I was an agnostic many years ago, but after 50 years studying the sciences with 3 degrees ive become a believer because in reality,it takes more faith to be an atheist an atheism does not provide me with intellectual satisfaction an its hard to conceive that something exists rather than nothing.i can never believe that all of this in the universe came about by chance an accident. that's preposterous. God is necessary to understand it all.
I am an atheist and William Lane Craig is Darth Vader. By that I mean he's the atheists' main antagonist (minus the killing, maiming, and other evil deeds of course). He is the one we must overcome in debate. As Sam Harris said, he is the one Christian apologist that strikes the fear of god into many atheists. One of the few atheists that can actually debate him without looking like a fool. He is very intelligent and very charismatic and I would love to spend some time with him to talk about god, the universe, and everything. And I actually mean "talk", not "debate", because I think he has some interesting things to say. If I prayed, I'd pray for William Lane Craig. However, as it stands, he is in my thoughts and well wishes.
Marco Schaub You know I am so impressed with this comment. Most do not recognize his ability to defend Christianity. Even if you think what he is saying is hogwash, you do not ridicule. I find most people on both side are happy to insult. You are a credit to the Atheistic movement. ( as if it is a club..lol ) I am a Christian but I can appreciate the differences. I personally like Dawkins, I find him funny and charming in a strange way. I don't follow his line of thought but I enjoy listening to him.
Hey Marco quick question, and it's not a trick question. I'm A christian but I've asked myself this question as well. The question being, do you think these debates serve much purpose at all? To me it seems we all leave believing the same things, but with a slightly better understanding of where the other side is coming from, which is a good thing, but just curious what you think is all.
Justin Boling Hi Justin, yes, I think these debates serve some purpose. For one, these are questions that have inspired humans for thousands of years and they will continue to do so. They are interesting philosophical questions. It's probably a bit like political debates. Second, the people debating will never persuade each other, but viewers on the fence may be swayed one way or another. Thirdly, I like to hear the other side of the story. There is a multitude of views and I think we have to understand where we come from to live together peacefully. This is the scientific approach. There's thesis, anti-thesis, and ultimately, synthesis. I also think we should focus more on the common grounds we share than on the topics that divide us. Because otherwise these topics will seem much larger than they actually are.
Marco Schaub I don't know how much you know about philosophy, I'm not an expert either, but WLC, him being studying philosophy and has a Doctorate in it, uses some fallacies and a manipulative rhetoric full with intricate philosophical terminology that pushes the audience away from the point. I have observed that the more you look into philosophical concepts, the more you come to understand his rhetoric and find out the flaws. Needless to say, though, you must be an expert on philosophy in order to debate this guy. I can't, but I hope some day I will.
When any empirical evidence it pointing to a creator the atheist will disregard it completely to the point of creating a theories of infinite universes and dimensions. Their presuppositions being that their in now way could be a creator leads them in a different direction. To reconcile gravity and quantum physics they have invented multiple dimensions, because that is the only why they think it fits. We do not have the answers to the universe and creation, but to close your mind to the possibility of a Creator limits your search.
whoatemyhummus Both of them can bug me but I actually like them both for various other, sometimes odd or humorous reasons. Sam Harris and Peter Kreeft are the richer and actually more open-minded of the more popular "atheist-christian" kind of figures in secular-protestant Christian american circles.
I'm an atheist and I disagree with WLC on a lot of issues. That being said I think he's a very respectable and honorable man. A man surely noone can deny, of conviction. Despite my disagreement I find him interesting to listen to. At first I was like every other atheist here, a bit offended by his accusations towards non believers. Saying they are the ones assuming there is no God and that theist are the ones using "evidence" to show there is. I don't speak for all atheist, but I find that a bit contrary to the reality. Anyway. I could rant on that stance for a while. I wanted to say let's all cool it on this guy a bit. He's not a bad guy and he's doing us all a favor by taking this very difficult argument public for all of us to scrutinize. I find that admirable.
Dawkins hung himself (IMO) when he stated "mock them--publicly" referring to theists. The he refused to debate Craig! In a way he has helped bring some to Christ. Those that see through his charade came to know Christ by realizing the hopeless position of militant atheism leads you nowhere! I pray Dr Craig leads more to Christ through his Reasonable Faith tour. He is in my prayers !
foroparapente True...mocking and debating are very different things, You debate someone you respect and whose ideas are worth debating. You mock someome like WLC because he is an arrogant, thick-headed, supercilious, one-trick pony.
Dawkins has avoided debating Craig for years, probably because he knows the outcome wouldn’t be favourable. I’ve seen Dawkins get humiliated by John Lennox at Oxford university, and Craig may be even better, so it’s no wonder that Dawkins would be a little hesitant. The truth is, Dawkins is a fantastic biologist but he’s a shitty philosopher.
despite his occasional boorishness, Hitchens seemed like someone who on occasion respected the people he debated. You get the sense though from Dawkins that he just looks down on everyone not in his little ivory Oxford tower. Whatever...
Hitch did respect honest opinion although he was quick to point out moronicity. Dawkins doesn't so much look down on people outside of Acedemia as much as he, like my mother, doesn't suffer fools gladly.
Stephen Land Dawkins definitely looks down on the average joe. And if you think he supposedly has the "credibility" to think so, you should watch the South Park episode making fun of him about it
Dawkins speaks the truth as he sees it. He doesn't disguise it like the religious leaders in this world do. The religious can't explain something plain and simple. They purposely corrupt it with figures of speech, like "Metaphors, Parables, Poetic Verse, Analogies and what ever kind of figure of speech they can come up with,so that it can be interpreted in many different ways. That way, they can use whatever interpretation they like best. So any "Open-Minded" person can understand how Dawkins can get so frustrated with these people who intentionally corrupt the truth. Because these "Masters of Deceit," make such silly, unsubstantiated claims that they just can't sell to "Open-Minded," individuals, like Dawkins and me, they attack the personal integrity of their opponents in a debate. Otherwise they would never win a debate without resorting to these cheap tactics. Therefore, they never actually win a debate at all. They simply convince easily deceived people that they are right.
John Alexander Baker the fact that you're so willing to accept the fact that Dawkins's theories are "pure fact" just shows how much of a religion New Atheism has become
Thagomizer Dawkins is a special kind of stupid, but at least he makes money doing what he is doing...the people who follow him are an extraordinary kind of stupid.
Dawkins is an interesting study. He champions rationality and speaks as a scientist, and yet...his emotional language and self righteous demeanor match exactly the caricature of a religious fanatic.
@@livewireOrourke So what? The search for truth is not a popularity contest. I'm sure there are Christians who don't care for Craig. Dawkins can prove what he says, Craig can't.
Bro, he has a double PHD and authored about 2 dozens books and is well respected amongst academic (& atheist) philosophers. It's cool if you don't like him but he deserves your respect.
lol you can tell dawkins fears craig by the way hes so dismissive of him and gets angry at the very mention of his name, oh and the fact he ducked debating him one on one
Richard just has a huge bullshit meter. After watching debate after debate where Craig read from the same script, and didn't seem able to answer questions cogently, Richard gave up in disgust!! Richard once said, "Why if I wasn't there he would say the same thing! What good is it?"
@@rstevewarmorycom This makes no sense. Why would the name of my opponent change what my argument is? Also he just has a bs meter? All that means is "believes in god? I will not debate" then dont debate, but hes writing books about GOD, refusing to debate people about GOD. Coward doesnt come close to covering it.
@@jerichosmite2140 it's not about debate It's about being biased Ppl like u are biased and regardless of the evidence you will continue with ur fairytales You see! Unless the person is willing to at least learn or at least understand! It's worthless chocking them on facts
@@arianagrandaremix8858 You realize you are defending a person (Dawkins) who is doing the exact same thing. I actually have no skin in the game, but to put Dawkins on a pedestal like he has any answers on the matter is nonsense. Dawkins has a lot of faith in his beliefs though, I will give him that.
@@jerichosmite2140 lol Faith in his beliefs? Lol where? Mate I know he speaks about possibilities but there is a difference btw faith and possibilities If I were to put u on a pedestal I would say your another one of those indictrinated religious self declared scientists.
Atheists, do yourselves a favor and don't choose Richard Dawkins as your role model. I think everyone should be able to agree that the man is needlessly rude and condescending towards his opponents, and laughs in the face of mutual respect and discussion. I'm sure there are many far more dignified Naturalists than Dawkins, whom one might actually learn some civility from, there is no need to choose the most antagonistic one.
There does seem to be a tendency amongst the high-profile atheists to be rude and condescending albeit RD really trumps them all as far as that goes. One such atheist, for example, is Daniel Dennett, who debated Alvina Plantinga a few years ago and couldn't resist throwing in a few snide remarks. The person who protocolled and published the debate (himself an atheist) remarked in his commentary that a significant number of the atheists present at the debate found Dennett to be out of line and were concerned that this type of behaviour was becoming increasingly assocaited with the new atheist movement. So the new atheists aren't winning over hearts and minds with their tactics, and I assume that they want to win people over to their side who are still not sure where they stand. Either that or they are just preaching to their own choir, but what's the point of that?
@@rstevewarmorycom oh wow, you definitively belong to the crowd of the likes of Dawkins. Having nothing but hate in your hearts, you fall back to this irrational violence. You are nothing but haters. "You will know them by their fruits" (Mathew 7:15), and your fruits are poisonous. Now you tell me if truth is poison. Because it's not, it follows you are just poor devils hating yourselves for knowing deep inside you that you are so wrong and mistaken about God.
@@MeinRhein1 You only CLAIM we're rude and condescending because you either subconsciously or perhaps NOT so subconsciously KNOW we're smarter than you are and have the right answers, and YOU don't LIKE it!! Plantinga is an utter idiot with totally antiquated outdated notions and ideas, and other philosophers make fun both of him and WLC!! It's NOT a matter of "tactics" at ALL, and we're WINNING with ours, by the way, statistics show it. It's that YOU RESENT us for besting you when you can't adapt to better ideas because you're so religiously brainwashed that you're frozen in your belief and can't update your intellect!!
Every time I see and hear Dawkins I pray for his soul. Craig is right he is filled with anger. I watched him beat up and intimidate a lady one time. I was surprised she didnt slap his face. Craig seems like a good guy even if you don't like his views.
Dr William Lane Craig just slices through bad thought like a hot knife through butter. Everyone can learn a lot from him on how to debate, how to keep on target, and indeed how to think - not necessarily what to think. But I agree with most of what he thinks: it is just so splendid.
What kills me most about Dawkins is, here is a guy who enjoys brow beating God( incorrectly might I add) for being a "meany" and is perfectly ok with showing what a self-serving, self-important, hateful, creep he comes across to others as, who do not believe what he does. Ironic isn't it?
Out of curiosity, how does one brow beat a god... _correctly_? As for, "a self-serving, self-important, hateful, creep"; that's your take on someone who disagrees with you and accepts reality over bronze age, middle eastern, goat herder creation mythology. Ironic, isn't it?
scribbler60 I think Craig is an old earth creationist, right? Then yes, he's wrong, at least biblically and a fair amount of scientific evidence says he's wrong too
It takes away from his lack of evidence. That is what effective debaters do and Mr. Craig is a very effective debater. This is a debate tactic. You openly acknowledge that you can't prove something yet you continue to assert it as being true. You could do it with anything; Zeus, Thor, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny etc. You can't disprove any of those entities. As soon as you ask Mr. Craig to provide evidence for his assertions he resorts to ad hominem mocking or just refers back to the bible. It is a never ending revolving door. If you ask a scientist to provide evidence, he or she will tell you about the evidence for evolution, DNA, molecular genetics, the Red Light Shift, expanding universes, etc.
paul Gleason That is a completely false assertion. Both sides generally will acknowledge they cannot absolutely prove one way or another God exists or does not exist. Both sides are merely presenting evidence for their claim they believe or are personally convinced is true. Proof is completely subjective. It is the argument or evidence needed to compel the mind to believe an assertion is true. Whats enough for one may not be for another with a wide array of reasons for their acknowledgement or non acknowledgement of the evidence as evidence or proof such as prejudice and emotion. There is no way to prove something to billions of individual people all with their billions of different standards of proof. And WLC provides ample evidence for his position and does not just resort to ad hominem or the bible as you claim. When he is debating the existence of God he uses a plethora of scientific evidence and deductive logical and philosophical arguments as well as historical facts for his personal belief in the christian God. Its almost like you dont watch any of his debates or lectures, or just have an extremely emotional prejudice against his view so you refuse to accept his evidence.
+paul gleason - that's so silly. We can prove that there's no such person as the Easter bunny based on the general knowledge that no rabbit could ever knowingly or purposefully deliver chocolate eggs or jelly beans to children. As for the modern day idea of so-called "Santa," that's all based on an old bunch of legends which began occurring 'way back, but that don't look at all like the Santa of the modern world. QUOTE: "The legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas. It is believed that Nicholas was born sometime around 280 A.D. in Patara, near Myra in modern-day Turkey. Much admired for his piety and kindness, St. Nicholas became the subject of many legends. It is said that he gave away all of his inherited wealth and traveled the countryside helping the poor and sick. One of the best known of the St. Nicholas stories is that he saved three poor sisters from being sold into slavery or prostitution by their father by providing them with a dowry so that they could be married. Over the course of many years, Nicholas’s popularity spread and he became known as the protector of children and sailors. His feast day is celebrated on the anniversary of his death, December 6. This was traditionally considered a lucky day to make large purchases or to get married. By the Renaissance, St. Nicholas was the most popular saint in Europe. Even after the Protestant Reformation, when the veneration of saints began to be discouraged, St. Nicholas maintained a positive reputation, especially in Holland." END QUOTE From there, the legend got carried to the then "New World" as "Sinter Klaas." The point is, the saintly person the legend is based on was apparently a genuine person - way back in 280 AD that is. However, he certainly never gave candy canes and gifties to kiddies every Xmas eve. Neither did he wear a belly like jelly or a red suit. So we can definitely disprove Santa as he's been depicted for decades. Last, I want you to consider something a bit off topic. While ancient writers such as the Roman named Tacitus documented the existence of Jesus, he was not interested in Christ's date of birth. There never has been an absolute date we can point to for Christ's birthday. It simply does not exist. Both fall and spring have been shown to be possible times of year for it by scholars, yet no one really knows for sure. Dec 25th is a Roman pagan holiday instituted prior to the Romans misappropriating the earliest church. It got left in the calendar due to changes for the Romans and those whose lands the'd occupied for years. So the Santa down the chimney on Xmas eve garbage is just a lot of retail and cultural hoopla with no genuine basis in reality from the start.
I wonder what purpose these atheists see in debating at all..if there is no purpose for their existence and for universe but there would be pupose of debating the non purposeness..
+KJVsister exactly. Also if everything is pre determined how do they know that a world of atheists will be "nicer" whatever that means than a world with theists in it. Dare I say perhaps they don't "know" it and simply "believe" it.
KJVsister intellectually 99.99% of atheists are determinists. However they realise as human beings that belief in determination is inhumane, reductive and frankly simply depressing. So the sugar it with humanism and actually do believe that their world will be "nicer". this though they don't see is a form of millenarianiam.
the funny thing is atheist don't believe in God and yet at the same time God is consuming their life.. God doesn't exist then they're debating someone else's imaginary friend.. Hahahahahahaha
I prize civility among the highest requirements to have a discussion with the opposition. And because of that, I cannot stand the pretentious vitriol that Dawkins spouts, he makes my ears burn like acid.
Condescension never looked good on anyone. I hate seeing my fellow Christians act this way even more than I do the atheist. Say your piece, knowing that regardless of which side you are on, both have to be laid within the foundation of faith....period.
William Ln., Craig is absolutely brilliant! Also more and more atheists with great deliveries. Maybe not the greatest baiting skills, They are scientists. Does William Ln., Craig have a protégé? Intellectual discussion about the subject is so fascinating
Ok so I actually watched the full debate. I was impressed with both sides as they were consistent in their views. Naturally nothing really got resolved or decided. However, I still think that Dawkins is a wimp for avoiding a one-on-one debate with Craig. But I guess when you write a book that is full of hot air to begin with, the last thing you want to do it put yourself in a position to defend it with someone who will put you to shame and take money out of your pocket. I guess if you disagree with that you can show your support for Dawkins by purchasing his book from him.
I Love Dr. Craig. What a great man! His description of Dawkins typically illustrates what that man is like, haughty, pompous, disdainful and supercilious.
Everyone is scared of this guy, he's just a genius in the art of debate. Whether his points are true or not, he has an insane talent at portraying them, and pulling apart the opponents arguments, he rips atheistic outlook seem very silly.
soslothful 1) Craig gains nothing from lying about Dawkins's character. 2) Dawkins has consistently demonstrated his arrogance in debates and even in his writing style. Even if it were misrepresented it would not be out of character.
+Ap31920 Craig stands to gain a quick laugh, some rhetorical points and a nod of support from his proponents. I generally agree with Dawkins position but I too am put off by the arrogance and condensation he often displays in debates and writing.
soslothful None of those things have any legitimate value. Sure we all take a quick laugh or build a five minute echo chamber for fun but that doesn't help us. As for rhetorical points, true if he's telling the truth, if he's lying then his credibility is in danger of being damaged.
Richard Dawkins does not seem to understand the 'God' concept he's always pooh-poohing because he's always trying to destroy a "strawman God" of Dawkins' own private definition. This is an exercise of futility, a solitaire game of chess in which the winner (White or Black) is Dawkins who plays both sides. To engage a Christian apologist, one has to argue against that apologist's conception of God. Dawkins won't do that, so he's not the intellectual he holds himself forth to be.
My friend. The fact that you are asking this question starts you in the direction of an intelligent creator. If you have the chance, watch "God's Not Dead 1," and the new release, "God's Not Dead 2." Does Dawkins offer anyone something of hope and substance? God's hands move a direction that offers one peace and assurance in a world filled with darkness and despair. I have yet to meet a person who does not want a life of peace and hope. I am no scientist but a Christian man who believes without question that God is real and if you are willing to seek him out, you will find him. It is my prayer that you will find God and when you do, the scales will fall off of your eyes and will allow you to find God and put an end to all of the darkness that surrounds you.
Graeme L Buttshit. Mockery is an important tool in education. You must first use group pressure to break the back of a delusion. Only then can you teach the truth. People under the influence of group pressure can believe anything on bad reasoning. They are immune to the truth or reason. But mock them sufficiently, and by enough contemporaries, and they slowly lose their insane certainty and become teachable again.
I would've loved to see Craig in the previous meeting. Him going against Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens at the same time. Craig would demolish them single-handedly lol
DarkMatter2525, do you think any type of debate is good at all? You rightly state that "debates aren't very good ways of determining truth," but I don't think any of the debaters in the video are trying to argue this. It seems that both sides argue that logic, rationale, reason, data, evidence, etc are very good ways of determining truth. There are debates on UA-cam that say " person x destroys person y" and vice versa but none of them to my knowledge are actually posted by these well respected thinkers, but are usually reposts by someone else. Just because debates can be entertaining would not follow that William Lane Craig needs a certain atmosphere because the evidence is so heavily against him? Maybe he is persuaded honestly and intellectually? It seems that you presuppose this because you disagree with William lane Craig. The statement, "he needs an atmosphere in which charisma matters most - not facts" is an ad hominem, you are attacking his character rather than giving a good reason why you disagree.
+kornel91 if you knew who darkmatter2525 is, you would know that to be the case. All his videos are parodies of religion created through sheer lack of knowledge regarding theology/philosophy and a full rage boner for everything having to do with religion. Really, expecting anything else than ad hominem from someone like darkmatter2525 is nothing other than wishful thinking.
"Hes the author of over 30 books, over 100 peer review articles in philosophy and theology....the Cosmological argument from 1980...it was clear even then that Bill's book was a new landmark in the discussion of the cosmological argument" -Peter Milican "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters in the unbelieving community take him very seriously, hes thought of as a very "tough guy" very rigorous,scholarly,formidable...I dont normally get "good lucky tonight" "dont let us down" -Hitchens
Probably more atheists have heard of Craig than have Christians, since Christians don't generally look for debates about God's existence as they're worried it might weaken their faith. And they're probably right about that.
MyVidzy I think atheists watch them at a much higher rate than Christians. Thus the lack of recognition for Bill Craig in his own majority Christian country
+Xander Patten Christians watch the debates because atheist debaters just fail to give reasonable answers to many of the theism arguments like the moral or cosmological etc. arguments that would appeal to Christians. The atheist arguments usually preach to other atheists, it is extremely rare to convert an educated and even an open minded Christian with the mainstream atheism arguments. From the Christian point of view the atheist looses almost always because they ignore many of the theism arguments. Atheist usually answer brilliantly to the designer argument but that is worth nothing, because most Christians of our age explain the complexity of life using the darwinian concepts and it has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
why does "god" create such confusion? Every christian sub division seems to try think only theirs is the true interpretation and every other are making false claims ie lying. Religion is the cause of so much division, hatred and suffering, the world would be so much better rid of its tentacles and chains.
I think what Craig is claiming is that torturing babies is objectively wrong even if there are no people who feel that way. Some people think late term abortion is perfectly acceptable, others find it horrific. Even if everyone supported this practice, in Craig's view it would still be objectively wrong.
Dr creig would no doubt make professor Dawkins look like a fool in a debate , but Dr creig would do it in the nicest way possible , Dr creig never has to speak in degrading or condensending manner. .......it's called CLASS !.
WLC is desperate to have Dawkins to debate him or to even acknowledge him really. Dawkins may be rude but you can't really blame him too much since WLC make his living at basically promoting what is equivalent to the earth being flat and what reasonable person would be willing to debate someone who is that intellectually stagnent. If what you believe you are arguing is flawless then not only are you not worth arguing but your entire thinking is flawed.
Como Mensajero Here, I'll let Richard tell you. Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine". Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and UA-camd accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury. In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol. But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse: "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them" You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children. "But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives." Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them? "So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing." Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is - if possible - even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says: "I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples. It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair." So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right. Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty. And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.
Tom Leeds "Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig. In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: 'The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.'" (From The Telegraph)
I love reading all of these posts about how Dawkins is so rude, callous, and narcissistic. While at the same time Craig is himself being rude, callous, and narcissistic towards Dawkins. The sad thing is he actually believes his team won the debate. Face it theists, Dr. Craig is just as egomaniacal, self-absorbed, narcissistic, and arrogant as people claim the New Atheists are. Nothing could have been a better demonstration of this than when he "debated" Dawkins at Oxford. I fully support Dawkin's reasons for never debating Craig. His arguments have been rebuked for years now and he his only known to people because of his debates. Without them no one would have a clue as to who he is. Dawkins has actually contributed to the world in some meaningful way with his contributions to evolutionary biology and science in general. Craig has yet to catch up with Dawkins in any meaningful way in this area.
Well it's obvious what would happen in a Dawkins vs Craig 'debate'. Craig would dish a lot of philosophical jargon out, backed up with circular reasoning, then go... " tadaa!..I win" without doing anything of the kind. Craig's debate with Shelly Kagan is great. There he is faced with the Yale philosophy professor, someone ridiculously well equipped to call him out if he tries any of his usual jargon-based nonsense or circular bullshitting....and Craig knows it. In the back and forth between them at the end of their set pieces, you can almost hear Craig shitting himself.
Yosh Gar That's not what I said. I'm astonished that someone bright enough to be a WLC follower could get something so simple, so completely wrong. It's almost as if thinking for yourself is some sort of alien concept.
***** Yeah. I don't think Dawkins would handle Craig, personally. His colleagues, biologists Atkins and Wolpert sure didn't. I would say Craig walks away victorious from most of his debates - victorious in the sense that he's better at addressing his opponent's points and sticking to the point. He usually gets a draw or proper spanking though from other philosophers (P. Millican, A. Ahmed, Q. Smith, also A. Pyle IIRC) in the theism x atheism debates. Or from biblical historians (G. Lüdeman, B. Ehrman) or cosmologists (S. Carol) when focusing on a particular issue or 1-2 of his arguments. I don't know if Dawkins is aware he wouldn't handle him, or if his reasons are genuine, but I certainly don't see why he should debate Craig. Especially not after the treatment Craig gave him (the empty chair monologue).
Apologies. When I speak about infinite space I am actually speaking about a multi-verse. The fact that our universe began to expand 18 or so billion years ago does not preclude that the multi-verse is not in a continual and eternal state of phase change. This is a mainstream scientific theory and "plus or minus 1=infinity" doesn't in any way obviate that.
Live public debates aren't very good ways of determining truth. It's all pride and showmanship. You can find a debate on youtube that says "person x destroys person y" and then find the same debate under the title "person y destroys person x". It's just entertainment, folks. I think that's why WLC seems to place such value on them. The evidence is so heavily against him that he needs an atmosphere in which charisma matters most - not facts.
WLC is a master showman. He has the facial expressions, body language, hand waving and vocal intonation down to a science. Unfortunately, it's the only science he is capable of. He is also a living example of very unusual, "one off" evolution in that his duck feathered back sheds truth and reason like water off......
a debate between these two would look very good on craig's resume, not so good on Richard Dawkin's. Craig merely plays silly word games, he like any other religious apologist.never produces one shred of evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity, and why? because there is none. I realised at about the age of around 12 that when I pressed my priest for answers for things like third world poverty, starvation and why god made parasites that drilled into the eyeballs of little children to lay it's eggs into their brains I was told that men were not clever enough to understand the ways of "the lord". That is when I realised how stupid religion was. When it comes to the crunch there is not on hot of evidence for a supreme being, religion was developed as a means of control over the masses, humanity has come a long way since the dark ages, although it would seem that a huge number of gullible people are trying their best to shove us back there, whilst largely non- religious eastern countries are overtaking the west.
read Dawkins' article on why he won't debate Craig. he won't debate people who defend the genocide in the bible like Craig did. the quotes he pulls from Craig's work are pretty disgusting.
+Mike Rothwell Craig sincerely argues that the the greatest victims of massacres are not the women and children canaanites... The greatest victims are the Isreali [sic] soldiers, for having to go through the trauma of massacring people women and children at God's behest. I wish I was making this up.
+YeshuaisShekinah +YeshuaisShekinah such beautiful ignorance. As a MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST, I see no evidence that that caninities were genetically tainted. sounds like more Christian rationalizations where you just make up stuff as you go along to fit your small world view. And if you think atheist believe that murder, theft and lying are not wrong because there's no god, you are dumber than I gave you credit for. that "no god = nothing is objectively wrong" is a sophomoric argument fit for grade schoolers.
YeshuaisShekinah atheists are not all nihilists. I could argue that it's wrong to murder, rape, or pillage because it deprives innocent people of their happiness, freedom, or life. Or that it's objectively wrong to murder children. The steele of hammurabi spelled out that murder is morally wrong a thousand years before YHVH was revealed to the isrealites. Egyptians found murder to be morally wrong around the same time. Chinese laws against murder go back further than that. So somehow these cultures were able to figure out murder is wrong without the bible or revelation from God. Furthermore I think it's really weird and inhuman for you to say that it's okay to murder people to prevent their genetic 'taint' from spreading. Isn't that eugenics? Like, nazi ideology stuff? In any case, where does Deutoronomy start talking about population genetics? God only wants to destroy their cultural practices.
wolfumz I find it humorous that you pick and choose your naivety then become so dishonest that you claim any moral ground when we both know you have no ground to stand on. You delude yourself, but no one else. You base your opinions on lies that you choose to believe. This is why you oppose any truth you are told, you don't want truth you want to do whatever you want, you just don't want to take responsibility for your beliefs so you paint up a turd and say it's gold.
YeshuaisShekinah if atheists had no ground to stand on, they would be employing platoons of apologists who constantly have to replenish their arguments based on scientific and historical scholarship that constantly exposes their irrationality and hypocrisy. you know, what christians do.
11:52 The reason you can't break in is because you're too good. Nobody's going to fight a fight they can't win. They want someone they can mock as foolish and backward and you cannot be mocked in this way.
I like how Craig pats himself and his team on the back for how well they did at the debate. He must not have been watching the same debate that I watched.
Mr, Lane Craig is no match for Prof, Richard Dawkins.Theologists have nothing to do with Scientists.Mr. Craig is a well paid ambassador of the Catholic church {no evidence on his side}
And aside from the "infinity" thing KCA does hold up in many other ways - which are difficult to elaborate on in little 500 character youtube snippets which is why I provided you a link.
Dawkin's did underline one powerful argument for Athism though, and that is: The appearance of design does not necessitate design. Which is fitting, given his background in evolutionary biology(or just biology for short (; )
Continued No body said the argument based on infinity was science, it's a well known argument from the philosophy of mathematics, that philosophers and mathematicians have been talking about since around Aristotle's time. Actually the uploader of that video was a friend, and if you look through the comment section you can see what I've said in response. He was a nice guy though.
Going back a step - the problem with KCA is that though it is hard to disprove the premises they are equally hard to prove. That makes them not very good premises on which to base a theory of the universe.
I never liked the idea of debates either. Usually the guy who is determined the winner of a debate is just someone who is a master of deceit. When you make a commitment to search for truth, it's easy to see the deceit which most people seem to accept. What ever is the most popular seems to be the most acceptable. I am so glad that there are more people like you are who are ready, willing and able to chop away the rubbish and expose the real truth. Kudos. John Alexander Baker. (Author)
Given my limited space, I believe I have done a pretty good job in explaining the difference between infinity and eternity. I hope you understand and agree.
Infinite can be used in math or it can be used conceptually as a property, just as big can be. The fact that neither work in arithmetic does not preclude them from being used as a property. Not sure why you don't get this.
Marco Schaub- William Lane Craig is definitely a premier intellect and excellent apologist, but he has several peers that are on the same level . John Lennox, N.T. Wright, Ravi Zacharias are just a few names that come to mind.
"We are going to be puppets in heavens anyway." A complete assumption. It has already been demonstrated that the heavenly host could decide otherwise...essentially that is the reason for Lucifer's fall. Though why would anyone want to be contentious after having achieved heavendom?
I will just say one thing though - much as I loathe WLC, changing the terms of the debate on him so massively was a dishonest imposition, and all credit to him for adapting well.
One of the few atheists That can actually debate him without looking like a fool. A sober fact, there is no debating. A believer who is in discussion with a truth seeker which empirically rational analytical tries to find the truth has already won the debate I am truly convinced that anyone who "believes belongs to the spiritually poor." And what a waste of words on my part and time .. "Do you believe this claim."
Well you answered your own question there. Yes I think the overall account is more important than the specific chronology, though it's true one is more accurate than the other.
And I didn't say he agreed with his viewpoints, I was showing that he recognized him as an intellectual man, good debater and contributing philosopher.
I did disprove it. Concepts like infinity cannot be invalidated as properties of the universe simply because they don't work in certain mathematical constructs. If I said the "universe is big" - you could say "nonsense: big - 1 is still big, therefore the universe can't be big". And I am not positively asserting that the U is infinite but I am saying that it certainly can't be (and isn't) ruled out.
The meaning of life exists between your ears. What's of highest value to you is entirely subjective. And, you probably don't choose what those things are because emotional attachments arrise involuntarily out of the subconscious mind. Because we share basic human conditions, most people value 1) their health 2) their love relationships 3) their jobs... And everything else is just not that important. Yes Sunshine, you are unique, just like everyone else.
While Hitchens had little real depth as a thinker he did have a way with words and was "human" and "warm". Dawkins comes across as angry embittered and full of himself. Outside of his army of acolytes I suspect he does his cause more harm than good with his obsessive hatred.
rebellousbynature99 Yes, but Not a singularity, Heisenberg uncertainty and Planck time prevents that. And remember, by Einstein, at near infinite confinement of mass-energy, time almost stops.
Ultimate means end of times. Got it. Not my dictionary meaning, but ok,fine. You are the one who defines words. Great. Thank you. Now, whenever I want to say "end of time" i will say "ultimate" instead. This is such great info. And oh yeah, nothing about human ever really matters, that's important, too. We don't matter as humans;. Wow, i think Ive seen the light;
What brand of Christianity best fits what you believe, just so I can get a sense of where your head is at? What are your thoughts on evolution / age of the Earth? How do you reconcile between the synoptic gospels and John as to when Jesus stormed the temple? These are normally good initial questions...
I clearly stated that they never formally debated. It was a general debate. Group one against group two. They never went head to head. Dawkins refuses to do a head on debate. In fact, the only reason he showed up to the Mexico debate was because he didn't know Craig was going to be there. Craig didn't know Dawkins was going to be there, either. A formal debate requires previous preparation of your opponent's material, and direct rebuttal. So, once again, they have never debated each other.
I think, most eloquently put, are we to believe that the First Cause was particles that slowly bounced and drifted their way into eventually causing life over a nearly 12 billion year process, and then life evolved very slowly into humans for another 2 billion years, all slow, all incremental, or that First Cause just happened to be immediately an omnipotent omniscient etc. being that just happened to have sentience and just happened to be the nicest guy ever, ideally what we would have as a God
Gotta give it to Craig - he is a spectacularly good salesman. And a tough debater - which in his case exploits amazing technique. Careful scrutiny reduces it to boldly and well-worded BS, but his skills are still impressive. I have little respect for his position, but I DO respect his effectiveness.
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Reading Dawkins to learn about theology is like reading Mein Kampf to learn about Jews.
Demagogue
Apt comment!
I was an agnostic many years ago, but after 50 years studying the sciences with 3 degrees ive become a believer because in reality,it takes more faith to be an atheist an atheism does not provide me with intellectual satisfaction an its hard to conceive that something exists rather than nothing.i can never believe that all of this in the universe came about by chance an accident. that's preposterous. God is necessary to understand it all.
Scientists saying this while atheist with no degree deny God.
@@rstevewarmorycom are you jealous or scared?
@@supukilluminati8346
Neither, I'm a scientist, a physicist, and an atheist.
@@supukilluminati8346
Scientists deny god, they know it is an immature fantasy.
You said it. You "believe". Show us the fucking evidence or STFU!
I am an atheist and William Lane Craig is Darth Vader. By that I mean he's the atheists' main antagonist (minus the killing, maiming, and other evil deeds of course). He is the one we must overcome in debate. As Sam Harris said, he is the one Christian apologist that strikes the fear of god into many atheists. One of the few atheists that can actually debate him without looking like a fool.
He is very intelligent and very charismatic and I would love to spend some time with him to talk about god, the universe, and everything. And I actually mean "talk", not "debate", because I think he has some interesting things to say.
If I prayed, I'd pray for William Lane Craig. However, as it stands, he is in my thoughts and well wishes.
Marco Schaub You know I am so impressed with this comment. Most do not recognize his ability to defend Christianity. Even if you think what he is saying is hogwash, you do not ridicule. I find most people on both side are happy to insult. You are a credit to the Atheistic movement. ( as if it is a club..lol ) I am a Christian but I can appreciate the differences. I personally like Dawkins, I find him funny and charming in a strange way. I don't follow his line of thought but I enjoy listening to him.
Hey Marco quick question, and it's not a trick question. I'm A christian but I've asked myself this question as well. The question being, do you think these debates serve much purpose at all? To me it seems we all leave believing the same things, but with a slightly better understanding of where the other side is coming from, which is a good thing, but just curious what you think is all.
Justin Boling Hi Justin, yes, I think these debates serve some purpose. For one, these are questions that have inspired humans for thousands of years and they will continue to do so. They are interesting philosophical questions. It's probably a bit like political debates. Second, the people debating will never persuade each other, but viewers on the fence may be swayed one way or another. Thirdly, I like to hear the other side of the story. There is a multitude of views and I think we have to understand where we come from to live together peacefully. This is the scientific approach. There's thesis, anti-thesis, and ultimately, synthesis.
I also think we should focus more on the common grounds we share than on the topics that divide us. Because otherwise these topics will seem much larger than they actually are.
Marco Schaub I don't know how much you know about philosophy, I'm not an expert either, but WLC, him being studying philosophy and has a Doctorate in it, uses some fallacies and a manipulative rhetoric full with intricate philosophical terminology that pushes the audience away from the point. I have observed that the more you look into philosophical concepts, the more you come to understand his rhetoric and find out the flaws. Needless to say, though, you must be an expert on philosophy in order to debate this guy. I can't, but I hope some day I will.
When any empirical evidence it pointing to a creator the atheist will disregard it completely to the point of creating a theories of infinite universes and dimensions. Their presuppositions being that their in now way could be a creator leads them in a different direction. To reconcile gravity and quantum physics they have invented multiple dimensions, because that is the only why they think it fits. We do not have the answers to the universe and creation, but to close your mind to the possibility of a Creator limits your search.
I'm an atheist but I like Dr Craig personally more than Dawkins.
whoatemyhummus i greatly respect you for that alone.
whoatemyhummus Same
whoatemyhummus Both of them can bug me but I actually like them both for various other, sometimes odd or humorous reasons. Sam Harris and Peter Kreeft are the richer and actually more open-minded of the more popular "atheist-christian" kind of figures in secular-protestant Christian american circles.
***** agree to disagree.
Strongly.
I'm an atheist and I disagree with WLC on a lot of issues. That being said I think he's a very respectable and honorable man. A man surely noone can deny, of conviction. Despite my disagreement I find him interesting to listen to. At first I was like every other atheist here, a bit offended by his accusations towards non believers. Saying they are the ones assuming there is no God and that theist are the ones using "evidence" to show there is. I don't speak for all atheist, but I find that a bit contrary to the reality. Anyway. I could rant on that stance for a while. I wanted to say let's all cool it on this guy a bit. He's not a bad guy and he's doing us all a favor by taking this very difficult argument public for all of us to scrutinize. I find that admirable.
Agreed.
That is awesome. Thank you, Paul. I am grateful that there are civil people who happen to not believe in God that are on this thread.
No, you're NOT an atheist. You shit's favorite trick this year is to pretend to be or have been an atheist.
Kalam cosmological argument
Ontological argument
Teleological argument
Moral argument
Christians aren't without reasons.
He is NOT honourable at all. He spreads lies and superstition.
Dawkins hung himself (IMO) when he stated "mock them--publicly" referring to theists. The he refused to debate Craig! In a way he has helped bring some to Christ. Those that see through his charade came to know Christ by realizing the hopeless position of militant atheism leads you nowhere! I pray Dr Craig leads more to Christ through his Reasonable Faith tour. He is in my prayers !
"I pray Dr Craig leads more to Christ through his Reasonable Faith tour. He is in my prayers !"
***********
The only thing WLC leads me to do is gag.
Mocking and debating are not...quite the same thing.
foroparapente
True...mocking and debating are very different things, You debate someone you respect and whose ideas are worth debating. You mock someome like WLC because he is an arrogant, thick-headed, supercilious, one-trick pony.
Stephen Land Ah yes, ad hominem.
Gerald Redlinger
I haven't seen an ad hominem.
Dawkins has avoided debating Craig for years, probably because he knows the outcome wouldn’t be favourable. I’ve seen Dawkins get humiliated by John Lennox at Oxford university, and Craig may be even better, so it’s no wonder that Dawkins would be a little hesitant. The truth is, Dawkins is a fantastic biologist but he’s a shitty philosopher.
despite his occasional boorishness, Hitchens seemed like someone who on occasion respected the people he debated. You get the sense though from Dawkins that he just looks down on everyone not in his little ivory Oxford tower. Whatever...
Hitch did respect honest opinion although he was quick to point out moronicity. Dawkins doesn't so much look down on people outside of Acedemia as much as he, like my mother, doesn't suffer fools gladly.
Stephen Land Dawkins definitely looks down on the average joe. And if you think he supposedly has the "credibility" to think so, you should watch the South Park episode making fun of him about it
Dawkins speaks the truth as he sees it. He doesn't disguise it like the religious leaders in this world do. The religious can't explain something plain and simple. They purposely corrupt it with figures of speech, like "Metaphors, Parables, Poetic Verse, Analogies and what ever kind of figure of speech they can come up with,so that it can be interpreted in many different ways. That way, they can use whatever interpretation they like best.
So any "Open-Minded" person can understand how Dawkins can get so frustrated with these people who intentionally corrupt the truth.
Because these "Masters of Deceit," make such silly, unsubstantiated claims that they just can't sell to "Open-Minded," individuals, like Dawkins and me, they attack the personal integrity of their opponents in a debate. Otherwise they would never win a debate without resorting to these cheap tactics. Therefore, they never actually win a debate at all. They simply convince easily deceived people that they are right.
Pure Truth can be explained plainly and simply.
John Alexander Baker the fact that you're so willing to accept the fact that Dawkins's theories are "pure fact" just shows how much of a religion New Atheism has become
Craig= One of the greatest minds of our time!
Like most atheists, dawkins oozes with insecurity. Hence his motivation for hating this "imaginary" God.
Thagomizer Dawkins is a special kind of stupid, but at least he makes money doing what he is doing...the people who follow him are an extraordinary kind of stupid.
Thagomizer atheism is a mental disease, Ask any atheist if it is wrong to have sex with a goat, then sit back in amazement at their answers.
Dawkins is an interesting study. He champions rationality and speaks as a scientist, and yet...his emotional language and self righteous demeanor match exactly the caricature of a religious fanatic.
cap7277
You're projecting.
@@rstevewarmorycom, No, actually he's not projecting. Cap has a point; in fact that's why there are so many atheist who don't care much for Dawkins.
@@livewireOrourke So what? The search for truth is not a popularity contest. I'm sure there are Christians who don't care for Craig. Dawkins can prove what he says, Craig can't.
Dawkins can prove that there is no God? Really? Of course he can't. His religion of atheism comes from his hatred of God.
cap7277 agree, Rom 2:1
WLC is awesome. He destroys atheism
Oh boy😄
@John Carboni elaborate, please
Dawkins appeals to kids with unreconciled parental conflicts and liberals.
Same thing.
Gerard Jones
Projecting again, aren't you?
Bro, he has a double PHD and authored about 2 dozens books and is well respected amongst academic (& atheist) philosophers. It's cool if you don't like him but he deserves your respect.
I have no respect for him. I think he is insincere; a liar; he does what he does because it is an easy way to get money.
I could listen to Craig all day long. He is really good...
lol you can tell dawkins fears craig by the way hes so dismissive of him and gets angry at the very mention of his name, oh and the fact he ducked debating him one on one
Richard just has a huge bullshit meter. After watching debate after debate where Craig read from the same script, and didn't seem able to answer questions cogently, Richard gave up in disgust!! Richard once said, "Why if I wasn't there he would say the same thing! What good is it?"
@@rstevewarmorycom This makes no sense. Why would the name of my opponent change what my argument is? Also he just has a bs meter? All that means is "believes in god? I will not debate" then dont debate, but hes writing books about GOD, refusing to debate people about GOD. Coward doesnt come close to covering it.
@@jerichosmite2140 it's not about debate
It's about being biased
Ppl like u are biased and regardless of the evidence you will continue with ur fairytales
You see! Unless the person is willing to at least learn or at least understand! It's worthless chocking them on facts
@@arianagrandaremix8858 You realize you are defending a person (Dawkins) who is doing the exact same thing. I actually have no skin in the game, but to put Dawkins on a pedestal like he has any answers on the matter is nonsense. Dawkins has a lot of faith in his beliefs though, I will give him that.
@@jerichosmite2140 lol
Faith in his beliefs? Lol where?
Mate I know he speaks about possibilities but there is a difference btw faith and possibilities
If I were to put u on a pedestal I would say your another one of those indictrinated religious self declared scientists.
Atheists, do yourselves a favor and don't choose Richard Dawkins as your role model. I think everyone should be able to agree that the man is needlessly rude and condescending towards his opponents, and laughs in the face of mutual respect and discussion. I'm sure there are many far more dignified Naturalists than Dawkins, whom one might actually learn some civility from, there is no need to choose the most antagonistic one.
There does seem to be a tendency amongst the high-profile atheists to be rude and condescending albeit RD really trumps them all as far as that goes. One such atheist, for example, is Daniel Dennett, who debated Alvina Plantinga a few years ago and couldn't resist throwing in a few snide remarks. The person who protocolled and published the debate (himself an atheist) remarked in his commentary that a significant number of the atheists present at the debate found Dennett to be out of line and were concerned that this type of behaviour was becoming increasingly assocaited with the new atheist movement. So the new atheists aren't winning over hearts and minds with their tactics, and I assume that they want to win people over to their side who are still not sure where they stand. Either that or they are just preaching to their own choir, but what's the point of that?
*Dawkins makes me embarrassed to call myself an atheist.* so said Prof Michael Ruse in a youtube interview with Ben Stein
Gogators
Yes, we enjoy RIchard when he shits on you. We wish he did it a lot MORE!! Your lies don't DESERVE any civility!!
@@rstevewarmorycom oh wow, you definitively belong to the crowd of the likes of Dawkins. Having nothing but hate in your hearts, you fall back to this irrational violence. You are nothing but haters. "You will know them by their fruits" (Mathew 7:15), and your fruits are poisonous. Now you tell me if truth is poison. Because it's not, it follows you are just poor devils hating yourselves for knowing deep inside you that you are so wrong and mistaken about God.
@@MeinRhein1
You only CLAIM we're rude and condescending because you either subconsciously or perhaps NOT so subconsciously KNOW we're smarter than you are and have the right answers, and YOU don't LIKE it!! Plantinga is an utter idiot with totally antiquated outdated notions and ideas, and other philosophers make fun both of him and WLC!! It's NOT a matter of "tactics" at ALL, and we're WINNING with ours, by the way, statistics show it. It's that YOU RESENT us for besting you when you can't adapt to better ideas because you're so religiously brainwashed that you're frozen in your belief and can't update your intellect!!
Every time I see and hear Dawkins I pray for his soul. Craig is right he is filled with anger. I watched him beat up and intimidate a lady one time. I was surprised she didnt slap his face. Craig seems like a good guy even if you don't like his views.
Dr William Lane Craig just slices through bad thought like a hot knife through butter. Everyone can learn a lot from him on how to debate, how to keep on target, and indeed how to think - not necessarily what to think. But I agree with most of what he thinks: it is just so splendid.
5:05
Dawkins is, to put it mildly, a jerk.
What kills me most about Dawkins is, here is a guy who enjoys brow beating God( incorrectly might I add) for being a "meany" and is perfectly ok with showing what a self-serving, self-important, hateful, creep he comes across to others as, who do not believe what he does. Ironic isn't it?
Out of curiosity, how does one brow beat a god... _correctly_?
As for, "a self-serving, self-important, hateful, creep"; that's your take on someone who disagrees with you and accepts reality over bronze age, middle eastern, goat herder creation mythology. Ironic, isn't it?
+Stephen Land Strawmaning.
And Dawkins really is a jerk
You should probably seek Jesus.
scribbler60 I think Craig is an old earth creationist, right? Then yes, he's wrong, at least biblically and a fair amount of scientific evidence says he's wrong too
Can only conclude from WLC story that Dawkins is a petulant adolescent
As of 8/01/2015:
327 people liked Lane Craig.
123 people disliked Richard Dawkins.
Vladislav Valentinov
Pull the other one. Only in churches where Richard isn't even invited.
WLC does a fantastic Dawkins impression
It takes away from his lack of evidence. That is what effective debaters do and Mr. Craig is a very effective debater. This is a debate tactic. You openly acknowledge that you can't prove something yet you continue to assert it as being true. You could do it with anything; Zeus, Thor, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny etc. You can't disprove any of those entities. As soon as you ask Mr. Craig to provide evidence for his assertions he resorts to ad hominem mocking or just refers back to the bible. It is a never ending revolving door. If you ask a scientist to provide evidence, he or she will tell you about the evidence for evolution, DNA, molecular genetics, the Red Light Shift, expanding universes, etc.
paul Gleason That is a completely false assertion. Both sides generally will acknowledge they cannot absolutely prove one way or another God exists or does not exist. Both sides are merely presenting evidence for their claim they believe or are personally convinced is true. Proof is completely subjective. It is the argument or evidence needed to compel the mind to believe an assertion is true. Whats enough for one may not be for another with a wide array of reasons for their acknowledgement or non acknowledgement of the evidence as evidence or proof such as prejudice and emotion. There is no way to prove something to billions of individual people all with their billions of different standards of proof.
And WLC provides ample evidence for his position and does not just resort to ad hominem or the bible as you claim. When he is debating the existence of God he uses a plethora of scientific evidence and deductive logical and philosophical arguments as well as historical facts for his personal belief in the christian God. Its almost like you dont watch any of his debates or lectures, or just have an extremely emotional prejudice against his view so you refuse to accept his evidence.
+paul gleason - that's so silly. We can prove that there's no such person as the Easter bunny based on the general knowledge that no rabbit could ever knowingly or purposefully deliver chocolate eggs or jelly beans to children. As for the modern day idea of so-called "Santa," that's all based on an old bunch of legends which began occurring 'way back, but that don't look at all like the Santa of the modern world.
QUOTE:
"The legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas. It is believed that Nicholas was born sometime around 280 A.D. in Patara, near Myra in modern-day Turkey.
Much admired for his piety and kindness, St. Nicholas became the subject of many legends. It is said that he gave away all of his inherited wealth and traveled the countryside helping the poor and sick. One of the best known of the St. Nicholas stories is that he saved three poor sisters from being sold into slavery or prostitution by their father by providing them with a dowry so that they could be married. Over the course of many years, Nicholas’s popularity spread and he became known as the protector of children and sailors. His feast day is celebrated on the anniversary of his death, December 6. This was traditionally considered a lucky day to make large purchases or to get married. By the Renaissance, St. Nicholas was the most popular saint in Europe. Even after the Protestant Reformation, when the veneration of saints began to be discouraged, St. Nicholas maintained a positive reputation, especially in Holland."
END QUOTE
From there, the legend got carried to the then "New World" as "Sinter Klaas." The point is, the saintly person the legend is based on was apparently a genuine person - way back in 280 AD that is. However, he certainly never gave candy canes and gifties to kiddies every Xmas eve. Neither did he wear a belly like jelly or a red suit. So we can definitely disprove Santa as he's been depicted for decades.
Last, I want you to consider something a bit off topic. While ancient writers such as the Roman named Tacitus documented the existence of Jesus, he was not interested in Christ's date of birth. There never has been an absolute date we can point to for Christ's birthday. It simply does not exist. Both fall and spring have been shown to be possible times of year for it by scholars, yet no one really knows for sure.
Dec 25th is a Roman pagan holiday instituted prior to the Romans misappropriating the earliest church. It got left in the calendar due to changes for the Romans and those whose lands the'd occupied for years.
So the Santa down the chimney on Xmas eve garbage is just a lot of retail and cultural hoopla with no genuine basis in reality from the start.
I would LOVE TO SEE CRAIG AND LENNOX TAG TEAM IN A DEBATE
I wonder what purpose these atheists see in debating at all..if there is no purpose for their existence and for universe but there would be pupose of debating the non purposeness..
+KJVsister exactly. Also if everything is pre determined how do they know that a world of atheists will be "nicer" whatever that means than a world with theists in it. Dare I say perhaps they don't "know" it and simply "believe" it.
tigerarmyrule
lol yes I wonder. They haven't though it through :)
KJVsister intellectually 99.99% of atheists are determinists. However they realise as human beings that belief in determination is inhumane, reductive and frankly simply depressing. So the sugar it with humanism and actually do believe that their world will be "nicer". this though they don't see is a form of millenarianiam.
tigerarmyrule Yes,well said!
the funny thing is atheist don't believe in God and yet at the same time God is consuming their life.. God doesn't exist then they're debating someone else's imaginary friend.. Hahahahahahaha
I prize civility among the highest requirements to have a discussion with the opposition.
And because of that, I cannot stand the pretentious vitriol that Dawkins spouts, he makes my ears burn like acid.
Condescension never looked good on anyone. I hate seeing my fellow Christians act this way even more than I do the atheist. Say your piece, knowing that regardless of which side you are on, both have to be laid within the foundation of faith....period.
William Ln., Craig is absolutely brilliant! Also more and more atheists with great deliveries. Maybe not the greatest baiting skills, They are scientists.
Does William Ln., Craig have a protégé?
Intellectual discussion about the subject is so fascinating
Shelter93
Hahahahahahah!! That's hilarious: His main protege BECAME AN ATHEIST!! Honest! Hahahahahah!
Atheists Whistling in the dark telling each other darkness is actually light.
David Hartzfield
You're projecting, and you are totally out of arguments.
Ok so I actually watched the full debate. I was impressed with both sides as they were consistent in their views. Naturally nothing really got resolved or decided. However, I still think that Dawkins is a wimp for avoiding a one-on-one debate with Craig. But I guess when you write a book that is full of hot air to begin with, the last thing you want to do it put yourself in a position to defend it with someone who will put you to shame and take money out of your pocket. I guess if you disagree with that you can show your support for Dawkins by purchasing his book from him.
J Jones
We dd. It was REALLY good and obviously true. WLC wasn't.
I Love Dr. Craig. What a great man! His description of Dawkins typically illustrates what that man is like, haughty, pompous, disdainful and supercilious.
imbluz you know why this is not compelling? You are great at insulting Dawkins bit are suspiciously silent on addressing any of his reasoning.
Pot kettle black
pumpherstonsmith
?
Everyone is scared of this guy, he's just a genius in the art of debate. Whether his points are true or not, he has an insane talent at portraying them, and pulling apart the opponents arguments, he rips atheistic outlook seem very silly.
Well most of the atheists he gets pared with have absolutely no idea how to make an argument.
@@TheMindIlluminated like Christopher Hitchens and the like? What atheists should he have debated in his time.
My goodness, I understand Dawkins is an arrogant man but seriously, that was just plain rude. Who the hell does Dawkins think he is?
I think Dawkins believes he is god. Arrogant egit!
+Ap31920 You're accepting Craig's presentation of the meeting as accurate.
soslothful 1) Craig gains nothing from lying about Dawkins's character. 2) Dawkins has consistently demonstrated his arrogance in debates and even in his writing style. Even if it were misrepresented it would not be out of character.
+Ap31920 Craig stands to gain a quick laugh, some rhetorical points and a nod of support from his proponents. I generally agree with Dawkins position but I too am put off by the arrogance and condensation he often displays in debates and writing.
soslothful None of those things have any legitimate value. Sure we all take a quick laugh or build a five minute echo chamber for fun but that doesn't help us. As for rhetorical points, true if he's telling the truth, if he's lying then his credibility is in danger of being damaged.
Richard Dawkins does not seem to understand the 'God' concept he's always pooh-poohing because he's always trying to destroy a "strawman God" of Dawkins' own private definition. This is an exercise of futility, a solitaire game of chess in which the winner (White or Black) is Dawkins who plays both sides. To engage a Christian apologist, one has to argue against that apologist's conception of God. Dawkins won't do that, so he's not the intellectual he holds himself forth to be.
What is the more formidable God concept that he ignores?
ClemJCES
There isn't any REAL god, so he HAS to use strawmen to make the point, moron!!
My friend. The fact that you are asking this question starts you in the direction of an intelligent creator. If you have the chance, watch "God's Not Dead 1," and the new release, "God's Not Dead 2." Does Dawkins offer anyone something of hope and substance? God's hands move a direction that offers one peace and assurance in a world filled with darkness and despair. I have yet to meet a person who does not want a life of peace and hope. I am no scientist but a Christian man who believes without question that God is real and if you are willing to seek him out, you will find him. It is my prayer that you will find God and when you do, the scales will fall off of your eyes and will allow you to find God and put an end to all of the darkness that surrounds you.
Liam Browne
We all want things we don't have. Your god is imaginary. When you pray you're just talking to yourself. We're scientists, you're idiots.
Liam BRown
You ARE teasing, right?
If you think those movies represent ANYTHING true you need your head examined!!
8:37 does anyone know if and where I can access this lecture Lane Craig is talking about? If so it would be much appreciated 💯
Dr. Craig is a sweetheart.
The butt hurt in these comments 😂😂
Dawkins is an arrogant coward. What a terrible combination!
Colleen
You proved you have nothing of worth you can say.
rstevewarmorycom Says he whose post has garnered zero responses.
Colleen
They must print that on little cards so all believers can type it.
@J w
He prints all his debates scripted on little cards.
Where can I find this debate???
Those that mock others are cowards and do not have any
Honour or integrity whatsoever!
Graeme L
Buttshit.
Mockery is an important tool in education. You must first use group pressure to break the back of a delusion. Only then can you teach the truth. People under the influence of group pressure can believe anything on bad reasoning. They are immune to the truth or reason. But mock them sufficiently, and by enough contemporaries, and they slowly lose their insane certainty and become teachable again.
Comparing to Dr Craig, Dawkins is no more than a Naughty School Boy.
Ali Tamine
You just proved that you're projecting.
comparing anyone to Craig, most of us are school boys intellectually. Craig is at the top of the top intellectually
If you want to know if Jesus is God, just ask Him.
englasia123 Your Creator God.
englasia123 Well you were wrong.
englasia123 "A sperm cell" ? Does that mean you don't know from where or from whom that cell came from?
englasia123 That didn't make any sense.
englasia123 What evidence do you have that there wasn't?
I agree - I'll have to look that up.
I would've loved to see Craig in the previous meeting. Him going against Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens at the same time. Craig would demolish them single-handedly lol
DarkMatter2525, do you think any type of debate is good at all? You rightly state that "debates aren't very good ways of determining truth," but I don't think any of the debaters in the video are trying to argue this. It seems that both sides argue that logic, rationale, reason, data, evidence, etc are very good ways of determining truth. There are debates on UA-cam that say " person x destroys person y" and vice versa but none of them to my knowledge are actually posted by these well respected thinkers, but are usually reposts by someone else. Just because debates can be entertaining would not follow that William Lane Craig needs a certain atmosphere because the evidence is so heavily against him? Maybe he is persuaded honestly and intellectually? It seems that you presuppose this because you disagree with William lane Craig. The statement, "he needs an atmosphere in which charisma matters most - not facts" is an ad hominem, you are attacking his character rather than giving a good reason why you disagree.
Perfectly said. Literally everything is perfectly said. Thank you.
+kornel91 if you knew who darkmatter2525 is, you would know that to be the case. All his videos are parodies of religion created through sheer lack of knowledge regarding theology/philosophy and a full rage boner for everything having to do with religion. Really, expecting anything else than ad hominem from someone like darkmatter2525 is nothing other than wishful thinking.
kornel91
He ignores his opponent and reads from a script. His character is obviously non-existent. Nothing we can do but attack it.
William Craig outclass Richard Dawkins anytime, all day long.
I could outclass Dawkins, Craig is an absolute genius
So please explain to me how "plus or minus 1=infinity" precludes an infinite universe? Because WLC failed to do so.
"Hes the author of over 30 books, over 100 peer review articles in philosophy and theology....the Cosmological argument from 1980...it was clear even then that Bill's book was a new landmark in the discussion of the cosmological argument"
-Peter Milican
"I can tell you that my brothers and sisters in the unbelieving community take him very seriously, hes thought of as a very "tough guy" very rigorous,scholarly,formidable...I dont normally get "good lucky tonight" "dont let us down"
-Hitchens
Haha wlcs impression of dawkins.
logan77777771
You just revealed that this grade school imitative asshole humor is all you have...
he's a master-debater :)
.
***** it was a pun. think about it :
I got it.....when I tripped over my pet dinosaur....but I get what you mean.
If you like such videos please feel free to view my videos. Feedback and discussion is encouraged.
Is there a video of the discussion?
Probably more atheists have heard of Craig than have Christians, since Christians don't generally look for debates about God's existence as they're worried it might weaken their faith. And they're probably right about that.
what the hell are you talking about, Christians watch the debates just as much.
what the hell are you talking about, Christians watch the debates just as much.
what the hell are you talking about, Christians watch the debates just as much.
MyVidzy I think atheists watch them at a much higher rate than Christians. Thus the lack of recognition for Bill Craig in his own majority Christian country
+Xander Patten Christians watch the debates because atheist debaters just fail to give reasonable answers to many of the theism arguments like the moral or cosmological etc. arguments that would appeal to Christians. The atheist arguments usually preach to other atheists, it is extremely rare to convert an educated and even an open minded Christian with the mainstream atheism arguments. From the Christian point of view the atheist looses almost always because they ignore many of the theism arguments. Atheist usually answer brilliantly to the designer argument but that is worth nothing, because most Christians of our age explain the complexity of life using the darwinian concepts and it has absolutely nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
why does "god" create such confusion? Every christian sub division seems to try think only theirs is the true interpretation and every other are making false claims ie lying. Religion is the cause of so much division, hatred and suffering, the world would be so much better rid of its tentacles and chains.
exactly. but that is because of the human doing..
But to reject Christianity based on that is fallacious. You understand that right? It's a genetic fallacy among others.
I think what Craig is claiming is that torturing babies is objectively wrong even if there are no people who feel that way. Some people think late term abortion is perfectly acceptable, others find it horrific. Even if everyone supported this practice, in Craig's view it would still be objectively wrong.
Dr creig would no doubt make professor Dawkins look like a fool in a debate , but Dr creig would do it in the nicest way possible , Dr creig never has to speak in degrading or condensending manner. .......it's called CLASS !.
Yer joking
WLC is desperate to have Dawkins to debate him or to even acknowledge him really. Dawkins may be rude but you can't really blame him too much since WLC make his living at basically promoting what is equivalent to the earth being flat and what reasonable person would be willing to debate someone who is that intellectually stagnent.
If what you believe you are arguing is flawless then not only are you not worth arguing but your entire thinking is flawed.
The athiest Dawkins do not want to debate be cause he can't...that's it...atheism is a castrating philosophy...no wonder Dawkins can not dabate Craig.
Como Mensajero Here, I'll let Richard tell you.
Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".
Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and UA-camd accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.
In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.
But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:
"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"
You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.
"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."
Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is - if possible - even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:
"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."
So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right.
Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.
And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.
Tom Leeds Dawkins is a coward, his weak arguments have been shown to be poor and he is too arragant to debate Craig
Tom Leeds "Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.
In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: 'The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.'" (From The Telegraph)
Tom Leeds ..Thanks for your informative answer,,,I am reading it so I can answer you....
I love reading all of these posts about how Dawkins is so rude, callous, and narcissistic. While at the same time Craig is himself being rude, callous, and narcissistic towards Dawkins. The sad thing is he actually believes his team won the debate. Face it theists, Dr. Craig is just as egomaniacal, self-absorbed, narcissistic, and arrogant as people claim the New Atheists are. Nothing could have been a better demonstration of this than when he "debated" Dawkins at Oxford. I fully support Dawkin's reasons for never debating Craig. His arguments have been rebuked for years now and he his only known to people because of his debates. Without them no one would have a clue as to who he is. Dawkins has actually contributed to the world in some meaningful way with his contributions to evolutionary biology and science in general. Craig has yet to catch up with Dawkins in any meaningful way in this area.
Well it's obvious what would happen in a Dawkins vs Craig 'debate'. Craig would dish a lot of philosophical jargon out, backed up with circular reasoning, then go... " tadaa!..I win" without doing anything of the kind.
Craig's debate with Shelly Kagan is great. There he is faced with the Yale philosophy professor, someone ridiculously well equipped to call him out if he tries any of his usual jargon-based nonsense or circular bullshitting....and Craig knows it. In the back and forth between them at the end of their set pieces, you can almost hear Craig shitting himself.
comanchio1976
That's Craig's one-trick pony show and it makes me gag.
comanchio1976 You said it, he allways wins
Yosh Gar That's not what I said. I'm astonished that someone bright enough to be a WLC follower could get something so simple, so completely wrong. It's almost as if thinking for yourself is some sort of alien concept.
***** Yeah. I don't think Dawkins would handle Craig, personally. His colleagues, biologists Atkins and Wolpert sure didn't.
I would say Craig walks away victorious from most of his debates - victorious in the sense that he's better at addressing his opponent's points and sticking to the point.
He usually gets a draw or proper spanking though from other philosophers (P. Millican, A. Ahmed, Q. Smith, also A. Pyle IIRC) in the theism x atheism debates. Or from biblical historians (G. Lüdeman, B. Ehrman) or cosmologists (S. Carol) when focusing on a particular issue or 1-2 of his arguments.
I don't know if Dawkins is aware he wouldn't handle him, or if his reasons are genuine, but I certainly don't see why he should debate Craig. Especially not after the treatment Craig gave him (the empty chair monologue).
Thanks.
Apologies. When I speak about infinite space I am actually speaking about a multi-verse. The fact that our universe began to expand 18 or so billion years ago does not preclude that the multi-verse is not in a continual and eternal state of phase change. This is a mainstream scientific theory and "plus or minus 1=infinity" doesn't in any way obviate that.
Live public debates aren't very good ways of determining truth. It's all pride and showmanship. You can find a debate on youtube that says "person x destroys person y" and then find the same debate under the title "person y destroys person x". It's just entertainment, folks. I think that's why WLC seems to place such value on them. The evidence is so heavily against him that he needs an atmosphere in which charisma matters most - not facts.
WLC is a master showman. He has the facial expressions, body language, hand waving and vocal intonation down to a science. Unfortunately, it's the only science he is capable of.
He is also a living example of very unusual, "one off" evolution in that his duck feathered back sheds truth and reason like water off......
Stephen Land dont be afraidof him.
DarkMatter2525 If you had any idea what it means to be human, then I wouldn't need to remind you of the humanities.
dawkins the coward,,,typical.
a debate between these two would look very good on craig's resume, not so good on Richard Dawkin's. Craig merely plays silly word games, he like any other religious apologist.never produces one shred of evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity, and why? because there is none. I realised at about the age of around 12 that when I pressed my priest for answers for things like third world poverty, starvation and why god made parasites that drilled into the eyeballs of little children to lay it's eggs into their brains I was told that men were not clever enough to understand the ways of "the lord". That is when I realised how stupid religion was. When it comes to the crunch there is not on hot of evidence for a supreme being, religion was developed as a means of control over the masses, humanity has come a long way since the dark ages, although it would seem that a huge number of gullible people are trying their best to shove us back there, whilst largely non- religious eastern countries are overtaking the west.
read Dawkins' article on why he won't debate Craig. he won't debate people who defend the genocide in the bible like Craig did. the quotes he pulls from Craig's work are pretty disgusting.
+Mike Rothwell Craig sincerely argues that the the greatest victims of massacres are not the women and children canaanites... The greatest victims are the Isreali [sic] soldiers, for having to go through the trauma of massacring people women and children at God's behest. I wish I was making this up.
+YeshuaisShekinah +YeshuaisShekinah such beautiful ignorance. As a MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST, I see no evidence that that caninities were genetically tainted. sounds like more Christian rationalizations where you just make up stuff as you go along to fit your small world view.
And if you think atheist believe that murder, theft and lying are not wrong because there's no god, you are dumber than I gave you credit for. that "no god = nothing is objectively wrong" is a sophomoric argument fit for grade schoolers.
YeshuaisShekinah atheists are not all nihilists. I could argue that it's wrong to murder, rape, or pillage because it deprives innocent people of their happiness, freedom, or life. Or that it's objectively wrong to murder children.
The steele of hammurabi spelled out that murder is morally wrong a thousand years before YHVH was revealed to the isrealites. Egyptians found murder to be morally wrong around the same time. Chinese laws against murder go back further than that. So somehow these cultures were able to figure out murder is wrong without the bible or revelation from God.
Furthermore I think it's really weird and inhuman for you to say that it's okay to murder people to prevent their genetic 'taint' from spreading. Isn't that eugenics? Like, nazi ideology stuff? In any case, where does Deutoronomy start talking about population genetics? God only wants to destroy their cultural practices.
wolfumz I find it humorous that you pick and choose your naivety then become so dishonest that you claim any moral ground when we both know you have no ground to stand on.
You delude yourself, but no one else.
You base your opinions on lies that you choose to believe. This is why you oppose any truth you are told, you don't want truth you want to do whatever you want, you just don't want to take responsibility for your beliefs so you paint up a turd and say it's gold.
YeshuaisShekinah if atheists had no ground to stand on, they would be employing platoons of apologists who constantly have to replenish their arguments based on scientific and historical scholarship that constantly exposes their irrationality and hypocrisy. you know, what christians do.
11:52 The reason you can't break in is because you're too good. Nobody's going to fight a fight they can't win. They want someone they can mock as foolish and backward and you cannot be mocked in this way.
I like how Craig pats himself and his team on the back for how well they did at the debate. He must not have been watching the same debate that I watched.
Mr, Lane Craig is no match for Prof, Richard Dawkins.Theologists have nothing to do with Scientists.Mr. Craig is a well paid ambassador of the Catholic church {no evidence on his side}
juan c. rios
He isn’t catholic. So you’re statement is invalid
And aside from the "infinity" thing KCA does hold up in many other ways - which are difficult to elaborate on in little 500 character youtube snippets which is why I provided you a link.
Interesting. And where did you learn this?
Well you seem to have taken it to heart :)
Dawkin's did underline one powerful argument for Athism though, and that is: The appearance of design does not necessitate design.
Which is fitting, given his background in evolutionary biology(or just biology for short (; )
"Pouebleha"
It made me laugh more than it should :(
Anytime bud. I am glad to help.
On his arguments time is not finite, and the infinity of time is not "metaphysically impossible" as he states.
Theodore Araujo seems to go against science but okay. Also as Hilbert would point out, playing with infinite leads to paradoxes and inconsistencies
Continued
No body said the argument based on infinity was science, it's a well known argument from the philosophy of mathematics, that philosophers and mathematicians have been talking about since around Aristotle's time.
Actually the uploader of that video was a friend, and if you look through the comment section you can see what I've said in response. He was a nice guy though.
Going back a step - the problem with KCA is that though it is hard to disprove the premises they are equally hard to prove. That makes them not very good premises on which to base a theory of the universe.
I never liked the idea of debates either. Usually the guy who is determined the winner of a debate is just someone who is a master of deceit. When you make a commitment to search for truth, it's easy to see the deceit which most people seem to accept. What ever is the most popular seems to be the most acceptable. I am so glad that there are more people like you are who are ready, willing and able to chop away the rubbish and expose the real truth. Kudos.
John Alexander Baker. (Author)
Given my limited space, I believe I have done a pretty good job in explaining the difference between infinity and eternity. I hope you understand and agree.
Infinite can be used in math or it can be used conceptually as a property, just as big can be. The fact that neither work in arithmetic does not preclude them from being used as a property. Not sure why you don't get this.
Who adds it?
Marco Schaub- William Lane Craig is definitely a premier intellect and excellent apologist, but he has several peers that are on the same level . John Lennox, N.T. Wright, Ravi Zacharias are just a few names that come to mind.
The first few minutes - it sounds like Bill is in awe of Dawkins LOL
"We are going to be puppets in heavens anyway."
A complete assumption. It has already been demonstrated that the heavenly host could decide otherwise...essentially that is the reason for Lucifer's fall.
Though why would anyone want to be contentious after having achieved heavendom?
I will just say one thing though - much as I loathe WLC, changing the terms of the debate on him so massively was a dishonest imposition, and all credit to him for adapting well.
One of the few atheists That can actually debate him without looking like a fool.
A sober fact, there is no debating. A believer who is in discussion with a truth seeker which empirically rational analytical tries to find the truth has already won the debate
I am truly convinced that anyone who "believes belongs to the spiritually poor."
And what a waste of words on my part and time .. "Do you believe this claim."
Well you answered your own question there. Yes I think the overall account is more important than the specific chronology, though it's true one is more accurate than the other.
And I didn't say he agreed with his viewpoints, I was showing that he recognized him as an intellectual man, good debater and contributing philosopher.
I did disprove it. Concepts like infinity cannot be invalidated as properties of the universe simply because they don't work in certain mathematical constructs. If I said the "universe is big" - you could say "nonsense: big - 1 is still big, therefore the universe can't be big". And I am not positively asserting that the U is infinite but I am saying that it certainly can't be (and isn't) ruled out.
The meaning of life exists between your ears. What's of highest value to you is entirely subjective. And, you probably don't choose what those things are because emotional attachments arrise involuntarily out of the subconscious mind.
Because we share basic human conditions, most people value 1) their health 2) their love relationships 3) their jobs... And everything else is just not that important.
Yes Sunshine, you are unique, just like everyone else.
While Hitchens had little real depth as a thinker he did have a way with words and was "human" and "warm". Dawkins comes across as angry embittered and full of himself. Outside of his army of acolytes I suspect he does his cause more harm than good with his obsessive hatred.
@MrWildBill20056... The Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem of 2003 shows the universe has a beginning regardless of the cosmological model one ascribes to.
rebellousbynature99
Yes, but Not a singularity, Heisenberg uncertainty and Planck time prevents that. And remember, by Einstein, at near infinite confinement of mass-energy, time almost stops.
Yeah, they add that requirement.
Ultimate means end of times. Got it. Not my dictionary meaning, but ok,fine. You are the one who defines words. Great. Thank you. Now, whenever I want to say "end of time" i will say "ultimate" instead. This is such great info. And oh yeah, nothing about human ever really matters, that's important, too. We don't matter as humans;. Wow, i think Ive seen the light;
What brand of Christianity best fits what you believe, just so I can get a sense of where your head is at? What are your thoughts on evolution / age of the Earth? How do you reconcile between the synoptic gospels and John as to when Jesus stormed the temple? These are normally good initial questions...
I clearly stated that they never formally debated. It was a general debate. Group one against group two. They never went head to head. Dawkins refuses to do a head on debate. In fact, the only reason he showed up to the Mexico debate was because he didn't know Craig was going to be there. Craig didn't know Dawkins was going to be there, either. A formal debate requires previous preparation of your opponent's material, and direct rebuttal. So, once again, they have never debated each other.
thank you Dr. Craig.
you are a modern day
apostle of Christ..
I think, most eloquently put, are we to believe that the First Cause was particles that slowly bounced and drifted their way into eventually causing life over a nearly 12 billion year process, and then life evolved very slowly into humans for another 2 billion years, all slow, all incremental, or that First Cause just happened to be immediately an omnipotent omniscient etc. being that just happened to have sentience and just happened to be the nicest guy ever, ideally what we would have as a God
Well said.
Gotta give it to Craig - he is a spectacularly good salesman. And a tough debater - which in his case exploits amazing technique. Careful scrutiny reduces it to boldly and well-worded BS, but his skills are still impressive. I have little respect for his position, but I DO respect his effectiveness.
True. I was trying to give an example of something which "sounds" logically correct but really isn't. Much like WLC's first premise of KCA.
well said'
It was a goofy event, with a boxing ring and all