not insulting his student but trying to help build him up. Very enjoyable.
Absolutely. Alex is a very patient professor and actually wants his student to understand, doing everything he can to help and build him up.
It would certainly be the other way round! Alex’s arguments are far more reasonable and logical than nearly all of Craig’s pitiful ejaculations.
@@ruperthutton551 I don't know why you are being extremely biased even Alex would disagree,
Dr Craig's Arguments were far more better and rational
@@ruperthutton551 His Argument in the come down to May be the Universe have this proper of coming into existence from nothing, I still don't understand How can one make sense of it.
A thing which was not in existence before had a property to come into existence without any cause or from nothing,
If you a 0.00000001 percent of the common sense of a common person you better reject this right away this is non sensical,
Alex tried hard for it make sense, His Arguments at best I can call sophistry
I agree, Alex is a very impressive proffessor. Craig is a very disapointing student.
Even the comment section is civil in this video.
As a christian, I am subscribing.
@Moe Gibbs Sadly at the time he was right. Initially it was a very non violent video section. Now though ...
@@kylexinye1990 hm?
@Moe Gibbs Yeah ... :(
Just wanted to check in and ask how you're doing. Get to check out any of Alex's other videos? Maybe have a channel either theist or non-theist that you'd recommend?
@@jayvis123111 I find the unbelievable UA-cam channel great for discussion.
The UA-cam channel cross examined by Frank turek good. But probs not for comment section
This is how discourse should be. Both sides respectful and willing to listen.
I agree im a Christian i have always felt that Christians and atheist can disagree without someone being the dummy 2 people who are equally intelligent can have 2 opposing world views and not insult each other
Problem is most people equate respectfulness with correctness... Which is even more idiotic. One true indicator of an NPC is how much the WAY something was said influences their beliefs, rather that WHAT was said.
This discourse is so different from muslims ones.. Its not fair
The crusty old shithead has been doing this for too long to be willing to listen, because when you truly are then you're willing to change when presented with better ideas.
@@n00b4evr it seems to me that you wouldn’t be capable of conducting yourself in the manner presented by both men in this video. your attempt at discrediting him by name calling is hyper-cringe.
This is such an intelligent, respectful conversation so obviously aimed at extending one’s own intellect and not to win a debate. What a world we’d have, if we could all converse in such a way with people who we disagree with. Beautiful
True Skepticism. Open minded. Listening to arguments in full. Probing without provoking. Staying on topic. Rational. Love it!
I find it difficult to accept WLC as rational.
@@cliveadams7629 he is rational, you may disagree with him but that doesn't make him irrational just because you disagree, I think your statement is irrational.
@@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065 I have heard WLC use Fallacious arugments. Fallacies of argumentation does not make you Rational. It makes you irrational. God is, according to WLC, Special Pleading.
@@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065 Sady you are wrong. He feels Jesus in his heart, he has no interest in evidence or the lack of it. That's the whole basis of his belief and his work. That's not rational. 15-love to me I think. Your serve.
@@cliveadams7629 Yeah my impression of Craig has always been of someone of high intelligence reverse engineering arguments from a position he has essentially been brainwashed into.
This is the single best discussion I've ever seen between a Christian and a skeptic. Well done.
Alex will become Christian
@@AmayzinOne No he will become Muslim.
@Apex lol, definitely not.
@@AmayzinOne I really hope so.
@@ehtishamamin5601 No, Alex is way too intelligent for that. There are far too many inconsistencies, hypocrisies, inaccuracies and human rights violations for that to ever be possible for such an astute mind.
Wow. This was incredibly interesting. Watched Craig many times in debates but this was way more informative and thought provoking.
It’s only been published for 6 minutes 😂impressed that you’ve watched the whole thing ! (I agree it’s probably a great interview thought without even watcbing it)
@@ivanbenisscott There's a clue in that this comment was 21 hours ago ;)
this guy is watching on 5x or something
Alexander Taylor didn’t the video just get published now tho? He has special access?
@@ivanbenisscott Patrons have early acess
I loved this conversation! It was not a clashing of ideas and spewing of rhetoric, but a thought provoking exploration of the atheistic and theistic worldview. I'm very grateful for this clean, respectful and open-minded discussion. More of this please!
I love how these guys restate what they believe the other person means and wait for confirmation or clarification before they continue with their own points. This conversation style ought to be to “gold standard” for dialogue. Thank you both for such a wonderful conversation!
So you're saying this conversation is proof of UPB? ;D
It is a blueprint for intelligent discussion and meaningful discourse. It's a pity debates are not structured this way. Rather than a discussion of the truth and the facts it becomes a war of intellects and a win at all costs mentality often defeating the purpose of even having a discussion in the first place.
At one time in the U.K. the structures of debate were taught in schools.. That was long ago.. we are now reaping the consequences of denying this skill to our youth..
@@thealchemistdaughter3405 The same here in Australia unfortunately.
@pan-islamist turk. Humans are apes so yes. No evidence we are intelligently designed. If we were, there are so many ways we could have been designed better for this planet. ability to breathe in water considering majority of planet is water. Resistant to the harmful UV rays. Better eye sight. So many more things could be designed better not to breakdown. If your god was a real designer it would have been fired.
Alex, your content is genuinely thoughtful and thought-provoking, and it's clear that you're earning a lot of respect for it. It's absolutely amazing how you continue to pull heavy hitters from every side of the issues you're interested in as guests for your podcast. Keep up the awesome work!
I wanted to like this comment, but it is now a beautiful "88", I did not want to ruin that! So I am going to comment "Like"!! :D
I was wondering about this, actually. It seems to my vague recollection that WLC has stated he will not debate others if they aren't properly credentialed. I'm sure he meant in more formal settings when he said it.
Then the thought occurred to me that all his formal events have been canceled and he's stuck at home like the rest of us. Maybe Coronavirus has given us the gift of making heavy hitters more accessible to the common man?
@@FiryPhnx I'm sure that's part of it, but I don't think he would have sat down for this conversation with someone like Matt dillahunty even under the present conditions of the world.
@@joelhenderson3723 Agreed. It is certainly a multi-faceted consideration.
Like Joel said :)
This disagreement was so healthy, I think I lost 5 pounds watching it.
I laughed when I read that!
lmao
🤣🤣🤣🤣👌
😂
If all disagreements were so healthy, we could live forever. Potentially.
I always come back to this podcast episode atleast once a year. this is definitely one of the best conversations on youtube
Agreed!
One of the best discussions I've seen between an atheist and William Lane Craig. Because both parties were really listening to each other and formulating their points accordingly. Very insightful.
I agree! I would have had a more positive impression of his arguments if he had articulated them as well as he did here in the debates I have seen.
agreed, it seemed to take WLC a while to get the eventual point that Alex was trying to make re: category distinctions between fundemental particles and everything else in his radical miriad nihilist view (and implications of this for the use of inductive reasoning to support the premise 'everything that begins to exist has a cause') but Alex was continuously patient and provided responsive dialogue until it clicked for Craig and discussion could progress. And WLC continuously graciously schooling Alex saying 'here's where you're mistaken, kid!' Defo one of the most enjoyable vids of this kind I've seen too.
@embrace reality hahaa
It's rare in general to hear people who strongly disagree not talk past eachother. This is philosophy as a communication powertool!
@@tingowealeans5712 I don't think there was any "schooling" on either side. Craig made good points and articulated his position well. Alex asked good questions and raised some good objections, some of which I don't think Craig adequately addressed.
Nice! Really excited to watch this.
Then let's gooo 😅
would be interested to hear your take on it!
If you can keep up, you won't be disappointed ;)
Wow, two people who disagree having a respectful and honest conversation. Seems unheard of today. This was fantastic! Long-form media rules.
Peak Jvs only god is not absurd.
Holy shit the amount of times I’ve seen this comment word for word is unbelievably fucking irritating
@ I think this Is pretty disingenuous..... his name has the literal word skeptic in it. How does it get more honest than that? Just because his skepticism is undesirable for some, it doesnt make it dishonest. Itd be dishonest if he called himself cosmetic truth with a capital T .
Lane Craig actually talks some kind of sense in the first fifteen minutes of this video.But then as usual he spends the rest of it talking complete and utter shite.Oh dear
Yes but I do think it is easier for a youngster like Alex to go up against a heavy weight like Willy Craig. Less head-butting of egos. It is a great and positive advantage. For both really.
I am deeply impressed by this discussion, and I have to say Dr. Craig gained a lot of respect in my eyes. I've been familiar with him for a long time due to his big-time debates with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll and other atheists, and I've always viewed him as a faux intellectual repetitor of pre-learned talking points masked as arguments. Alex here brought out the best of him. He actually engaged with the argument on serious philosophical grounds and Dr. Craig clearly engages back, not just regurgitates talking points like I thought he would. It was an inspiring discussion, I am truly impressed by both of these men.
I have to say, if you thought Craig was a faux intellectual, I think you need to access how deep your bias is against Christians. Of all things Craig could be, one thing he absolutely clear is NOT, is a faux intellectual. I find it fascinating how people try to undercut credibility with such a scathing assumption. You could find him boring, uncompelling, incorrect, etc. Faux intellectual is just a wildly wrong take for someone as deeply educated as Craig. Even if this video was uncompelling, you should still see that.
It would be hard to not be drawn into the mire with Dawkins or Hitchens. They’re hardly the beaming light of reason or intellectual authenticity.
@@notjonniecandito7224
I was thinking the same thing when reading his comment. How biased do you have to be to ever even believe that WLC was a faux intellectual. Such a strong bias against Christianity blinds them so much and they don't even see it, unironically so.
@@notjonniecandito7224no, we heard him speak and reject evidence to that contradicted his position.
You are just as uncharitable to the listeners as you believe they are to Craig.
I couldn't agree more with your comment! I felt exactly the same about Craig before watching/listening to this and this changed my opinion of him substantially and I like that!
As an elderly committed Christian, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this debate. Mainly because I was pleasantly surprised how polite the discussion was. Respect! I am a humble carpenter, who is finding the whole world of philosophy extremely challenging. But this video was so helpful in helping inch towards a better understanding. Thanks you!
Polite and civilised discussion 😊
More of a discussion than an actuable debate with rebuttals.
@@mhakoyMD In the scheme of life, there isn’t a debate to have. Evidence and proof reign supreme. Atheists have it, theists don’t.
@@brandonman1315 atheists have proof?
@@Macro_Abuser Theres a reason why atheist try to run away as fast as possible from the “burden of proof”
This wasn’t a debate. It was a discussion and I mean that as a complement. Both sides are really listening to each other in an honest open minded and civil way and trying to hash out a dialectic and reason with one another, rather than simply trying to disprove or convince the other. Hats off to you for putting this dialogue together.
Well, the title says that it is a discussion, not a debate
Alex is charming and an excellent interviewer with a very consistent and thought provoking level of probing. Great job.
There aren’t much atheist UA-camrs like him
Davis John Rationality Rules is another
People like Alex are very rare. His way of arguing and discussing is like dissecting the other person's worldview as if he were a careful surgeon. That's how you know you're dealing with a proper philosopher, a lover of wisdom.
Alex comes from a Catholic background. Most atheists are Anglos and Jews.
Traditional Christian Of course he is, because he’s English. Just like God!
😀
Its great to hear a respectful dialogue. Thanks for having Bill on and thoughtfully engaging him.
As a theist, I think the fact that William Lane Craig accepted to have a conversation in this channel speaks volumes of CosmicSkeptic.
Craig has become very, VERY selective, with whom he accepts to have a public conversation with, and yet, he accepted to have one with Alex. Craig saw something special in him, and now we’ve all seen it.
Alex is not in this debates looking for a fight, or to prove himself right, he’s honestly trying to question his own thoughts on the matter, he’s honestly seeking truth. We ALL could learn a lot from him.
He has debated the best of them around the world. He is a very busy scholar. Hes not very picky, stop smearing him. Keep on bootlicking alec and the atheists you weeaboo garbage
Siega Fan March Forward Craig wasn’t very picky a few years ago, but he definitely is now. He’s said in multiple interviews he won’t debate anyone who isn’t a well known philosopher with a degree.
Honestly, after watching a few debates that include people who do not have a degree in philosophy, I don’t blame him. On most occasions this folks are incapable of having a serious argument.
Actually Dr. Craig has accepted lots of offers for online interviews recently, with the need for social distancing and all. The monthly report from Reasonable Faith that came out almost a month ago is titled, "LOADS of New Interviews with Dr. Craig." He's come to like that mode of communication for multiple reasons. But as far as Alex O'Conner goes, I do like him as well, which says a lot given that I'm also a theist (a Christian).
Jon Keene Yeah, but as far as I know, most (if not all) of the other conversations he’s been having recently are with either, other christians like himself (in which case they are more akin to an interview than a debate) or with highly renowned philosophers/scholars.
Alex is special in the sense that he’s an atheist with whom he’s (kind of) having a debate despite him being merely a laymen.
(Yes, I know Alex is getting a degree in philosophy, but he’s not done with it yet, and even if he were, he would still be miles away from having the recognition as a philosopher that Craig usually demands).
@@geras.3813 Yeah I haven't actually looked into many of those interviews so I can't speak to that. Honestly as I've been watching this interview I've also been really impressed with Alex O'Connor for the same reason as what you're giving. Someone else said that he's only 21?
You will never know what this original comment was
Impersonal, just like the cause of the universe
@J D You're right about not peacefully, but I believe you can respectfully and rationally disagree with their arguments and use your justifications as the reason for preventing any implementation of their views, which most likely would be a forceful action as most Neo-nazis don't stand down in the face of reason
Well not really though. Firstly I wouldn't say it was impersonal. Also don't forget that everything in the video is on the atheist's terms. He framed the questions, even setting up answers to push WLC in a certain direction just so he could use the lines that he had practiced in response..
It did seem cordial but it wasn't a free-flowing conversation like I would like.
No, WLC should be ridiculed for his real epistemology while claiming that the Kalam is what should convince others. He should be ridiculed that he thinks it is rational to believe that a feeling in his "heart" is the presence of the "holy spirit" when it is nothing more than an emotional reaction to indoctrination bias and superstition.
There is no good reason to accept that it is one god over any other or a demon or an evil god etc... To conclude that it must be Jesus is wholly irrational.
There's a video on respecting beliefs by TheraminTrees that argues you are in no way obligated to respect certain kinds of belief. I can't do it justice here, worth a watch
I will say this: you have no idea how refreshing it is to see "discussing" the Kalam rather than "debating" or "debunking". From all appearances, Cosmic Skeptic is a genuine truth seeker, and I have immense respect for that. I hope he indeed finds it.
Maybe he has already
Isaiah 40:26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.
Isn,t it nice to have something to look forward to Revelation 21:3,4 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
If you want more information contact me or www.jw.org Take care Gary
@@garyavey7929 "....then the talking animal said..."
aaaaaaaaand it's a fairy tale. Try Harry Potter. At least it's well written. Less people using a couple hundred foxes to burn down a field rather than, you know, a torch.
@@sycofreake1 Jehovah and Satan have used an animal Like a ventriloquist uses a dummy to speak to people.What is wrong with using foxes to burn a crop 21 Judge Samson (13:1-16:31). Once again Israel falls captive to the Philistines. This time it is Samson whom Jehovah raises up as judge. His parents devote him as a Nazirite from birth, and this requires that no razor shall ever come upon his hair. As he grows up, Jehovah blesses him, and ‘in time Jehovah’s spirit starts to impel him.’ (13:25) The secret of his strength lies, not in human muscle, but in power supplied by Jehovah. It is when ‘Jehovah’s spirit becomes operative upon him’ that he is empowered to slay a lion with his bare hands and later to repay Philistine treachery by striking down 30 of their number. (14:6, 19) As the Philistines continue to act treacherously in connection with Samson’s betrothal to a Philistine girl, Samson takes 300 foxes and, turning them tail to tail, puts torches between their tails and sends them out to burn the grainfields, vineyards, and olive groves of the Philistines. Then he accomplishes a great slaughter of the Philistines, “piling legs upon thighs.” (15:8) The Philistines persuade his fellow Israelites, men of Judah, to bind Samson and deliver him to them, but again ‘Jehovah’s spirit becomes operative upon him,’ and his fetters melt, as it were, from off his hands. Samson strikes down a thousand Philistines-“one heap, two heaps!” (15:14-16) His weapon of destruction? The moist jawbone of an ass. Jehovah refreshes his exhausted servant by causing a miraculous spring of water to break forth at the scene of battle.
22 Samson next lodges a night at a prostitute
Jehovah can use whatever he wants to bring about judgement on other nations.
The Truth you already know?
Two inteligent men, discussing arguments dispassionately and respectful of each other to pursue two things, truth and understanding. It takes love, honesty, and humility to do this.
Thank you, Alex, for posting this wonderful interaction and example to many. A gentleman thinking scholar indeed.
"[Our conversation's] gone in directions I didn't think it would go in"- That's the mark of a really good conversation. Thanks for a the respectful exchange.
I'm a believer in JC and had never heard of you or your channel, Alex (I just search out William Craig discussions bc I'm a huge fan of his), and I have to say how impressed I am at the way you handled the entire conversation with Dr. Craig and I enjoyed listening to both of you back and forth. Very productive format and dialogue. Thank you.
Although I can't see him, I too believe in John Cena. Thats what JC means right?
@@daveseviltwin11 Yes
@@daveseviltwin11 Apparently John speaks Mandarin Chinese fairly well, which is nice.
@@daveseviltwin11 Lmfaoooo
you are a huge fan of fallacious arguments?
I never thought I would see such a pleasant, respectful comment section on a video with a theist and an atheist discussing their contradictory viewpoints, Alex has really built something impressive here, congratulations.
That’s because 9/10 the atheist argues from a position of emotion which never work when ironically the atheist claims superior intellect yet cannot defeat the argument of God with intellect 🤣
@@knightmarefuel4499 both sides do that
No
@@knightmarefuel4499 as a Christian, you ruined it
@@colinc892 only one side can be right. Either God exists or he doesn’t. And the only portion of my comment which could be attributed to Christians would be arguing from an emotional state. Not sure the point of doing that since the purpose of my comment was to highlight the ironic position of the atheist.
God can be easily defended with science and logic, there is no logical scientifically solid argument against the existence of God. Because to insinuate the absence of a creator leaves way for chaos, no purpose, no objective morals etc. existence is merely an accident with an expiration date. The gaps in evolution along with the errors of the Big Bang theory are laughable. The math as well doesn’t support it.
As to the person who accused me of “ruining” it, I simply stated facts.
Two dear, polite, sharp, intelligent, patient, clever and eloquent beings ❤ truly appreciate this! Thanks!
As a Christian I’ve always loved WLC, but when it comes to the atheist community - Alex is class. I enjoyed this.
According to Quantum mechanics,the sources of information are random and Indeterminate ..the laws we discover are merely relational correlations..therefore no underlying structure can be found..no chain of causation,divine or otherwise exists...so Craig claims are lies,fallacies and unscientific..
Good to see WLC not get to complain that the opponents opening didn't address his own opening for a change. He always does that, as if he has no idea what a rebuttal is for, and it annoys me to no end.
William Lane Craig is an incredibly dishonest person. People who believe what he says will believe just about anything.
@@FakeCheeseCake You don't have to beleive what he says, his arguments are his arguments and there right there in front of you
As a atheist I’ve never liked WLC, but when it comes to the atheist community - Alex is class
I’m a Christian and I watched this on Dr. Craig’s channel. That being said I want to give extreme respect to Alex. I so appreciate the polite and humble approach. You are a true scholar! I learned a lot from this and can say after viewing that I have a new appreciation that atheism can be a very intellectual approach.
As an agnostic-atheist, I can honestly say I got the exact same feeling the first time I watched WLC’s discussion with Roger Penrose (which is great if you haven’t seen it already).
Personally, I find militant atheism and young earth creationism two sides of the same coin, and the face on the coin is ignorance. The sooner both sides disappear the better, IMO.
Extremism rarely ends well...
@@randopedia1 The two fundamentalist groups. Agreed.
@@randopedia1 "I find militant atheism and young earth creationism two sides of the same coin"
This is exactly correct. The similarities are immense with one big difference; YEC's deny the scientific information while Militant atheists (what I call average online atheists, AOAs) try to use obscured and misrepresented science to 'prove atheism' true or superior. Often times this is a result of ignorance of the actual scientific data (and how inconclusive a lot of it is) combined with delusions of intellectual superiority. They often are imagining they are smarter, more rational and more objective than Christians (specifically). You can see this with UA-camrs like Rationality Rules and the like (Cosmicskeptic is one of the few humble and fair atheist channels I have seen, although Genetically modified skeptic has chilled out a lot in the last years).
There is a real danger in the AOA's approach that I think is actually more harmful than fundamental christianity. that is because they are unaware and unwilling to internalize their biases (you are far more likely to lose all semblance of objectivity if you can't admit your biases). Christians are usually fully aware and admit they are bias and have basically embraced it as "okay" (which is harmful as well but IMO not as harmful). Also the way the AOA misrepresents science bastardizes it and turns it into a 'religious like' phenomenon that is to be believed. This is harmful to the scientific method.
Additional Note: I wanted to add; that militant athiest have not ALWAYS been the more harmful group and it doesn't mean they always will be. In the 90's through about the mid 2000's it was fundamental Christians that were almost certainly more harmful. But the militant atheists gained momentum in the last 10 to 15 years and are not more aggressive and confident. But I also see fundamentalists religions gaining momentum back in response to the aggressiveness. As you point out, this will not likely end well for anyone; included those of us trying to have intellectually honest conversations about these topics and cordially disagree with each other without villainizing the other side.
@@randopedia1 Militant atheism and thinking the Earth is 5k years old are the same thing? Don't be ridiculous.
Atheism is the ONLY intellectual approach. That is why most philosophers and scientists at top institutions nowadays are atheists. Religion is ridiculous. If you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia you would believe in Mohammed and think that Jesus was never crucified. Do you realise that?
infinity war is the most ambitious crossover event in history
Alex: hold my skepticism
@Carl Williams Really?
Carl Williams ... You are evil! I am a Christian and love Alex because he’s intelligent, fascinating, and respectful. If you truly “loved” nonChristians, you would realize that your relentless spamming of these comments is hideously vile and totally reprehensible 😡
@@cturtleSSI disagree with your assessment. Even though I agree the spamming of a copy paste comment isn't the best way to get the gospel out. Even an atheist should realize he is trying to get the truth out right? Why would that be hideous and reprehensible?
Pawel Stuglik Carl is a weird form of spambot I’ve seen circulating about lately. Good into certain skeptical tubers’ comment sections, and replies to everyone in each thread with the same cut and paste thing. Saw it on an AntiCitizenX video from 11 mos ago (replying to one of my replies)
I don’t get what the shtick is supposed it be good for. Probably will just get cleaned out by mods at some point.
One thing I've always admired about WLC is his stated desire to hear his interviewer/debate partner's best questions/arguments, and if needed even help present them in their strongest form. And I'd argue you can see that commitment here at points, where WLC carefully parses what he is arguing for or against.
Great job - much respect for you both.
"... has famously debated God ..."
oh boi
Been trying to get him on the podcast too but he won't respond to my emails
@@CosmicSkeptic 😂😂😂 good one.
@@CosmicSkeptic Ever since that incident with the Babel Fish, God has been avoiding logical arguments.
@@CosmicSkeptic - I know a lot of his friends, I'll have them put in a word with the Big Guy for you.
@@CosmicSkeptic Surely Hitchens has been tearing into him for the last nine years.
WLC: 36:10 "Now immediately, people will think about quantum indeterminacy"
Me: *thinks about food*
You made me laugh
I’m thinking subway sandwich
@Amirus Maybe you're just dumb no offence
@Amirus He is smart...
@Amirus I don't agree with Craig on a lot of things, but I'd say that anyone with two PhD's is smart.
When I was a Christian I watched Craig’s debate with Hitchens at Biola University and thought that it was clear that Craig won. I plan on making a video reacting to it, as an atheist, comparing how I processed things back then vs now.
Now THAT's a perspective i'd find really informative!
Sujoy Gupta Great! I’ll put it in the video line up.
Please do! :D
That'd be fascinating!
Even atheists thought Craig won.
This is one of the best discussions on Kalam I've ever seen. So well done. Kudos, Alex and Craig.
I love how you are both willing to entertain each others idea's without necessarily accepting it. That is true open mindedness right there.
is craig openminded to his god not existing!
This was fantastic. Just absolutely well done on both sides. Very impressed that Alex being as young as he is, holding his own and having a constructive, meaningful, and respectful discussion with such a seasoned and intelligent person as WLC.
Absolutely 👏
Wow. This is one of the best atheist/theist discussions I’ve ever heard (and I’ve heard plenty). Alex’s questions were respectful and very sharp, Dr. Craig was very good in his answers and understanding of the points Alex was making, and both went in-depth on areas almost NEVER COVERED by any online debate about the Kalam, pro or con. I learned a lot.
If you think this is good, check out the Capturing Christianity moderated discussions featuring Graham Oppy.
These points have been covered in debates before when Craig debated professional philosophers.
Micah Scanzillo Yeah, Oppy is by far one of my favorite atheists, purely for that reason. There was a point when I didn't have any knowledge of his philosophical stance when he was having a debate with Craig and the respect was so great that I might have been fooled that they held different viewpoints.
A five year old knows nothing but CS dont
Kyle Xin Ye According to Craig, Oppy is “scary smart” and recently said that Oppy made the following statement:
“We can neither _prove_ nor _disprove _ the existence of God.”
That makes a ton of sense to me. It means that it’s up to us to choose to believe/disbelieve in God. Atheists need to stop demanding absolute proof of God, and theists need to stop claiming they have absolute proof. I mean the kind of proof that takes away our _choice_ to believe or disbelieve.
Ultimately it’s up to us, and I think that’s fair.
Honestly, this changed my mind on WLC, very knowledgeable and generous, I absolutely love these kinds of conversation absent of name calling, pandering to audiences, etc.
Alex, I think this format is absolutely amazing - I feel like so many traditional debates get defensive and unproductive way too easily and it‘s rare to see both sides be so civil and actively seek the common ground that unites two differing views in order to better understand where the disagreements lie. What’s clear from watching this is just how significant some of those small differences in fundamental beliefs can be - most of which I feel were really touched on in the last section of the talk.
Well done indeed - in my mind I think you nailed the main problem I’ve always had with the Kalam and that is that saying something begins to exist isn’t the same for a human, chair etc as it is for the universe - once that distinction is made it’s clear to me at least that the universe is the only example of something coming into existence without prior components already existing, so we don’t have other evidence to compare to and have to assume the conclusion in the offset, making the argument circular.
I hope the result of this discussion is much more of the same, respectful and productive conversation in the community!
I completely agree. Terrific discussion, and I'm looking forward to Alex's analysis of the points made in this video.
Well said
The kalam doesn’t imply that the Universe began to exist because its components i.e human, earth etc began to exist. There’s no fallacy of composition.
Why isn’t it possible for the creator of the Universe to be of different attributes from the creator of a computer if thats what u mean to have a doubt about
ABRAR HASHMI maybe you don’t think the Kalam implies that, but Craig specifically uses the ‘every day examples’ of things coming into existence from a cause as ‘common sense’ justification for the first premise. How else do you justify the claim that ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause’, without using those sorts of everyday examples we do see?
I’m simply saying that because coming into existence in the case of the universe (ie without prior components) is different to everyday objects coming into existence (perhaps better described as pre-existing matter changing from one thing to another and us labelling it as ‘this thing we call X now exists’), means we can’t justify the first premise with the everyday objects examples, and so you have to then just assume out of intuition that the universe began to exist from a cause (because we have no other examples to compare to), and then you have an argument with the conclusion assumed in the offset - hence forth circular reasoning.
The premise, ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause’ needs justification, and we don’t have any from what Craig has said here. So before we get anywhere close to accepting your God claim, we need some sort of good evidence that justifies the first premise of the argument.
William Johnston Guitarist Both premises could use a little more justification, but I think they are sufficiently justified to grant. For me, it’s his interpretation of the conclusion that I can’t grant; namely “cause of universe=god”. He argues it based on free will, so it goes a little off the deep end
Gotta say, my favorite philosopher, favorite argument, and favorite UA-cam atheist, all in one video. Would be easy to be disappointed with such high expectations, but I thought the convo was great. Thanks for the respectful and thoughtful conversation.
(Edit: Alex, sorry, I forgot to say, to your point about universes having a property that allows them to come into existence, I don’t know if Craig articulated it well, but the point is that prior to its existence, the universe (and anything else) has no properties, because prior to its existence, it isn't really anything; it's nothing. Therefore there can't be constraints on a thing that doesn't exist because there isn't anything to constrain. And by time it comes into existence, it’s too late because it already exists. So that’s why it wouldn’t work to allow things other than universes to begin to exist inexplicably). Hope that makes sense.
No lie, John, I just told my little girl that exact thing like 20 mins ago! Lol
The what do you meme guy is also pretty good at debating his beliefs :)
I think this point was made in the debate...
@Carl Williams actually I'm a Christian, brother! So, thank you for sharing the Gospel, but I am already following Jesus as well!
Properties of universe could exist as abstract objects even before time.
I was not prepared for the implications of this talk. I also have a rekindled respect for Craig after this, and I thank you for that Alex. This type of discussion is drastically preferable to a debate.
One of the most constructive and thoughtful conversations on this topic I've watched so far! Thanks so much!
I regularly listen to WLC, but I have to say I'm very impressed with Alex. He comes across as respectful, quick-witted, and very bright, and I def admire his intellectual honesty and openness to hearing all sides. Great discussion 👍
He's not like this with Muslims. It was more fear of lack of knowledge than respect, though he does respect him.
don't worry.
WLC is riding on a wave of cherrypicked statements of physicists without understanding physics of it too.
hint: Alex's position that WLC described as radical or extreme .. is neither of that.
I am a Christian, and I am happily subscribed to this channel, and I would encourage other Christians to give Alex a listen. This video was incredibly respectful and the topic was well discussed. We need to be made aware of, appreciate and seek to understand all kinds of different points of view in order to find Truth in this world. Thanks Alex and Mr. Craig!
But you say you are Christian doesn't that mean you already found truth?
I'm a Christian as well but as a Christian I still believe the Bible and God and Jesus are the ultimate truth it is different to say that I would watch his or any other person's videos to develop a different truth. But rather personally just to be understanding to another's perspective this is a whole different case than to change my views for it for the sake of watching a video.
You call your self a Christian but refuse the fact that there is no shred of evidence of this wholesale BS with help of book. Harry Potter makes more sense. It doessnt claim to be the real deal and nobody, while enjoying it immensely, claims entitlement just because you can quote stuff. The book of morons is just full of made up shite.
polite discussion are really appreciated 😊
@@Rosecloudlyrics he is probably an agnostic christian, which is a clever position imo since until this very day atheists and theists couldnt prove that they were exactly right (i am an agnostic atheist if you are wondering)
Glad to see this posted! WLC posted the following recently: "Earlier this week I had a great dialogue with Alex Conner, who impressed me by his openness and humility, as well as his brightness. Then today I had an exciting one and a half hour Q&A with Cameron Bertuzzi's listeners. I think I'm going to quit traveling and speaking!"
Irish Jester if you listened to the debate you’d recognise that no one argued that ‘we don’t know therefore God’, if that’s what you’re insinuating, that comment does a serious injustice to hours of content in this video. The Kalam argument justifies its conclusion (God) by scientific data on what we DO know about the universe, not what we don’t.
Also, quantum physics doesn’t get you anywhere because as unpredictable as the quantum world may be, it’s still contingent upon the laws of physics, which didn’t always exist.
@unusual score and Turk
Let's imagine a scenario: we are walking down the street and pass by an alley and see a dead body. You then call the police and tell them Jason Smith murdered the man; the police talk to me about the crime and I tell them "he doesn't have a clue who murdered that man we just happened upon him."
Now you claim I'm not justified in saying you don't know it was Jason Smith because I don't have an alternative? That is rather silly don't you think? It would be my duty to tell the police, that you have no clue who murdered Jason, an woefully unjust to withhold that information.
unusual score Yes, we are simply proclaiming the only truth anyone can really have in this scenario. That I know you don’t know Jason Smith murdered the suspect. The same way I know you don’t know that God created the universe...it’s impossible to have that information. The people that tell us they “know” the universe was created by their God has shifted a thousand times over the centuries. They have had thousands of years to show us how they know and are yet to provide sufficient evidence. They’ve had their time and now, after thousands of years of different successive gods, it is finally coming to light that they truly don’t know. Now is the time for you to sit down and learn; take note of history and the inability of the religious community to provide any evidence for god or god creating the universe. There aren’t many things we can be sure of in this life...but I’m damn sure you don’t know god created the universe. I would be wrong, just like in my analogy, to sit down and be quiet and let you lie to everyone.
@@CosmicEpiphany I think you have a problem with the word "God" including me. Just replace this word with "The Creator". The Creator(The Something) created the Universe or Nothing created the universe. Which one is absurd?
@@rolemodelboyz The one that doesn't include a magic entity. I don't think the universe ever began...it has always been around (it just cycles).
I'm a Christian. I must say Alex is such a great interviewer. This should be a model of conversations on this subject.
"author of more books than I've been alive" is the smoothest 2 edged flex I've ever heard.
I didn't think about it in that way, but you're absolutely right
*comment about how I appreciate 2 people with differing views being able to respectfully debate*
You can be respectful, doesn't change if you believe in non sense
@@superfarful what’s nonsense? If everything reduces to a mere illusion then believing in God or not is pointless, nothing matters.
Im cuuummingg
@@jey7230 That can be said about any argument and is therefore not useful
@@jey7230 Beware of creating False Dilemmas...
I'm joyful that the comments so far are all praising the form of this conversation. Very interesting talk and without the add ons we usually see
I am an atheist, and I am happily watching many more dr Craig's videos, and I would encourage Christians to give dr. Craig a listen. This video was incredibly respectful and the topic was well discussed. We need to be made aware of, appreciate and seek to understand all kinds of different points of view in order to find Truth in this world. Thanks Alex and Mr. Craig!
If you were interested in truth you would've accepted Islam already
@@ramzichouk4080 Do you know Thomas Alexander channel?
@@meusisto Islam existed before his channel and no i don't listen to hypocrites , if you want to learn mathematics you go to a mathematician not a pastry chef .
@@ramzichouk4080 Just go away, coward.
@@ramzichouk4080 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂
This was a blessing to me Alex. I enjoyed the way you interacted with and the respect you gave Craig. It allowed for deep and robust thoughts and answers. I would tune in daily to hear you two. Please consider doing this again and/or making it an ongoing thing.
As a Christian, I’m impressed with your openness and seemingly sincere truth seeking. Found this a great discussion!
@UCEbW7vTTa0YwU5zMj8f2avQ I know this is an atheist channel, but pointless and offensive comments like yours are just toxic.
I found this to be one of the better discussions I've seen between an atheist and a theist.
MomoTheBellyDancer I guess I’d disagree with that. I have given this question serious thought for over several years, and think theism, and in particular Christianity, is much more reasonable than atheism.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism but larger amounts bring us back to god" - Francis Bacon
@@hiddetjevanderwaal2827 reasonable is different for everyone. Momo did not talk about reasonable but about "sincere truth seeking". And there christianity like other religions fail because you only find your peronal "truths" there, only things which you like and have bias toward.
What a cordial and productive exchange. This was absolutely delightful.
Exactly. I was pleasantly surprised
Agreed. It's refreshing to see the flow of a good debate like this after watching so many others involving some passive-aggressive folks.
I just want to add how much I respect the way this was handled. I've been doing my own research on the Kalam and avoided this recommended video because I falsely assumed the kind of content it would be. Don't judge a book by it's cover. Here is a young guy trying to learn, educate, and entertain. You nailed all 3, dude.
Thoroughly enjoyed the video; we (theist and atheists alike) need more charitable conversations like these that enlighten, build ideas, and move both sides to articulate ones position.
This was the most coherent I've ever heard Craig speak. I'm really glad you had him on and talked about these topics with him. I don't agree with him on a lot of stuff but it really made me think. Thanks to both of you and I hope you get back together in a while and have another discussion.
I actually disagree . A church preacher makes more sense than this philosophical genius since he doesn't tries to put the round piece in the square hole .
First time viewer here, what an incredible interviewer. This young man is pure genius.
I wouldn't say he is a genius, genius is too high of a compliment and he doesn't fit the definitions however he is very very very very Intelligent, Smart, Honest, Wise and Open Minded. He deserves all the fame and attention that he gets and deserves much much more.
This type of discourse has to be the most productive I've seen regarding these questions. You can learn a lot from both perspectives without wasting time interrupting and yelling at one another.
Muslim here. This is the first time i have listened to CS. Your manner and mode of inquiry is refreshing. Without a doubt the most enjoyable conversation. I basically disagree with everything you have said but i could listen to you for a long timr. You are extremely intelligent and i commend the way you handle yourself. Please have more conversations in this format. Love.
I also disagree with all his views and arguments, but also like coming to his channel to listen to his arguments and debates sometimes.
@emillion, seems you haven’t watch as many. Hijab his own style and I loved it. Everyone is not the same, so it holds true for Muslim too, and every Muslim is not hijab.
@@lequdindoquede78 Not all Muslims are the same. Hijab's style of debate doesn't translate to the rest of the Muslim speakers. Have more of an open mind.
@@lequdindoquede78
you're understanding of Islamic academics doesn't seem to go back more than a few years or beyond UA-cam
@@lequdindoquede78 A few million brain cells short for Hijab to debate like this....
As a Christian, this discussion has helped me a lot; being a supposedly "logical" person. Cheers, Alex and WLC, you all are great as always.
I reckon if this was done even 10 years ago the comments section would be full of people picking sides and having fights
Now it seems people are just grateful to see a rational exchange. Which is certainly refreshing
Most of the online atheist community have chilled out a lot over the last decade. It's been helped by the fact that many prominent atheists (Harris, Dawkins, or even Thunderfoot in a UA-cam context) have turned most of their attention to combatting radical postmodern neomarxism rather than religion. Combatting radical postmodern neomarxism is an area which broadly brings many atheists them into agreement with religious/conservative thinkers (Peterson, Shapiro, Wilson, etc.).
To be honest, my early experiences of UA-cam/internet atheists (2007-2012) weren't pleasant at all - a lot of high-horsing, sneering, superciliousness, etc., but that has largely changed over the last five years or so.
@Rob Lowe Postmodern neomarxists (i.e. intersectionalists) happen to usually be atheists, but generally don't engage with their atheism or bother arguing with religious people, because their main issues/goals lie elsewhere (e.g. feminism, anti-racism, etc.).
The 'online internet atheist community' (for want of a better term) on the other hand, used to argue about religion all the time because it was their main issue of concern. In recent years, the rising and often oppressive power of postmodern neomarxists has led to many in the online atheist community turning their attention to combatting that particular ideology, instead of religion.
Ironically, most religious people also oppose postmodern neomarxism, which means the religious and much of the atheist community are largely on the same side of the debate against the postmodern neomarxists. Atheists and theists having a common enemy in postmodern neomarxists has played a role in discussions/debates between atheists and theists generally becoming less combative over the last five years.
@Rob Lowe Thanks Rob for shitting on the OP's sentiment. It's obvious you came here to poison the well, smear atheists & start shit with anyone who disagrees. Bravo.
Edit: Back to worshipping Jordan Lee Peterson with you.
@Rob Lowe You don't get it, most of the online atheist community (followers of Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens etc.) are modernists in the sense that they believe in the existence of objective truth and scientific fact. They intensely dislike postmodern neomarxism, whose claims include rejecting all meta-narratives and rejecting the concept of objective truth.
@@theirishneilers thats when they realized they have contributed to the eventual downfall of their own society and consequently placed themselves in danger. nothing but arrogant idiots.
Kudos to Alex and Dr Craig! Respectful, sincere, constructive. And the comment section appreciating this is so good for morale!
As a Christian I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation and learned a lot. Cosmic Skeptic is such an awesome, thoughtful and deliberate thinker and interlocutor. Dr. Craig was, as always, awesome. God bless both of them - even if Alex doesn't believe - LOL!. Really good conversation though.
What - aren’t we supposed to hate each other though??? Lol. As an atheist, I’m glad we get to witness a respectful debate on this topic as well. Have a good day
@@tripp8833
very diferrent comment here from other atheist youtuber channel.
@@tripp8833 if you think that it just goes to show how much you hate relationships with G-d. If you hate religion you're only fulfilling prophecy.
@@josephsack4918 It was probably just a joke given the rest of the comment.
@@Ninterd2 idk, it's hard to see sarcasm through a comment.
The majority of comments being Christians applauding Alex for his respectfulness, really tells you what they’re used to in terms of dealing with the majority of Atheists.
As a new believer and I've done my research and came to my conclusions early on on my seeking. I am very impressed with how this collaboration was handled. Honest and humble they both were and open to different view points. Coming to debates with honest hearts and open minds enables us to learn and recieve rather then harden and ignore. Well done, ill be back for more.
New believer? You can allways change your mind, fortunatelly :)
Alex, your careful reasoning and respect for your interlocutor is bread to the hungry. Having listened to hours of Craig's debates I can say this was the most elucidating I've ever heard. Thank you for for your willingness and ability to get into the weeds.
Atheists are in error regarding the most important truth: God/Jesus
I have been an atheist (due to the atheistic education under the communist regime) until the vision received. Few years before the vision, while still being an atheist, I had a NDE.
I had an out of body experience when my heart has stopped for more minutes, in the emergency room of the hospital: at 18 years old, after a saint life, without bad addictions, being a virgin (no sexual involvement until that moment, just platonic), and generally suffering evil from others but not hurting others etc.) when I had my heart stopped in the hospital and my spirit was leaving my body (I raised floating horizontally at about one meter above my dead body, in an infinite happiness that I did not know that exists, and when I was trying to communicate with the nurse next to my bed she was just looking down very sadly, at my dead face, not answering to me, actually not hearing me, while being invisible for her and the other patients from the intensive care room). Then, after that wonderful (extreme happiness) short period of time spent outside of my body (saying continuously loudly about how immense wonderful happiness I feel, but nobody was hearing me), I went down slowly, with the same exact speed, to (into) my body and was back alive.
Anyone can read below, explained in details, how I became a believer of the truth, a Christian:
It happened in the first year as a college student. I was an atheist at that time and before, but when I made my girlfriend (actual wife) cry, due to a contradictory discussion about God/Jesus, loving her very much, I ASKED TO GIVE ME A SIGN TO BELIEVE, addressing this from all my soul and from all my heart (it was like "God, if you exist, give me a sign to believe in you"), then, in few days, when I had already forgotten about my demand, I had the vision (please forgive my English, while it is not my native language):
I was like teleported outdoors in complete dark, feeling the wind blowing slowly, and while worrying where I am, and how could be possible such phenomenon, a sphere of light came slowly from the left (later I realized that it came from the house in which I was born, the house of my grandfather, who was a priest, being dead at that moment), and faster while approaching of me, when I was able to recognize the exact place where I was, due to the reflection of light on the houses on one side and another of the road, being in the middle of the street, quite close to the house where I was born (in a small village).
The sphere of light was very bright (the whitest white), diffusing lightly on edges, and in the moment when it touched me, it became like an usual white, decreasing its brightness, as (like) it was defiled by me.
When that sphere of light was coming, I remembered my demand (my words: TO GIVE ME A SIGN TO BELIEVE), and I realized that I can do nothing to escape from that situation (I felt that we people are very small and weak, infinitely more than we realize, against what exists beyond us).
All the time, being inside that light I felt it more like a fluid (it was not an usual light).
After few moments, surrounded by that sphere of light (due to my emotions that have risen dramatically, I was standing up on my toes), I felt it going slowly up, tilting my head up, very kindly, by two very gentle hands (like angelic hands), then going very fast into the sky, like a column of light, remaining looking at the dark night sky filled with stars, IN A COMPLETE SILENCE (that I never experienced). I say "complete silence" because before that moment it was like in this world, with a permanent almost imperceptible background noise, but then the complete silence made me feel out of this world, like I was dead, and I thought that I will hear some words, but no words and I came very abruptly into our usual reality with my heart beating incredible hard, like outside of my body, and the first thing I said was: "Thank You for bringing me back!", then I made my first sacrament (oath) from my entire life: "I will tell to all people whom I find not believing in God that GOD EXISTS AND TO THINK MORE ABOUT THIS!".
_"In the last days, God says, I will pour out My Spirit on all people; your sons and daughters will prophesy, your _*_young men will see visions,_*_ your old men will dream dreams."_ Acts 2, 17
My vision, which turned me from an atheist into a Christian, was an unique 100% real very powerful event at the limit for my heart to resist. If something like that would have happened again later in my life, I would have a heart attack (thanks God that I was very healthy and athletic at that time). Also, I received it because of two main reasons:
1) In spite of the fact that I have been an atheist, besides some mistakes, I have not done evil on purpose, but I have suffered very much evil from others instead, having a life without vices, being virgin until meeting my wife... I was living a life quite close to the one of a saint;
2) I have asked for a sign to believe from all my heart, in the most serious way.
Not the labels that people put one another are important for the Creator of this reality (such as: Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu...) but *our deeds* instead, how we use the freedom He has offered, our free will, to strive always to do only good, to never cause useless suffering (any damage) to others and to ourselves.
As Jesus Christ has told us:
*_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48
Unfortunately, too many people have refused over history, and too many still refuse nowadays, to follow this.
This was so entertaining to watch! As a student in biomedical science I'm rarely exposed to philosophical/theological information and discussions, so your content is both informative and enjoyable. Love your work, can't wait to see how your channel grows in the next few years.
Understandable, biomedical science and philosophy for a long time were thought incompatible. LoL.
Alex J Oconnor, as far as Ive seen is the most consistent and honest atheist Ive ever watched. I really enjoyed this video as a Christian.
It seemed to me that even William Lane Craig enjoyed it.
It was a very helpful conversation for me and Im sure it was very helpful for all of those watching.
I agree and this is why I have little respect for people who make wise cracks at Alex' age.
Most atheists are honest regarding the atheist position. It is WLC and many other apologists who tend to be dishonest, and many atheist channels that breakdown their arguments show this to definitively be the case.
@@rockysandman5489 Cosmicskeptic follows the evidence where it leads everytime. What I mean by honest is this same thing.
For example: Sam Harris is not a consistent and honest atheist because he claims objective morality under an atheist worldview. And this is just absurd. On the other hand Alex O Connor is real and consistent with his atheist worldview when he follows his worldview wherever it may lead, no matter the price he has to pay. Nihilism is the path where atheism takes you and he accepts it. I think that is admirable and I believe he is really open to truth.
Also, WLC is one of the best philosophers in the world right now. Do not underestimate theists.
Even Alex holds him to be someone with upmost caliber.
@@jafedpimentel8751 There is no problem with being an atheist and claiming objective morality. Morality comes from empathy, which is objectively in existence in the majority of specimen in social species.
"Nihilism is the path where atheism takes you"
Slippery Slope fallacy, and false conclusion.
WLC uses dishonest tactics in his debates, and when he is cornered on every other argument he attempts that backfires on him, his trump card is making an appeal to faith. Is this really a man you consider a "great philosopher"? Seriously?! You've set the bar too low.
@@rockysandman5489 CosmicSkeptic may disagree with you.
Check it out.
ua-cam.com/video/ZUtXmT_sIxI/v-deo.html
On the other hand,
Do not confuse universality with objectivity.
This is insane. I first heard about William Lane Craig in my A Level Religious Studies class so it’s surreal to see Alex having this conversation with him on a UA-cam video.
A Perfect example of agreeing to disagree without attacking one another world needs more of this.
Wow! Talk about breaking barriers my man. Congrats on making this happen!
Amazing. Alex has earned his spot as my favorite atheist even though I am a Christian.
My thoughts exactly
Exactly bruh!!
Favorite atheist philosopher, still below the Apostate Prophet.
some guy
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@TheWorldTeacher I am. I feel that the arguments for the existence of a creator are more convincing to me than atheist arguments explaining reality.
I immediately appreciated the tone of this exchange from the start. A very encouraging interaction.
Well Alex, you had your brains and hands full dealing with Craig. Solid answers to your questions all throughout. Watched the whole thing - that was really good.
Our modern-day politicians could learn much by watching these two men intellectually joust with the utmost dignity and respect for each other. Well done, gentlemen.
im a Christian, but i really am impressed with alex's ability to stretch his mind. MAN its like im getting smarter listening to him. XD
What are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@TheWorldTeacher what are yours for dis belief?
You're gonna get so much smarter then if you watch some more of his videos. And then afterwards you're gonna get even smarter then by listening to more atheist orators like him - Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, Seth Andrews, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan, and more.
@@rockysandman5489 umm i have. I do not agree with them either. I do not think atheism and theism has anything to do with being "smart". My point was to his ability to think outside the box. Doesnt mean im somehow losing faith in Jesus XD. Im just complimenting.
@@Kimkong2 I do think there's a correlation for atheism and being "smart" in the sense of being a critical thinker, since critical thinking and rational evaluation naturally leads to atheism, not to theism.
this was like watching a philosophy instructor and that really smart kid in class having a discussion
I agree - Alex is an excellent instructor!
@@t8060am LOL I KNRW SOMEONE WAS GONNA SAY THAT
@@t8060am Did you watch the video or..?
@@johnsannicolas2015 Yes
@@t8060am HAHAH
Alex, thanks for coming at this from a genuine angle. It allows me as a theist to push my understanding
Another Christian here that really admires your approach, Alex. You are open-minded and a truth seeker and you remind me of myself some years back as an Atheist willing to look for truth even where it hurts, not afraid of being proven wrong, or having an lacking argument. Keep up the good work!
Yup. Extremely refreshing to find a non-theist actually engage with the theist's position with deep, realistic, relatable, and sensible counter-arguments and questions rather than impulsively invoking elementary ridicule such as the flying spaghetti monster or some other long-since refuted objections like the "problem" of evil, which frankly make atheism seem like the far less sophisticated world view between the two. If I were to be truly objective in my assessment of this debate then if anything I'd say that Dr Craig seemed somewhat more unsympathetic and even in some sense dismissive towards some of Alex's compelling thought experiments - for example his suggestion that perhaps only non-material things such as universes could in fact come into being un-caused beyond the observable universe. Yes, it's true that such suggestions seem counter-intuitive/far-fetched to the point of raising the price tag for atheism, but there's also a sense of plausibility to that suggestion as well. I was surprised at how readily Alex was prepared to put that argument to rest when Dr Craig rejected it without directly engaging it. It's not always easy to maintain impartiality when opposing viewpoints are at odds. Even in quests for objective truth, we tend to lean on our own biases. Clearly Alex's primary objective with this discussion was to uphold respectful conduct at all costs and avoid any rigorous heated disagreements in spite of any itching compulsions to the contrary, which I find highly commendable. Dr Craig is after all the more experienced and renowned of the two, and therefore deserving of some level of inherent respect, which Alex rightfully maintained throughout. Overall kept the platform conducive for a great, lengthy, stimulating discussion for everyone else to enjoy. CS has just earned my +sub. Have been aware of his channel for years, but always assumed he was just another militant, ardent atheist. Clearly not the case at all! He is brilliantly articulated and seemingly genuinely honest and impartial - a pleasure to listen to.
Hi Gabriel, I used to be an atheist as well, now I have a media ministry. Feel free check out my prophecy playlist showing how the Bible foretold the future,
revealing the Antichrist and Mark of the Beast: ua-cam.com/video/CyZQLTW-Axg/v-deo.html
@@bibleprophecyproof I'm also an agnostic now Christian
I was leading strongly towards Atheism so I consider myself an former atheist
Will check out ur vids
@J w first of thanks alot for the compliment
And actually I'm no longer an agnostic I'm full Christian now
I get doubts of his existence at times but
The thoughts isn't too strong
Ever since I took my fitness to a next level the thoughts gets better
@J w oh I forgot I thought the reply was for me lol
This was a good discussion though
We need more of these.
agreed
Yup
Good discussion which leads to no truth, at the end they are still left with what they came with
@@lawrenceasto1325 maybe not them, but hopefully the audience can come away with something from this exchange!
Doctor Craig didn't change my mind here, but this is the first time I've heard him speak outside of a debate and also the first time I've actually thought he's brought up ideas worth thinking about.
Only because it wasn't a debate and Alex gave him an abundance of leeway.
so what did you conclude?
@@japexican007 I got a sense that he is actually sincere in his arguments and that he believes what he asserts. In debate, he has never seemed sincere to me. I also concluded that beyond our stance on theism, I have a very different way of thinking than Craig does. When he was talking about "what the atheist has to be prepared to give up," I realized that he has a fundamental outlook from which he can't be moved. I might be deceiving myself to some extent, but I think I would be "prepared to give up" whatever was required if that was where the preponderance of evidence pointed.
@Atheism Kills No. It's because he presents himself better in this kind of situation than he does in a debate, I never "actually read his work" because I didn't like the way he presented himself in debates and found the arguments he made in those debates unimpressive/unconvincing. Believe it or not I was able to come to those conclusions through my own observations and didn't need the help of any "atheist critics" (dishonest or otherwise).
binkey so what of his argument did you conclude as dishonest?
One of the best videos I've ever listened to. Simulating in content and implication it sets a prescient for how productive and genuine a conversation can be!
It genuinely gave me the chills when I got to the end
More more more! would you consider analysing the set up, how much research you did, the attitudes and preconception that you feel helped make it a great conversation.
If this comment began to exist, this comment had a cause.
This comment began to exist.
Therefore: this comment had a cause.
wha
Lol I love your channel too
And therefore Gawd!
Holy Koolaid Mind. BLOWN!
And it DOES.
I must admit, that at the beginning I was a bit reluctant whether I wanted to sit watching WLC for oven an hour, but I was amazed how well you (Alex) managed the dialogue, and for the first time it showed more insight in WLC than the other zillions of videos or debates. Really big thumbs up for this!
I thought the same as WLC has come across as incredibly insipid in other debates I've seen. I still don't think that Kalam gets us remotely close to a god but it was interesting to see the question discussed without so much emphasis on the conclusion.
@@peakjvs4967 straightforward and clear, yes but it doesn't get any closer to a god. It also assumes that the universe isn't eternal.
@@peakjvs4967 the Kalam says nothing at all about a creator. However WLC is known for bolting on an assertion that there is a personal creator.
@J w and yet, theists have no problem with their god being eternal.
@J w no... the Kalam literally ends with "Therefore, the universe has a cause". Your interpretation of what that cause is necessarily makes other assumptions.
This was a really awesome conversation. Both parties were engaged and listened to, processed and responded to what the other was actually saying. Great job 👍
Both Alex and Dr. Craig brought their absolute highest A game for this conversation. Very great video, many provoking thoughts on both sides, and civil dialogue through and through.
Alex: If things can pop into existence out of nothing, why doesn't it happen all the time? Why don't we see a horse appear out of nothing, for instance?
Me: Have you ever played Skyrim?
I know you’re probably joking, but just in case, Skyrim horse are brought into being by the game’s code and data, they don’t appear out of “nothing”.
It’s actually a pretty good analogy as to how Craig thinks metaphysics works when you think about it. Material, observable objects, like the universe (the horse) are brought in to being by an inmaterial abstract entity, God. (The code, software).
@@geras.3813 Yes, my comment was definitely meant as a joke.
42PercentHealth I supposed it was, but still I wanted to point out how it was actually a good analogy. 😛
@@geras.3813 It would be wrong to regard the "code" as the God of skyrim. If we were to look at it from a scientific perspective, the "code" would be the fundamental fabric of the universe and not a God. Similar to the laws of physics that dictate our universe.
If you were to "create" an AI and it it were truly sentient, it would be able to review its source code, change it and act upon its own directives. We,as its creators, would not be its "Gods".It would be similar to how we understand our own universe and try to deconstruct it and to an extent similar to how "children" are not the property of their parents. They are their own people.
Creation doesn't imply absolute ownership or understanding. Otherwise our gods would be our parents.
@@hououinkyoma1662 I'm pleased to meet you at last, L number two...
You're correct on that ,the code is not the same as God since the code is not sentient, i'll admit is not a perfect analogy. However in an scholastic perpective of theism, God is the ultimate foundation of reality. He is the abstract entity/mind from which every concrete thing emerges.
In a sense, God is both the programmer AND the game's data file. Yes, maybe NOT the code, since the code would be more akin to prescriptive laws of nature, you're correct on that, but he would be the game's data files (the 3d models, the textures, the color data etc) all data existing within God's mind.
About the whole "parent" analogy, I suppose that depends on your definition of God, if by God you mean the creator of our universe, then yes the A.I. would be God. But if by God you mean the creator of every contingent being that exists (like classical theism defines God), then the AI would not be God.
I love how Dr Craig and Oppy etc are spending some time and engaging with a new generation of folks .
Oppy?
@@denverbritto5606 graham oppy
Christian here! This was the most respectful debate I've seen on this matter. (should I even call it a debate? Feels more like a conversation)
It worries me how such a normal discussion is so hyped in the comments as being overly civil. Savagery has become the norm
Indeed
worry on deez nuts
Given WLC history of dishonesty and lack intellectual integrity, it's not strange that people hype this as a polite conversation.
What a brilliant reply. Such a normal exchange of ideas and questions. Yet it seems insanely polite in this age of "he owned /destroyed so and so in debate"
As an atheist, I am now not opposed to the idea that a being described by WLC could theoretically exist. But then, in a sense, the really hard part begins for those who call themselves Christian. That is, trying to build a case for JC being in some way related. At the least does this mean I am now not an atheist?