HERE is The ORIGINAL Semitic Text. HERE is The Creator and “Man’s” ONLY SAVIOR YaH The Heavenly FATHER was Who they Crucified for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
@@j.sch.7542 He might be awake on the issue, yet untill asked we can hope so he IS AWAKE and DOES realize the LIES the NASA has told in the last 70 or so years. LOL, A globe ball spinning @ 1050 MPH , LOL LOL LOL, Thats what they tell is earth is doing LOL. Funny, I work in HIGH Tech . Absolutely NO way possible can the earth below our tools vibrate like this and rotate . It would throw OFF our bullseye on the lasers on the wafers 0.005 Nano-meter alignments, easily. LOL, ya, if we were spinning go tell that LIE to the glass smooth lakes around the world. That they are SPINNING in a centrifugal SLING at 1050MPH, LOL LOL LOL. Thats pretty funny, Ya your ears could sense a 1/2MPH rotation but no a 1050 One? LOL LOL LOL. Ok , keep believing nasa’s LIES allin Gergioa, , keep believing them. So tell us Allan, How does the moon emit COLD Light from reflcting sun light, or maybe it doesnt1 Moon light emits blur-green COLD 400nm spectrum. Fact measure a 2x4x8’ Long, half in the moon light half in the shade out of the moon. LOL, It measures 10-12 degree WARMER in the shade from COLD moon light, The SAME light YOU claim Is reflected like the Warmer yellow-red-orange spectrums but DOESN'T!! LOL LOL LOL. . WHY, Because the moon emits its OWN LIGHT!! Not the suns Red-yellow spectrum light. Anyway, try to get an EDU past a 12 yr old before commenting w Adults on YT.
You could have done worse. This debate between a classic apologist and a “new” atheist was one of the first “God” debates I watched on the journey to striving to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible regarding a deity. Good luck should you try to delve in!
“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that they should value it?” “If someone doesn’t value logic, what logic argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” VERY well said and the root of the problem.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Theism: logical framework and concepts such as evidence completely and already exist due to them being created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good source. Therefore it does not matter if you don’t value them, they are true. Atheism: I personally think that its true.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 You are the epitome of a troll, pasting the same comment, with no reference to the subject of the comment, just delusional lies you believe, with no evidence to back them up.
I hate this format of debate, I'd rather see Sam and William Lane Craig respond to each other on the spot. I feel it would have held each debater more accountable. This format just seems disconnected and is frustrating to follow.
William Lane Craig will never discuss...he couldnt gishgallop or spout nonsense and he couldnt avoid questions...he is a good debater and the breadth of his knowledge and use of rhetoric is very impressive...but all his arguments start with the position God exists. If I were to talk to him I would ask that if he wanted to educate me he would have to evolve my understanding and start from a point where God does not exist and bring me to understand that he does. He would have a huge problem in doing that though because all his philosophical arguments are conjectured on the thing he wants to prove true. He can't be objective so all his appeals to me would be in essence futile as he cany reason to God without first inciting God.
@@kevintyrrell9559 It's not wrong to presume God is an entity when arguing about if He exists. Let's say I believed the entire universe was a simulation and you wanted to argue against that. I think it would be reasonable for you to start from the position that we *don't* live in a simulation and build your case off of that. In the same way, WLC rejects the notion of the big bang/evolution and instead builds his case off the premise that God exists.
7:51 - Lane Craig 26:40 - Sam Harris 46:40 - Lane Craig 58:38 - Sam Harris 1:10:00 - Lane Craig 1:17:50 - Sam Harris 1:25:55 - Lane Craig 1:31:08 - Sam Harris 1:37:10 - Questions
🤔 To Know Good from Evil 🤷🏽♂️ John 17:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Genesis 3:22 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Genesis 3:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. gods in this verse is represents containing the knowledge of good and evil. A big difference between knowing the difference between good and evil and in charge of the ones who know the difference between good and evil. God 🤔 John 10:34-38 Authorized (AKJV) 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. So Jesus as a representative of his Father for the purpose of salvation, must be in the same classification as well as the Father, in charge of salvation after Lucifer destroyed his world. And was lowered to the position of Satan. Psalm 82:6-8 Authorized (AKJV) 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (because of your sin when Lucifer fell, Jesus and the Father made a plan for salvation). 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. (Live a life in the flesh punishments suit, to justify who your God is, through freedom of choice). 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (because of Jesus righteousness and the knowledge of good and evil, Jesus was in charge of salvation. Alfa and Omega. The beginning and the end of the salvation timeline. Scripture 2 Corinthians 4:4-5 Authorized (AKJV) 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. John 10:35 Authorized (AKJV) 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Thank you Jesus for you Sacrifice 🥰😇 Agape’ Style
@@felixhowton6413 to quote on unbelive in a document is silly, even of you don't want to hear about that.Use logic to make a statement not by neglecting something because of simple reason that I don't want to hear.
I dont understand what dr craig is saying at 1:26:31 . “God is a being worthy of worship…therefore he must be good”. What is the criteria to determine if a being is worthy of worship, and where does that criteria come from?
If we call a being god, then that means he is the ultimate authority, how is being with the intelligence to create everything not worthy of your worship.
@@joemama-bv4mg Firstly, calling something "god" does not automatically mean anything. god claims have come in many shapes and sizes. Secondly, why is an authoritarian dictator automatically worthy of worship? To be "worthy" one must show "worthiness". Worship does not automatically follow from intelligence, ability or power. What you are talking about is more akin to enslavement.
@@El_Bruno7510 why do you say that calling something god does not automatically mean anything when we have a clear understanding of someone means when they say god. God is all powerful so there can only be one and if anyone is greater then he is not god. You say that being worthy is to have worthiness. If the creator of everything is not worthy than who is. You say that god is a authoritarian, I'm confused are we arguing against god as a concept or against a certain type of god.
@@joemama-bv4mg As I said, there have been many 'god' claims over many thousands of years. Zeus was a god claim and was not all powerful.. You are doing what all believers do, assuming yours is the correct god, but failing to empathise that there are others who believe in different gods than yours, who believe just the same as you do, that your god is false and theirs is the 'one true god'. Do you understand this? Again, I am assuming that you are assigning 'all loving' automatically to your god? This has nothing to do with being all powerful, or the creator of everything. Would you worship an entity like the devil if it created everything? No you wouldn't, because it would not be worthy of worship. You might 'pretend to worship through fear. Do you understand this? I am pointing out that simply using the word "god" does not automatically mean what you assume it means. Now to get specific, the evidence of the world around us PROVES that there is no such thing as an all loving and all powerful god.
Str8Faced just to be honest my man, i listened this after the four 3 hour Jordan Peterson debates and Sam has the same problem when debating in all of them. He is fixated on his claim and doesn’t contend to the debaters claims. He tries to resolidfy his argument while evading the others. I had never heard of this Craig guy but he really won this debate. He was on topic, went tit for tat, and just was better prepared. Harris doesn’t really even bring notes with him and that could be his problem. Harris is brilliant. Like insanely smart but he doesn’t debate well. He is interesting though for sure.
Amell Yrizarri Harris doesn’t stay on subject. It’s very easy to see that. Just watch the beginning and see the premise , then see how often Harris actually mentions it. It’s basically not at all. Harris also uses the same played out arguments most people use about God. He literally uses Lex Luther argument lol like the villain from Superman in case you don’t know. Harris basically has 100% faith in reason, that’s his dogma. He believes in the goodness of human nature while simultaneously noting the constant dogma humans believe in naturally. That’s contradictory. He’s smart, like super smart, but just because he is able to think something he believes anyone and everyone can. That’s a lovely idea but it has been shown to be a fallacy by history. He also has a poor understanding of the Bible, he knows the King James Version well enough but he should study the hebrew interpretations as this will shine a light on most of his arguments. He also claims he can make arguments that mirror judeo-christian values but if he was being honest and truthful would know that he can’t because when he does it falls short of true divinity and objective truth and values. Secular is great for some but it doesn’t carry through the world well due to the fact of human error and it’s completely open to interpretation, otherwise there would be a singular secular viewpoint and even among those of Harris’ level, there is not.
JD Havrilla I believe that "being focused" makes you more efficient but not more honest. Craig sounds like a lawyer leaning on technicalities and semantic tricks to win the devate instead of opening up to other important issues. I think that would make someone honestly interested in knowing the truth instead of just wining the devate
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:17 🎙️ *Introduction and Recognition of Sponsors* - Introduction to the God Debate event. - Recognition of the sponsors and supporters from the Notre Dame community. - Reading of a passage about the ongoing philosophical discussion. 03:03 🏛️ *Background of the Debate and Speaker Introductions* - Background information on the Center for Philosophy of Religion and its goals. - Introduction of the debaters, Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, and the moderator, Professor Mike Ray. - Brief overview of each speaker's credentials and areas of expertise. 07:20 🕰️ *Debate Structure and Ground Rules* - Explanation of the debate format, including speaking times for each debater. - Guidelines for audience participation in the question and answer session. - Strict enforcement of timekeeping and rules regarding applause and disruptive behavior. 08:01 🧠 *William Lane Craig's Opening Argument* - Craig argues that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God's nature. - Theism provides a foundation for moral values and obligations based on divine commandments. - Critique of atheistic perspectives on morality and the value problem. 19:04 🤔 *Critique of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape* - Craig challenges Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in naturalistic terms. - Criticism of Harris's redefinition of moral terms and semantic approach to the value problem. - Examination of the implications of atheism on objective moral duties and moral responsibility. 25:23 📜 *The foundation of objective moral values and duties* - Objective moral duties are seen as a social construct rather than an objective reality. - Sam Harris's view posits that moral responsibility is determined by thoroughgoing determinism, leading to the absence of objective moral duties. - William Lane Craig argues that without God, there is no sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. 27:34 🧠 *The role of religion in shaping morality* - Sam Harris critiques the notion that belief in God is necessary for an objective morality. - He argues that morality can be understood in terms of human well-being, independent of religious frameworks. - Harris highlights a double standard in moral judgment, contrasting reactions to religious practices with concerns about secular morality. 32:29 🔬 *Science and morality* - Harris presents the concept of a "moral landscape" where morality is based on the well-being of conscious creatures. - He argues that moral truths can be understood through scientific inquiry, as they depend on facts about human well-being. - The discussion involves the intersection of science, philosophy, and ethics in understanding moral values. 46:30 🛡️ *Defending the foundation of objective moral values* - William Lane Craig restates his contention that God provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. - He clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and semantics, focusing on the grounding of moral values rather than their linguistic meaning. - Craig reaffirms the argument that without God, there is no adequate basis for objective moral values and duties. 48:06 📚 *Divine Command Theory and Objective Moral Values* - Moral values are grounded in God ontologically. - Moral duties are grounded by God's commandments, reflecting his nature. - Divine Command Theory is defended against objections, emphasizing its independence from specific religious texts. 49:41 🧠 *Objective Moral Values in Atheism* - Without God, there's no explanation for the existence of objective moral values. - Atheism fails to provide a basis for identifying the flourishing of conscious creatures as objectively good. - Dr. Harris's assertion that the property of being good is identical to creaturely flourishing lacks a defense. 55:19 ⚖️ *Absence of Moral Duties in Atheism* - Atheism lacks a basis for moral duties or obligations. - Moral obligations arise from imperatives of a competent authority, which is absent in atheism. - Without freedom of the will, there is no moral responsibility, rendering moral duties impossible in atheistic frameworks. 58:50 🕊️ *Critique of Theistic Moral Framework* - Criticism of the theistic moral framework's implications, particularly related to the concept of hell. - The argument questions the morality of a God who allows immense suffering, especially among innocent children. - The debate addresses the moral implications of religious doctrines, particularly regarding salvation and damnation. 01:11:11 📜 *Refutation of Red Herrings* - Objective moral values exist because God's essence is good. - The problem of evil and other objections are red herrings distracting from the debate. - Evil actually proves the existence of God as it necessitates objective moral values. 01:17:44 🧠 *Scientific Objectivity and Moral Grounding* - Science relies on axiomatic assumptions, including moral axioms. - Objective moral values can be grounded in well-being without the need for God. - Human experiences, including profound ones, are accessible without resorting to religious claims. 01:25:57 🔍 *Summary and Concluding Arguments* - God provides a foundation for objective moral values and duties due to his inherent goodness. - Atheism lacks a coherent basis for objective moral values and duties. - The debate extends beyond Christianity, as similar arguments could be applied to other religions like Islam. 01:33:20 📜 *Critique of Christian scripture and morality* - Sam Harris critiques the Christian scriptures, highlighting the narrow worldview and moral inconsistencies of its authors. - The authors of the Bible had limited access to scientific information and moral perspectives, making their worldview incompatible with modern understanding. - Harris argues against the notion that biblical teachings provide timeless moral guidance, advocating for a morality based on contemporary knowledge and inquiry. 01:35:03 🌍 *Building a global civilization based on secular morality* - Harris emphasizes the need for a global civilization grounded in secular morality. - He challenges sectarian moral denominations and advocates for honest inquiry as the tool for moral progress. - The goal is to create a world where thegreatest number of people can live fulfilling lives, free from the constraints of religious dogma. 01:37:41 🤔 *Exploring the grounding of morality and the problem of evil* - Harris discusses the grounding of morality and the problem of evil in the context of religious belief. - He argues that objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require a religious foundation. - Harris questions the necessity of religion for moral grounding and highlights the role of subjective well-being in moral considerations. 01:42:23 🌐 *Understanding moral ontology and epistemology* - William Lane Craig clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and epistemology. - He asserts that while moral growth and development occur over time, the foundation of objective moral values and duties remains unchanged. - Craig defends the necessity of God as the source of objective morality, arguing against naturalistic explanations for moral values. 01:54:03 🌍 *Morality and Interconnectedness* - Morality is rooted in our intuitions about the sanctity of human life, trust, and community. - Killing everyone would eradicate suffering but also nullify all possibilities of happiness and experience. - Our happiness is interconnected with the happiness of others, and we are not separate individuals but part of a community. 01:55:38 🕊️ *Perspectives on Different Religions* - Dr. Craig discusses reasons for believing in Christianity over Islam based on historical evidence. - There are points of commonality between Christianity and Islam, but fundamental differences exist, particularly regarding Jesus. - Dr. Harris poses challenges to Christianity but returns to the debate topic on the objectivity of morality. 01:57:15 🤔 *The Basis of Objective Morality* - Dr. Harris argues for objective morality based on the recognition of suffering and movement towards the sublime. - Objective paradigms, including morality, require axiomatic judgments that are not self-justifying. - The spectrum of human experience informs the understanding of what is morally preferable. 02:00:14 🔄 *Is Statements vs. Ought Statements* - The distinction between "is" statements and "ought" statements is crucial for understanding moral obligations. - Dr. Harris challenges the notion that morality stems solely from the commands of a competent authority. - He raises concerns about divine command theory, linking it to psychopathy and moral relativism. 02:03:48 🤝 *Consensus and Moral Values* - Dr. Craig discusses the relevance of consensus in moral debates, distinguishing it from doctrinal issues. - Disagreements about moral perceptions are viewed as epistemological rather than ontological. - He argues for a transcendent basis for moral values rooted in a being of goodness beyond human nature and cultural shifts. Made with HARPA AI
This short earthly life is a school and exam for our immortal soul, for those who did not listen by the Creator to understand the value of "light" without experiencing the "darkness". This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see the *free* choices/deeds to reward accordingly. *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10 The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Cutting and pasting the same delusion multiple times is just trolling and highlighting your desperate need for medication bud! Still, at least you are liking your own comments too. No one else would!
"If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance." ~ Marcus Aurelius
It's ironic, because I would bet a decent amount of money (not my whole life savings, but a decent amount) that no one in that room changed their position after that debate. (And I'm not talking about fence sitters, but people with a strong affirmation on their values)
“You have 20 min for an opening statement” “Now you have 10 min for a rebuttal” “5 min for a rebuttal” “You have 2 min to answer” “30 seconds for a rebuttal” “You now have 10 seconds for a closing statement” “2 seconds for a rebuttal” “You have 0.5 seconds for last rebuttal” “0.01 milliseconds for closing remarks” “You have 0.000000E-999999999999999 nanoseconds to get TF OUTTA HERE !!!”
Kudos to U. of Notre Dame for keeping comments open on this excellent debate. There are other, similar debates held at lesser institutions to be found on youtube, where comments have been closed.
In most of Craig's debates the comments are turned off. I've always thought it's because he's so embarrassingly wrong, they know it's gonna rationally show in the comments
Very simple to explain in a few sentences: When something good happens it's God because he originally only created a perfect world & perfect human life w/no suffering until Adam & Eve sinned & ruined not only the perfect world but also made humans imperfect & suffer. That is why when some agony happens it's from Satan because he caused the original sin that caused all this pain. God didn't create cancer & kidney stones, these are the side effects of sin (THAT HUMANS CHOSE) If you built a car & gifted it to your son, but told him not to add a flamethrower to it or he'll burn himself up. Then he turns around & adds a flamethrower & burns himself up, that doesn't mean that you at fault at all as the father & therefore shouldn't be blamed for the agony
@@TeddyRumpskinz And that, is a perfect example of the verbal gymnastics employed by the believer to justify the laughable nonsense they believe. Let's take two hypotheses: 1. God, the omni kind, created two humans knowing that they would disobey him, then punished the whole of mankind because they did what God knew they would do. This all powerful God also lets Satan run ruin over the planet but still interjects with good things here and there. So we concluded anything good is God because we have defined God as good and anything bad is Satan because we have defined Satan as bad. This doesn't of course answer all the animal suffering and the natural disasters that happen - though I did see on the news from the floods in Libya, a man standing surrounded by destruction and saying "this is God's will" and being seemingly happy with that! 2. Life evolves and good and bad things happen because natural events happen and humans and animals have evolved differently with different goals and desires and some of those goals and desires are bad. Which one sounds more plausible? I can throw in an evil God example and a Satan is more powerful example too, but I think those 2 make the point nicely. How bad would the world have to be for you to think, "maybe this God I believe in isn;t so nice or so just, after all"?
@@TeddyRumpskinz Another double standards nonsense. God created humans on his image, gave them the ability to think but when they really think outside the box, he throws them in hell. Why won't he just alter the thoughts of atheism out of people's mind so that no one would go to hell or else he likes to throw his creation in suffering. Do you even know how cancer occurs, it can happen of causes which humans have no role in. Cancer can occur through UV rays which your God created, through viral carcinogens which which again are the creation of your God. Again any agony happens and you pulls out Satan card like he is more powerful that God can't handle.
@@TeddyRumpskinzSo you really believe that two people ruined the whole world? Because they ate an apple? God just watching kids having cancer or dying from pathogens and earthquakes seems a rather harsh punishment for someone else thousands of years ago eating an apple. You clearly seem to be more of the fundamental kind. Even most Christians today don’t believe in a sin that is passed down the generations.
@@TeddyRumpskinz Why are all religious people such downers? What is suffering? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in Santa flying around? Do you believe in easter bunny nesting colored eggs? Do you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in Allah? They have the same probability as your specific god, satan etc... I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
"I'll leave UA-cam to sort it out later" Let's see if the YT comments agree with Harris. :P of course, I already looked, and half of the Harris supporters seem to all think Harris did bad. Lol
That's because the joint press conference style is the style Craig is comfortable with, and Craig only does debates if he can control the arena and officiating crew in which the game is played. The shortcomings of his ideas usually come out in cross-examination, which is why cross is usually short or axed entirely.
@@JPX7NGD You nailed it. Craigs arguments remind me of my sin, and thats what I meant by 'shortcomings.' What a disingenuous question. I reject the christian concept of sin.
Nupuqi Om-Re Khonectics Chamber 45 plus degree The Generations of ADAM Atom ( ADAM , Axim ) from the Exosphere 9 cipher Sperm ( SETH ) from the Thermosphere and Heliosphere 9 cipher Nitrogen Oxygen Argon Helium (Noah) from the Mesosphere 9 cipher Hydra O gene Hydrogen ( ABRAHAM , Alpha and Beta particles ) from the Mesosphere 9 cipher 2 atoms of Hydra gene testicles ( Ishmael , Isaac )( Rivers and Creeks ) from the Ionosphere 9 cipher Water channel ( Musa , Moses ) from the Ozone ( Azim ) 9 cipher Universal radiation RAIN ( Gabriel ) 9 cipher Oceans ( Mari , Mare , Mary ) 9 cipher Clouds ( Tri stage of Ion , Isa , Jesus , Ieous ) .
None, except through me for I am the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is mine alone, can I forgive you all perhaps tell me your own sins and your own reasoning in those moments and I'll try to normalize it rationally with all those who have sinned against me and explain their reasons to showcase how damned those people will forever be in my heart and mind and soul. I can't forgive anyone who stole April Renee Walker from me. I have forgiven her, chances are I can't you more often than not!
I'm glad that there are atheists and theists alike who are willing to entertaining an opinion without accepting it. This seems like a rare thing nowadays.
@@bbchamp88 I take the phrase "these days" to mean, within a recognizable amount of time. 1980 to now is more similar to the industrial revolution to the present for many reasons. Such as political concerns and technology. You're the one who put a metric on time by citing 11 years as if the statement "these days" need not apply. Explain to me how his statement was a misuse of said phrase.
Your comment and or advise would,be better if anyone would,read it first before watching the video. But people usually watch the,video then comment on it
I totally agree with you. I was very confused and disappointed by Harris's replies. It almost sounded like they were lectures given by 2 different people while pretending they were debating one another!
One person was speculating, that’s why it seemed different. Evidence leading to conclusion is typically atheism. Conclusion seeking evidence is typically religion.
Whether that kid at 1:50:01 was joking or not, there's people out there who legitimately believe that God comes to them and tells them things. Craig dismissing the kid and his experience with God is evidence that 1. Craig can pick and choose when someone is serious or not about their experiences with God, and that 2. If he's joking, the difference between fake experiences and supposed real experiences are blurred.
God is not showing intentionally direct evidences (as atheists want) because He wants to see our *free* choices, how much we love perfection (100% goodness, wisdom, justice, pure love....) and how much we detest evilness=stupidity. - If/when we will have direct evidences of God, as atheists want, then we ALL will have immediately interested love regarding our Heavenly Father, but now, the really good humans, who love God/Jesus only from the revelation of the truth, can prove their true love for Divinity, for perfection, while living here with 100% freedom.
Humans, with very few exceptions, have lost their merit of direct communication with God because *each sin moves us away from God, from perfection.* God wants us back into Heaven and that is why we have to learn our lesson here, to prove that we have understood that freedom must always be used only for good, never for evil. Not all humans who ever lived on Earth had knowledge about the truth from those who deserved to have it revealed by Divinity and especially from Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity. It has always been easy for any human to know what the useless suffering is and to never produce it (no need for the Creator to tell us this). That is why *He expects us to strive to never do evil, especially to never do evil intentionally, to never cause useless suffering, any damage, to others and to ourselves.*
Many people seem to not realize that for God, being _"the beginning and the end,"_ *this world has already ended* (all free human choices / deeds being recorded for what all will perceive as the Last Judgment). That is why the Bible has exact prophecies, like the followings listed below: - The future will be like in the days of Sodom. Luke 17, 28-30 - People will deny that GOD created the universe. 2 Peter 3:3-9 - The message of the Gospel will reach all the nations. Matthew 24,14 - The future will become frightening. Luke 21, 26 (just few examples: the global warming terrific effects, the third world war final preparations, Corona virus etc.) - Blasphemy and wicked behavior will be commonplace. 2 Timothy 3,1-9 - There will be money hungry preachers that deceive Christians and lead them away from the truth. 2 Peter 2,1-3 - Scoffers will mock also the Second Coming by claiming these signs have always been around. 2 Peter 3, 3 4
So far, my messages have not been read yet for real, *carefully enough.* This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God rewarding our *free* choices/deeds accordingly. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
@@ryan49er1 you really heard this and thought Craig addressed any of Sam Harris' points??? i made a more lengthy and detailed observation somewhere in this comment section.
@@ryan49er1 Really? Did you not see that Craig addressed Harris point for point, but made sure to note when Harris was bringing up irrelevancies? And did you not notice how Harris kept bringing up new topics in his rebuttals, none of which had anything to do with what Craig said? I personally thought that it was clear that while neither of them were comprehensively addressing each other's points, only Craig actually stayed on topic.
@@ethanm.2411 Hmmm, I must of missed the part where he addressed Harris's explanation of geographical luck when going to heaven. Or Millions of non Christian kids dying and not going to heaven but a murderer who asks for forgiveness will receive eternal life....I guess that's Moral objective behavior.
@@ahilltodieonsThat’s because he was sticking to the topic of debate in witch Harris strayed from every time he spoke. Anything within the bounds of the topic was addressed and dismantled by Craig.
@@frankritchey823Exactly. I’m only half way though but Harris hasn’t really answered the question and has just been parroting very tired atheistic talking points against Christianity. He hasn’t given any solid reasons why objective morality exists without a God.
Mental health professionals often call hearing voices 'Auditory Hallucinations'. A hallucination is something you See, Taste, Smell or Hear, that other people cannot. If you hear voices, this means you hear something that other people cannot. There are different types voices. Everyone's experiences are different. So if you hear a voice in your head, you should check with your Mental health professional just to be “SAFE”
@@imnotmarthastewart8120 Being Educated often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things For Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So. That Transfers to the Bible and Gods as Well: “It Says So in the Bible” Isn’t Automatically True for Someone with a Critical Mindset, and Things are not Necessarily Believable Just Because a Pastor Says It. The problem is that in Particular Islam and Christianity are Authoritative Religions. In Christianity, the Only Path to Heaven is to Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and in Islam, You Submit to Allah as Muhammad Revealed Through the Qur’an - The Word “Islam” Even Means “Submission”. The Natural Response From the Educated Critical Mind is, of Course, “Why?” And “Because Muhammad/Jesus/God/the Bible/the Qur’an Says So” Is Not a Valid Answer. Because We Had the Luxury of an Education That Afford us The Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim That the Characters Found Within Being Educated Often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things for Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So. Because We had the Luxury of an Education that Afford us the Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim that the Characters Found Within Exist in Reality. If So Many Highly Educated People Don’t Believe in God… Maybe It Is Because They Know Something You Don’t, It’s Because, Due to Their High Intelligence and Education, They Have Realized That All Gods Are Imaginary. Educated People Tend to Believe in Things That Can Be Proved and For Which There is Evidence. I don’t Believe in God for the Same Reason You Don’t Believe in Vampires, Faeries, Werewolves, Pegasus, Mermaids, and Numerous other Supernatural Beings from Myth, Folklore, and Fantasy. You Make an Exception for One Preferred Flavor of Myth; I don’t. I believe in the Power of Loving Kindness, Illuminated by Self-Reliance and Mindfulness. I Neither Need, Nor Desire, a Belief in Deities to Walk That Path. To Exist in Reality. “No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.” “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”
@@imnotmarthastewart8120 In the Psychology of Human Behavior, Denialism is a Person's Choice to Deny Reality as a Way to Avoid a Psychologically Uncomfortable Truth. Denialism is an Essentially Irrational Action that Withholds the Validation of a Historical Experience or Event, When a Person Refuses to Accept an Empirically Verifiable Reality... The Bible is a Book of Mythology... Examples are Fables, Fairy Tales, Folktales, Sagas, Epics, Legends, and Etiologic Tales (Which Refer to Causes or Explain Why a Thing is The Way It Is). Another form of Tale, the Parable, Differs from Myth in its Purpose and Character. Things That are Not To Be True... “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Very similar reasons are given by theistic apologists for the religion I left (Islam). What makes these same reasons any different when it comes to Christianity?
If people were truly neutral and scientifically rigorous - they would see and admit that the ironic thing is that Harris' arguments a rooted in nothing and at least Craig sticks to the point of the debate. Too many people are satisfied with style over substance and do not think about the subject for themselves. Those haling Harris as a "genius" really need to think to themselves if their definition of a genius is someone who can understand the mechanics of their subject and root it in critical thinking or one who just makes witty quips and cheap shots without any consideration for intellectual integrity.
Even as an atheist I have to agree with your point. Craig's arguments are sound, logical and to the point, while the same cannot be said of Harris. I even agree with Craig's conclusion that without God there probably isn't any basis for objective morality, the difference being that I just don't see any reason to believe there is objective morality in the first place. While I agree with Harris that the only obvious morality for humanity is to value the well-being of conscious creatures, I don't see why this would be considered "objective". Obviously whatever we consider moral is either genetically imparted in us or is part of our culture (because it was and is necessary for a well-functioning society). I don't think Harris' position was defensible at all.
@@ahwellitried It boils down to how we define 'objective' and whether objective morality is even a good thing. Craig says nothing more that OM only exists if god exists, but he's only making a claim, not an argument.
+TheRedWon I don't understand how anyone can call Harris a philosopher. This video is evidence that you apparently can get a degree in philosophy in certain institutions, while remaining terrible at logic as you pursue it. Yikes!
A tree is known by its fruit likewise a real Christian produces good fruit. Suppose you have a apple tree and a peach tree both growing, how do I know which is which? The tree that produces peaches is the peach tree and the one that produces apples is the apple tree, likewise a so called Christian who is worldly/sinful is not a real Christian. Matthew 3:10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire
Sam was good, I personally don’t find it much of a debate. The pastor has arrogance and lots of logical loopholes, but no evidence or arguments that couldn’t be applied to Zeus or Bigfoot. He also dismissed most of the tough questions by the audience.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 “You weren’t a good enough christian, so we’re going to place you in a tortuous inferno for all eternity.” What a loving and merciful god
For example, cancer must not be treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but with healthy periods of starvation, consuming only natural / organic vegetables and appropriate fruits, especially black fruits (like the black raspberry), with 8 hours of sleep every night, walks / exercises in nature (fresh air), without stress, optimistic ..., not eating sugar and meat at all ... the tumors being "digested" in a few months or even weeks (it is also highly recommended not to have any overload during the healing period).
In spite of the fact that English is not my native language, and I am not living in an English speaking country, my messages are clear enough for the honest readers.
It is really hard to understand what is difficult in the following, 1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. 2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist. Is it the difficult part - you just not liking it?
The priests used to have control over the lives of everyone in the community in Ireland. The state allowed the church to operate cannon law instead of the state's own law. When the church was strong during the dark ages and middle ages, they did the most horrendous atrocities. They held much more power over individuals than any modern policeman.
Craig: And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Hi! I hope you read this& challenge yourself with my explanation. So, I remember my fears of death. However, I saw that the 10 commandments are God's law. As most people know, we all have broken them. I realized at a time, that I had lied, which made me a liar. I had stolen, which made me a thief. I had blasphemed God's name and used it as a curse word. The God who gave me life and created my DNA, I disrespected immensely with blasphemy. I thought I hadn't committed adultery. But Jesus said that even looking with lust is adultery with the heart in Jesus eyes. So wow, I was also an adulterer. I realized, if God judged me by the 10 commandments, I would be guilty. What about you? Have you broken God's law too? I thought since I was a supposedly "good person" I would go to heaven. But the bible says, "Most men will proclaim each his own goodness" meaning we all can defend our goodness. "I'm not as bad as that person! Well look at hitler! I give homeless people money"!But see, that wouldn't work in a court of law. If a man committed a crime like murder and tells the judge "Judge, yes I'm guilty, but I'm a good person. I help my family, I donate to charity, and I'll do better!" If the judge is a good judge, would he let the criminal go? No. He would say "I'm judging your crime not your good works. And of course you should do those things and of course you should be better. You're going to jail!" Well God is a perfect judge. He is just and the only righteous and holy being. He also not only knows our crimes, but our thoughts and hearts. So I would be guilty and deserve hell because its either be with God (goodness comes from God so heaven) or be an enemy to good and be separated from Him and all good (hell). But, He sent His only begotten son to die on the cross bcuz he's also merciful. But you may not know this: The 10 commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke the law, Jesus paid our fine. Thats why when He died, he cried out "it is finished!" Meaning the debt had been paid for us to accept. And He died then rose again and defeated death and what you have to do to receive reconciliation is to have your heart changed. We cant do that, we arent God. But He can do that. Seek Him and ask for reconciliation. He loves you. Most of us are like a person standing at the edge of a plane and we know we have to jump. And this is our plan: we'll flap our arms and save ourselves. Don't do that! Trust the parachute! Truly truly seeking God for reconciliation is belief because its believing He can answer. We cant give sin up but God will handle it if you seek reconciliation. Be humble and ask for His mercy. Once you truly do this, God will grant you everlasting life in heaven with Him as your father! And He will also give you a brand new heart that desires righteousness because of your faith. That is being born again. You will know you have been saved and that Jesus is your savior💕
The following quotation shows us, also, why it is important to write "God" instead of "god": _"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."_ 2 Corinthians 4, 4 By the way, it is good to be mentioned that God/Jesus cannot be taken away from the true believers / lovers of the truth.
Another thing that worth mentioning is the fact that not the labels that people put one another are important for the Creator of this reality (such as: Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu...) but *our deeds* instead, how we use the freedom He has offered, our free will, to strive always to do only good, to never cause useless suffering (any damage) to others and to ourselves.
@@filmeseverin I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@@filmeseverinself upvoting is pathetic Believers in Jesus belong to a church. What Christian denomination do you belong to? Imposter! Deceiver! Every honest reader definitely knows to ignore you and your lies. Why do Romanians lie so much? There is no intelligence in you for sure. Every honest reader sees it. Stop lying.
twomicefighting I think it was an effort to control the length of clapping in the audience. This whole debate was an exercise in presenting the most controlled environment possible in order not to present a bias toward either participant.
@@bradspitt3896 Indeed. Perhaps Harris was less interested in playing WLC's game and more interested in publicly presenting the absurdity of WLC's position. Who knows? You'd have to ask him.
Harris- Morality only applies to the well-being of conscious creatures, and some kinds of actions consistently help or hurt beings. Good is what helps beings, and would exist without God. Craig- Atheism has no objective reason to care about the well-being of conscious creatures, while Theists do because God tells them to. Good is what God says it is, so it could not exist without God, because Gods desires determine Good. Basically, two different definitions of good lead to different conclusions, but Harris's conclusions are valid weather god exists or not, while Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says.
@@kapitan19969838 Exactly. Harris: "Good is what helps." You're just kicking the can down the road at this point. Who gets to define what "helps"? If I help a person steal so that they can pay their rent, have I done "good" by Harris's definition? I don't think the hypothetical person we stole from would think so! :P
You say, " Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says." Did you miss, 1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. 2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist.
You say, " Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says." Did you miss, 1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. 2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist.
It sounded to me like Craig was trying to win the debate, while Harris was actually trying to speak to and convince the audience, not so much respond to Craig's points.
I agree. The ending statements by Harris was shocking! It’s almost as though he strawmans Craigs position. Craig refused to deal with points irrelevant to the topic on hand.
Craig has a repertoire of verbal tricks designed to appear as convincing arguments for his position on on our subservience to supernatural beings. Harris is not interested in taking apart the details of Craig's position (and neither would the audience be). Harris has something he wants to say about HUMAN affairs, and he concentrates on saying it.
@@Oldtinear I agree, I think Harris' arguments are more convincing. However I also think Craig did a better job at addressing Harris' arguments in this format. It depends what you think the goal of the debate was to judge who won, in my opinion.
@@JigglePhysics3000 Craig insisted that Harris's morality based in human well-being is subjective. To be honest, I am unsure what 'objective' morality might be. Objective means based on facts. There are zero facts involved in Craig's belief that a supernatural being exists who has desires regarding our behaviour, and that these desires have been reliably discovered and recorded, and we are obliged to conform to them. Craig scores zero. Harris's morality involves some measures which can be objectively assessed - physical, mental and social health can be assessed by experts in those fields. Even so, people may ask 'What evidence have you that morality is or should be based on human well-being?' Harris's answer is that anyone who questions whether the worst misery for everyone is bad, does not know what he is talking about, and I agree!
@@Oldtinear Oh I personally very much agree with Harris and I think he had the most convincing arguments. I just also think that in the context of a debate, where premises need to logically follow eachother to come to a logical conclusion, Craig did do a good job. I'm just saying Craig did a better job debating, but not actually convincing me, at least. To be fair, he did misrepresent Harris a few times and I disagree with some (if not all) of his premises, but I followed the structure of his arguments better than I did Harris'. I may have very well missed some stuff or misunderstood some of Harris' arguments, but that was the impression I got after watching the video.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@godmanmindworld Christianityis not a license to sin but to live holy In one of my visitations to hell, Jesus showed me a person who was a Christian (Jesus said “he was a Christian like you”). But the guy unfortunately started sleeping around (1 cor 6:9). He died middle aged and went to hell forever it was dark but Jesus lit up the area, he asked Jesus for another chance but unfortunately it was too late for him, Pretty sad, Repent and ask Jesus to help you with your struggles (James 4:7)
One is trying to make clear, logical arguments that stack on top of each other, the other is just throwing elaborate rhetorical blinding grenades that make his fan base feel good. You can find out which is who by trying to summarize each man's line of argument without watching the video a second time. Fairly easy in one case, impossible in the other.
Only the un-educated and simple minded can't understand what craig was saying. Athiests need simple words and analogies to comfort their beliefs i guess 🤷
@@TheCatsafrican But nature is indifferent to you. It doesn't care if you worship it or bow your head. But if there is a God who is responsible for the creation of this nature you adore so much as to worship, maybe giving him a chance would be the best decision you can ever make. I'm struggling with my faith at this point in my life, so I'm pretty much like you when it comes to believing, but what is true is that my life was much happier and meaningful when I was a believer. Now I'm getting back to it, and I hope you give it a chance too. Have a nice day
I would love to see a backwards debate: each person swaps ideas and spends months doing deep research into all the problems of their assigned argument, but must defend that belief as though they do, in fact believe in it. In a certain section of the debate, any holes presented in the theory will be attempted to be explained by the native believer. I’m sure something like this exists already, but I don’t know the name. Feel free to laugh at me, I knew it would come :)
That sounds really cool actually. I actually already tried this. In my debate class my professor asked our pro life or pro choice stances then made us debate FOR the stance we were against. It’s not fun when it comes to certain things lol
What do you think thier doing playing Hooky? Yet no i don't think any one needs to laugh at you for what millions experience daily witch is life till what we don't yet know.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 08:01 🤔 Dr. Craig and Dr. Harris agree that objective moral values exist independently of human opinion. 14:23 🌍 Dr. Craig argues that theism provides a solid foundation for objective moral values rooted in God's nature. 18:11 🦁 Dr. Craig questions atheism's ability to ground objective moral values due to the lack of inherent worth in a naturalistic worldview. 21:34 🔄 Dr. Craig criticizes Sam Harris's attempt to redefine "good" and "evil" as human well-being and argues that it lacks objective grounding. 22:57 🔄 Dr. Craig challenges the idea that atheism can provide a source for objective moral duties, highlighting problems with naturalism and determinism. 27:34 🤝 Sam Harris acknowledges the importance of a secular foundation for morality and expresses concern about the erosion of secular morality. 29:13 🚀 Sam Harris suggests that understanding morality in terms of human well-being can provide a basis for making ethical claims about behavior and ways of life. 29:28 🌍 Sam Harris discusses the controversy surrounding denigrating the Taliban's worldview at a scientific meeting. 30:24 🤯 Sam Harris engages in a debate about cultural practices with a colleague, illustrating differing viewpoints on morality. 32:16 👥 Harris critiques the double standard in ethics, where someone with a scientific and philosophical background is detached from real suffering. 33:27 🔬 Harris argues that science can address questions of right and wrong, dispelling the notion that science can't address moral values. 36:10 🤔 Harris presents the idea that consciousness and well-being are essential components of a moral landscape. 37:53 🏔️ Harris argues that the "worst possible misery for everyone" defines the minimum standard for moral goodness. 39:43 🇦🇫 Harris critiques the Taliban's culture as an example of a society that fails to maximize human well-being. 45:14 🧠 Harris challenges the distinction between facts and values, asserting that science and values are intertwined. 49:41 ⛪ Craig defends the notion that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the existence of God. 51:55 🔀 Craig critiques Harris's assertion that the good life is equated with conscious creatures' flourishing. 53:55 ⚖️ Craig argues that Harris's claim that goodness is identical to creaturely flourishing is logically incoherent. 55:19 🛡️ Moral obligations and prohibitions arise from competent authority. Atheism lacks such authority for moral commands. 56:01 🤖 Without God, there is no foundation for moral imperatives or duties, resulting in moral nihilism. 56:44 🛡️ Atheism lacks ontological foundations for objective moral values and duties, contrary to theism. 57:36 🤖 Atheism cannot establish objective moral values and duties without God as the moral lawgiver. 58:50 🛡️ Atheistic moral framework faces challenges in justifying moral accountability and value. 59:18 🤖 The problem of evil and the problem of unevangelized do not refute the existence of God's moral framework. 01:04:30 🛡️ Christianity is seen as a cult of human sacrifice rather than a religion that repudiates it. 01:05:11 🤖 Theistic moral framework is criticized for rationalizing atrocities and immoral behavior based on divine command theory. 01:05:50 🛡️ The existence of evil can be seen as an argument for God's existence due to the grounding of objective values. 01:06:44 🤖 Atheism's lack of foundation for objective moral values and duties is questioned. 01:07:26 🛡️ Moral reasoning within atheism is challenged for not being grounded in any objective foundation. 01:18:00 🤖 An objective morality based on science can rely on certain value assumptions similar to other scientific fields. 01:20:43 🛡️ Science can address both epistemological objectivity (openness to data) and ontological objectivity (objective aspects of subjective facts). 01:22:04 🌍 Sam Harris emphasizes valuing well-being and avoiding suffering, asserting that objective value is based on the well-being of conscious creatures. 01:23:17 🧘 Atheists can experience self-transcending love, ecstasy, and awe; they don't reject profound experiences but refrain from making unjustifiable claims about the cosmos. 01:24:51 🔬 Understanding our situation and deeper possibilities should align with the spirit of science; sectarian claims from various religions might not capture the true essence. 01:29:12 🙌 Objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require religious belief; moral growth and development are possible without a belief in a specific God. 01:31:52 🕊️ Sam Harris questions the problem of religious diversity, showing that the same arguments for Christianity could be applied to Islam or any other religion. 01:37:06 ⚖️ The debate covers the foundation of objective moral values, with Dr. Craig asserting they rely on God, while Sam Harris argues they can exist independently of a divine source. 01:47:23 🌟 Sam Harris discusses miracles and their context in different religions. 01:48:20 📚 Miracle stories in Christianity have ancient origins with textual discrepancies; other religions also have miracle claims with living eyewitnesses. 01:49:16 🧐 Disparity in belief regarding miracles like Jesus' among billions and more recent ones like Sai Baba among millions challenges intellectual consistency. 01:49:55 🌐 Harris is open to evidence of miracles, but notes the subjectivity and inconsistency of such claims across different belief systems. 01:50:37 🏳️🌈 A question on divine revelation and morality highlights differing perspectives on moral issues like homosexuality based on religious beliefs. 01:51:50 🌍 Harris and Craig discuss the possibility of this being the worst possible world and moral implications of destroying consciousness. 01:56:04 🕌 Craig defends his Christian beliefs by differentiating Christianity from Islam, citing historical and theological reasons for his stance. 01:57:01 🔄 Harris responds to Craig's distinction between "is" and "ought" statements, arguing that morality can arise from well-being considerations. 01:58:27 🔄 Harris counters divine command theory with concerns of psychopathy, suggesting an inherent difficulty in deriving morality solely from authority. 02:01:12 📜 Harris questions Craig's reliance on divine command theory, highlighting the potential for moral atrocities based on divine authority. 02:03:48 🛐 Craig defends the notion that a foundation for moral values lies in a transcendent source, irrespective of doctrinal consensus among religious groups.
Let's say we don't have objective moral values, what is the problem? Most people seem to agree about and act according to a large set of universal values without the need to ground them in any objective truth or foundation. This is really the argument that I'm struggling with.
Exactly. Common sense, empiricism, and reason seem to me enough to determine ethics. To avoid Harris's "Worst Possible Misery for Everyone" is clearly the only rear "ought" that we can define. But I agree that no universal morals, are really no big deal. To claim that only theists can be sure about their morals is an insult to life everywhere. And by looking at history, clearly theist morals are not the "best."
59:29 Sam makes a 10 minute rock solid statement of how God has to be the worst psyochopat ever imagined. 1:12:15 Craigs response: "You believe in god as the supreme good..." "God is goodness iteself." They clearly define "good" differently...
It's not rock-solid. This has been addressed before, even by Craig. It's not a rational statement, it's an emotional one. There are logical and rational alternatives to Sam's dilemma. That is, logically, it is a faux dilemma. Furthermore, logically, you are trying to measure a universe, absolute information with a subjective, limited vantage point. While it's all anyone has, strictly speaking, a perfectly valid logical response would be that what you're calling unethical it's only unethical if seen from a limited point; if you had a universally absolute vantage point AND absolute wisdom AND universal goodness, then you would come to the same conclusion. But what about the emotional aspect? Certainly, it's a hard issue to deal with, but see it this way: Without God, there is no basis for objective ethics and as such, no reason to denounce God's ethics. As Craig has said and Sam did not address: You may not like it, but under what beyond-yourself standard can you use to label God a psychopath if it's not God itself?
@@natanaellizama6559 Now let me see if I understand your logical argument. Basically, what you're saying is that there are no objective moral truths, because we as humans are always looking at the world from a limited point of view, and don’t have “access” to whatever god value as moral truth. Now if you are a person who is convinced god exists and that this god is all knowing, all powerful and all good, this makes perfect sense and I cannot make a logical argument defending that whatever we humans value as morality is the true objective moral of the universe. But there is no evidence that an entity with such a perspective exists, and when you make a claim the burden of proof is on the one is making the claim. I too can make claims that different entities exist in the universe that would render whatever argument you make illogical. To believe that the all-knowing, all powerful and all good Abrahamic god first claimed to exist by un-enlightened humans from the bronze age who knew almost nothing worth knowing about the nature of the universe is itself illogical and irrational to believe, which I think renders the foundation of your argument meaningless.
@@PetterCR7 Yes, but you see, the type of counter-argument about God's nature necessarily implies (at least in a faux-fiction kind of way, like a theater would) God's existence. That is, the argument is akin to saying "It makes no sense that Harry Potter is an orphan" and then replying with "yes but there is no evidence that Harry Potter exists". If God exists, then immorality cannot be imputed to it in a rational manner. The atheist tries to attack God's immorality by appealing to an objective morality and therefore appealing to God(as rationally speaking only God can provide objective morality). It is a logical inconsistency. Of course, this doesn't mean that there are objective morality or God, only that if there are objective morality then there is a God and that you can't call out God's objective morality from a limited subjective morality. I also reject your notion that ancient people were unenlightened. This is a myth propounded by certain circles. What is the "enlightenment"? Not to point out the fact that even the European Enlightenment was based on ancient ideas(it is the grandchildren of the ancients). It is in fact, modern people, who don't take often the time to think the notions through. But even more so, the technological improvements of late are just a possible aspect of enlightenment and in fact, can hinder man itself. The enlightenment that ought to precede man's technological advancement is man's moral advancement; that is, man's wisdom. Without wisdom, technological advancement becomes a weapon instead of a tool. In this, ancient people are less hindered. There are in fact, notions of the Universe that are philosophical in nature and quite enlightening. There is an issue with some modern circles of scientists, where they depart from science and delve in philosophy, yet they are not good philosophers themselves, and so you have ridiculous notions pushed by scientists, who are speaking beyond their strict formal capacities. To point an example there is biology: What is the ontological concept of life? That is not a biological question, it is, in fact, the philosophical axis in which the whole of biology is based upon. Most biologists don't even think of this issue, which seems meta but it's not meta it's in fact base. Another relevant concept is that of consciousness. By mere logic consciousness is metaphysical and can't NOT be physical, yet you still have some scientists presupposing a materialist point of view and building philosophical models on top of their scientific data and attributing the same validity as the data when they are two distinct things. To give a final example, we have the Aristotelian concept of form and matter which is FOUNDATIONAL for any branch(as it is foundational for philosophy and philosophy is the foundation for other branches of knowledge). Thought of by an "ancient" and ignored by many(most) modern men. He, in fact, still stands superior in thought than modern man even if he "didn't know anything about the Universe"
@@natanaellizama6559 Ok I think understand your point better now; when Sam Harris attack the morality of god it implies that god exist, and if god exist then who is Sam Harris to question the morality of this all-good entity from his subjective, limited vantage-point. Now if one adds to the argument lets say “from a human perspective” the morality of god is the morality of a psychopath, one would be on solid logical ground, right? I realize you are better schooled in philosophy than what I am, so let us try to be a bit more pragmatic: According to your argument, we are not logically “allowed” to question god. Now if god is not going to share his superior moral code with us, and we can’t logically question god, then even discussing him is waste of time. Unless of course you are waiting for some kind of revelation, but then I would confidently - from a logical and rational point of view - call you delusional, considering there are no evidence that such an event is going to take place. Now in awareness of reiterating myself, this entire discussion is meaningless unless there can be made a logical argument for the existence of god. About the point of ancient people not being enlightened, lets be clear about our terminology: Enlightenment and wisdom are two different things. Whether or not the discovery of microorganisms was made by someone who wants to cure diseases or to kill his opponents by spreading a plague, the enlightenment of the fact that diseases are caused by germs and not some demon possessing your soul is equally valid. Now I would with full confidence claim that someone who knows about microorganisms are more enlightened than someone who doesn’t in this particular area. And you don’t need to be a scholar to realize that the people who wrote the bible were neither enlightened nor particularly wise from a 21th century, human perspective. Your last paragraph reaches somewhat the edge of my philosophical scholarship, but what I get from it is that you claim that biology cannot say anything about the concept of life because this is a philosophical question. Now I’m going to do what you say I cannot do, and that is to claim - from a scientific point of view - that there probably is no specific concept of life (understanding that by concept of life you are talking about the meaning of life). If you understand biology, especially evolutionary biology (which I think you do) then there are no arrows pointing towards any meaning of life, and there dosen't have to be one either. Philosophers can think as much as they want about the ontological concepts of life, but just because they are thinking about something doesn’t mean there is an answer to it. Now that doesn’t mean you can’t project your own, subjective meaning to life. Now to your point that addresses consciousness. Is there really any reason to believe consciousness cannot be explained from a materialistic point of view? What makes it so special? We can explain why we feel different emotions, where in the brain we store memory of our loved ones and so on. The reason we struggle with finding out the nature of consciousness is because we haven’t been able to locate it to a specific area of the brain. Now I can’t argue that this means science will some day understand the nature of consciousness, but looking back at the history of discoveries of what once thought to be unobtainable knowledge, I see no reason to believe we won’t. Now to your last point, I would boldly claim that quantum field theory is further down the path of enlightenment than Aristoteles “form and matter” concept in understanding material substance. What do I base it on? Because both concepts makes claims about the same thing, and the predicative power of quantum field theory compared to Aristoteles concept makes the latter completely trivial, however sophisticated it was at the time.
@@PetterCR7 I appreciate your open mind and would like to say that I have no intention to enter into a combative mode either. We're just talking ideas and seeking knowledge and betterment of ideas, and I applaud you for that. On the first point, let me clarify: I am in no way defending the God of the Bible as taught in the Bible. To be clearer, I know God exists, but what God is and how God manifests, what we are and our capabilities, well there's still mystery there. The Bible is a particular model that has been altered and manipulated. There is the Truth and then there are lies in relation to it. Yes, God is real, but God is not Jesus, God is not Yahweh, God is not Brahman, not Atom, etc.., those are particular understanding, particular models based on its purest sense in particular conceptions and experiences of what we call God(the Divine). That the Divine exists, is to me, beyond rational sense. The strict materialist conception of the Universe has been debunked and shown to be not only empirically false, but also conceptually weak many times across different levels. Having said that, what I meant is that, if God is real, then you cannot use an outside standard to judge God as by definition there ARE NO outside standards, there are only internal(that is, standards composed of fragmented components of God, like our mental models of our portion of the Universe) notions. So, while you could say the God of the Bible is psychopatic and hence, probably not THE God, or not a God even, the argument is useless towards THE God. Now, you speak about the existence of THE God(which is not necessarily antropomorphic and certainly is not male, and that's a larger discussion, beyond the scope of this format. Now, you speak of Enlightenment. The concept of enlightenment has to do with the light(enlightenment is the acquisition of light) as relating to knowledge. There are two types of knowledge: Scientific and Ethical(Wisdom). Of the two, the more important is the Ethical as is the one that provides meaning to the Scientific. The layer of scientific knowledge is inert without wisdom, they are facts and facts are not stories. It is wisdom, for example, that lets you take the facts of geological findings and turn them into predictions and models(models are stories). But the Ethical(Wisdom) goes deeper than that: It not only provides the meaning that make facts into meaning, but it also tells you what to do with those meanings, which meanings are superior, and which meanings relate to the self, beyond the External(Scientific). Knowing evolution for example, does not tell you that you ought to love your fellow man, nor that prudence is superior to recklesness, nor does it explain the profoundity of our passions and will. So, the Enlightenment of Science(which is not separate from God) is only a layer of Enlightenment; in fact, the better aspects of the Enlightenment had to do with better meanings, namely the human rights. Ancient Man(not all, of course, but the best of) had Wisdom as their goal with Science as secondary(in my model). There is no reason to think that the Enlightenment of Science is better than the Enlightenment of Wisdom, as the latest world wars have shown. About life I wasn't talking about the meaning as in relation to purpose, but rather the strict definition of life. Biology defines not life but how we know what has life. Without the ontological(the essence) aspect of life any how-to-know-which-thing-has-life is arbitrary, as you have no definition of what life is. To bring an example, there are certain markers of what has life(movement, reproduction, etc...), but who's to say that isn't arbitrary? Anyone else can say that life is X, Y or Z. The way to differentiate between any and all markers for life is to properly define life, but the science of biology hasn't done so and that's because in the last century there was a debate between philosophers and naturalists, in which philosophers lost, not in virtue of reason but in virtue of popularity. They lost the marketing war, and the product of that is there's no definition of life. Biology does not formally know what life is, but it has put certain markers to show superficially WHAT has life or hasn't life. BTW, I have no preparation in philosophy and I reject that someone can have a formal concept of philosophy as philosophy at its purest is mere rational conceptualization refined by dialect(what we are having right now), not rules set by a formal authority(school, for example)
they are debating 2 different things, one guy is debating the Devine authority of right and wrong as given by a supernatural superior creator and the other guy is debating religion and weather god is good or evil and these are not the same thing
Haha yeah, religious debate can’t even gain consensus on what they are debating. This may partly be of fault of the organizers not defining the topic well enough, and bad moderation, but I did notice Craig multiple times seems to makes the statements “this is what ‘I’ am debating” or defining what he is not debating, which isn’t what you are supposed to do in a debate.
I saw it more as Craig saying: objective morality comes from God for he is moral at his core and so is his commands. And the other guy went with: if objective morality comes from your god then morality means nothing because of how evil he is.
I think the problem is with the format of the debate. With the long time periods each debater is given, they're able to talk past each other. An interactive discussion with a moderator facilitating would have been much more productive. This is like a series of mini-speeches, independent of each other.
I’m an atheist and I have to say I agree with the fact that without god there is no OBJECTIVE morality. In order to determine something as “good” or “evil” that is 100% dependent on your worldview. And since it’s impossible to remove yourself as an observer and somehow prove that one worldview is objectively better than another, I posit that good and evil can only be determined subjectively, and morality as a baseline is therefore subjective 100% of the time.
I'm not a fan of the words "good" and "evil". I don't think they actually exist in this simplistic way. Things are more beneficial or detrimental. And they are dependent on the observer's position. I also agree with @citizenghosttown. If a god decrees something as being good, it isn't reasoned, it is just decreed.
@@redrkstone "if a God as is described by Craig decrees something is good, then it actually is so." What do you think this adds to the conversation? It's like saying "if my car is blue, then my car is blue." If we describe a god as being "all good" then they are all good. but who cares about fictitious BS?
@@SamIAm-kz4hg if God exists then his decrees represent truth. So when he says something is good, it is. That decree reflects actual facts about reality.
Dr. Craig lost because he didn't even attempt to prove the existence of his deity and instead based his entire argument on a deity he has no evidence even exists. Not sure why he is viewed as a challenge to atheists as his arguments could not be any weaker or based on circular reasoning, mixed in with every known logical fallacy.
Jodi Fowler As he stated many times that wasn’t the topic of discussion. Harris apparently wasn’t aware though. They weren’t debating the existence of God. They were debating how a high power or authority or law giver is required for moral objective values and duties. Harris attacked Christianity while Craig justified his claims.
Subjective morality - moreover, with the additional nonsensical expectation that the agent will freely choose the good - while entirely genetically determined - in the full absence of free, unencumbered agency. Absurdity upon unwieldy stilts again. Although I appreciate that Harris is recognising the reality of objective values (something other anti-theists are afraid to do, because of the implications), he can offer no coherent grounding whatsoever - as materialism gives none. His defence here is so poor, that Craig must resort to refuting the assertions in Harris' book directly, where some nebulous effort at justification is attempted. I was actually looking forward to this debate, having been genuinely shocked at the philosophical ignorance of Harris' colleagues. This wasn't merely weak water, it was utterly absurd in the poverty of Harris' argument. There have been atheists in the past who were actually conversant with the history of ideas, at the very least. Even now, with a philosopher like John Gray, for inst. Vacuous celebrity culture leading the discourse down the toilet again.
@@antodubhasaigh7611 many atheists believe in objective morality, just like there are many atheists who believe in subjective morality, whether or not morality is absolute or not is entirely exclusive of being an atheist. And i know Sam Harris believes in determinism, but again there are atheists on both camps of free will debate, it has nothing to do with atheism. This is such a boring issue for me lately, because even if you believe in subjective morality, it still has nothing to do with being a good person. Just like gravity has nothing to do with being a good person. Just saying you think morality is objective, does not mean its true or that you are automatically a more moral person, yet every religious person ive had discussions with before somehow infer this notion.
@@gerritkruger4014 I appreciate your sentiments, partly because they were my own. "many atheists" I would say greater than that; as a matter of practical reason virtually all people who identify as atheist believe in objective moral values, and act accordingly. However, such a dynamic is entirely derivative of the established order. But the issues here are the atheist claims in the present context, not the wider convictions. We're entitled to ask the warrant for any claim; and when that proposed warrant is the standard woolly, unhelpful, empty, rambling, unsustainable attempt at support/justification, we're rationally entitled to withhold assent. Equally the radical disjunction between his determinism & our dignified, uncoerced agency to opt for objective good is entirely pertinent, and cannot be expediently set aside. Where are the coherent grounds here? Again, not remotely provided. "Subjective morality" & being a "good person" are absolutely relevant, and the relation must be established & sustained. The "good" is itself an objective claim! The gravity factor & relation? Objective values (of all variants - not merely ethical) are absolutely core, and cannot be conveniently dismissed or brushed aside. No claim is coherent unless it can be coherently established & validly maintained. We can otherwise make no reasonable claims regarding truth, justice, morality, meaning, etc. etc. These necessarily objectively transcend & ground the individual subject. This is the perplexity of base materialism & reductionism. It can offer no such grounds. Rational objectivity is not an optional extra. Harris realises this, but can offer no basis or ground. I have to say that, in fairness, your contribution stands apart from the standard internet expression of the uncontrolled id.
I feel like we were robbed of a great debate. I wish there would have been a cross examination. Or at the very least, that both would have been required to respond to the same question during the Q&A portion. What a shame...
1:26:29 This is a super mega circular argument, however. “God is good because he is a being worthy of being worshipped.” Yea but why is God a being worthy of being worshipped? Craig is just saying God is good because he is good
Your belief is something that's part of you regardless of what family does, Example some people are into politics and some don't care, we all have certain interests, why?
When it comes to the likes of Seventh Day Adventists and the likes of those Christians that turn out their family members that don't believe, they lose everything so they just have to stay no matter what. They just keep swallowing the BS and giving it to their children as well. That's how their God keeps them. It's brainwashing.
@@jurnagin what are you talking about? Belief is deeply rooted on your parents culture and religion, if it wasn't so, why most middle eastern countrys follow islam? Why religious countrys remain religious? Because belief is passed from generation to generation, when the child is too young to decide for itself. Pardon me for any typos, English isn't my first language.
I was listening carefully both sides. When Craig was done with his first rebuttal (12 minutes), and Sam started his (12 minutes) I knew the debate was over. In a atheist worldview, there are no objective values and duties; there is no ground for that. I just hope people carefully listen and understand Craig's first rebuttal. It truly tears apart any attempt from atheism to claim there are objective values and duties.
@@Oldtinear Without good, there can be no evil. Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible established moral values with the 10 Commandments. Without God's establishment of moral values, there would be no immorality. If someone wanted to kill a convenience store clerk for $20, no one could say that would be wrong because everyone could decide for themselves what is acceptable behavior. I trust this clears up this issue for you. Take care.
@@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921 'Without good, there can be no evil.' What!? If someone is wanting to mug someone, does he need to wait until someone else has done a good deed first? I can attach no meaning to what you say. We have evolved as social animals for millions of tears. A group where murder and robbery were commonplace would not survive. One where cooperation and helping were commonplace would thrive. No requirement for invisible sky fairies.
@@Oldtinear Who is to say what is right or wrong if there were no ultimate moral standard, which God provided in the 10 Commandments? You might say it's wrong to steal from a store, while someone else could say that they just took what they needed or wanted to. Just because a large group or community of people might band together to create some rules, who's to say that the rules that some individual decides to follow are wrong? If God did not exist, then we all just die someday and we're gone forever, so why not live for today and take, steal, kill, etc., to get what you want and enjoy this brief life before nonexistence comes? Without God, there would be no ultimate right or wrong. I am thankful that Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible does indeed exist. I will pray for you. Take care.
@@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921 'If God did not exist, why not live for today and take, steal, kill, etc., ' You should address that question to your fellow believers - the % of atheists in prison is less than the % of believers. As for your 10 commandments: '“You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.” Note how sexist this is. A wife is to be considered as belonging to a man in the same way as his livestock does. There is no matching commandment for women not to covet things. And God is going to throw me into hell for coveting my neighbour's house? Surely this envy is an incentive for me to work hard and buy as good a house? What is so wrong with that?
Its funny because we are actually seeing a situation Harris thought we never would in his introduction with the fat acceptance movement. I think the progression of time is revealing who won this argument.
@@Terminalsanity Christianity is not about "Religion". Jesus himself denounced religion, already knowing it would only divide us. There's no doubt in my mind you have never even given Christianity a chance. Your mind was made up long ago by ppl you considered 'smarter' than you. I can guarantee you have never picked up the Gospel and read it for yourself vs having heard a preacher give his interpretation of it. Had you read it, then you would understand why Christians believe its the Truth. You can find no lies in It. And the ppl back then thought exactly and react exactly the same way ppl would today. That's why it is very easy to relate w his disciples and what they went through, witnessed, and wrote down.
@@Trey-ny7wh Your obvious fear of doubt is not my not problem no matter how much you try to project it onto me. The truth in full is beyond us all. We decidedly finite beings can never truly know the infinite only know it better and only if we make the effort. Your impotent attempts to try and make the truth as small as your understanding only serve to further divorce you from it. BTW the you're completely wrong about me indeed reading the gospel is precisely why I'm no longer a practicing Christian. I had been lied to about what it actually says precisely because so much of what it says makes no sense and is frankly awful: Do not punish the son for the sins of the father... except when it comes to David then you murder an innocent infant to punish his father's sin. Re-read Exodus it implies the Egyptian Gods are real and have actual power after all if there were no other Gods the 1st Commandant is rather redundant and pointless. Oh and there's actually almost nothing in the bible about the devil and hell, pretty much everything you believe about them them is literally Christian fan fiction mostly based off of Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost. You don't even know what you don't know about the book you claim to believe in.
A question for adults: if you were deciding where to send your children to a particular university or college and prior to their admission, you were to receive a letter of explanation from a few of the universities that stated: a) that several of their professors, for the past century and more, were regrettably, in fact, guilty of raping thousands of college students, both boys and girls b) that the university was well aware of who these offenders were C) it was current school policy and within the scope of their authority of that the university did not report these rapists to police d) the university insisted instead on a policy of secrecy and shelter and offered these raping professors a salary, sinecures and substantial legal protection. e) the rights of the raping professors exceeded those of the victims Who would, for a nanosecond, consider sending their child to this college or university? Shall I answer my own question? Not one thinking adult would do such a horrific thing to their very own flesh and blood. Why is it then, that millions still send their kids to Catholic elementary or high schools, or still donate money, or stocks, bonds, art or land to the Catholic church? The millions of people that still support this atrocious organization are to me, intellectually defective and questions of abnormal psychology have to be raised. Rid yourself of religious beliefs, shed them like a snake sheds it's own skin. Think for yourself.
if you think they both did a remarkable job, then you have not understood much at all from the debate. Both cannot be right here. Either one of them is wrong and remarkable depends on being right. Unless, that is, you find something that is completely wrong to be remarkably so.
@@aimedon That's a inane way to approach a debate. It's not just to prove your right it's to get to the truth of the argument. If you asked sam if he thought he was 100% right he'd say no as most of those intellectual types would that's the point of debating taking new viewpoints away to strength your own views.
@Super Happy Jew The problem lies with the question. Harris's point was that the morality of so-called God(s) isn't objective-- we can point out where He/They were bad in their stories, and because we can do that we must have an objective sense of morality above those gods. Since the question was, "is there objective morality without God?" he had to answer with the assumption that objective morality exists and provide an explanation for why it exists without a god. The question should have been, "is there objective morality, and if so does it come from God?" Because then he could've answered that no, there isn't objective morality (and therefore no objective morality comes from any god)-- our morality is subjective. Which is what most of his evidence actually supports. Craig's answer, on the other hand, is yes, and it comes from God. Even though he too primarily provides evidence that supports the notion that the morality of humans is subjective. Which doesn't logically mean that there must be an objective morality that comes from a deity.
@@dandynoble2875 If people cannot know what is good and bad without God, then it's impossible to know which religion is true. If Bible says one thing and Qur'an another and people cannot know what is good without God, then people are unable to tell which of those two books are moral. But if a Christian says Qur'an is immoral, that means people are able to know right and wrong without God.
@@dandynoble2875 The question should be , is there a God? Craig said "if Atheism is true" Atheism is the rejection of the Theistic claim that a God exists due to the lack of sufficient evidence to support the claim. Theism has the burden of proof. We have examples of people writing rules / laws but we don't have an example of a God. Safe to assume people decide what's moral.
@@dandynoble2875 Just because someone couldn't answer Doesng mean there isn't an answer. Morality is well being. Relieving suffering. Improving quality of life. Helping and loving one another.
we Muslims believe that every human being is born with moral instinct (we know that there is a God and he is Fair and never unfair and we have a natural tendency towards justice. Therefore you can be moral without flowing the right religion but immoral if you adopted an ideology fully that dos do not enable that moral instinct.
Both men deserve all the respect for having it out for us all like this. Did i miss it or did Sam at 58:30 not have any direct counter to any of William's arguments in the preceding segment of argumentation?
I have always wondered why people go to the "why dont you just kill everybody" argument... I always purpose that the questioner secretly wants to do exactly that...
@@stevenswitzer5154 what do you mean people have haha. In the communists gulags. Im thankful that God does not exist was said as he was torturing someone. The soldier that is. That doesnt mean an atheist will act out though. The biggest mass murderers were atheist btw all of whom referenced specifically the lack of God. Nietzche was right. If there is no God it will lead to nihilism. Its happening today
Who would like to see the time using the shape of the word GOD? If you draw the shape of a circle halved once squared twice to the right that would be the smaller Son image, made from the word drawn together into one whole image. Just like the larger father image of the word expanded is GOOD. As the word breathes in and out it changes shape, like we do, without lies or magical idolitry. You can see the time, times and half a time using that son geometry. Like the Sun dial our ancestors used we can be clockwise to the image of the Son WE see together. Time using the geometry from the three capitals drawn into one whole is; 12-3-6. Times is; 12x-3-6 Half a time is; 1/2x-3-6. You can use the numbers on the periodic table, cycle the atomic weights clockwise. It can build to a larger image.
@@saggybobby3733 The funny part is if you actually check those numbers that you get using the geometry from the word drawn together you come up with the same elements we use for a fusion reaction in a Tokamak. One cycle clockwise. Magnesium 12 Lithium 3 Carbon 6 Hydrogen 1 The image of the Son from the word giving us a picture of fusion in the Sun.
Craig is so limited in his thinking on morality."No morale accountability with out god". He is very wrong. He is totally discrediting strength of character and personal integrity. Owning ones self, ones own actions, ones own consequences ( good and bad) , how to make amends, to be self questioning, grow in self honesty and to improve on ones self. You do not need a god (his or any other) to achieve these things. That is what most atheists are like. That is why we call our selves humanists, free thinkers and the like. It is not just what is good for ourselves but what will be good and for all. Our jails in North America are full of people that believe in a Christine religion. With religion it seems to bring on a intolerance, casting judgement and the need to control each other in very unreasonable ways. I find Craig s argument very limiting to the true strengths in the human race. Not all Christians are like this. More people of faith are not so arrogant ( their faith and their way is the way for every one), live their lives more like non faith people. They both want to live as good, progressive humans. Neither are so binary in their thinking as Craig is.
1:02:03 This point always bothered me as a child; these people, unaware of Christ, are condemned to HELL but not the repentant criminal? No thanks 🤷🏾♂️😂
Sorry, I believe that you and Sam got it all wrong. People who are unaware of God or Christ will not end up in hell automatically. God will only judge you based on what you do with what you are given. Since they are unaware of God, it means that they have not rejected him. You will only end up in hell if you reject God.
@@Uouttooo Dr. Price is correct. The existence of Christ is a myth. listen to Bible scholars Dr. Richard C. Miller PhD, Dr. Kipp Davis PhD, Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald. on their discoveries about Christianity while studying other religions.Rabbi Tovia Singer Exposes New Testament Lies about how Christians lie in the new testimony about Christ. It seems more and more that Christianity is fake and Christians are just a bunch of thieves.
@@Uouttooo "God will only judge you based on what you are given. Since they are unaware of God, it means that they have not rejected him. You will only end up in hell if you reject God." WHAT!?!?!
Because these are mighty Intellectuals who will reason us to enlightenment! NOT! Has their ever been a debater up there without a book to sell ? Sam is making a living off dissing GOD! For a guy who does not need God he sure got rich off dissing him!
@@SimSim-zf9if Ok there; all knowing and all seeing OWL man on the mountain of enlightenment! OOOhh ,you shook my faith , with your mythical beings comment Your welcome to believe in any thing you want Sim Sim, your a sim sim simulation.Sad!
@@SimSim-zf9if Like I have not heard that line 1000000000000000000000 times. Yawn! I know what is best for me at this juncture and it sure is not you! YAHWEH through Yeshua , I'm sticking with them in my wrestling against the wicked spirit forces; You can message me 100000000 times in a day about your theories,I don't care for your philosophy or theories or beliefs that ; are on the other end of the spectrum of My conviction.
I've watched many debates with Craig and he always starts of with his basic contentions (his favorite word)... that IF there is a god then it MUST be good. I don't get how none of his opponents confront him on this. I would immediately say that is a presupposition and completely not valid in a logical debate. You can't assume any character of a god. You are clearly using the character of god that you know from the bible, and applying that to your claim that god must be good.. although, I don't understand how Craig also disregards all the wickedness the god of the bible condones and creates. In the bible, god said "I created evil". Most Christians cherry pick through the bible and say "look how good god is!" and ignore all the parts about slavery, rape, murder, genocide, etc all sanctioned by god. And when confronted on it, they defend it by either saying "it was a different time", or "it must have been for a greater good." It's disgusting. I wish I could debate Craig
Craig has a big brain in the sense that his brain may be physically swollen, which is not a good thing. Sam harris would have a big brain in the sense that he is fairly intelligent
There was only one big brain on that stage. I doubt Harris' IQ exceeds even a modest 115. He should stick to debating the low hanging fruit that he's used to.
Is it ok for humans to disobey god? Religious people would say NO. But if you really care about morality, you need to answer that question with YES. If god personally asked me to kill my child, I would deny him the sacrifice. What is god going to do? Punish me for having moral values and loving my child? In that case one has to give up the concept of morality, because it simply ceases to exist. Abraham and many religious people today, however, are obedient cowards who are terrified of eternal punishment. They don’t care about morality, only about blind obedience.
Hmm, this seems slightly off the mark. Your moral dilemma seems more like a question of justice and fairness to me. If there was a God in the first place and you chose to disobey his laws, then that's not a moral consideration, it's a question of legitimacy and justice. These are two different concerns, although somewhat connected. I'd also say, even though I think you and I might be on the same page with the story of Abraham, that it isn't a moral dilemma either. It's a dilemma of faith and conviction. I would suggest reading Fear and Trembling, it's an excellent critique of that story and it makes it clear that faith is not easy, nor is it always rational. Kierkegaard convincingly shows the existential issues with faith and how it isn't necessarily a cowardly thing to give yourself up to faith, it's a matter of resolve. Inflammatory speech isn't going to cut through these issues. Be a bit more specific. Are we really to believe that all people with Faith are cowards? That just sounds ridiculous.
@@pathofthegamer8590 First, this debate is about morality, and killing a child is an immoral act. Period. If you don’t accept that then we don’t need to talk about morality. Morality requires responsibility, yet people like the idea of a god, who protects them and does the thinking for them. People like the easy way. Thinking is hard. What’s the moral value of biblical stories like Abraham (god asking him to kill his son), Moses (god killing innocent Egyptian children to free the Israelites), Jesus (god protecting his son from the swords of Herod but looking the other way when innocent infants are slaughtered)? Do people feel good about those stories? Don’t they have empathy with the innocent victims? The only thing religious people care about is that they feel protected by a fatherly figure, and an authoritarian system like religion legitimizes the killing of innocent. The only way people accept the killing of children is when they are obedient to an authority that they fear. You shouldn’t talk about morality when pain is inflicted on the vulnerable and innocent. There’s nothing morally good about these stories.
@@tiger-t3u It's interesting how forceful your language is, how unnuanced, how black and white. Killing in general is immoral, let alone the killing of a child, yet still we have instances where "killing" is permitted in society even today if there is some "greater cause" such as in war, or in ideas of justice, or self defence. Perhaps in the story of Abraham it's the greater cause of Faith. Who is to say which greater cause is worthy? Are you a vegan? The incredible slaughter of animals, merely for the satisfaction of man, is killing none the less. Morality does indeed require responsibility, as you say; but, the question is to whom, in what manner, and on what grounds? Without answering those questions morality is an empty idea. You clearly state that being responsible to an idea such as God is the "easy way" because thinking is hard. Yet, in that statement you throw away nearly the entire grounding of Western Culture which was enherited from the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Semites. It's a childish answer stated in false confidence. It wasn't for 18 centuries that discussions for the basis of a secular morality were even possible, and even then, all of the conversation we've had on the matter exists within the culture that has been passed down...products of what has gone before. Where is your historical perspective coming from? The story of Abraham and Isaac is a parable that deserves historical context. He didn't actually kill Isaac, nor can we as readers actually know his inner turmoil or his conviction. This is a very unacademic approach you are taking. If we are looking for a paradigm shift in morality, critiquing the Old Testament doesn't get you very far. The Western world has a morality that has been built across 2000 years of theology, not just an Ancient book. You must do better. No Christian is going to listen to you and go, "Yeah, this guy knows what he is talking about" and change their mind on the subjec
@@pathofthegamer8590We shouldn’t make any excuses for Abraham when he tries to execute god’s command. Let’s be honest, there is no higher cause in a god demanding to kill your child. What could possibly be the higher cause? That god the almighty is insecure and alone and he needs to make sure that he has people around him who love and follow him? Does he really have so little self confidence? You don’t seem to think very highly of your god. You are right, our society is built on past experiences and we have realized that the mistakes of the past done for the glory of god (crusades, inquisition, religious wars, forceful conversion of Native Americans, …) should better be not repeated. 6 million Jews also had to die because god portrayed himself as the victim when he sent his son to earth. Do I have sympathy for Jesus? No, because god wanted him to die! Why should I care for him? If god wants to care for people, he should end diseases, famines and natural catastrophes. Should I ever stand in front of god, which I don’t believe will happen, I will point out his cruelties towards mankind. And I do hope that he will honor my sense for morality, the way I think human beings should be treated.
@@tiger-t3u I do not subscribe to, nor do I have any use for, any Middleastern mythologies. Nor any gods in general at that matter. You don't need to in order to respect history and discuss things within their proper contexts. The story of Abraham is one of the greatest stories ever told. That doesn't mean I believe it's entirely true. It's ancient historical literature embellished with the mythology of an entire people. He was the very first man to have had a supposed relationship with the god of the Hebrew faith, Yahweh, who promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation. A story very nearly like that of Odysseus, as Abraham made his way towards his promised land from the great historical city of Ur in ancient Mesopotamia, the cradle of life, and a city that was the seat of the Babylonian dynasty and all their gods. He fled in order to find a place he could worship his own god, the true god as he took it, and met all types of adventures along the way. Fast forward, and you get Isaac, a son who represents to Abraham a promise fulfilled by his god, the promise of a new nation of people all descendants from him - the first Jew. Abraham. Not just some guy. The moral peril in this story is not just in the concern that Abraham has now found himself worshipping a god requiring a human sacrifice and that Abraham has doubts. There is moral peril in this mythology that exists in the fact that his God, at that point, had taken him and his sister through the desert and to the promised land, and had given Abraham a son of prophecy...yet more was required. Isaac may not be the prophecy. The moral peril lies within Abraham, not his God, a perilous test to see how far a man could go for a cause, and at what cost. We then see that if a cause could be greater than anything else, even the sacrifice of a son, then that cause must come from God. And we know the rest of the story. Abrahams faith in the ultimate cause, God, is seen for what it is and rewarded and now the Jewish nation is born, and they have an entire mythology to base their sense of morality, based on the highest cause...God. This parable clearly shows the problems found in the practice of moral theories. Thou shalt obey God. Thou shalt not kill. It's a tale of genius that we are still talking about here tonight...thousands of years later. It's a damn good story and it's something I bet the Ancient Greeks wished they had written. I just think you are way off the mark here in your attack. It's one of the finest moral parables ever written and you are superficially attacking it. Even if we believe your take on man, that all that bad stuff you listed was indicative of organized religion's oppression over man, you know and I know that there is no such thing as God to blame it on, because he doesn't exist. Yet, you talk about him as he does and in some sense that he needs to be rubbed out. The only one we can blame the incredibly violent and barbaric history of man on is man himself. That's a fact. Man and the ideas of man. Getting rid of religion won't help us move past all that. The only change would be political, not moral. Morality is based on practice and theory. We are here now. Who is looking to say, "let's throw out that culture that got us here and start over!". No, we must have better conversations and continue to evolve through practice.
If someone doesn't value evidence what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? Game, set, and match. If these religious sheep had "ANY" proof whatsoever, they would shove it in our face. The problem is that they simply can't accept that they were lied to as children
Objective morality is proof. Sam harris hasnt overcome the is-ought problem, let alone provide an objective base for morality. Nice attempt, but his arguments are trash 🗑
@Robert Andersson not in peaks and valleys of well-being. Love in the bible is defined as caring for the wellbeing of others. How can morality exist without love? It can't, by definition, but you can try I guess.
Über Man you provide no definition of morality whatsoever. Second you are ignoring important questions such as eithyphro dilemma and naturalistic fallacy, which are well documented and both apply to atheistic and religious 'objective' morality. As for the love part, you are obviously talking something nonsensical here. Love is not something we descivered from 150th dimension through quantum magic. What we call love is not usually well defined. Romantic love is nothing more than chemical reactions that compel animals to breed. Maternal love is nothing more than chemical reactions that compel animals to care after their young, because at young age people are evolved to be very dependent on their parents. And the last kind is companionship, which also is chemical reactions that compel animals to have social interactions, because if that were not the case then we would have died thousands of years ago if we were on our own, that's what the environment was and we adapted to it.
@@jokerxxx354 Let's say you have 2 people, a priest who rapes children and an atheist children's doctor who helps children. Based on this information, which person is more moral? More importantly, why? The way I see it, your options are: 1) the priest is more moral than the doctor. 2) the doctor is more moral than the priest. Or 3) neither is more moral than the other. Anyone who picks 1 is sick and the main reason I can think someone would pick 3 is because they believe morality is relative but I don't see how these two are equal. I don't see how option 1 or 3 can possibly be defended, to me the most logical answer is option 2, the doctor. But why? When I ask this question to an atheist, the answers I usually get are: 1) we get our morality from our parents or society. While it may be true that we learn behaviors from the people around us, I don't see how that leads to morality. Ironically, the euthyphro dilemma springs to mind when I consider this answer. Are they intrinsically moral or are they observing a standard beyond themselves, and if so, what is that standard? 2) evolution wired us to feel empathy. Okay, but what about the people who evolution designed without it? Also evolution is about survival, not morality. Every other animal isn't held to our standard of morality, so why should we consider ourselves any more special when we're essentially animals with our own unique mutations? If other animals rape and murder to survive, why are we different? 3) morality is based on wellbeing. This answer to me seems to be the best one I've heard the atheist offer, but I never hear a logically consistent explanation for why anyone is obligated to care about the wellbeing of another, "well-being" isn't a conscience authority on how we should behave, it's more of a goal or an objective, but who/what has the authority to command anyone to care about anything? What do you think?
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 if christ was a God then resurrection was a fart LMAO. You don't have a free will because your God controls all your actions. Stop bsing
This is actually a genuine misunderstanding of Christianity. If you have ever read the Pauline letters which establish the most barebones tenets of Christian theology, nowhere does Paul suggest that faith in Christ is meant to save you from the "wrath of God" or "going to hell" or anything of the sort. It's simply to save you from the finitude of existence, so that you might have eternal life. Most people strawman Christianity, and its mainly a failure of the religion to explain itself because it's become defined so differently by popular culture. By the way, I am an atheist.
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 "Christ is saving us from what we have done to ourselves out of the free will we have.' I have not done anything wrong. Why do you need someone to pay for what you have done? That is just nutz. It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
@@markcollins2704 Just because humans have made up the words and definitions for them, such as Objective morality. Doesn't automatically mean the actually exist. Our morality is our own. And it changes with time as we change.
@@markcollins2704 'Now do objective morality from an atheist perspective.' Now do objective morality from a believer's perspective. God's existence is a faith belief. That God is perfectly good is a faith belief. That we are bound by God's desires is another faith belief. I cannot see anything objective there.
@@Oldtinear You typing on your keyboard without even answering the question is a faith belief, cause there's no guarantee that you or the system would not collapse before you press send.
Well no, because if you're using philosophy as the tool, and there is a path that is blocking you're way, one would simply go around. Philosophy is not the destination, the Truth is the destination. Stupidity is in our way. But we use philosophy and theories to get to that destination. It should be "We have hit bedrock of stupidity with our shovels of a philosophical understanding."
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@joelfenner9179 Christianityis a continuous relationship with God, not a one time thing Make sure as a you are a repentant Christian. Read the Bible daily and pray often throughout the day, the devil is trying to make lukewarm Christians everywhere (Rev 3:16). Join us in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. If you tell everyone that you are a mechanic but day in and out, you do the work of an accountant are you truly a mechanic? No, you are an accountant. Likewise, a Christian by name who lives contrary to Jesus’ teachings by living sinful/worldly is not a real Christian.
@@con.troller4183 I guess thanks to people like you, we can never learn any lessons from the nazis then. I bet that if a country genocided the jews again you would be like, "now now, theres no need to compare them to Nazis." Whats most telling is that you dont seem to deny that the nazis and sam get their morals from the same place you basically just say "so what? Something something rail roads." Wake up to yourself. If sam and the NAZIS get their morals from the same damn grounding do you honestly not think that it warrents the slightest bit of suspicion?
@@con.troller4183 that’s a false equivocation fallacy. He’s giving the example the same concept: morality. Naturalistic regimes ground morality in evolution, and naturalistic regimes killed more than 100 million people within less than a century, more than any war in history COMBINED.
@@chapter404th "Naturalistic regimes" Nice Make Sh*t Upism, Chappy. And what does it even mean to "ground morality in nature? Morality has a biological cause. That is demonstrable. Nazis have diseased morality. That is demonstrable. That does not mean that the former is the cause of the latter. Talk about false equivalents.
Everyone's talking about the debate skills between the two, but I'm just seeing the age difference between these two, both physically and environmentally. Harris has all his stuff saved on files on his cute Macbook, and Craig has sheets on sheets on sheets lol.
"If you wake up tomorrow morning, thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes, is gonna turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about the body of Jebus, you're just a Catholic". ^ gold
Only Jesus Christ (the human form of Divinity) has said: *_"I am the way, the truth and the life."_* He also said: *_"The sky and the earth won't last forever, but my words will."_* Matthew 24, 35 _"Paul, an apostle-sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead [...] I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that _*_the gospel I preached is not of human origin._*_ I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ"._
Unfortunately, _"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."_ 2 Corinthians 4, 4
This short earthly life is mainly a school and exam/test for our immortal soul, for us. That is why we have been advised: _"In everything you do, remember your end, and you will never sin."_ Sirach 7, 36 *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
Craig's description of the biblical god contradicts how it's depicted in his 'holy' book. You can't be kind and loving on one hand while killing and commanding others to kill and maim on the other.
I can only offer a less than sophisticated objection to Dr. Craig's insistence on the existence of "objective morality." Craig accuses Harris of equivocation with the use of the words "good," and "bad." I think Dr. Craig is using the phrase "objective morality" in a similar way with respect to the way Harris is using the term. Craig is appealing to the idea that there is some ultimately objective morality that is completely independent of and prior to sentient creatures such as ourselves. There is simply no reason to think this is so. When we observe the natural world, and the behaviors of creatures (including ourselves), we do not observe an independent moral substance that creatures happen upon or otherwise discover. What we find is that the social creatures which have a natural sense of empathy for their fellow creatures are the ones that survive to propagate the species. Hence, empathy has become a biological and psychological norm for many conscious creatures. Evolution and biology offer a more than sound explanation of where morality comes from. Pushing the question further, as Dr. Craig is doing, by insisting that morals must come from some more ultimate source is simply question begging and is ultimately non-sensical. Not all questions such as "What is the ultimate ground of objective morality?", demand an answer because not all questions are valid questions. We can ask, "What does the sound of music taste like?". It grammatically qualifies as a question, but it is an invalid one because it makes the unfounded assumption that taste is a quality of music, when there is no evidence that this is so. Therefore, as an invalid question, it cannot be answered. It simply makes no sense. In the same way, "What is the ultimate foundation of objective mortality?" qualifies as a question, but it is one that does not have an answer with the way Craig is using the words "ultimate" and "objective."
We need to have a standard for “good” to be able to determine whether any deity is good or provides a good example, etc. If we get the standard from that god, then all we are saying is a tautology “God is god-like”.
God stands for that which is correct and right and is against that which is incorrect and wrong. That which is right is good and that which is wrong is not good.
@@willyounotthink3903 All you have done is replace “good” with “correct”. The issue remains. If you are assessing God’s correctness, but your standards of correctness come from God, then it is a meaningless exercise. You’re still just saying “God is god-like”
@@scienceexplains302 there’s not much utility in asking the goodness of God. You could say he is the maximum of all great making properties. Or a maximally great being. Or morally perfect. However, in the case of God he is the foundation of everything, so you would be right in saying God is God-like. But that isn’t meaningless or useless. That gives us a standard to compare it to. If we were to create our own morality and compare it to God, the we would say “God is human-like”, which would obviously be illogical. The useful and logical point to make would be to compare humans to the moral law, or the morally perfect(God). “Humans are God-like”, or “humans are not God-like”.
@@ghost_of_jah5210 You haven’t given any reason to believe a god exists, nor if it exists how we would judge it to be good. If I give you a stick and tell you it is supposed to hold water well. You ask How will we know whether the little bit of water constitutes holding water “well”? I answer that if it holds as much water as a stick, it’s doing well. That would be a meaningless measurement, but that is how you are “measuring” god’s goodness.
i dont think he ever made one of those argumnets here. And like WLC proved in this debate if there is no god there are no morals, no moral authority no ethics. So in the athiesr worldview everything else is permitted pedophilia isnt right or wrong it just is. Now what he shouldve pointed out in athieism if a person is religion its bilogically determined so are those people still phycos?
@@ghengiskhan9308 "WLC proved in this debate if there is no god there are no morals" Utter presup garbage! He did no such thing! If morality came from God it would be consistent for starters. Morality has changed over the last 2,000 years. Morality is also different in different cultures. "in the atheist worldview everything else is permitted pedophilia isn't right or wrong it just is" and yet another nonsense statement. There being no objective right or wrong does not mean that there is no right or wrong. Right and wrong are only meaningful from the point of view of the thinking brain. Morality for humans only makes sense from the human perspective and clearly comes from our evolutionary past as a social species. Morality from a God is simply "I say this is so so you must do it." That is not morality that is divine command theory. "in athieism if a person is religion its bilogically determined so are those people still phycos?" What does this even mean? Firstly atheism is a position on God and nothing more. It is a disbelief in all Gods due to lack of evidence. If a person is biologically psychotic then they are biologically psychotic. What is your alternative worldview? That God made them psychotic, or do you have some cognitive dissonance to employ to explain that away?
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Sam harris continually used the words such as terrain, bedrock, landscape so my conclusion to this debate is that he is a minecraft veteran.
He knows that earth is not a globe ;-)
@@j.sch.7542 Zzzzzzzzzz
HERE is The ORIGINAL Semitic Text. HERE is The Creator and “Man’s” ONLY SAVIOR
YaH The Heavenly FATHER was Who they Crucified for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Semitic Scroll:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
What?
@@j.sch.7542
He might be awake on the issue, yet untill asked we can hope so he IS AWAKE and DOES realize the LIES the NASA has told in the last 70 or so years.
LOL, A globe ball spinning @ 1050 MPH , LOL LOL LOL, Thats what they tell is earth is doing LOL.
Funny, I work in HIGH Tech . Absolutely NO way possible can the earth below our tools vibrate like this and rotate .
It would throw OFF our bullseye on the lasers on the wafers 0.005 Nano-meter alignments, easily.
LOL, ya, if we were spinning go tell that LIE to the glass smooth lakes around the world. That they are SPINNING in a centrifugal SLING at 1050MPH, LOL LOL LOL.
Thats pretty funny, Ya your ears could sense a 1/2MPH rotation but no a 1050 One?
LOL LOL LOL.
Ok , keep believing nasa’s LIES allin Gergioa, , keep believing them.
So tell us Allan, How does the moon emit COLD Light from reflcting sun light, or maybe it doesnt1
Moon light emits blur-green COLD 400nm spectrum. Fact measure a 2x4x8’ Long, half in the moon light half in the shade out of the moon. LOL, It measures 10-12 degree WARMER in the shade from COLD moon light, The SAME light YOU claim Is reflected like the Warmer yellow-red-orange spectrums but DOESN'T!!
LOL LOL LOL.
.
WHY, Because the moon emits its OWN LIGHT!!
Not the suns Red-yellow spectrum light.
Anyway, try to get an EDU past a 12 yr old before commenting w Adults on YT.
I searched for "anime documentary" and watched the first or second video (I don't remember), I fell asleep and this is what I woke up to
You could have done worse. This debate between a classic apologist and a “new” atheist was one of the first “God” debates I watched on the journey to striving to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible regarding a deity. Good luck should you try to delve in!
All you need to know is helsing ultimate
@@lunellkruger2981
AHHAHAA exactly the same here tho
I was listening to Jake the Asshole...I fell asleep and woke up to this!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!
People debating without labelling each other racist, nazis, bigots & getting canceled. The good old days
Laughs at the cancel cult in patreon cash clinking in the background
The good old days... Visit the stoneage with Bill Lame Fake ! Hoombah Hoombah ....
On the downside, all the Islamophobes got a blank check.
Ok that's a mediocre joke I know.
@@kaleb51 didn't stop Michael Eric Dyson
@islanti for good reason.
“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that they should value it?” “If someone doesn’t value logic, what logic argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” VERY well said and the root of the problem.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Theism: logical framework and concepts such as evidence completely and already exist due to them being created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good source. Therefore it does not matter if you don’t value them, they are true. Atheism: I personally think that its true.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 You are the epitome of a troll, pasting the same comment, with no reference to the subject of the comment, just delusional lies you believe, with no evidence to back them up.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 retard alert!!!
hail satan
Timestamps:
opening speech (20 min)
7:53 [William Lane Craig]
27:42 [Sam Harris]
rebuttal (12 min)
46:36 [William Lane Craig]
58:38 [Sam Harris]
rebuttal no. 2 (8 min)
1:10:26 [William Lane Craig]
1:17:48 [Sam Harris]
closing speech (5 min)
1:25:58 [William Lane Craig]
1:31:10 [Sam Harris]
questions
1:37:11
Thank you so much
The real mvp
Grazie
Appreciate
Not all hero’s wear capes
I hate this format of debate, I'd rather see Sam and William Lane Craig respond to each other on the spot. I feel it would have held each debater more accountable. This format just seems disconnected and is frustrating to follow.
This is a real debate format.
William Lane Craig will never discuss...he couldnt gishgallop or spout nonsense and he couldnt avoid questions...he is a good debater and the breadth of his knowledge and use of rhetoric is very impressive...but all his arguments start with the position God exists. If I were to talk to him I would ask that if he wanted to educate me he would have to evolve my understanding and start from a point where God does not exist and bring me to understand that he does. He would have a huge problem in doing that though because all his philosophical arguments are conjectured on the thing he wants to prove true. He can't be objective so all his appeals to me would be in essence futile as he cany reason to God without first inciting God.
@@kevintyrrell9559 It's not wrong to presume God is an entity when arguing about if He exists. Let's say I believed the entire universe was a simulation and you wanted to argue against that. I think it would be reasonable for you to start from the position that we *don't* live in a simulation and build your case off of that. In the same way, WLC rejects the notion of the big bang/evolution and instead builds his case off the premise that God exists.
Preston Marlo
WLC actually accepts both the big bang and evolution
@@colinc892 Whats your evidence that Craig believes evolution? ???????
7:51 - Lane Craig
26:40 - Sam Harris
46:40 - Lane Craig
58:38 - Sam Harris
1:10:00 - Lane Craig
1:17:50 - Sam Harris
1:25:55 - Lane Craig
1:31:08 - Sam Harris
1:37:10 - Questions
🤔
To Know Good from Evil 🤷🏽♂️
John 17:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Genesis 3:22 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 3:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
gods in this verse is represents containing the knowledge of good and evil. A big difference between knowing the difference between good and evil and in charge of the ones who know the difference between good and evil. God 🤔
John 10:34-38 Authorized (AKJV)
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
So Jesus as a representative of his Father for the purpose of salvation, must be in the same classification as well as the Father, in charge of salvation after Lucifer destroyed his world. And was lowered to the position of Satan.
Psalm 82:6-8 Authorized (AKJV)
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (because of your sin when Lucifer fell, Jesus and the Father made a plan for salvation).
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. (Live a life in the flesh punishments suit, to justify who your God is, through freedom of choice).
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (because of Jesus righteousness and the knowledge of good and evil, Jesus was in charge of salvation. Alfa and Omega. The beginning and the end of the salvation timeline. Scripture
2 Corinthians 4:4-5 Authorized (AKJV)
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
John 10:35 Authorized (AKJV)
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Thank you Jesus for you Sacrifice 🥰😇 Agape’ Style
@@felixhowton6413 they can't talk for themselves.... they always have to mention something from the Bible
@@felixhowton6413 to quote on unbelive in a document is silly, even of you don't want to hear about that.Use logic to make a statement not by neglecting something because of simple reason that I don't want to hear.
thanks for the timestamps, very helpful and kind of you
Sam starts at 27:40 not 26:40
I dont understand what dr craig is saying at 1:26:31 . “God is a being worthy of worship…therefore he must be good”. What is the criteria to determine if a being is worthy of worship, and where does that criteria come from?
It's just another of his many circular arguments!
If we call a being god, then that means he is the ultimate authority, how is being with the intelligence to create everything not worthy of your worship.
@@joemama-bv4mg Firstly, calling something "god" does not automatically mean anything. god claims have come in many shapes and sizes. Secondly, why is an authoritarian dictator automatically worthy of worship? To be "worthy" one must show "worthiness". Worship does not automatically follow from intelligence, ability or power. What you are talking about is more akin to enslavement.
@@El_Bruno7510 why do you say that calling something god does not automatically mean anything when we have a clear understanding of someone means when they say god. God is all powerful so there can only be one and if anyone is greater then he is not god.
You say that being worthy is to have worthiness. If the creator of everything is not worthy than who is. You say that god is a authoritarian, I'm confused are we arguing against god as a concept or against a certain type of god.
@@joemama-bv4mg As I said, there have been many 'god' claims over many thousands of years. Zeus was a god claim and was not all powerful.. You are doing what all believers do, assuming yours is the correct god, but failing to empathise that there are others who believe in different gods than yours, who believe just the same as you do, that your god is false and theirs is the 'one true god'. Do you understand this?
Again, I am assuming that you are assigning 'all loving' automatically to your god? This has nothing to do with being all powerful, or the creator of everything. Would you worship an entity like the devil if it created everything? No you wouldn't, because it would not be worthy of worship. You might 'pretend to worship through fear. Do you understand this?
I am pointing out that simply using the word "god" does not automatically mean what you assume it means.
Now to get specific, the evidence of the world around us PROVES that there is no such thing as an all loving and all powerful god.
The debate starts at 7:20 .
Dave Ahem Also just to affirm. The introduction ends at 7:19.
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
But where does it properly start ?
>
Sam Harris' right eyebrow can literally lift a dumbbell.
😂😂😂
LMAOOOOO bro this killed me
i was literally just thinking the same thing lol
Yeah, but could Harris create a dumbbell so heavy that even his mightily potent eyebrow couldn't hope to lift it?
Did he really lift WLC with his eyebrow?
I read these comments and wonder what people were doing while these gentlemen were talking. It wasn't listening to them I can tell you that much.
Str8Faced Honestly, it’s just people insulting the person they disagree with. It’s the internet after all, what do you expect.
Str8Faced just to be honest my man, i listened this after the four 3 hour Jordan Peterson debates and Sam has the same problem when debating in all of them. He is fixated on his claim and doesn’t contend to the debaters claims. He tries to resolidfy his argument while evading the others. I had never heard of this Craig guy but he really won this debate. He was on topic, went tit for tat, and just was better prepared. Harris doesn’t really even bring notes with him and that could be his problem. Harris is brilliant. Like insanely smart but he doesn’t debate well. He is interesting though for sure.
if you ask to me i think harris was great, i don't understand this people, is so frustrating
Amell Yrizarri Harris doesn’t stay on subject. It’s very easy to see that. Just watch the beginning and see the premise , then see how often Harris actually mentions it. It’s basically not at all. Harris also uses the same played out arguments most people use about God. He literally uses Lex Luther argument lol like the villain from Superman in case you don’t know. Harris basically has 100% faith in reason, that’s his dogma. He believes in the goodness of human nature while simultaneously noting the constant dogma humans believe in naturally. That’s contradictory. He’s smart, like super smart, but just because he is able to think something he believes anyone and everyone can. That’s a lovely idea but it has been shown to be a fallacy by history. He also has a poor understanding of the Bible, he knows the King James Version well enough but he should study the hebrew interpretations as this will shine a light on most of his arguments. He also claims he can make arguments that mirror judeo-christian values but if he was being honest and truthful would know that he can’t because when he does it falls short of true divinity and objective truth and values. Secular is great for some but it doesn’t carry through the world well due to the fact of human error and it’s completely open to interpretation, otherwise there would be a singular secular viewpoint and even among those of Harris’ level, there is not.
JD Havrilla I believe that "being focused" makes you more efficient but not more honest. Craig sounds like a lawyer leaning on technicalities and semantic tricks to win the devate instead of opening up to other important issues. I think that would make someone honestly interested in knowing the truth instead of just wining the devate
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:17 🎙️ *Introduction and Recognition of Sponsors*
- Introduction to the God Debate event.
- Recognition of the sponsors and supporters from the Notre Dame community.
- Reading of a passage about the ongoing philosophical discussion.
03:03 🏛️ *Background of the Debate and Speaker Introductions*
- Background information on the Center for Philosophy of Religion and its goals.
- Introduction of the debaters, Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, and the moderator, Professor Mike Ray.
- Brief overview of each speaker's credentials and areas of expertise.
07:20 🕰️ *Debate Structure and Ground Rules*
- Explanation of the debate format, including speaking times for each debater.
- Guidelines for audience participation in the question and answer session.
- Strict enforcement of timekeeping and rules regarding applause and disruptive behavior.
08:01 🧠 *William Lane Craig's Opening Argument*
- Craig argues that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God's nature.
- Theism provides a foundation for moral values and obligations based on divine commandments.
- Critique of atheistic perspectives on morality and the value problem.
19:04 🤔 *Critique of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape*
- Craig challenges Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in naturalistic terms.
- Criticism of Harris's redefinition of moral terms and semantic approach to the value problem.
- Examination of the implications of atheism on objective moral duties and moral responsibility.
25:23 📜 *The foundation of objective moral values and duties*
- Objective moral duties are seen as a social construct rather than an objective reality.
- Sam Harris's view posits that moral responsibility is determined by thoroughgoing determinism, leading to the absence of objective moral duties.
- William Lane Craig argues that without God, there is no sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
27:34 🧠 *The role of religion in shaping morality*
- Sam Harris critiques the notion that belief in God is necessary for an objective morality.
- He argues that morality can be understood in terms of human well-being, independent of religious frameworks.
- Harris highlights a double standard in moral judgment, contrasting reactions to religious practices with concerns about secular morality.
32:29 🔬 *Science and morality*
- Harris presents the concept of a "moral landscape" where morality is based on the well-being of conscious creatures.
- He argues that moral truths can be understood through scientific inquiry, as they depend on facts about human well-being.
- The discussion involves the intersection of science, philosophy, and ethics in understanding moral values.
46:30 🛡️ *Defending the foundation of objective moral values*
- William Lane Craig restates his contention that God provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
- He clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and semantics, focusing on the grounding of moral values rather than their linguistic meaning.
- Craig reaffirms the argument that without God, there is no adequate basis for objective moral values and duties.
48:06 📚 *Divine Command Theory and Objective Moral Values*
- Moral values are grounded in God ontologically.
- Moral duties are grounded by God's commandments, reflecting his nature.
- Divine Command Theory is defended against objections, emphasizing its independence from specific religious texts.
49:41 🧠 *Objective Moral Values in Atheism*
- Without God, there's no explanation for the existence of objective moral values.
- Atheism fails to provide a basis for identifying the flourishing of conscious creatures as objectively good.
- Dr. Harris's assertion that the property of being good is identical to creaturely flourishing lacks a defense.
55:19 ⚖️ *Absence of Moral Duties in Atheism*
- Atheism lacks a basis for moral duties or obligations.
- Moral obligations arise from imperatives of a competent authority, which is absent in atheism.
- Without freedom of the will, there is no moral responsibility, rendering moral duties impossible in atheistic frameworks.
58:50 🕊️ *Critique of Theistic Moral Framework*
- Criticism of the theistic moral framework's implications, particularly related to the concept of hell.
- The argument questions the morality of a God who allows immense suffering, especially among innocent children.
- The debate addresses the moral implications of religious doctrines, particularly regarding salvation and damnation.
01:11:11 📜 *Refutation of Red Herrings*
- Objective moral values exist because God's essence is good.
- The problem of evil and other objections are red herrings distracting from the debate.
- Evil actually proves the existence of God as it necessitates objective moral values.
01:17:44 🧠 *Scientific Objectivity and Moral Grounding*
- Science relies on axiomatic assumptions, including moral axioms.
- Objective moral values can be grounded in well-being without the need for God.
- Human experiences, including profound ones, are accessible without resorting to religious claims.
01:25:57 🔍 *Summary and Concluding Arguments*
- God provides a foundation for objective moral values and duties due to his inherent goodness.
- Atheism lacks a coherent basis for objective moral values and duties.
- The debate extends beyond Christianity, as similar arguments could be applied to other religions like Islam.
01:33:20 📜 *Critique of Christian scripture and morality*
- Sam Harris critiques the Christian scriptures, highlighting the narrow worldview and moral inconsistencies of its authors.
- The authors of the Bible had limited access to scientific information and moral perspectives, making their worldview incompatible with modern understanding.
- Harris argues against the notion that biblical teachings provide timeless moral guidance, advocating for a morality based on contemporary knowledge and inquiry.
01:35:03 🌍 *Building a global civilization based on secular morality*
- Harris emphasizes the need for a global civilization grounded in secular morality.
- He challenges sectarian moral denominations and advocates for honest inquiry as the tool for moral progress.
- The goal is to create a world where thegreatest number of people can live fulfilling lives, free from the constraints of religious dogma.
01:37:41 🤔 *Exploring the grounding of morality and the problem of evil*
- Harris discusses the grounding of morality and the problem of evil in the context of religious belief.
- He argues that objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require a religious foundation.
- Harris questions the necessity of religion for moral grounding and highlights the role of subjective well-being in moral considerations.
01:42:23 🌐 *Understanding moral ontology and epistemology*
- William Lane Craig clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and epistemology.
- He asserts that while moral growth and development occur over time, the foundation of objective moral values and duties remains unchanged.
- Craig defends the necessity of God as the source of objective morality, arguing against naturalistic explanations for moral values.
01:54:03 🌍 *Morality and Interconnectedness*
- Morality is rooted in our intuitions about the sanctity of human life, trust, and community.
- Killing everyone would eradicate suffering but also nullify all possibilities of happiness and experience.
- Our happiness is interconnected with the happiness of others, and we are not separate individuals but part of a community.
01:55:38 🕊️ *Perspectives on Different Religions*
- Dr. Craig discusses reasons for believing in Christianity over Islam based on historical evidence.
- There are points of commonality between Christianity and Islam, but fundamental differences exist, particularly regarding Jesus.
- Dr. Harris poses challenges to Christianity but returns to the debate topic on the objectivity of morality.
01:57:15 🤔 *The Basis of Objective Morality*
- Dr. Harris argues for objective morality based on the recognition of suffering and movement towards the sublime.
- Objective paradigms, including morality, require axiomatic judgments that are not self-justifying.
- The spectrum of human experience informs the understanding of what is morally preferable.
02:00:14 🔄 *Is Statements vs. Ought Statements*
- The distinction between "is" statements and "ought" statements is crucial for understanding moral obligations.
- Dr. Harris challenges the notion that morality stems solely from the commands of a competent authority.
- He raises concerns about divine command theory, linking it to psychopathy and moral relativism.
02:03:48 🤝 *Consensus and Moral Values*
- Dr. Craig discusses the relevance of consensus in moral debates, distinguishing it from doctrinal issues.
- Disagreements about moral perceptions are viewed as epistemological rather than ontological.
- He argues for a transcendent basis for moral values rooted in a being of goodness beyond human nature and cultural shifts.
Made with HARPA AI
This short earthly life is a school and exam for our immortal soul, for those who did not listen by the Creator to understand the value of "light" without experiencing the "darkness".
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see the *free* choices/deeds to reward accordingly. *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
This should be pinned.
damn. good man
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Cutting and pasting the same delusion multiple times is just trolling and highlighting your desperate need for medication bud! Still, at least you are liking your own comments too. No one else would!
"If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance." ~ Marcus Aurelius
Good quote
Russel Crowe did that. Too bad he was a little late to prove it..
It's ironic, because I would bet a decent amount of money (not my whole life savings, but a decent amount) that no one in that room changed their position after that debate. (And I'm not talking about fence sitters, but people with a strong affirmation on their values)
Ok atheist pickle rick
@@ZeroFlowers Based Stoic 🗿
“You have 20 min for an opening statement”
“Now you have 10 min for a rebuttal”
“5 min for a rebuttal”
“You have 2 min to answer”
“30 seconds for a rebuttal”
“You now have 10 seconds for a closing statement”
“2 seconds for a rebuttal”
“You have 0.5 seconds for last rebuttal”
“0.01 milliseconds for closing remarks”
“You have 0.000000E-999999999999999 nanoseconds to get TF OUTTA HERE !!!”
“Your closing remarks have been crushed into a cube.”
“You have 5 minutes to move your cube.”
hank_says
O
You missed the one minute for slap fighting.
it starts at 7:15
Is this about my cube?
Kudos to U. of Notre Dame for keeping comments open on this excellent debate. There are other, similar debates held at lesser institutions to be found on youtube, where comments have been closed.
yes, I agree. Honest truth seems to matter. Not controlled propaganda, open to further debate.
Hear hear!
Always a bit sinister to not let the people speak. Imho
In most of Craig's debates the comments are turned off. I've always thought it's because he's so embarrassingly wrong, they know it's gonna rationally show in the comments
Be NICE......
"When something good happens, then God is good but when some agony happens then God is mysterious" Pure sensible statement by Harris
Very simple to explain in a few sentences: When something good happens it's God because he originally only created a perfect world & perfect human life w/no suffering until Adam & Eve sinned & ruined not only the perfect world but also made humans imperfect & suffer. That is why when some agony happens it's from Satan because he caused the original sin that caused all this pain. God didn't create cancer & kidney stones, these are the side effects of sin (THAT HUMANS CHOSE) If you built a car & gifted it to your son, but told him not to add a flamethrower to it or he'll burn himself up. Then he turns around & adds a flamethrower & burns himself up, that doesn't mean that you at fault at all as the father & therefore shouldn't be blamed for the agony
@@TeddyRumpskinz And that, is a perfect example of the verbal gymnastics employed by the believer to justify the laughable nonsense they believe. Let's take two hypotheses:
1. God, the omni kind, created two humans knowing that they would disobey him, then punished the whole of mankind because they did what God knew they would do. This all powerful God also lets Satan run ruin over the planet but still interjects with good things here and there. So we concluded anything good is God because we have defined God as good and anything bad is Satan because we have defined Satan as bad. This doesn't of course answer all the animal suffering and the natural disasters that happen - though I did see on the news from the floods in Libya, a man standing surrounded by destruction and saying "this is God's will" and being seemingly happy with that!
2. Life evolves and good and bad things happen because natural events happen and humans and animals have evolved differently with different goals and desires and some of those goals and desires are bad.
Which one sounds more plausible?
I can throw in an evil God example and a Satan is more powerful example too, but I think those 2 make the point nicely.
How bad would the world have to be for you to think, "maybe this God I believe in isn;t so nice or so just, after all"?
@@TeddyRumpskinz Another double standards nonsense. God created humans on his image, gave them the ability to think but when they really think outside the box, he throws them in hell. Why won't he just alter the thoughts of atheism out of people's mind so that no one would go to hell or else he likes to throw his creation in suffering. Do you even know how cancer occurs, it can happen of causes which humans have no role in. Cancer can occur through UV rays which your God created, through viral carcinogens which which again are the creation of your God. Again any agony happens and you pulls out Satan card like he is more powerful that God can't handle.
@@TeddyRumpskinzSo you really believe that two people ruined the whole world? Because they ate an apple? God just watching kids having cancer or dying from pathogens and earthquakes seems a rather harsh punishment for someone else thousands of years ago eating an apple. You clearly seem to be more of the fundamental kind. Even most Christians today don’t believe in a sin that is passed down the generations.
@@TeddyRumpskinz Why are all religious people such downers? What is suffering?
Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
Do you believe in Santa flying around?
Do you believe in easter bunny nesting colored eggs?
Do you believe in unicorns?
Do you believe in Allah?
They have the same probability as your specific god, satan etc...
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
I feel like I am watching two different lectures and my phone keeps jumping back and forth between the two.
"I'll leave UA-cam to sort it out later"
Let's see if the YT comments agree with Harris. :P of course, I already looked, and half of the Harris supporters seem to all think Harris did bad. Lol
That's because the joint press conference style is the style Craig is comfortable with, and Craig only does debates if he can control the arena and officiating crew in which the game is played. The shortcomings of his ideas usually come out in cross-examination, which is why cross is usually short or axed entirely.
@@strategic1710 so what are those shortcomings? you being reminded of your sin?
@@JPX7NGD You nailed it. Craigs arguments remind me of my sin, and thats what I meant by 'shortcomings.' What a disingenuous question. I reject the christian concept of sin.
Brett W it’s ok, god already forgave your ignorance
When ever I fall asleep on youtube, I always wake up to some part of this video.
😂
Same and I'm a lil tired of it
Omg stop same thing just happened to me
Same
We are all living the same lives aren’t we.
"if someone doesn't value evidence what evidence can you give them to show them hey should"
Sam Harris is exactly doing that 😂
aroseland1 it is ironic that Harris in this case is the one ignoring Craig’s arguments and evidence.
G Hageman, Craig offers no legitimate evidence but lots of logical fallacies
Cassie D exactly
@@cassied9327 any examples of his logical fallacies in this debate?
"Threatening an atheist with hell is like threatening to punch them in the aura." that's hilarious
copy pasted comment from the Craig vs Hitchens video.
@@JoeyG-o8r Okey Dokey.
he didn't even say that
@@alexispizarro6411 WHo!?!? What !?!?!
@@LGpi314 i'm pretty sure you're a bot
Two ships passing each other silently on a cloudy night. No intersection in argument.
Nupuqi Om-Re Khonectics
Chamber 45 plus degree
The Generations of ADAM
Atom ( ADAM , Axim ) from the Exosphere 9 cipher Sperm ( SETH ) from the Thermosphere and Heliosphere 9 cipher Nitrogen Oxygen Argon Helium (Noah) from the Mesosphere 9 cipher Hydra O gene Hydrogen ( ABRAHAM , Alpha and Beta particles ) from the Mesosphere 9 cipher 2 atoms of Hydra gene testicles ( Ishmael , Isaac )( Rivers and Creeks ) from the Ionosphere 9 cipher Water channel ( Musa , Moses ) from the Ozone ( Azim ) 9 cipher Universal radiation RAIN ( Gabriel ) 9 cipher Oceans ( Mari , Mare , Mary ) 9 cipher Clouds ( Tri stage of Ion , Isa , Jesus , Ieous ) .
Craig owned him
I knew this from the first speaker 20 secs in.
None, except through me for I am the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is mine alone, can I forgive you all perhaps tell me your own sins and your own reasoning in those moments and I'll try to normalize it rationally with all those who have sinned against me and explain their reasons to showcase how damned those people will forever be in my heart and mind and soul. I can't forgive anyone who stole April Renee Walker from me. I have forgiven her, chances are I can't you more often than not!
@@IshtarLinqu what the hell?
I'm glad that there are atheists and theists alike who are willing to entertaining an opinion without accepting it. This seems like a rare thing nowadays.
This video is 11 years old
@@bbchamp88 yup. Thats about how long ago civil discourse died.
@@bobf5360 Yes people were having tea parties and wholesome conversations during the Muslim Conquests and Christian Inquisitions.
@@bbchamp88 I take the phrase "these days" to mean, within a recognizable amount of time. 1980 to now is more similar to the industrial revolution to the present for many reasons. Such as political concerns and technology. You're the one who put a metric on time by citing 11 years as if the statement "these days" need not apply. Explain to me how his statement was a misuse of said phrase.
Just keep listening to sam harris podcast
Skip the long-winded introductions. Opening statements begin at 00:07:52
Thank you
Real mvp here.
Amen
God bless
Your comment and or advise would,be better if anyone would,read it first before watching the video. But people usually watch the,video then comment on it
Amazing to realize this is accessible for free!
You have to agree, even after all these years it's still a good laugh.
Dang this video came out nine years ago and the UA-cam algorithm is only recommending it to me now .🤦🏻♂️
Same bro
😂😂😂 same here
Me too 😅
I watched it when I was like 16 back then when it said uploaded 1 year ago
it has to do with what you subscribe to, watch and all that
Take a shot every time Craig says “objective moral values”
I did this. I regret it.
The moral landscape though, that's objective morality for sure.
I ended up blacking out.
i ended up in A&E, i have to wait for a liver transplant....
like people who follow revelations" have unanimous agreement on interpretations xd
Sounded like they were having completely different debates lol
I totally agree with you. I was very confused and disappointed by Harris's replies. It almost sounded like they were lectures given by 2 different people while pretending they were debating one another!
One person was speculating, that’s why it seemed different. Evidence leading to conclusion is typically atheism. Conclusion seeking evidence is typically religion.
@@Hscaper THIS. I LOVE YOU.
I think they were talking past each other a bit
They are.
Whether that kid at 1:50:01 was joking or not, there's people out there who legitimately believe that God comes to them and tells them things. Craig dismissing the kid and his experience with God is evidence that 1. Craig can pick and choose when someone is serious or not about their experiences with God, and that 2. If he's joking, the difference between fake experiences and supposed real experiences are blurred.
God is not showing intentionally direct evidences (as atheists want) because He wants to see our *free* choices, how much we love perfection (100% goodness, wisdom, justice, pure love....) and how much we detest evilness=stupidity.
- If/when we will have direct evidences of God, as atheists want, then we ALL will have immediately interested love regarding our Heavenly Father, but now, the really good humans, who love God/Jesus only from the revelation of the truth, can prove their true love for Divinity, for perfection, while living here with 100% freedom.
Humans, with very few exceptions, have lost their merit of direct communication with God because *each sin moves us away from God, from perfection.*
God wants us back into Heaven and that is why we have to learn our lesson here, to prove that we have understood that freedom must always be used only for good, never for evil.
Not all humans who ever lived on Earth had knowledge about the truth from those who deserved to have it revealed by Divinity and especially from Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity. It has always been easy for any human to know what the useless suffering is and to never produce it (no need for the Creator to tell us this). That is why *He expects us to strive to never do evil, especially to never do evil intentionally, to never cause useless suffering, any damage, to others and to ourselves.*
Many people seem to not realize that for God, being _"the beginning and the end,"_ *this world has already ended* (all free human choices / deeds being recorded for what all will perceive as the Last Judgment). That is why the Bible has exact prophecies, like the followings listed below:
- The future will be like in the days of Sodom. Luke 17, 28-30
- People will deny that GOD created the universe. 2 Peter 3:3-9
- The message of the Gospel will reach all the nations. Matthew 24,14
- The future will become frightening. Luke 21, 26 (just few examples: the global warming terrific effects, the third world war final preparations, Corona virus etc.)
- Blasphemy and wicked behavior will be commonplace. 2 Timothy 3,1-9
- There will be money hungry preachers that deceive Christians and lead them away from the truth. 2 Peter 2,1-3
- Scoffers will mock also the Second Coming by claiming these signs have always been around. 2 Peter 3, 3 4
@@filmeseverinaccording to the bible didnt god show direct evidence all the time to people?
So far, my messages have not been read yet for real, *carefully enough.*
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God rewarding our *free* choices/deeds accordingly. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
they aren't addressing eachother's points and it makes me mad
You really heard this and think Sam Harris didnt address any of Craig's points???
@@ryan49er1 you really heard this and thought Craig addressed any of Sam Harris' points???
i made a more lengthy and detailed observation somewhere in this comment section.
I thought Harris addressed him. I thought Craig was avoiding such questions as kids dying at a significant rate.
@@ryan49er1 Really? Did you not see that Craig addressed Harris point for point, but made sure to note when Harris was bringing up irrelevancies? And did you not notice how Harris kept bringing up new topics in his rebuttals, none of which had anything to do with what Craig said? I personally thought that it was clear that while neither of them were comprehensively addressing each other's points, only Craig actually stayed on topic.
@@ethanm.2411 Hmmm, I must of missed the part where he addressed Harris's explanation of geographical luck when going to heaven. Or Millions of non Christian kids dying and not going to heaven but a murderer who asks for forgiveness will receive eternal life....I guess that's Moral objective behavior.
WHO WON???
WHO'S NEXT???
YOU DECIDE!!!
EPIC DEBATE BATTLES OF MORALITY!!!!!!
You're joking, right?
Dude have you seen _epic rap battles of history?_
@@nightoftheworld
He's in fir a treat if he hasn't😂
@@nightoftheworld Not n like a long time, why?
@@HereComeTheTrainComingBlues
My comment is what is said at the end of those Erb videos but just for morality debates😂 just taking the piss
2:00:06 - 2:03:40 - This was great! They should've let them go one on one
Most of the time they were just talking past each other
I completely agree. It didn't seem like Craig addressed any points without dismissing them as incongruent with the argument...
Heathens refuse to listen to reason.
@@ahilltodieons WLC actually operated within the framework of the debate. Sam Harris seemed to get distract and chase a few squirrels!
@@ahilltodieonsThat’s because he was sticking to the topic of debate in witch Harris strayed from every time he spoke. Anything within the bounds of the topic was addressed and dismantled by Craig.
@@frankritchey823Exactly. I’m only half way though but Harris hasn’t really answered the question and has just been parroting very tired atheistic talking points against Christianity. He hasn’t given any solid reasons why objective morality exists without a God.
Mental health professionals often call hearing voices 'Auditory Hallucinations'. A hallucination is something you See, Taste, Smell or Hear, that other people cannot. If you hear voices, this means you hear something that other people cannot. There are different types voices. Everyone's experiences are different. So if you hear a voice in your head, you should check with your Mental health professional just to be “SAFE”
@@imnotmarthastewart8120 Being Educated often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things For Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So.
That Transfers to the Bible and Gods as Well: “It Says So in the Bible” Isn’t Automatically True for Someone with a Critical Mindset, and Things are not Necessarily Believable Just Because a Pastor Says It.
The problem is that in Particular Islam and Christianity are Authoritative Religions. In Christianity, the Only Path to Heaven is to Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and in Islam, You Submit to Allah as Muhammad Revealed Through the Qur’an - The Word “Islam” Even Means “Submission”.
The Natural Response From the Educated Critical Mind is, of Course, “Why?”
And “Because Muhammad/Jesus/God/the Bible/the Qur’an Says So” Is Not a Valid Answer.
Because We Had the Luxury of an Education That Afford us The Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim That the Characters Found Within Being Educated Often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things for Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So.
Because We had the Luxury of an Education that Afford us the Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim that the Characters Found Within Exist in Reality. If So Many Highly Educated People Don’t Believe in God… Maybe It Is Because They Know Something You Don’t, It’s Because, Due to Their High Intelligence and Education, They Have Realized That All Gods Are Imaginary. Educated People Tend to Believe in Things That Can Be Proved and For Which There is Evidence.
I don’t Believe in God for the Same Reason You Don’t Believe in Vampires, Faeries, Werewolves, Pegasus, Mermaids, and Numerous other Supernatural Beings from Myth, Folklore, and Fantasy. You Make an Exception for One Preferred Flavor of Myth; I don’t. I believe in the Power of Loving Kindness, Illuminated by Self-Reliance and Mindfulness. I Neither Need, Nor Desire, a Belief in Deities to Walk That Path. To Exist in Reality.
“No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.” “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”
@@imnotmarthastewart8120 In the Psychology of Human Behavior, Denialism is a Person's Choice to Deny Reality as a Way to Avoid a Psychologically Uncomfortable Truth. Denialism is an Essentially Irrational Action that Withholds the Validation of a Historical Experience or Event, When a Person Refuses to Accept an Empirically Verifiable Reality... The Bible is a Book of Mythology... Examples are Fables, Fairy Tales, Folktales, Sagas, Epics, Legends, and Etiologic Tales (Which Refer to Causes or Explain Why a Thing is The Way It Is). Another form of Tale, the Parable, Differs from Myth in its Purpose and Character. Things That are Not To Be True... “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Very similar reasons are given by theistic apologists for the religion I left (Islam).
What makes these same reasons any different when it comes to Christianity?
Everyone has voices in their head it’s called your conscience 😂 oh no!!!! We’re all crazy
If people were truly neutral and scientifically rigorous - they would see and admit that the ironic thing is that Harris' arguments a rooted in nothing and at least Craig sticks to the point of the debate. Too many people are satisfied with style over substance and do not think about the subject for themselves.
Those haling Harris as a "genius" really need to think to themselves if their definition of a genius is someone who can understand the mechanics of their subject and root it in critical thinking or one who just makes witty quips and cheap shots without any consideration for intellectual integrity.
Sounds like your brain works at the William L Craig speed rather than at the Sam Harris speed. Maybe you’ll listen a second time.
Even as an atheist I have to agree with your point. Craig's arguments are sound, logical and to the point, while the same cannot be said of Harris. I even agree with Craig's conclusion that without God there probably isn't any basis for objective morality, the difference being that I just don't see any reason to believe there is objective morality in the first place.
While I agree with Harris that the only obvious morality for humanity is to value the well-being of conscious creatures, I don't see why this would be considered "objective". Obviously whatever we consider moral is either genetically imparted in us or is part of our culture (because it was and is necessary for a well-functioning society).
I don't think Harris' position was defensible at all.
@@ahwellitried It boils down to how we define 'objective' and whether objective morality is even a good thing. Craig says nothing more that OM only exists if god exists, but he's only making a claim, not an argument.
I agree. Craig was on point on dismantling Harris' arguments on technicality while Harris keeps jumping off and throwing off-topic arguments.
Damn. Ben Stiller has gotten way less funny.
Always thought he looked just like him
@Your Today True it's not my best work. I'll see if a better one comes to mind.
Thanks for playing!
@Your Today Have a great day 🔆
Bro im fucking dying
@@Greenie-43x I thought it was was funny!
Are PhD's just handed out to those that ask nicely enough? I don't understand how Craig has two.
+TheRedWon I don't understand how anyone can call Harris a philosopher. This video is evidence that you apparently can get a degree in philosophy in certain institutions, while remaining terrible at logic as you pursue it. Yikes!
TruthUnadulterated Said without evidence. That was an opinion, not an argument.
@@aristotelian3098just like all of Harris’ arguments lol
That's the beauty of religion. It renders one "daft".
The fact that someone has replied to this debate 12 years after , shows how good it was . Good on you SAM
A tree is known by its fruit likewise a real Christian produces good fruit. Suppose you have a apple tree and a peach tree both growing, how do I know which is which? The tree that produces peaches is the peach tree and the one that produces apples is the apple tree, likewise a so called Christian who is worldly/sinful is not a real Christian.
Matthew 3:10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363so a christian who sins is not a christian?
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 so all Christians are weeds?
Sam was good, I personally don’t find it much of a debate. The pastor has arrogance and lots of logical loopholes, but no evidence or arguments that couldn’t be applied to Zeus or Bigfoot. He also dismissed most of the tough questions by the audience.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 “You weren’t a good enough christian, so we’re going to place you in a tortuous inferno for all eternity.”
What a loving and merciful god
“No one has ever attempted to attack the philosophical underpinnings of medicine”
2022 “Hold my beer”
Apart from all the BS they used to do in the middle ages and before, and some of the garbage that is claimed as 'medicine' now.
Human ignorance is the main way Satan and the other fallen angels have operated and still operate in this world.
For example, cancer must not be treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but with healthy periods of starvation, consuming only natural / organic vegetables and appropriate fruits, especially black fruits (like the black raspberry), with 8 hours of sleep every night, walks / exercises in nature (fresh air), without stress, optimistic ..., not eating sugar and meat at all ... the tumors being "digested" in a few months or even weeks (it is also highly recommended not to have any overload during the healing period).
@@filmeseverin Quack
In spite of the fact that English is not my native language, and I am not living in an English speaking country, my messages are clear enough for the honest readers.
sam harris can take complex and elaborate subjects and explain them simply and clearly to anyone. wlc has the exact opposite ability
Simplifying a topic is not the measure of its accuracy. And the inability to dive deep into complex matters is what Sam Harris demonstrated here.
@@steveb7587took 9 years but I’m glad you owned this guy
@@aidanpond8940 He didn't own him
You’re a Liberal mook😒
It is really hard to understand what is difficult in the following,
1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist.
Is it the difficult part - you just not liking it?
The comment section hurts to read but for some reason I do it anyways.
It means you like to be punished. LMAO
@@faismasterx Step on pls :3
@@annabea5110 I'm sorry, what? What do you mean?
@@faismasterx no - no - nothing ... 👉👈
@@annabea5110 bruh
We're certainly not obligated to pull over if a priest tells us to, so what's your point Dr. Craig?
What is Yours toni4729?
@@kapitan19969838 How long have you been Dr. Craig?
The priests used to have control over the lives of everyone in the community in Ireland. The state allowed the church to operate cannon law instead of the state's own law. When the church was strong during the dark ages and middle ages, they did the most horrendous atrocities. They held much more power over individuals than any modern policeman.
Craig: And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Perfect haha!!
Wow. Now I can't unhear that scene in his voice. Hopefully that will make Craig slightly more entertaining and less annoying in the future. Yay:
Hi! I hope you read this& challenge yourself with my explanation. So, I remember my fears of death. However, I saw that the 10 commandments are God's law. As most people know, we all have broken them. I realized at a time, that I had lied, which made me a liar. I had stolen, which made me a thief. I had blasphemed God's name and used it as a curse word. The God who gave me life and created my DNA, I disrespected immensely with blasphemy. I thought I hadn't committed adultery. But Jesus said that even looking with lust is adultery with the heart in Jesus eyes. So wow, I was also an adulterer. I realized, if God judged me by the 10 commandments, I would be guilty. What about you? Have you broken God's law too? I thought since I was a supposedly "good person" I would go to heaven. But the bible says, "Most men will proclaim each his own goodness" meaning we all can defend our goodness. "I'm not as bad as that person! Well look at hitler! I give homeless people money"!But see, that wouldn't work in a court of law. If a man committed a crime like murder and tells the judge "Judge, yes I'm guilty, but I'm a good person. I help my family, I donate to charity, and I'll do better!" If the judge is a good judge, would he let the criminal go? No. He would say "I'm judging your crime not your good works. And of course you should do those things and of course you should be better. You're going to jail!" Well God is a perfect judge. He is just and the only righteous and holy being. He also not only knows our crimes, but our thoughts and hearts. So I would be guilty and deserve hell because its either be with God (goodness comes from God so heaven) or be an enemy to good and be separated from Him and all good (hell). But, He sent His only begotten son to die on the cross bcuz he's also merciful. But you may not know this: The 10 commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke the law, Jesus paid our fine. Thats why when He died, he cried out "it is finished!" Meaning the debt had been paid for us to accept. And He died then rose again and defeated death and what you have to do to receive reconciliation is to have your heart changed. We cant do that, we arent God. But He can do that. Seek Him and ask for reconciliation. He loves you. Most of us are like a person standing at the edge of a plane and we know we have to jump. And this is our plan: we'll flap our arms and save ourselves. Don't do that! Trust the parachute! Truly truly seeking God for reconciliation is belief because its believing He can answer. We cant give sin up but God will handle it if you seek reconciliation. Be humble and ask for His mercy. Once you truly do this, God will grant you everlasting life in heaven with Him as your father! And He will also give you a brand new heart that desires righteousness because of your faith. That is being born again. You will know you have been saved and that Jesus is your savior💕
@@julietorres7298 shut up
This comment's section looks like a mental ward.
You liked your own comment didn't you Neal
@@LunaDelTuna nope, but here I'll do it for you
Only if you don’t understand both sides of this story..
well take your meds and go back to bed then
@@nealbrewer3799 Awe thanks Neal!
Sam Harris reminds me of Ben Stiller lool. Does anyone see it?
I see Seth green/Scotty from Austin powers.
@@WinnieTheTrain them too 😂
Heyyy its uu from CP!
@@Rocky-ur9mn it is!!
@@dilz2467 came to Christ yet?or still searching?
If you'd lose your morals as soon as god was taken away from you, you never had them.
Yes! Agreed. That pretty much sums up the moral issue in one sentence
The following quotation shows us, also, why it is important to write "God" instead of "god": _"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."_ 2 Corinthians 4, 4
By the way, it is good to be mentioned that God/Jesus cannot be taken away from the true believers / lovers of the truth.
Another thing that worth mentioning is the fact that not the labels that people put one another are important for the Creator of this reality (such as: Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu...) but *our deeds* instead, how we use the freedom He has offered, our free will, to strive always to do only good, to never cause useless suffering (any damage) to others and to ourselves.
@@filmeseverin I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@@filmeseverinself upvoting is pathetic
Believers in Jesus belong to a church. What Christian denomination do you belong to? Imposter! Deceiver!
Every honest reader definitely knows to ignore you and your lies. Why do Romanians lie so much?
There is no intelligence in you for sure. Every honest reader sees it. Stop lying.
Note to moderators; Dont applaud into the microphone.It's not about you!
twomicefighting I think it was an effort to control the length of clapping in the audience. This whole debate was an exercise in presenting the most controlled environment possible in order not to present a bias toward either participant.
LOL. But it takes a good moderator to prevent all hell from breaking loose.
It seems like for most of the debate, these men were arguing two very different things.
Hotep Anthony you’re right - WLC stays on the topic of the actual debate.
This is very true
@@ayekaye8055 Possibly because he arranged the debate and chose the topic :)
@@endofscene ...and Sam Harris agreed and was off topic.
@@bradspitt3896 Indeed. Perhaps Harris was less interested in playing WLC's game and more interested in publicly presenting the absurdity of WLC's position. Who knows? You'd have to ask him.
Harris- Morality only applies to the well-being of conscious creatures, and some kinds of actions consistently help or hurt beings. Good is what helps beings, and would exist without God.
Craig- Atheism has no objective reason to care about the well-being of conscious creatures, while Theists do because God tells them to. Good is what God says it is, so it could not exist without God, because Gods desires determine Good.
Basically, two different definitions of good lead to different conclusions, but Harris's conclusions are valid weather god exists or not, while Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says.
Harris' isn't applicable, because it's subjective
@@kapitan19969838 Exactly. Harris: "Good is what helps." You're just kicking the can down the road at this point. Who gets to define what "helps"? If I help a person steal so that they can pay their rent, have I done "good" by Harris's definition? I don't think the hypothetical person we stole from would think so! :P
You say, " Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says."
Did you miss,
1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist.
You say, " Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says."
Did you miss,
1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist.
"... while Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says."*
You didn't pay attention.
This debate led me to being an atheist
Craig is considered to have won this debate 💀
why are people so terrible at just asking a question without trying to prove how smart they are?
pride
They can't squander their moment.
very smart question!
pride and arrogance
Lol the iron e
My kid got an Objective Moral Value in his Happy Meal today.
both this and the response comment are really good. thank you lol
That’s funny lol
One day do an unboxing of meal and see how much food actually get. Then start eating at a grocery store deli.
Yo I spit out my drink omfg!😂🤣😂
Didn't he also get a doody with that?
It sounded to me like Craig was trying to win the debate, while Harris was actually trying to speak to and convince the audience, not so much respond to Craig's points.
I agree. The ending statements by Harris was shocking! It’s almost as though he strawmans Craigs position. Craig refused to deal with points irrelevant to the topic on hand.
Craig has a repertoire of verbal tricks designed to appear as convincing arguments for his position on on our subservience to supernatural beings. Harris is not interested in taking apart the details of Craig's position (and neither would the audience be). Harris has something he wants to say about HUMAN affairs, and he concentrates on saying it.
@@Oldtinear I agree, I think Harris' arguments are more convincing. However I also think Craig did a better job at addressing Harris' arguments in this format. It depends what you think the goal of the debate was to judge who won, in my opinion.
@@JigglePhysics3000 Craig insisted that Harris's morality based in human well-being is subjective.
To be honest, I am unsure what 'objective' morality might be. Objective means based on facts. There are zero facts involved in Craig's belief that a supernatural being exists who has desires regarding our behaviour, and that these desires have been reliably discovered and recorded, and we are obliged to conform to them. Craig scores zero.
Harris's morality involves some measures which can be objectively assessed - physical, mental and social health can be assessed by experts in those fields. Even so, people may ask 'What evidence have you that morality is or should be based on human well-being?' Harris's answer is that anyone who questions whether the worst misery for everyone is bad, does not know what he is talking about, and I agree!
@@Oldtinear Oh I personally very much agree with Harris and I think he had the most convincing arguments. I just also think that in the context of a debate, where premises need to logically follow eachother to come to a logical conclusion, Craig did do a good job. I'm just saying Craig did a better job debating, but not actually convincing me, at least. To be fair, he did misrepresent Harris a few times and I disagree with some (if not all) of his premises, but I followed the structure of his arguments better than I did Harris'.
I may have very well missed some stuff or misunderstood some of Harris' arguments, but that was the impression I got after watching the video.
Moral obligations are a result of minimization of conflict at the collective level (coded in society through laws).
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
No, they're not.
@@godmanmindworld Why? What distinguishes them from divinely inspired/dictated rules?
@@tefilobraga I'm just randomly asserting things like you homie. Don't put words in my mouth.
@@godmanmindworld Christianityis not a license to sin but to live holy
In one of my visitations to hell, Jesus showed me a person who was a Christian (Jesus said “he was a Christian like you”). But the guy unfortunately started sleeping around (1 cor 6:9). He died middle aged and went to hell forever it was dark but Jesus lit up the area, he asked Jesus for another chance but unfortunately it was too late for him, Pretty sad, Repent and ask Jesus to help you with your struggles (James 4:7)
One is trying to make clear, logical arguments that stack on top of each other, the other is just throwing elaborate rhetorical blinding grenades that make his fan base feel good. You can find out which is who by trying to summarize each man's line of argument without watching the video a second time. Fairly easy in one case, impossible in the other.
william lane craig was so clear and concise.
I mean this is the only logical conclusion one can objectively come to from witnessing this debate.
I agree, Harris is so skilled at delivery that he makes his very mediocre arguments sound a lot better than they are, perhaps the elements of comedy?
Only the un-educated and simple minded can't understand what craig was saying.
Athiests need simple words and analogies to comfort their beliefs i guess 🤷
@@TheCatsafrican But nature is indifferent to you. It doesn't care if you worship it or bow your head. But if there is a God who is responsible for the creation of this nature you adore so much as to worship, maybe giving him a chance would be the best decision you can ever make. I'm struggling with my faith at this point in my life, so I'm pretty much like you when it comes to believing, but what is true is that my life was much happier and meaningful when I was a believer. Now I'm getting back to it, and I hope you give it a chance too. Have a nice day
I can never be sure if I’m watching Dr. Craig or David Lee Roth.
Holy crap, you’re right! Now that I’ve seen it, I can’t unsee it. I keep waiting for Craig to finish each comment with “You dig it???”😂
@@Sled-Dog Or do the splits
Somebody created WLC duplicate using AI. LMAO.
@@LGpi314 @Roy Stoflet I would pay $100 to hear WLS say “I’m your ice cream man, stop me when I’m passing by.”
He's just a gigolo.
I would love to see a backwards debate: each person swaps ideas and spends months doing deep research into all the problems of their assigned argument, but must defend that belief as though they do, in fact believe in it. In a certain section of the debate, any holes presented in the theory will be attempted to be explained by the native believer.
I’m sure something like this exists already, but I don’t know the name. Feel free to laugh at me, I knew it would come :)
its called steel maning, you can see it at the start of jordan vs harris debate
That sounds really cool actually. I actually already tried this. In my debate class my professor asked our pro life or pro choice stances then made us debate FOR the stance we were against. It’s not fun when it comes to certain things lol
Wanna bet? Anyone? I'll send my discord
What do you think thier doing playing Hooky? Yet no i don't think any one needs to laugh at you for what millions experience daily witch is life till what we don't yet know.
@@trafficjon400 what is your first language?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
08:01 🤔 Dr. Craig and Dr. Harris agree that objective moral values exist independently of human opinion.
14:23 🌍 Dr. Craig argues that theism provides a solid foundation for objective moral values rooted in God's nature.
18:11 🦁 Dr. Craig questions atheism's ability to ground objective moral values due to the lack of inherent worth in a naturalistic worldview.
21:34 🔄 Dr. Craig criticizes Sam Harris's attempt to redefine "good" and "evil" as human well-being and argues that it lacks objective grounding.
22:57 🔄 Dr. Craig challenges the idea that atheism can provide a source for objective moral duties, highlighting problems with naturalism and determinism.
27:34 🤝 Sam Harris acknowledges the importance of a secular foundation for morality and expresses concern about the erosion of secular morality.
29:13 🚀 Sam Harris suggests that understanding morality in terms of human well-being can provide a basis for making ethical claims about behavior and ways of life.
29:28 🌍 Sam Harris discusses the controversy surrounding denigrating the Taliban's worldview at a scientific meeting.
30:24 🤯 Sam Harris engages in a debate about cultural practices with a colleague, illustrating differing viewpoints on morality.
32:16 👥 Harris critiques the double standard in ethics, where someone with a scientific and philosophical background is detached from real suffering.
33:27 🔬 Harris argues that science can address questions of right and wrong, dispelling the notion that science can't address moral values.
36:10 🤔 Harris presents the idea that consciousness and well-being are essential components of a moral landscape.
37:53 🏔️ Harris argues that the "worst possible misery for everyone" defines the minimum standard for moral goodness.
39:43 🇦🇫 Harris critiques the Taliban's culture as an example of a society that fails to maximize human well-being.
45:14 🧠 Harris challenges the distinction between facts and values, asserting that science and values are intertwined.
49:41 ⛪ Craig defends the notion that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the existence of God.
51:55 🔀 Craig critiques Harris's assertion that the good life is equated with conscious creatures' flourishing.
53:55 ⚖️ Craig argues that Harris's claim that goodness is identical to creaturely flourishing is logically incoherent.
55:19 🛡️ Moral obligations and prohibitions arise from competent authority. Atheism lacks such authority for moral commands.
56:01 🤖 Without God, there is no foundation for moral imperatives or duties, resulting in moral nihilism.
56:44 🛡️ Atheism lacks ontological foundations for objective moral values and duties, contrary to theism.
57:36 🤖 Atheism cannot establish objective moral values and duties without God as the moral lawgiver.
58:50 🛡️ Atheistic moral framework faces challenges in justifying moral accountability and value.
59:18 🤖 The problem of evil and the problem of unevangelized do not refute the existence of God's moral framework.
01:04:30 🛡️ Christianity is seen as a cult of human sacrifice rather than a religion that repudiates it.
01:05:11 🤖 Theistic moral framework is criticized for rationalizing atrocities and immoral behavior based on divine command theory.
01:05:50 🛡️ The existence of evil can be seen as an argument for God's existence due to the grounding of objective values.
01:06:44 🤖 Atheism's lack of foundation for objective moral values and duties is questioned.
01:07:26 🛡️ Moral reasoning within atheism is challenged for not being grounded in any objective foundation.
01:18:00 🤖 An objective morality based on science can rely on certain value assumptions similar to other scientific fields.
01:20:43 🛡️ Science can address both epistemological objectivity (openness to data) and ontological objectivity (objective aspects of subjective facts).
01:22:04 🌍 Sam Harris emphasizes valuing well-being and avoiding suffering, asserting that objective value is based on the well-being of conscious creatures.
01:23:17 🧘 Atheists can experience self-transcending love, ecstasy, and awe; they don't reject profound experiences but refrain from making unjustifiable claims about the cosmos.
01:24:51 🔬 Understanding our situation and deeper possibilities should align with the spirit of science; sectarian claims from various religions might not capture the true essence.
01:29:12 🙌 Objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require religious belief; moral growth and development are possible without a belief in a specific God.
01:31:52 🕊️ Sam Harris questions the problem of religious diversity, showing that the same arguments for Christianity could be applied to Islam or any other religion.
01:37:06 ⚖️ The debate covers the foundation of objective moral values, with Dr. Craig asserting they rely on God, while Sam Harris argues they can exist independently of a divine source.
01:47:23 🌟 Sam Harris discusses miracles and their context in different religions.
01:48:20 📚 Miracle stories in Christianity have ancient origins with textual discrepancies; other religions also have miracle claims with living eyewitnesses.
01:49:16 🧐 Disparity in belief regarding miracles like Jesus' among billions and more recent ones like Sai Baba among millions challenges intellectual consistency.
01:49:55 🌐 Harris is open to evidence of miracles, but notes the subjectivity and inconsistency of such claims across different belief systems.
01:50:37 🏳️🌈 A question on divine revelation and morality highlights differing perspectives on moral issues like homosexuality based on religious beliefs.
01:51:50 🌍 Harris and Craig discuss the possibility of this being the worst possible world and moral implications of destroying consciousness.
01:56:04 🕌 Craig defends his Christian beliefs by differentiating Christianity from Islam, citing historical and theological reasons for his stance.
01:57:01 🔄 Harris responds to Craig's distinction between "is" and "ought" statements, arguing that morality can arise from well-being considerations.
01:58:27 🔄 Harris counters divine command theory with concerns of psychopathy, suggesting an inherent difficulty in deriving morality solely from authority.
02:01:12 📜 Harris questions Craig's reliance on divine command theory, highlighting the potential for moral atrocities based on divine authority.
02:03:48 🛐 Craig defends the notion that a foundation for moral values lies in a transcendent source, irrespective of doctrinal consensus among religious groups.
Let's say we don't have objective moral values, what is the problem? Most people seem to agree about and act according to a large set of universal values without the need to ground them in any objective truth or foundation. This is really the argument that I'm struggling with.
Exactly. Common sense, empiricism, and reason seem to me enough to determine ethics. To avoid Harris's "Worst Possible Misery for Everyone" is clearly the only rear "ought" that we can define. But I agree that no universal morals, are really no big deal. To claim that only theists can be sure about their morals is an insult to life everywhere. And by looking at history, clearly theist morals are not the "best."
59:29 Sam makes a 10 minute rock solid statement of how God has to be the worst psyochopat ever imagined. 1:12:15 Craigs response: "You believe in god as the supreme good..." "God is goodness iteself." They clearly define "good" differently...
It's not rock-solid. This has been addressed before, even by Craig. It's not a rational statement, it's an emotional one. There are logical and rational alternatives to Sam's dilemma. That is, logically, it is a faux dilemma.
Furthermore, logically, you are trying to measure a universe, absolute information with a subjective, limited vantage point. While it's all anyone has, strictly speaking, a perfectly valid logical response would be that what you're calling unethical it's only unethical if seen from a limited point; if you had a universally absolute vantage point AND absolute wisdom AND universal goodness, then you would come to the same conclusion.
But what about the emotional aspect? Certainly, it's a hard issue to deal with, but see it this way: Without God, there is no basis for objective ethics and as such, no reason to denounce God's ethics. As Craig has said and Sam did not address: You may not like it, but under what beyond-yourself standard can you use to label God a psychopath if it's not God itself?
@@natanaellizama6559 Now let me see if I understand your logical argument. Basically, what you're saying is that there are no objective moral truths, because we as humans are always looking at the world from a limited point of view, and don’t have “access” to whatever god value as moral truth. Now if you are a person who is convinced god exists and that this god is all knowing, all powerful and all good, this makes perfect sense and I cannot make a logical argument defending that whatever we humans value as morality is the true objective moral of the universe. But there is no evidence that an entity with such a perspective exists, and when you make a claim the burden of proof is on the one is making the claim. I too can make claims that different entities exist in the universe that would render whatever argument you make illogical. To believe that the all-knowing, all powerful and all good Abrahamic god first claimed to exist by un-enlightened humans from the bronze age who knew almost nothing worth knowing about the nature of the universe is itself illogical and irrational to believe, which I think renders the foundation of your argument meaningless.
@@PetterCR7
Yes, but you see, the type of counter-argument about God's nature necessarily implies (at least in a faux-fiction kind of way, like a theater would) God's existence. That is, the argument is akin to saying "It makes no sense that Harry Potter is an orphan" and then replying with "yes but there is no evidence that Harry Potter exists".
If God exists, then immorality cannot be imputed to it in a rational manner. The atheist tries to attack God's immorality by appealing to an objective morality and therefore appealing to God(as rationally speaking only God can provide objective morality). It is a logical inconsistency. Of course, this doesn't mean that there are objective morality or God, only that if there are objective morality then there is a God and that you can't call out God's objective morality from a limited subjective morality.
I also reject your notion that ancient people were unenlightened. This is a myth propounded by certain circles. What is the "enlightenment"? Not to point out the fact that even the European Enlightenment was based on ancient ideas(it is the grandchildren of the ancients). It is in fact, modern people, who don't take often the time to think the notions through. But even more so, the technological improvements of late are just a possible aspect of enlightenment and in fact, can hinder man itself. The enlightenment that ought to precede man's technological advancement is man's moral advancement; that is, man's wisdom. Without wisdom, technological advancement becomes a weapon instead of a tool. In this, ancient people are less hindered.
There are in fact, notions of the Universe that are philosophical in nature and quite enlightening. There is an issue with some modern circles of scientists, where they depart from science and delve in philosophy, yet they are not good philosophers themselves, and so you have ridiculous notions pushed by scientists, who are speaking beyond their strict formal capacities. To point an example there is biology: What is the ontological concept of life? That is not a biological question, it is, in fact, the philosophical axis in which the whole of biology is based upon. Most biologists don't even think of this issue, which seems meta but it's not meta it's in fact base.
Another relevant concept is that of consciousness. By mere logic consciousness is metaphysical and can't NOT be physical, yet you still have some scientists presupposing a materialist point of view and building philosophical models on top of their scientific data and attributing the same validity as the data when they are two distinct things.
To give a final example, we have the Aristotelian concept of form and matter which is FOUNDATIONAL for any branch(as it is foundational for philosophy and philosophy is the foundation for other branches of knowledge). Thought of by an "ancient" and ignored by many(most) modern men. He, in fact, still stands superior in thought than modern man even if he "didn't know anything about the Universe"
@@natanaellizama6559 Ok I think understand your point better now; when Sam Harris attack the morality of god it implies that god exist, and if god exist then who is Sam Harris to question the morality of this all-good entity from his subjective, limited vantage-point. Now if one adds to the argument lets say “from a human perspective” the morality of god is the morality of a psychopath, one would be on solid logical ground, right? I realize you are better schooled in philosophy than what I am, so let us try to be a bit more pragmatic: According to your argument, we are not logically “allowed” to question god. Now if god is not going to share his superior moral code with us, and we can’t logically question god, then even discussing him is waste of time. Unless of course you are waiting for some kind of revelation, but then I would confidently - from a logical and rational point of view - call you delusional, considering there are no evidence that such an event is going to take place. Now in awareness of reiterating myself, this entire discussion is meaningless unless there can be made a logical argument for the existence of god.
About the point of ancient people not being enlightened, lets be clear about our terminology: Enlightenment and wisdom are two different things. Whether or not the discovery of microorganisms was made by someone who wants to cure diseases or to kill his opponents by spreading a plague, the enlightenment of the fact that diseases are caused by germs and not some demon possessing your soul is equally valid. Now I would with full confidence claim that someone who knows about microorganisms are more enlightened than someone who doesn’t in this particular area. And you don’t need to be a scholar to realize that the people who wrote the bible were neither enlightened nor particularly wise from a 21th century, human perspective.
Your last paragraph reaches somewhat the edge of my philosophical scholarship, but what I get from it is that you claim that biology cannot say anything about the concept of life because this is a philosophical question. Now I’m going to do what you say I cannot do, and that is to claim - from a scientific point of view - that there probably is no specific concept of life (understanding that by concept of life you are talking about the meaning of life). If you understand biology, especially evolutionary biology (which I think you do) then there are no arrows pointing towards any meaning of life, and there dosen't have to be one either. Philosophers can think as much as they want about the ontological concepts of life, but just because they are thinking about something doesn’t mean there is an answer to it. Now that doesn’t mean you can’t project your own, subjective meaning to life. Now to your point that addresses consciousness. Is there really any reason to believe consciousness cannot be explained from a materialistic point of view? What makes it so special? We can explain why we feel different emotions, where in the brain we store memory of our loved ones and so on. The reason we struggle with finding out the nature of consciousness is because we haven’t been able to locate it to a specific area of the brain. Now I can’t argue that this means science will some day understand the nature of consciousness, but looking back at the history of discoveries of what once thought to be unobtainable knowledge, I see no reason to believe we won’t. Now to your last point, I would boldly claim that quantum field theory is further down the path of enlightenment than Aristoteles “form and matter” concept in understanding material substance. What do I base it on? Because both concepts makes claims about the same thing, and the predicative power of quantum field theory compared to Aristoteles concept makes the latter completely trivial, however sophisticated it was at the time.
@@PetterCR7
I appreciate your open mind and would like to say that I have no intention to enter into a combative mode either. We're just talking ideas and seeking knowledge and betterment of ideas, and I applaud you for that.
On the first point, let me clarify: I am in no way defending the God of the Bible as taught in the Bible. To be clearer, I know God exists, but what God is and how God manifests, what we are and our capabilities, well there's still mystery there. The Bible is a particular model that has been altered and manipulated. There is the Truth and then there are lies in relation to it. Yes, God is real, but God is not Jesus, God is not Yahweh, God is not Brahman, not Atom, etc.., those are particular understanding, particular models based on its purest sense in particular conceptions and experiences of what we call God(the Divine). That the Divine exists, is to me, beyond rational sense. The strict materialist conception of the Universe has been debunked and shown to be not only empirically false, but also conceptually weak many times across different levels.
Having said that, what I meant is that, if God is real, then you cannot use an outside standard to judge God as by definition there ARE NO outside standards, there are only internal(that is, standards composed of fragmented components of God, like our mental models of our portion of the Universe) notions. So, while you could say the God of the Bible is psychopatic and hence, probably not THE God, or not a God even, the argument is useless towards THE God. Now, you speak about the existence of THE God(which is not necessarily antropomorphic and certainly is not male, and that's a larger discussion, beyond the scope of this format.
Now, you speak of Enlightenment. The concept of enlightenment has to do with the light(enlightenment is the acquisition of light) as relating to knowledge. There are two types of knowledge: Scientific and Ethical(Wisdom). Of the two, the more important is the Ethical as is the one that provides meaning to the Scientific. The layer of scientific knowledge is inert without wisdom, they are facts and facts are not stories. It is wisdom, for example, that lets you take the facts of geological findings and turn them into predictions and models(models are stories). But the Ethical(Wisdom) goes deeper than that: It not only provides the meaning that make facts into meaning, but it also tells you what to do with those meanings, which meanings are superior, and which meanings relate to the self, beyond the External(Scientific). Knowing evolution for example, does not tell you that you ought to love your fellow man, nor that prudence is superior to recklesness, nor does it explain the profoundity of our passions and will.
So, the Enlightenment of Science(which is not separate from God) is only a layer of Enlightenment; in fact, the better aspects of the Enlightenment had to do with better meanings, namely the human rights. Ancient Man(not all, of course, but the best of) had Wisdom as their goal with Science as secondary(in my model). There is no reason to think that the Enlightenment of Science is better than the Enlightenment of Wisdom, as the latest world wars have shown.
About life I wasn't talking about the meaning as in relation to purpose, but rather the strict definition of life. Biology defines not life but how we know what has life. Without the ontological(the essence) aspect of life any how-to-know-which-thing-has-life is arbitrary, as you have no definition of what life is. To bring an example, there are certain markers of what has life(movement, reproduction, etc...), but who's to say that isn't arbitrary? Anyone else can say that life is X, Y or Z. The way to differentiate between any and all markers for life is to properly define life, but the science of biology hasn't done so and that's because in the last century there was a debate between philosophers and naturalists, in which philosophers lost, not in virtue of reason but in virtue of popularity. They lost the marketing war, and the product of that is there's no definition of life. Biology does not formally know what life is, but it has put certain markers to show superficially WHAT has life or hasn't life.
BTW, I have no preparation in philosophy and I reject that someone can have a formal concept of philosophy as philosophy at its purest is mere rational conceptualization refined by dialect(what we are having right now), not rules set by a formal authority(school, for example)
they are debating 2 different things, one guy is debating the Devine authority of right and wrong as given by a supernatural superior creator and the other guy is debating religion and weather god is good or evil and these are not the same thing
Haha yeah, religious debate can’t even gain consensus on what they are debating. This may partly be of fault of the organizers not defining the topic well enough, and bad moderation, but I did notice Craig multiple times seems to makes the statements “this is what ‘I’ am debating” or defining what he is not debating, which isn’t what you are supposed to do in a debate.
So it’s all about Devine weather? What’s that?
I saw it more as Craig saying: objective morality comes from God for he is moral at his core and so is his commands.
And the other guy went with: if objective morality comes from your god then morality means nothing because of how evil he is.
I think the problem is with the format of the debate. With the long time periods each debater is given, they're able to talk past each other. An interactive discussion with a moderator facilitating would have been much more productive. This is like a series of mini-speeches, independent of each other.
@@didrik2623 If god is all “good”, then he can’t be omniscient and omnipotent. That’s one place where the logic breaks down.
I’m an atheist and I have to say I agree with the fact that without god there is no OBJECTIVE morality. In order to determine something as “good” or “evil” that is 100% dependent on your worldview. And since it’s impossible to remove yourself as an observer and somehow prove that one worldview is objectively better than another, I posit that good and evil can only be determined subjectively, and morality as a baseline is therefore subjective 100% of the time.
I disagree. If God exists, there can be no objective morality --- it would mean that morality is arbitrary.
I'm not a fan of the words "good" and "evil". I don't think they actually exist in this simplistic way. Things are more beneficial or detrimental. And they are dependent on the observer's position. I also agree with @citizenghosttown. If a god decrees something as being good, it isn't reasoned, it is just decreed.
@@SamIAm-kz4hg if a God as is described by Craig decrees something is good, then it actually is so.
@@redrkstone
"if a God as is described by Craig decrees something is good, then it actually is so."
What do you think this adds to the conversation? It's like saying "if my car is blue, then my car is blue." If we describe a god as being "all good" then they are all good. but who cares about fictitious BS?
@@SamIAm-kz4hg if God exists then his decrees represent truth. So when he says something is good, it is. That decree reflects actual facts about reality.
10:30
I'm not getting over how much Craig truly sounds like Microsoft Sam.
Magnify facts 😂
Hahahahaha
Actually he is. God sent him to an alternate universe with Jesus to do voice overs and come back to save us from the A.I's. It's all in the scrolls
We need to see Dawkins vs WLC then. Microsoft Sam vs C3PO
The Wall Demon Of Kentucky 🤣
Dr. Craig lost because he didn't even attempt to prove the existence of his deity and instead based his entire argument on a deity he has no evidence even exists. Not sure why he is viewed as a challenge to atheists as his arguments could not be any weaker or based on circular reasoning, mixed in with every known logical fallacy.
Jodi Fowler
As he stated many times that wasn’t the topic of discussion. Harris apparently wasn’t aware though. They weren’t debating the existence of God. They were debating how a high power or authority or law giver is required for moral objective values and duties. Harris attacked Christianity while Craig justified his claims.
Maybe because the debate was not about the existence of God. He said it many times
You lost because you didn't even listen to the parameters of the debate.
Ben Stiller VS David Lee Roth.. Thats crazy!!
Lauro Neto lol
Spot on! Hysterical!
Good one lol
Ha!
Hahahaha, you are so right!
Craig: Gods on holy and loving nature…
God: Destroy all that they have and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
I just hear wordplay from Sam TBH. What he’s actually argued for is subjective morality.
He argues for objective morality
Subjective morality - moreover, with the additional nonsensical expectation that the agent will freely choose the good - while entirely genetically determined - in the full absence of free, unencumbered agency. Absurdity upon unwieldy stilts again. Although I appreciate that Harris is recognising the reality of objective values (something other anti-theists are afraid to do, because of the implications), he can offer no coherent grounding whatsoever - as materialism gives none.
His defence here is so poor, that Craig must resort to refuting the assertions in Harris' book directly, where some nebulous effort at justification is attempted. I was actually looking forward to this debate, having been genuinely shocked at the philosophical ignorance of Harris' colleagues. This wasn't merely weak water, it was utterly absurd in the poverty of Harris' argument. There have been atheists in the past who were actually conversant with the history of ideas, at the very least. Even now, with a philosopher like John Gray, for inst. Vacuous celebrity culture leading the discourse down the toilet again.
@@antodubhasaigh7611 many atheists believe in objective morality, just like there are many atheists who believe in subjective morality, whether or not morality is absolute or not is entirely exclusive of being an atheist.
And i know Sam Harris believes in determinism, but again there are atheists on both camps of free will debate, it has nothing to do with atheism.
This is such a boring issue for me lately, because even if you believe in subjective morality, it still has nothing to do with being a good person. Just like gravity has nothing to do with being a good person. Just saying you think morality is objective, does not mean its true or that you are automatically a more moral person, yet every religious person ive had discussions with before somehow infer this notion.
@@gerritkruger4014 I appreciate your sentiments, partly because they were my own.
"many atheists" I would say greater than that; as a matter of practical reason virtually all people who identify as atheist believe in objective moral values, and act accordingly. However, such a dynamic is entirely derivative of the established order.
But the issues here are the atheist claims in the present context, not the wider convictions.
We're entitled to ask the warrant for any claim; and when that proposed warrant is the standard woolly, unhelpful, empty, rambling, unsustainable attempt at support/justification, we're rationally entitled to withhold assent.
Equally the radical disjunction between his determinism & our dignified, uncoerced agency to opt for objective good is entirely pertinent, and cannot be expediently set aside.
Where are the coherent grounds here? Again, not remotely provided.
"Subjective morality" & being a "good person" are absolutely relevant, and the relation must be established & sustained. The "good" is itself an objective claim! The gravity factor & relation?
Objective values (of all variants - not merely ethical) are absolutely core, and cannot be conveniently dismissed or brushed aside. No claim is coherent unless it can be coherently established & validly maintained. We can otherwise make no reasonable claims regarding truth, justice, morality, meaning, etc. etc. These necessarily objectively transcend & ground the individual subject. This is the perplexity of base materialism & reductionism. It can offer no such grounds.
Rational objectivity is not an optional extra. Harris realises this, but can offer no basis or ground.
I have to say that, in fairness, your contribution stands apart from the standard internet expression of the uncontrolled id.
So trueee lol… I watch him speak and I’m thinking, this guy didn’t put any thought into this debate lol
Debate starts 0:07:53
MVP
thank you
I feel like we were robbed of a great debate. I wish there would have been a cross examination. Or at the very least, that both would have been required to respond to the same question during the Q&A portion. What a shame...
But it wasn’t that bad tbh
That's purposeless.
1:26:29 This is a super mega circular argument, however. “God is good because he is a being worthy of being worshipped.” Yea but why is God a being worthy of being worshipped? Craig is just saying God is good because he is good
How many People would drop their beliefs if they weren't held Hostage by their Family or community
Your belief is something that's part of you regardless of what family does, Example some people are into politics and some don't care, we all have certain interests, why?
When it comes to the likes of Seventh Day Adventists and the likes of those Christians that turn out their family members that don't believe, they lose everything so they just have to stay no matter what. They just keep swallowing the BS and giving it to their children as well. That's how their God keeps them. It's brainwashing.
@@jurnagin what are you talking about? Belief is deeply rooted on your parents culture and religion, if it wasn't so, why most middle eastern countrys follow islam? Why religious countrys remain religious? Because belief is passed from generation to generation, when the child is too young to decide for itself.
Pardon me for any typos, English isn't my first language.
I was listening carefully both sides. When Craig was done with his first rebuttal (12 minutes), and Sam started his (12 minutes) I knew the debate was over. In a atheist worldview, there are no objective values and duties; there is no ground for that. I just hope people carefully listen and understand Craig's first rebuttal. It truly tears apart any attempt from atheism to claim there are objective values and duties.
Why would the supposed desires of Craig's supposed God be a basis for objective moral values?
@@Oldtinear Without good, there can be no evil. Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible established moral values with the 10 Commandments.
Without God's establishment of moral values, there would be no immorality. If someone wanted to kill a convenience store clerk for $20, no one could say that would be wrong because everyone could decide for themselves what is acceptable behavior.
I trust this clears up this issue for you. Take care.
@@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921 'Without good, there can be no evil.'
What!? If someone is wanting to mug someone, does he need to wait until someone else has done a good deed first? I can attach no meaning to what you say.
We have evolved as social animals for millions of tears. A group where murder and robbery were commonplace would not survive. One where cooperation and helping were commonplace would thrive. No requirement for invisible sky fairies.
@@Oldtinear Who is to say what is right or wrong if there were no ultimate moral standard, which God provided in the 10 Commandments?
You might say it's wrong to steal from a store, while someone else could say that they just took what they needed or wanted to. Just because a large group or community of people might band together to create some rules, who's to say that the rules that some individual decides to follow are wrong?
If God did not exist, then we all just die someday and we're gone forever, so why not live for today and take, steal, kill, etc., to get what you want and enjoy this brief life before nonexistence comes?
Without God, there would be no ultimate right or wrong.
I am thankful that Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible does indeed exist.
I will pray for you. Take care.
@@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921 'If God did not exist, why not live for today and take, steal, kill, etc., '
You should address that question to your fellow believers - the % of atheists in prison is less than the % of believers.
As for your 10 commandments: '“You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.”
Note how sexist this is. A wife is to be considered as belonging to a man in the same way as his livestock does. There is no matching commandment for women not to covet things.
And God is going to throw me into hell for coveting my neighbour's house? Surely this envy is an incentive for me to work hard and buy as good a house? What is so wrong with that?
10 years on and you can really see how the conversation has moved on. Thank you for the discussions that have led us to learning
Its funny because we are actually seeing a situation Harris thought we never would in his introduction with the fat acceptance movement. I think the progression of time is revealing who won this argument.
@@calebalbertson1690 Not really
Not really religious people still fear doubt more than they want to know the truth and keep trying to make their problem everyone else's.
@@Terminalsanity Christianity is not about "Religion". Jesus himself denounced religion, already knowing it would only divide us. There's no doubt in my mind you have never even given Christianity a chance. Your mind was made up long ago by ppl you considered 'smarter' than you. I can guarantee you have never picked up the Gospel and read it for yourself vs having heard a preacher give his interpretation of it. Had you read it, then you would understand why Christians believe its the Truth. You can find no lies in It. And the ppl back then thought exactly and react exactly the same way ppl would today. That's why it is very easy to relate w his disciples and what they went through, witnessed, and wrote down.
@@Trey-ny7wh Your obvious fear of doubt is not my not problem no matter how much you try to project it onto me.
The truth in full is beyond us all. We decidedly finite beings can never truly know the infinite only know it better and only if we make the effort. Your impotent attempts to try and make the truth as small as your understanding only serve to further divorce you from it.
BTW the you're completely wrong about me indeed reading the gospel is precisely why I'm no longer a practicing Christian. I had been lied to about what it actually says precisely because so much of what it says makes no sense and is frankly awful: Do not punish the son for the sins of the father... except when it comes to David then you murder an innocent infant to punish his father's sin. Re-read Exodus it implies the Egyptian Gods are real and have actual power after all if there were no other Gods the 1st Commandant is rather redundant and pointless.
Oh and there's actually almost nothing in the bible about the devil and hell, pretty much everything you believe about them them is literally Christian fan fiction mostly based off of Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost. You don't even know what you don't know about the book you claim to believe in.
A question for adults: if you were deciding where to send your children to a particular university or college and prior to their admission, you were to receive a letter of explanation from a few of the universities that stated:
a) that several of their professors, for the past century and more, were regrettably, in fact, guilty of raping thousands of college students, both boys and girls
b) that the university was well aware of who these offenders were
C) it was current school policy and within the scope of their authority of that the university did not report these rapists to police
d) the university insisted instead on a policy of secrecy and shelter and offered these raping professors a salary, sinecures and substantial legal protection.
e) the rights of the raping professors exceeded those of the victims
Who would, for a nanosecond, consider sending their child to this college or university?
Shall I answer my own question? Not one thinking adult would do such a horrific thing to their very own flesh and blood. Why is it then, that millions still send their kids to Catholic elementary or high schools, or still donate money, or stocks, bonds, art or land to the Catholic church? The millions of people that still support this atrocious organization are to me, intellectually defective and questions of abnormal psychology have to be raised.
Rid yourself of religious beliefs, shed them like a snake sheds it's own skin. Think for yourself.
I absolutely enjoyed this debate. The speakers were very knowledgeable and did a remarkable job. Thanks for putting this on you tube. Much appreciated
Harris is out of topic
Most reasonable comment ever posted on UA-cam.
only a theist would think this 'debate' had any worth at all...
if you think they both did a remarkable job, then you have not understood much at all from the debate. Both cannot be right here. Either one of them is wrong and remarkable depends on being right. Unless, that is, you find something that is completely wrong to be remarkably so.
@@aimedon That's a inane way to approach a debate. It's not just to prove your right it's to get to the truth of the argument.
If you asked sam if he thought he was 100% right he'd say no as most of those intellectual types would that's the point of debating taking new viewpoints away to strength your own views.
Don’t act like you don’t recognize that brilliant introduction from the undergraduate student.
There are 3.3 million people who watched this. There are 3.3 million different explainations of what Craig actually said.
@Super Happy Jew The problem lies with the question. Harris's point was that the morality of so-called God(s) isn't objective-- we can point out where He/They were bad in their stories, and because we can do that we must have an objective sense of morality above those gods.
Since the question was, "is there objective morality without God?" he had to answer with the assumption that objective morality exists and provide an explanation for why it exists without a god. The question should have been, "is there objective morality, and if so does it come from God?"
Because then he could've answered that no, there isn't objective morality (and therefore no objective morality comes from any god)-- our morality is subjective. Which is what most of his evidence actually supports.
Craig's answer, on the other hand, is yes, and it comes from God. Even though he too primarily provides evidence that supports the notion that the morality of humans is subjective. Which doesn't logically mean that there must be an objective morality that comes from a deity.
@@dandynoble2875 If people cannot know what is good and bad without God, then it's impossible to know which religion is true. If Bible says one thing and Qur'an another and people cannot know what is good without God, then people are unable to tell which of those two books are moral. But if a Christian says Qur'an is immoral, that means people are able to know right and wrong without God.
@@dandynoble2875 The question should be , is there a God?
Craig said "if Atheism is true" Atheism is the rejection of the Theistic claim that a God exists due to the lack of sufficient evidence to support the claim. Theism has the burden of proof. We have examples of people writing rules / laws but we don't have an example of a God. Safe to assume people decide what's moral.
@@dandynoble2875 Just because someone couldn't answer Doesng mean there isn't an answer.
Morality is well being. Relieving suffering. Improving quality of life. Helping and loving one another.
we Muslims believe that every human being is born with moral instinct (we know that there is a God and he is Fair and never unfair and we have a natural tendency towards justice. Therefore you can be moral without flowing the right religion but immoral if you adopted an ideology fully that dos do not enable that moral instinct.
Both men deserve all the respect for having it out for us all like this. Did i miss it or did Sam at 58:30 not have any direct counter to any of William's arguments in the preceding segment of argumentation?
Low-bar Bill lost respect when he said genocides are fine if his god does it.
I have always wondered why people go to the "why dont you just kill everybody" argument... I always purpose that the questioner secretly wants to do exactly that...
@Christopher Lee exactly my point... Why suppose somebody would want to do that simply for the lack of a god?
'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you ' was a poster I saw in a Psychology students house share.
@Christopher Lee Not really. There are Christian preachers today that publicly advocate killing all homosexuals and trans people.
@Christopher Lee You need to relax mate. I was just mentioning a poster I saw years ago that was considered humorous.
@@stevenswitzer5154 what do you mean people have haha. In the communists gulags. Im thankful that God does not exist was said as he was torturing someone. The soldier that is. That doesnt mean an atheist will act out though. The biggest mass murderers were atheist btw all of whom referenced specifically the lack of God. Nietzche was right. If there is no God it will lead to nihilism. Its happening today
Seems like the timekeeper oughtta just be ready without being asked.
Or the ensuing and forced "go" from the moderator. Awkward right?
Who would like to see the time using the shape of the word GOD?
If you draw the shape of a circle halved once squared twice to the right that would be the smaller Son image, made from the word drawn together into one whole image. Just like the larger father image of the word expanded is GOOD.
As the word breathes in and out it changes shape, like we do, without lies or magical idolitry.
You can see the time, times and half a time using that son geometry.
Like the Sun dial our ancestors used we can be clockwise to the image of the Son WE see together.
Time using the geometry from the three capitals drawn into one whole is;
12-3-6.
Times is;
12x-3-6
Half a time is;
1/2x-3-6.
You can use the numbers on the periodic table, cycle the atomic weights clockwise.
It can build to a larger image.
@@blondboozebaron 😂😂😂
@@blondboozebaron The hell is going on here?
@@saggybobby3733
The funny part is if you actually check those numbers that you get using the geometry from the word drawn together you come up with the same elements we use for a fusion reaction in a Tokamak.
One cycle clockwise.
Magnesium 12
Lithium 3
Carbon 6
Hydrogen 1
The image of the Son from the word giving us a picture of fusion in the Sun.
Craig is so limited in his thinking on morality."No morale accountability with out god". He is very wrong. He is totally discrediting strength of character and personal integrity. Owning ones self, ones own actions, ones own consequences ( good and bad) , how to make amends, to be self questioning, grow in self honesty and to improve on ones self. You do not need a god (his or any other) to achieve these things. That is what most atheists are like. That is why we call our selves humanists, free thinkers and the like. It is not just what is good for ourselves but what will be good and for all.
Our jails in North America are full of people that believe in a Christine religion. With religion it seems to bring on a intolerance, casting judgement and the need to control each other in very unreasonable ways. I find Craig s argument very limiting to the true strengths in the human race. Not all Christians are like this. More people of faith are not so arrogant ( their faith and their way is the way for every one), live their lives more like non faith people. They both want to live as good, progressive humans. Neither are so binary in their thinking as Craig is.
1:02:03 This point always bothered me as a child; these people, unaware of Christ, are condemned to HELL but not the repentant criminal? No thanks 🤷🏾♂️😂
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Sorry, I believe that you and Sam got it all wrong. People who are unaware of God or Christ will not end up in hell automatically. God will only judge you based on what you do with what you are given. Since they are unaware of God, it means that they have not rejected him. You will only end up in hell if you reject God.
@@Uouttooo Dr. Price is correct. The existence of Christ is a myth. listen to Bible scholars Dr. Richard C. Miller PhD, Dr. Kipp Davis PhD, Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald. on their discoveries about Christianity while studying other religions.Rabbi Tovia Singer Exposes New Testament Lies about how Christians lie in the new testimony about Christ. It seems more and more that Christianity is fake and Christians are just a bunch of thieves.
@@Uouttooo "God will only judge you based on what you are given. Since they are unaware of God, it means that they have not rejected him. You will only end up in hell if you reject God." WHAT!?!?!
@@Uouttooo: Do you really believe that? If so, it’s only because it’s what you were told and chose to believe.
Why do these need such long and irrelevant introductions? And why 2 and sometimes 3??
Because these are mighty Intellectuals who will reason us to enlightenment! NOT! Has their ever been a debater up there without a book to sell ? Sam is making a living off dissing GOD! For a guy who does not need God he sure got rich off dissing him!
@@SimSim-zf9if Ok there; all knowing and all seeing OWL man on the mountain of enlightenment! OOOhh ,you shook my faith , with your mythical beings comment Your welcome to believe in any thing you want Sim Sim, your a sim sim simulation.Sad!
@@SimSim-zf9if Like I have not heard that line 1000000000000000000000 times. Yawn! I know what is best for me at this juncture and it sure is not you! YAHWEH through Yeshua , I'm sticking with them in my wrestling against the wicked spirit forces; You can message me 100000000 times in a day about your theories,I don't care for your philosophy or theories or beliefs that ; are on the other end of the spectrum of My conviction.
@@SimSim-zf9if Stop wasting my time ,Bye!
@@markdemell8056
Yeah, good thing Crag never plugs his own shitty books
I've watched many debates with Craig and he always starts of with his basic contentions (his favorite word)... that IF there is a god then it MUST be good. I don't get how none of his opponents confront him on this. I would immediately say that is a presupposition and completely not valid in a logical debate. You can't assume any character of a god. You are clearly using the character of god that you know from the bible, and applying that to your claim that god must be good.. although, I don't understand how Craig also disregards all the wickedness the god of the bible condones and creates. In the bible, god said "I created evil". Most Christians cherry pick through the bible and say "look how good god is!" and ignore all the parts about slavery, rape, murder, genocide, etc all sanctioned by god. And when confronted on it, they defend it by either saying "it was a different time", or "it must have been for a greater good." It's disgusting. I wish I could debate Craig
Hubris...Sam Harris wasn't blowing smoke when he esteemed Craig and his abilities. You and I are just UA-cam commenters, get some perspective.
My favourite atheist and my favourite apologist debating NOT each other. But it's still entertaining ofc. Big brains on the stage is always fun.
@@theendgamefl888 I'm sure you and your circle are much more cognitively capable
@@theendgamefl888 I am sure you are a sparkling intellectual
Craig has a big brain in the sense that his brain may be physically swollen, which is not a good thing. Sam harris would have a big brain in the sense that he is fairly intelligent
There was only one big brain on that stage. I doubt Harris' IQ exceeds even a modest 115. He should stick to debating the low hanging fruit that he's used to.
@@realrururu
Can I ask you why his position or lack of is a good determinant of IQ?
Is it ok for humans to disobey god? Religious people would say NO. But if you really care about morality, you need to answer that question with YES. If god personally asked me to kill my child, I would deny him the sacrifice. What is god going to do? Punish me for having moral values and loving my child? In that case one has to give up the concept of morality, because it simply ceases to exist. Abraham and many religious people today, however, are obedient cowards who are terrified of eternal punishment. They don’t care about morality, only about blind obedience.
Hmm, this seems slightly off the mark. Your moral dilemma seems more like a question of justice and fairness to me. If there was a God in the first place and you chose to disobey his laws, then that's not a moral consideration, it's a question of legitimacy and justice. These are two different concerns, although somewhat connected. I'd also say, even though I think you and I might be on the same page with the story of Abraham, that it isn't a moral dilemma either. It's a dilemma of faith and conviction. I would suggest reading Fear and Trembling, it's an excellent critique of that story and it makes it clear that faith is not easy, nor is it always rational. Kierkegaard convincingly shows the existential issues with faith and how it isn't necessarily a cowardly thing to give yourself up to faith, it's a matter of resolve. Inflammatory speech isn't going to cut through these issues. Be a bit more specific. Are we really to believe that all people with Faith are cowards? That just sounds ridiculous.
@@pathofthegamer8590 First, this debate is about morality, and killing a child is an immoral act. Period. If you don’t accept that then we don’t need to talk about morality. Morality requires responsibility, yet people like the idea of a god, who protects them and does the thinking for them. People like the easy way. Thinking is hard. What’s the moral value of biblical stories like Abraham (god asking him to kill his son), Moses (god killing innocent Egyptian children to free the Israelites), Jesus (god protecting his son from the swords of Herod but looking the other way when innocent infants are slaughtered)? Do people feel good about those stories? Don’t they have empathy with the innocent victims? The only thing religious people care about is that they feel protected by a fatherly figure, and an authoritarian system like religion legitimizes the killing of innocent. The only way people accept the killing of children is when they are obedient to an authority that they fear. You shouldn’t talk about morality when pain is inflicted on the vulnerable and innocent. There’s nothing morally good about these stories.
@@tiger-t3u It's interesting how forceful your language is, how unnuanced, how black and white.
Killing in general is immoral, let alone the killing of a child, yet still we have instances where "killing" is permitted in society even today if there is some "greater cause" such as in war, or in ideas of justice, or self defence. Perhaps in the story of Abraham it's the greater cause of Faith. Who is to say which greater cause is worthy? Are you a vegan? The incredible slaughter of animals, merely for the satisfaction of man, is killing none the less.
Morality does indeed require responsibility, as you say; but, the question is to whom, in what manner, and on what grounds? Without answering those questions morality is an empty idea. You clearly state that being responsible to an idea such as God is the "easy way" because thinking is hard. Yet, in that statement you throw away nearly the entire grounding of Western Culture which was enherited from the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Semites. It's a childish answer stated in false confidence. It wasn't for 18 centuries that discussions for the basis of a secular morality were even possible, and even then, all of the conversation we've had on the matter exists within the culture that has been passed down...products of what has gone before. Where is your historical perspective coming from? The story of Abraham and Isaac is a parable that deserves historical context. He didn't actually kill Isaac, nor can we as readers actually know his inner turmoil or his conviction. This is a very unacademic approach you are taking. If we are looking for a paradigm shift in morality, critiquing the Old Testament doesn't get you very far. The Western world has a morality that has been built across 2000 years of theology, not just an Ancient book. You must do better. No Christian is going to listen to you and go, "Yeah, this guy knows what he is talking about" and change their mind on the subjec
@@pathofthegamer8590We shouldn’t make any excuses for Abraham when he tries to execute god’s command. Let’s be honest, there is no higher cause in a god demanding to kill your child. What could possibly be the higher cause? That god the almighty is insecure and alone and he needs to make sure that he has people around him who love and follow him? Does he really have so little self confidence? You don’t seem to think very highly of your god. You are right, our society is built on past experiences and we have realized that the mistakes of the past done for the glory of god (crusades, inquisition, religious wars, forceful conversion of Native Americans, …) should better be not repeated. 6 million Jews also had to die because god portrayed himself as the victim when he sent his son to earth. Do I have sympathy for Jesus? No, because god wanted him to die! Why should I care for him? If god wants to care for people, he should end diseases, famines and natural catastrophes. Should I ever stand in front of god, which I don’t believe will happen, I will point out his cruelties towards mankind. And I do hope that he will honor my sense for morality, the way I think human beings should be treated.
@@tiger-t3u I do not subscribe to, nor do I have any use for, any Middleastern mythologies. Nor any gods in general at that matter. You don't need to in order to respect history and discuss things within their proper contexts.
The story of Abraham is one of the greatest stories ever told. That doesn't mean I believe it's entirely true. It's ancient historical literature embellished with the mythology of an entire people. He was the very first man to have had a supposed relationship with the god of the Hebrew faith, Yahweh, who promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation. A story very nearly like that of Odysseus, as Abraham made his way towards his promised land from the great historical city of Ur in ancient Mesopotamia, the cradle of life, and a city that was the seat of the Babylonian dynasty and all their gods. He fled in order to find a place he could worship his own god, the true god as he took it, and met all types of adventures along the way. Fast forward, and you get Isaac, a son who represents to Abraham a promise fulfilled by his god, the promise of a new nation of people all descendants from him - the first Jew. Abraham. Not just some guy.
The moral peril in this story is not just in the concern that Abraham has now found himself worshipping a god requiring a human sacrifice and that Abraham has doubts. There is moral peril in this mythology that exists in the fact that his God, at that point, had taken him and his sister through the desert and to the promised land, and had given Abraham a son of prophecy...yet more was required. Isaac may not be the prophecy. The moral peril lies within Abraham, not his God, a perilous test to see how far a man could go for a cause, and at what cost. We then see that if a cause could be greater than anything else, even the sacrifice of a son, then that cause must come from God. And we know the rest of the story. Abrahams faith in the ultimate cause, God, is seen for what it is and rewarded and now the Jewish nation is born, and they have an entire mythology to base their sense of morality, based on the highest cause...God. This parable clearly shows the problems found in the practice of moral theories. Thou shalt obey God. Thou shalt not kill. It's a tale of genius that we are still talking about here tonight...thousands of years later.
It's a damn good story and it's something I bet the Ancient Greeks wished they had written. I just think you are way off the mark here in your attack. It's one of the finest moral parables ever written and you are superficially attacking it.
Even if we believe your take on man, that all that bad stuff you listed was indicative of organized religion's oppression over man, you know and I know that there is no such thing as God to blame it on, because he doesn't exist. Yet, you talk about him as he does and in some sense that he needs to be rubbed out. The only one we can blame the incredibly violent and barbaric history of man on is man himself. That's a fact. Man and the ideas of man. Getting rid of religion won't help us move past all that. The only change would be political, not moral. Morality is based on practice and theory. We are here now. Who is looking to say, "let's throw out that culture that got us here and start over!". No, we must have better conversations and continue to evolve through practice.
If someone doesn't value evidence what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it?
Game, set, and match. If these religious sheep had "ANY" proof whatsoever, they would shove it in our face. The problem is that they simply can't accept that they were lied to as children
tonio19 proof of what?
Objective morality is proof.
Sam harris hasnt overcome the is-ought problem, let alone provide an objective base for morality.
Nice attempt, but his arguments are trash 🗑
@Robert Andersson not in peaks and valleys of well-being.
Love in the bible is defined as caring for the wellbeing of others.
How can morality exist without love? It can't, by definition, but you can try I guess.
Über Man you provide no definition of morality whatsoever. Second you are ignoring important questions such as eithyphro dilemma and naturalistic fallacy, which are well documented and both apply to atheistic and religious 'objective' morality.
As for the love part, you are obviously talking something nonsensical here. Love is not something we descivered from 150th dimension through quantum magic. What we call love is not usually well defined. Romantic love is nothing more than chemical reactions that compel animals to breed. Maternal love is nothing more than chemical reactions that compel animals to care after their young, because at young age people are evolved to be very dependent on their parents. And the last kind is companionship, which also is chemical reactions that compel animals to have social interactions, because if that were not the case then we would have died thousands of years ago if we were on our own, that's what the environment was and we adapted to it.
@@jokerxxx354 Let's say you have 2 people, a priest who rapes children and an atheist children's doctor who helps children.
Based on this information, which person is more moral?
More importantly, why?
The way I see it, your options are:
1) the priest is more moral than the doctor.
2) the doctor is more moral than the priest.
Or
3) neither is more moral than the other.
Anyone who picks 1 is sick and the main reason I can think someone would pick 3 is because they believe morality is relative but I don't see how these two are equal.
I don't see how option 1 or 3 can possibly be defended, to me the most logical answer is option 2, the doctor.
But why?
When I ask this question to an atheist, the answers I usually get are:
1) we get our morality from our parents or society.
While it may be true that we learn behaviors from the people around us, I don't see how that leads to morality.
Ironically, the euthyphro dilemma springs to mind when I consider this answer.
Are they intrinsically moral or are they observing a standard beyond themselves, and if so, what is that standard?
2) evolution wired us to feel empathy.
Okay, but what about the people who evolution designed without it? Also evolution is about survival, not morality. Every other animal isn't held to our standard of morality, so why should we consider ourselves any more special when we're essentially animals with our own unique mutations? If other animals rape and murder to survive, why are we different?
3) morality is based on wellbeing.
This answer to me seems to be the best one I've heard the atheist offer, but I never hear a logically consistent explanation for why anyone is obligated to care about the wellbeing of another, "well-being" isn't a conscience authority on how we should behave, it's more of a goal or an objective, but who/what has the authority to command anyone to care about anything?
What do you think?
Why can't the same type of debate be held regarding covid?
lol
Lol
because, 'democrats''
that's why
So true!!!
Becayse of covid risks
My favourite participants in this debate were the pedantic moderator and his beloved time keeper.
Knock knock. Who's there? Jesus Christ. What do you want? I want to save you! Save me from what? Save you from myself if you don't let me in!
Thats false, Christ is saving us from what we have done to ourselves out of the free will we have.
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 if christ was a God then resurrection was a fart LMAO. You don't have a free will because your God controls all your actions. Stop bsing
This is actually a genuine misunderstanding of Christianity. If you have ever read the Pauline letters which establish the most barebones tenets of Christian theology, nowhere does Paul suggest that faith in Christ is meant to save you from the "wrath of God" or "going to hell" or anything of the sort. It's simply to save you from the finitude of existence, so that you might have eternal life. Most people strawman Christianity, and its mainly a failure of the religion to explain itself because it's become defined so differently by popular culture. By the way, I am an atheist.
@@Potaters12 You do get that this is a joke and it is not meant to be taken seriously. Right!?!?
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 "Christ is saving us from what we have done to ourselves out of the free will we have.' I have not done anything wrong. Why do you need someone to pay for what you have done? That is just nutz.
It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
1:22:46 “We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question” 😂 absolutely brilliant
Now do objective morality from an atheist perspective.
@@markcollins2704
Just because humans have made up the words and definitions for them, such as Objective morality. Doesn't automatically mean the actually exist. Our morality is our own. And it changes with time as we change.
@@markcollins2704 'Now do objective morality from an atheist perspective.'
Now do objective morality from a believer's perspective. God's existence is a faith belief. That God is perfectly good is a faith belief. That we are bound by God's desires is another faith belief. I cannot see anything objective there.
@@fishtailfuture so school shootings are neither good or evil.
@@Oldtinear You typing on your keyboard without even answering the question is a faith belief, cause there's no guarantee that you or the system would not collapse before you press send.
"We have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid quesiton," what a way to put it
The best thing I’ve ever heard honestly
Fred Flinstone Bedrock balls
There’s no stupid question instead more of a challenging question.
@@Popcorn-ls5hr That's exactly what a stupid person would say, just face it, you're thick as heck
Well no, because if you're using philosophy as the tool, and there is a path that is blocking you're way, one would simply go around.
Philosophy is not the destination, the Truth is the destination. Stupidity is in our way. But we use philosophy and theories to get to that destination.
It should be "We have hit bedrock of stupidity with our shovels of a philosophical understanding."
bro why does this keep getting suggested to me??😂
I know right? I already watched it and they keep recommending it to me.
speakers corner? lol
No doubt you've been watching their opposite.
Cuz the Lord wants you to know Him
Jesus loves you bro
I drove 5 hours for this debate. Sat right in the middle. It was a great time.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I'm confused by your response. My comment was about attending this debate.
@@joelfenner9179 Jesus loves you man and wants to save yiu from the fiery pit
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 I've been a Christian for 33 years. I was saved a long time ago.
@@joelfenner9179 Christianityis a continuous relationship with God, not a one time thing
Make sure as a you are a repentant Christian. Read the Bible daily and pray often throughout the day, the devil is trying to make lukewarm Christians everywhere (Rev 3:16). Join us in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ.
If you tell everyone that you are a mechanic but day in and out, you do the work of an accountant are you truly a mechanic? No, you are an accountant. Likewise, a Christian by name who lives contrary to Jesus’ teachings by living sinful/worldly is not a real Christian.
“Pale in comparison to the most ambitious psychopath” 🤣
Are we refering to the man who wants to ground morality in nature like the nazies did.
@@adenjones1802 Oh aden, stop straw-manning so hard. The Nazis also loved railways. If you have ever been on a train, I guess you are a Nazi too.
lol
@@con.troller4183 I guess thanks to people like you, we can never learn any lessons from the nazis then. I bet that if a country genocided the jews again you would be like, "now now, theres no need to compare them to Nazis." Whats most telling is that you dont seem to deny that the nazis and sam get their morals from the same place you basically just say "so what? Something something rail roads." Wake up to yourself. If sam and the NAZIS get their morals from the same damn grounding do you honestly not think that it warrents the slightest bit of suspicion?
@@con.troller4183 that’s a false equivocation fallacy. He’s giving the example the same concept: morality. Naturalistic regimes ground morality in evolution, and naturalistic regimes killed more than 100 million people within less than a century, more than any war in history COMBINED.
@@chapter404th "Naturalistic regimes"
Nice Make Sh*t Upism, Chappy.
And what does it even mean to "ground morality in nature?
Morality has a biological cause. That is demonstrable. Nazis have diseased morality. That is demonstrable.
That does not mean that the former is the cause of the latter.
Talk about false equivalents.
Everyone's talking about the debate skills between the two, but I'm just seeing the age difference between these two, both physically and environmentally. Harris has all his stuff saved on files on his cute Macbook, and Craig has sheets on sheets on sheets lol.
@Nathan Nitai Das who beat who?
@Nathan Nitai Das Oh ok, I agree. Are you a christian?
@Nathan Nitai Das oh gotcha. what would you describe yourself as?
@Nathan Nitai Das is that hindusim?
@Nathan Nitai Das why you believe that?
"If you wake up tomorrow morning, thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes, is gonna turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about the body of Jebus, you're just a Catholic".
^ gold
Only Jesus Christ (the human form of Divinity) has said: *_"I am the way, the truth and the life."_* He also said: *_"The sky and the earth won't last forever, but my words will."_* Matthew 24, 35
_"Paul, an apostle-sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead [...] I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that _*_the gospel I preached is not of human origin._*_ I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ"._
Unfortunately, _"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."_ 2 Corinthians 4, 4
@@filmeseverin Good for him.
This short earthly life is mainly a school and exam/test for our immortal soul, for us. That is why we have been advised: _"In everything you do, remember your end, and you will never sin."_ Sirach 7, 36 *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
@@filmeseverin How is Elvis doing?
Craig's description of the biblical god contradicts how it's depicted in his 'holy' book. You can't be kind and loving on one hand while killing and commanding others to kill and maim on the other.
Ben Stiller has convinced me.
I'm pretty sure that's Derek Zoolander disguised as Ben Stiller
I was wondering why he looked so familiar...
💀
I’m on Dr. Craig’s side but this cracked me up haha
David Lee Roth failed to convince me.
I can only offer a less than sophisticated objection to Dr. Craig's insistence on the existence of "objective morality." Craig accuses Harris of equivocation with the use of the words "good," and "bad." I think Dr. Craig is using the phrase "objective morality" in a similar way with respect to the way Harris is using the term. Craig is appealing to the idea that there is some ultimately objective morality that is completely independent of and prior to sentient creatures such as ourselves. There is simply no reason to think this is so. When we observe the natural world, and the behaviors of creatures (including ourselves), we do not observe an independent moral substance that creatures happen upon or otherwise discover. What we find is that the social creatures which have a natural sense of empathy for their fellow creatures are the ones that survive to propagate the species. Hence, empathy has become a biological and psychological norm for many conscious creatures. Evolution and biology offer a more than sound explanation of where morality comes from. Pushing the question further, as Dr. Craig is doing, by insisting that morals must come from some more ultimate source is simply question begging and is ultimately non-sensical. Not all questions such as "What is the ultimate ground of objective morality?", demand an answer because not all questions are valid questions. We can ask, "What does the sound of music taste like?". It grammatically qualifies as a question, but it is an invalid one because it makes the unfounded assumption that taste is a quality of music, when there is no evidence that this is so. Therefore, as an invalid question, it cannot be answered. It simply makes no sense. In the same way, "What is the ultimate foundation of objective mortality?" qualifies as a question, but it is one that does not have an answer with the way Craig is using the words "ultimate" and "objective."
We need to have a standard for “good” to be able to determine whether any deity is good or provides a good example, etc. If we get the standard from that god, then all we are saying is a tautology “God is god-like”.
God stands for that which is correct and right and is against that which is incorrect and wrong. That which is right is good and that which is wrong is not good.
@@willyounotthink3903 All you have done is replace “good” with “correct”.
The issue remains. If you are assessing God’s correctness, but your standards of correctness come from God, then it is a meaningless exercise. You’re still just saying “God is god-like”
@@scienceexplains302 there’s not much utility in asking the goodness of God. You could say he is the maximum of all great making properties. Or a maximally great being. Or morally perfect. However, in the case of God he is the foundation of everything, so you would be right in saying God is God-like. But that isn’t meaningless or useless. That gives us a standard to compare it to. If we were to create our own morality and compare it to God, the we would say “God is human-like”, which would obviously be illogical. The useful and logical point to make would be to compare humans to the moral law, or the morally perfect(God). “Humans are God-like”, or “humans are not God-like”.
@@ghost_of_jah5210 You haven’t given any reason to believe a god exists, nor if it exists how we would judge it to be good.
If I give you a stick and tell you it is supposed to hold water well. You ask How will we know whether the little bit of water constitutes holding water “well”? I answer that if it holds as much water as a stick, it’s doing well.
That would be a meaningless measurement, but that is how you are “measuring” god’s goodness.
@@ghost_of_jah5210 The Bible you alluded to shows that its main god is very often very immoral
There’s no any indication that a supernatural being (god) exists so any arguments such as god says or god wants are simply laughable.
i dont think he ever made one of those argumnets here. And like WLC proved in this debate if there is no god there are no morals, no moral authority no ethics. So in the athiesr worldview everything else is permitted pedophilia isnt right or wrong it just is. Now what he shouldve pointed out in athieism if a person is religion its bilogically determined so are those people still phycos?
@@ghengiskhan9308 "WLC proved in this debate if there is no god there are no morals" Utter presup garbage! He did no such thing! If morality came from God it would be consistent for starters. Morality has changed over the last 2,000 years. Morality is also different in different cultures.
"in the atheist worldview everything else is permitted pedophilia isn't right or wrong it just is" and yet another nonsense statement. There being no objective right or wrong does not mean that there is no right or wrong. Right and wrong are only meaningful from the point of view of the thinking brain. Morality for humans only makes sense from the human perspective and clearly comes from our evolutionary past as a social species. Morality from a God is simply "I say this is so so you must do it." That is not morality that is divine command theory.
"in athieism if a person is religion its bilogically determined so are those people still phycos?" What does this even mean? Firstly atheism is a position on God and nothing more. It is a disbelief in all Gods due to lack of evidence. If a person is biologically psychotic then they are biologically psychotic. What is your alternative worldview? That God made them psychotic, or do you have some cognitive dissonance to employ to explain that away?
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.