The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- The second annual God Debate features atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris and Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig as they debate the topic: "Is Good From God?" The debate was sponsored in large part by the Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters: The Henkels Lecturer Series, The Center for Philosophy of Religion and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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!!!!
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.
“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
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?
"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 🗿
"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.
“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?
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
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 ?
>
"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
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.
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......
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
Amazing to realize this is accessible for free!
You have to agree, even after all these years it's still a good laugh.
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
"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?
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
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.
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."
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? ???????
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?
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 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.
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?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris but Craig's charge that Harris didn't refute many of his core claims rings true
They were both putting forward different hypotheses for the source of good. I'm not sure that I remember Low Bar Bill refuting any claims from Harris. Did he? Harris pointed out the absurdities one must believe to think that Craig's definition of a good God is the source of good. He did this but pointing out the relaties we see in the world around us.
Do you have any examples of points Craig made that Harris did not refute? And do you have examples of points Harris made that Craig did refute?
It seems to me like everyone seems to think that Craig gets to assert all he wants and Harris must refute every single point, but that does not have to be done in reverse because, hey, Craig is asserting God and God is obvious if you believe.
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see the *free* choices/deeds. 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 did 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.*
Most unbelievers of the truth think that a human being can be good enough without God/Jesus wisdom (laws, commandments), but they do not want to quit ALL their bad addictions to be really good humans, as the Creator wants us to be, and they do not want to love (care about) the others as they love (care about) themselves, as the true Christians do. Their idea of good is way too low than what it should be, and that is why so many people are still far from Heaven (they do not recognize their bad deeds).
@@El_Bruno7510 Minute 52:50 WLC gives what he argues is a knock down argument against Sam's conflating moral good with wellbeing. Using modal logic he demonstrates that the continuum of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape, as the peaks of well-being can be occupied by sociopaths. He refuted the whole basis of Sam's philosophy. It is a complex refutation so that could be why you didn't remember it.
@@mikegrecamusic5917 It certainly is complex! I also do not pretend to be a philosophical expert, but it didn't sound like the knock down argument that Low Bar Bill (and you) thinks it was to me. Wellbeing does not just apply to the individual enacting the actions, it applies to the recipients of the actions too. Maximising wellbeing still stands even with psychopaths existing!. Now it could be that he was claiming a possible world where everyone is a psychopath? If so, I think this 15 min YT, "Christian Apologetics: Hitler can't help you." from the NONSTAMPCOLLECTOR fits the bill quite nicely. Wellbeing is not claimed, but seems to me would fit in well, and it nicely highlights the problems with the argument that a world full of psychopaths (or if Hitler had won the war, and as a result the world population accepted what the Nazis did as not immoral) would trash atheist morality claims.
@@El_Bruno7510 I wasn't taking the side of WLC. I was just pointing out that he was not just refuting a claim, but thee claim Sam makes in his book: that we can derive a moral system from the scientific analysis of what brings us closer to Well Being. It's a compelling hypothesis. I'm not yet convinced. But I want to be fair. WLC did refute that claim, and Sam didn't know how to rebut that refutation. WLC can get insanely technical so Sam did the wise thing to ignore it and go on building his framework, counting on the fact that many of us couldn't fully grasp what he presented as a "knock down argument."
Thanks for the response and the video recommendation.
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.
On 10-27-20 I went to a pentecostal church. I have a long testimony as to why I came to church. Long story short I was a drug addict for 14 years. The day before I went to church I was begging God to heal me. He told me if I came to church the next day He would heal me. I went to church . went straight to the alter and said " God you told me if I came to you today , you would heal me. Here I am Lord." I immediately started speaking in tongues. Then was baptized in Jesus name for the remission of sins. After this I was immediately free from addiction. My mind was completely healed of lonliness, depression, misery and much more. Jesus is real. Acts chapter 2 verse 38. It happened to me. It's very real. I was born again. It's real. Jesus is real. I have understanding now. He uncovered my eyes and unplugged my ears. Thank you Jesus. Everyone needs the Holy ghost !
God bless you brother.
@@justahillbilly7777 thank you ! God bless you too !
Awesome! Now we have to be a light to the world with Jesus as our leader
Hii fellow pentocostyl!!! 👋
Great story. Thanks for sharing your testimony. And you are right, It is very real.
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?
Low Bar Bill, the deluded apologist that "lowers the evidence required for HIS God" and has admitted that NOTHING could convince him that the message "written on his heart by God" was a delusion. Do people really still take this guy seriously?
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Is that a cut and paste? The same verbiage but do you have any actual evidence? I thought not!!!
@@El_Bruno7510 DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST?
People reject the resurrection of Jesus not because they have studied the Historical evidence and found it lacking but rather if He did rise from the dead then He is God and that means your sexual lifestyle must change radically. For most people on the face of the planet this is why they reject Jesus as God.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 No I do not. There is no evidence that such an event ever took place. The story has clearly been taken from earlier stories and is completely against anything a rational person should believe. It would require extraordinary evidence for me to believe such an event happened - and that should be the case for anyone else.
You are wrong. People reject the resurrection because there is not compelling historical evidence other than in the eyes of those that already believe anyway.
"that means your sexual lifestyle must change radically. For most people on the face of the planet this is why they reject Jesus as God." is simply a laughably deluded thing to write.
Many years ago I was an atheist and watched this for the first time. I thought Craig was petulant and circular, and Harris was cool, rational and sounded like closest to truth.
Now I found my way back to Christ and, by watching this again, Craig is suddenly very deep, makes sense and seems closest to truth; and Harris looks like the overly cold, arrogant and somehow incomplete talker.
Craig believes the universe was created for Christians and you call Harris arrogant?
You prove that religion gives you confirmation bias,
@@Oldtinear Or it it Atheism that gives confirmation bias? Or both?
@@racebannon5523 Reductio ad ridiculum and fallacy of the single cause. Weak rhetoric.
@@alwaysask Atheists are sceptical of claims, and therefore less prone to confirmation bias than those who believe in invisible supernatural beings, We have all heard of people, following a plane crash, who say God caused them to miss the plane by making their car/taxi late, or by inserting misgivings in their minds. So they believe God intervened to save ONE person, but did not intervene to save the 300 who died in the crash. This is classic confirmation bias.
Don’t act like you don’t recognize that brilliant introduction from the undergraduate student.
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.
Thank you for the invite
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
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!
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!
The guy I agree with completely HUMILIATED the guy I don’t agree with
No, no no! It was the other way around!
@@Oldtinear😂
Most atheists think that a human being can be good enough without God/Jesus wisdom (laws, commandments), but they do not want to quit ALL their bad addictions to be really good humans, as the Creator wants us to be, and they do not want to love (care about) the others as they love (care about) themselves, as the true Christians do. Their idea of good is way too low than what it should be, and that is why so many people are still far from Heaven (they do not recognize their bad deeds).
@@filmeseverin most atheists are goobers
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
My favourite participants in this debate were the pedantic moderator and his beloved time keeper.
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."
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
Yup, if God doesn't exist then there is no objective morality in it's core. But who said that we need one? Maybe we should stop being cowards and accept that we build our future and ideas, and that we don't need an imaginary creature to do that for us. Accepting that is the real moral responsibility. To rationalize it with some ideology beings is running away from that responsibility.
We could do that right now, but unfortunately, the world is ruled by God Believers such as Christians, Muslims, Hindus and other God-fearing religions who all disagree with one another as to whose God is the greater or real God that such a proposal would never get of the ground, let alone even be debated. The only real solution that any of them offer is to find a reason to engage the disbelievers in a war so that their God can then wipe out all the opposition voices and force them into a position of self-confession that they were wrong to believe in their faith and thus convert to the religion of their victors. A practice that many conquerors such as the Greeks, Romans, Muslim and Christian civilisations have been doing for centuries. Nothing has changed in over 3000 years and in 3000 years time, I seriously doubt if it will either. Religious belief in a Supernatural God is a disease for which there is no cure.
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.
Ben Stiller VS David Lee Roth.. Thats crazy!!
Lauro Neto lol
Spot on! Hysterical!
Good one lol
Ha!
Hahahaha, you are so right!
FACT : revelations states unequivocally that ONLY 144,000 male virgins get to go to heaven.
Source: Revelations 14: verse 1-5
@@drrydog That reminds me of, I think it was a Family Guy episode, where some extreme Muslim terrorists end up in 'Heaven', looking forward to the virgins they will have the pleasure of, and it is full of nerdy men.
😂
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 That's a stream of verbiage! Make it coherent?
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 🤣
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.
I disagree with both of them in regards to objective morality; morality is subject to change based on culture, social upbringing, and the historical era you were born in. In less sophisticated terms, morality is founded in the eye of the beholder.
Many prominent figures will argue that objective morality exists to avoid criticism from the ignorant population.
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.
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.
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
Sam won
Debate starts 0:07:53
MVP
Relative to an atheist: Sam Harris showed his wisdom, and William Lane Craig showed his foolishness.
Relative to a Christian: William Lane Craig showed his wisdom, and Sam Harris showed his foolishness.
The idea of moral atheists is an untenable position although an admirable one. The natural world could not possibly have dictated Sam Harris' morals and he knows it. That line of logic cannot possibly support most of the ethical positions he upholds.
@@rainmaker6261 That is so wrong. Sorry, that is way off base.
God loves you so much he made a hell for you just in case you didnt love him back
👍 And that’s how they make holy water: they boil the hell out of it.
_“In the last times there will be people who laugh about God, following their own evil desires which are against God.”_ As time goes, scoffers will be more and more. They don’t desire to know the truth.
Regarding hell, apparently, atheists have not read in full at least the New Testament.
Just an example: _"For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell, placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)- if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. Such punishment is specially reserved for those who indulge the corrupt desires of the flesh and despise authority. Bold and self-willed, they are unafraid to slander glorious beings. Yet not even angels, though greater in strength and power, dare to bring such slanderous charges against them before the Lord. These men are like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be captured and destroyed. They blaspheme in matters they do not understand, and like such creatures, they too will be destroyed. The harm they will suffer is the wages of their wickedness."_
Therefore, the question is: Why so many were/are opposing to the main advice from Jesus Christ: to strive always for goodness, wisdom, justice... perfection? *_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48
Most probably, because just as it is easier to destroy something useful than to make/build something useful, in the same way it is easier to be evil=stupid than to be good=wise.
@@filmeseverin Sounds like an easy cop out to explain the existence of an all knowing god that he would already know what we were all going to do anyways before he created everything and knowingly formed a hell to ensure people suffer while also already knowing who they WOULD be before he makes any of it right?
Just call the people stupid when they question that. When it creates an ideological fallacy.
If god exists, there is no way he is the evil that christianity wants me to believe he is.
I refuse to believe an all knowing all loving god would create us in way he knows we COULD sin instead of creating us and letting it be obvious he exists and not burn children for eternity simply because they didnt believe in him first.
Or excuse the mass murderer just because he repents and lets them go to heaven for believing after a massacre over the Hindu man who helped everyone and was peaceful and loving their whole lives but happen to be born and believe another religion that itself predates christianity.
If a God exists the bible and christianity do not have it correct or the whole picture.
@@filmeseverin And please spare me the orginal sin argument from the tale of adam
and eve that this world is the fallen world from eden as justification for a failing imperfect world.
Because that itself is an even more damning argument to judge all creatures in the universe for an apple to eternal hellfire
Sam Harris: there is no objective morality.
Also Sam Harris: objective morality does exist.
Atheists really do fail on this morality topic, plus the problem of consciousness
@@-Ahmed8592 failing on one point isn't bad compared to failing on all others.
The problem is that religion is dragging the conversation to morality with some kind of believe that the books give some kind of sense for it. But let's face it.... If you'd live your life to the bibles moral standard, it would not work in today's age
'Sam Harris: there is no objective morality... objective morality does exist.'
I think you are distorting what he says. How about you quote his actual words honestly?
@@Oldtinear how about being honest with yourself instead of trying to deny something so obvious
@@75daddygonzo So you have no actual words he said to back up your claim. Fine. What you assert without evidence can be dismissed the same way.
"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?
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.
losing my faith gave me flashbacks to all the movies id watched where the bad guy tells the good guy they are a lot alike
That was good old Hollywood morality aka Eastern mysticism of light and dark, opposites forming a whole etc.
Both are needed in a whole measure.
I'm praising the Lord cause Jesus set me free
No, he didn't.
So if he jailed you- which is an easy argument to make - he jailed and halted the potential of your intellect to grow to enquire and improve - you would not believe in Jesus and or god? This is not being religious…
😂
Nope, in your case it’s the guy who helped you out of your straight-jacket that set you free!
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 🤷
@@TheCatsafricanSuch person would never open his ear to opposing views, does he? Maybe it's you who is blinded by your need to disbelieve in God, that no matter the evidence or reason based argument fails to appeal to your senses. Think about it
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?
He seems to be very keen that because God exists, there is morality, and he knows this, because God exists, and he knows that, because morality exists.
Really crazy.
What a strawman. William Lane Craig's belief in God is predicated in logic and reason, it is independent of morality. Learn a bit more buddy before calling someone crazy.
@@Anskurshaikh he has absolutely no logic behind his position.
You cannot logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
He did not come to be part of his religion through study and education. He was indoctrinated.
Any argument he can make for his religious beliefs are proof of all other religions as well. They're absurd, and illogical.
@@Anskurshaikh Where's God, fucker?
@@Fr_87 Why are you so angry?
@@kuuphone3193 Thanks for 4 strawmen. Genetic fallacy, strawman fallacy, genetic fallacy, strawman fallacy, appeal to the stone fallacy. How he came to believe belief X is irrelevant to the legitimacy of belief X. On the last one, it's irrelevant because the debate is 'Does God Exist', not Yahweh. To get to Yahweh, you need to establish there is a God first, you know this, and that is what this debate is for.
I would ask Dr Craig a simple question: why should morality flow from an invisibile source for which we have zero evidence? How can we have a human society where we rely on each other to honestly provde goods and services without some form of moral system (i.e. you must pay for your goods otherwise the person who produced them does not have the resources to produce them and the food you stole will only last you a little while before you need them again?)
Morality does not flow from an invisible source for which you cannot provide evidence. It is the result of the needd of a community living together.
If you're the sole being in your universe and can have anything you want simply for the asking, morality becomes meaningless. It only has meaning for a group of interdependent people.
Now the problem is that people generally need some authority figure to keep things organized and enforce laws. And oftentimes those authority figures who are also human invent some sort of God or deity system to keep people in line. And there you have where religion and God and morality suddenly become intertwined (if you do not do as i say you are disobeying God and are going to hell!) and theres the birth of people like Will Craig who think that God and morality are intertwined.
"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."
LOVE YOU SAM, AN EX-MUSLIM FROM IRAN.
My best friend, Barsam, is an Iranian who (and his father) left Iran because they were going to be executed or something for leaving Islam and becoming Agnostic and Christian (Barsam became Agnostic, his father Christian).
Do you still live in Iran?
My friend and his father immigrated to Australia.
@@pepper9905 YES I AM .
@@omarkhodammi7132 well, good luck.
@@pepper9905 SO MANY IRANIAN AGENTS ARE AFTER ME, BUT SO FAR THEY COULD NOT GET HOLE OF ME, BUT MANY OF MY FRIENDS ARE IN PRISON OR DISAPPEARED.
@@pepper9905 SO MANY IRANIAN AGENTS ARE AFTER ME, BUT SO FAR THEY COULD NOT GET HOLE OF ME, BUT MANY OF MY FRIENDS ARE IN PRISON OR DISAPPEARED.
Didn't agree with everything Ben Stiller said. But wouldn't buy a second hand car from Murray Hamilton.
I never would have got that joke if I hadn't watched Jaws 2 yesterday.
Hahahaha
Hilarious
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg
"You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion."
- Unknown
Both history and the current times have proved that all evil between humans has been done by those without *true* belief in God/Jesus. An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature, which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%. All faiths combined - minus Islam - have caused less than 4% of all of humanity’s wars and violent conflicts. Further, they played no motivating role in the major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life. The truth is, non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for nearly all of humankind’s wars. Lives lost during religious conflict pales in comparison to those experienced during the regimes who wanted nothing to do with the idea of God.
*In this short earthly life humans have to learn their lesson: to use freedom only for good, to strive always for perfection.*
After hearing the truth about/from God/Jesus, only those who want to use freedom for evil are opposing to Divinity, feeling their freedom restricted, the really good humans being happy to receive the confirmation for their love of / striving for goodness, wisdom, justice... perfection, as Jesus Christ has said:
*_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48
Unfortunately, too many people have refused over history, and too many still refuse nowadays, to follow this.
Anyway, it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan did 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.*
Religion-speak is word salad with delusion for a dressing.
Atheists and, generally, the superficial people do not think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process until nowadays proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process.*
They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.
They think that a human being can be good enough without God/Jesus wisdom (laws, commandments), but they do not want to quit ALL their bad addictions to be really good humans, as the Creator wants us to be, and they do not want to love (care about) the others as they love (care about) themselves, as the true Christians do. Their idea of good is way too low than what it should be, and that is why so many people are still far from Heaven (they do not recognize their bad deeds).
I wish only well to everyone and as much wisdom as possible for everyone! To be saved! *_"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
“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.
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 🗑
@@AwesomeWrench 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?
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?
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.
William "I'm sorry I didn't hear the part of your question that destroyed me" Craig
Last night I watched his 2014 debate with Keith Parsons... man, I haven't seen Jesus get butchered that badly since Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.
@Achilleskneel Does apologetics really need discrediting?
Achilleskneel To me, it’s a pretty futile endeavour. There is no way to show that the Bible (or any book) is the word of God.
@Achilleskneel I don't know what the "scientific approach to understanding our humanity" is.
@Achilleskneel To my mind, every concept or system of "morality" is a creation or decision of an individual or group of individuals. A person or group of people can base their concept or system of "morality" on whatever ideas or ideals they wish, and they can argue as to whose basis is more valid, but at the end of the day it is simply a decision that individuals and groups of individuals choose to make.
Personally, I do not find the so-called moralities of Christianity, Judaism and Islam to be very reasonable or consistent. (Nor do I subscribe to divine command theory as a satisfactory basis of "morality".) Nevertheless, I acknowledge that these religions can help people to live better lives (i.e. cause less net harm and more net happiness) than they otherwise might do.
Pointing out the absurdities of religions is in my mind very relevant to this debate. Harris simply points out that the moral values we get from religion is a bad example of moral values, and that it's easy to come up with better ones.
Maybe Craig made arguments that weren't always responded to, but in the end the arguments were always "this is how it is, because God"
@@robinsondicoca1059 you quoted from Ephesians 6 to make a point that slaves should "obey" their masters...did you know that in the same chapter (Ephesians 6) "masters" are also told to "obey" their slaves?? Verses 5-8 list all the things that the "slaves" should do...the chapter did not end at what the slaves should do...it continues...in the same chapter, verse 9👇👇👇👇
"Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Don’t threaten them; remember, you both have the same Master in heaven, and he has no favorites. "
@@robinsondicoca1059 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."--exodus 21:16
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."---Galatians 3:28
Stop doing with the Bible what the evil slavers did...they picked out verses and twisted them to fit their evil deeds. Context is key.
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)
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.
@@sebastiantorker4930 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.
@@sebastiantorker4930 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.
The kid talking about god coming to him is amazing I love him. I want to hug the kid talking about gay marriage.
I want to pray for him and remind him that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light and that God never contradicts His word (objectively; you do not have to believe this, of course-you have the freedom to be an idiot who is wrong).
yea he was pretty funny, and i got the point he was trying to make. if he had posed it as an honest question, i’d be interested to hear craig’s attempt at a retort.
@@kooldudematt1 Yeah because not believing that there is an invisble person named satan dressing up and another invisible person called an angel and another invisible person named god makes you an idiot that is wrong...
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
new game: drink everytime Craig says "moral values and duties", I'll call the ambulance.
"Moral doodies."
😂😂😂
New new game: drink every time Harris says "maximize well-being". Still gonna need that amby.
Omg so funny. Your mind immediately goes to a drinking game over a moral debate. Who cares if he said it a hundred times in a moral debate. Grow up troll
The fundamental flaw in Wm Craig's argument is that he arbitrarily defines God as "good, loving, kind, the ultimate perfection of good." But this is his subjective definition of God. He has just declared via fiat that a perfectly "good God" exists, but all we have is Craig's word for it. And the evidence is to the contrary--the essence of life on earth is that it depends on death for its survival. Creatures must kill and eat other creatures to survive. Many creatures spend their entire waking lives stalking prey to kill in order to survive. Is that the handiwork of a perfectly "good" creator? And the biblical God is not very moral--he is jealous, quick to anger, demanding of worship and adoration, supportive of slavery, demanding blood sacrifice as a condition of forgiveness. None of this is what a typical human would define as "good." So Craig's claim that God is perfectly good and an absolute standard for morality is just his wishful thinking.
Wrong. The “perfectly good god” is what theist claim and not atheist. So with that fact now known, you should see your error in your statement.
@@iam604 I think that is what OP is saying.
@@LGpi314 OP?
@@iam604 original poster. OP
I think this is spot on.
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?
At 1:26:00, when accused by Harris to merely define God as good, Craig attempts a logical argument. Listen for the following "logical" argument (you have to hear it to believe he's actually saying it):
1. God is a being worthy of worship
2. Any being not worthy of worship is not God
3. Therefore [an implication of the form 1 & 2 => 3] God must be perfectly good.
I have not had much formal education in logic, but ... DAMN!
Yah that busted my mind when noticing most of the comment are saying craig is the winner..his stand is illogical and flaws in so many ways
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?
I've been watching this video for years. Never gets old Sam's just a genius in reason and logic.
Belief in a particular god is totally subjective.
Next please.
Craig: “The Taliban are immoral because I think they’ve got the wrong god”
The problem with this debate is that Harris and Craig seem to be working on different definitions of god. I think Harris assumes that by god we mean merely the creator of the universe, whereas Craig defines god to be the source and expression of all moral goodness.
And with that definition, all of Craig’s arguments are circular.
@@richardhunt809 Craig does not define God as only that.He was debating morality and how God pertains to it.
The issue of the debate is about the presence or absence of a valid morality without God
Adults debating whether or not angels and fairies are real. Mind blowing.
lmao that's a funny way of putting it.
@@peppr115 the dude asking that question had to try his hardest not to laugh he was trolling dr. Craig so hard😂😂
@@peppr115 but yeah exactly he doesn’t even try to give an answer to that question bc there’s nothing he can say given his own beliefs of experiencing the bliss god that can rebut what that dude said.
@@peppr115 I thought his stutters were him trying to not laugh but I think he actually has a stutter problem. Regardless his question was still really amazing very funny
I guess you dont realize you are in the extreme minority of people now and throughout history of Gods existence. Not quite as smart as you think you are.