The Real Story Behind Dr. Craig's Debate with Christopher Hitchens
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- I got the opportunity to ask Dr. Craig about his widely known debate with Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God. It was interesting to hear a little background about the famous discussion.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodworker.com/pages/... (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #19...
🎤 Link to the Hitchens Debate: • Does God Exist? Willia...
⭐ The Reasonable Faith TH-cam: / reasonablefaithorg
Reasonable Faith's Website: www.reasonablefaith.org/
Dr. Craig's Books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/William-Lane-C...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Did you watch the Craig v. Hitchens debate? What were your thoughts?
It was painful, was hoping for a good fight.
So, uh... Where can I get that mug?
Let's put it this way: there is definitely a reason why Hitchens decided to forfeit his right to give a closing statement. Dr. Craig had the first and last word!
I did watch it, but don't remember when. I'd never been impressed or cowed by Hitchens and his followers because they rely on fallacies, and it's really quite childish. There are reasonable arguments in support of atheism, but in the end it boils down to faith - you respond to the grace or you don't. When I prayed to respond to the grace I underwent conversion, and that eventually brought me back to the Church. This debate aided me in my journey.
Hearing William Lane Craig in your interview castigate the use of ‘rhetoric’ by Christopher Hitchens was a rather surreal experience. Hitchens was of course a wonderful rhetorician, employing words to express his very clear message that all religions are equal and equivalent glimpses of the untrue. Your interviewee has thrived entirely on rhetoric, with no appreciation of facts, in order to keep the God (and we all know which one he means) in which he believes alive in his mind and in that of other equally susceptible humans’ minds. It is an absolute disgrace that this empty rhetorician called Craig is still allowed on shows such as yours, without pushback that Hitchens would have easily and conclusively provided were he still around to face such cowardly attacks such as Craig’s, and indirectly yours. Rhetoric plus facts seems to me the way to go. Rhetoric only, as in the case of the ever-smug yet cowardly Craig, seems to me a wrongheaded way to go.
I'm a Christian who came to respect Christopher for his charm, even as provocative as he could be. It made me sad just now to learn that he's died.
Charm? You see another man than I do, he was rude and more concerned with form than substance, as is fitting for an atheist.
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts Was he wrong though?
So youre late to the game on both christopher and gods non existence.
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts you cant have substance without a form to put it in. Thats just your bias thinking there was no substance to hitchens arguments. Athiests are not homogenous just like christians. Sll that is meant by atheism is a disbelief towards deity, nothing more nothing less. When you die just like before you were born. Nothingness.
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts Agreed! A brilliant demagogue but sadly at times uninterested in the truth. The best example of that was his debate with his brother Peter.
1:38 hearing WLC using the term “bamboozled” in his vocabulary is something I didn’t know I needed
Same
It's a perfectly legitimate word.
On every video that is about atheism vs theism the comment section is full of theists saying the theist won and the atheists saying the atheist won. Idk what it is but for some reason confirmation bias is brought to the max for topics like this.
I remember that debate for two things. WLC's argument; 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2 The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Is that an equivocation fallacy? And CH's assertion that he's not evidence for God therefore God doesn't exist. Is that a non sequitur fallacy?
It's a high risk topic
It’s because people don’t like challenges to their worldview. Challenges like that are uncomfortable and can easily lead to questions that throw their entire understanding of reality into question. It’s not a fun place to be.
Also, and with a heavier weight, most people simply don’t understand actual philosophical argumentation. Theists tend to make arguments based on non-axiomatic assumptions (eg, taking the existence of God for granted, relying on infallibility of Scripture without arguing for it), and atheists often inject emotional appeal, condescension, or (as WLC puts it here) purple prose.
We are talking about issues that are fundamental to people's existence and how they give their lives meaning. Of course people on both sides are going to exhibit confirmation bias, they're holding on to their worldview with everything they have.
@Caratacus it is dependent on a definition of “performing well”. Religious arguments are largely cyclical and this showed several times in the debate on Craig’s part.
God certainly used this debate in my life. It was the first time I heard a Christian give reasons for his faith. It was my introduction in apologetics and, by that, a stronger faith. Because I was really doubting my faith when I saw that debate. Craig did an amazing job!
Same here
Craig is a pseudo intellectual
@@Bsknten Then I guess it takes one to know one.
@@Bsknten Absolutely 💯
Christopher absolutely destroyed Craig in the department of logic, validity and soundness.
I guess if you want to give points to both side Craig was "good" at faith...
Whatever that amounts to in the end.
Thank you for having the courage to speak the truth. ♡
@@mertalrooth01 LMAO What did you just said? You gotta be a stand up comedy guy or something.
Pretty memorable debate for me. I was literally just starting to study about these topics coming from an apatheist background. First watched clips of Hitchens and thought " Wow, this guy knows his stuff"
Then a few days later, watched some xlips of WLC and thought "I've never heard a Christian talk this way before". Watched the debate, then went even further down the rabbit hole.. Good times.
I remember I was huge on the new atheism wave back in those days. It just seemed to control the narrative at the time and the culture of libertarianism was trending politically towards too. (This evolved into the modern Leftist wokeism today.) It was huge on Facebook, 4Chan, Reddit, everywhere. As an atheist at the time, I saw it with an opened mind and I clearly had a bias towards Dr. Craig, and although at the time I felt in my heart (not logically) that Hitchens still provided better rhetoric, Dr. Craig planted some seeds in my mind about Christianity that I was going to have to be intellectually honest about as I connected the arguments with a historical, ethical, and political context of what the maximal good in society and man is. Atheism as the "a prior" worldview has produced no good fruits I would come to find out.
Fast forwarded to now, I can see that most if not all popular-level atheist thinkers and influencers just rely on post-enlightenment philosophical paradigms that have been shaky at best. The new atheists starting with Russell have not provided any new arguments against the existence of God since the enlightenment, and even those rationalist thinkers just regurgitated the same talking points that were popularized during the late middle ages. I re-watched the debate and the debate really is just sort of frustrating to watch from a philosophical perspective, even more so with a classical theist worldview because Hitchens doesn't understand any of it nor retorts any of the core argumentative axioms that Dr. Craig presented.
Now to add some feedback for Dr. Craig, I respect Dr. Craig immensely, but until modern apologetics takes a classical theist approach and gets out of the enlightenment paradigm of philosophical "a priori" reductionism (analytical/continental philosophy), it will always cede way too much ground to atheists before it even takes off, accepting their definition of nature and probabilistically arguing for God within an internally materialistic cosmos. Might I add, Aristotelian Metaphysics remains a minority viewpoint among most Christians today. Until Thomism becomes a Dominant force within Philosophy, Swinburne's inductive account will be "superior" to Aquinas' supposed metaphysical demonstrations.
I’m so glad you are no longer atheist. That’s a very interesting comment.
I was a theist for 50 years. Heavily into apologetics. Learning the bible deeper is what woke me up to this narrative that just doesn't make sense. No longer can I defend this religion
@@lawrenceeason8007 What deconverted you?
@@ethanm.2411 Mainly:
1. No solid evidence for a god
2. The extensive immorality
3. Significant contradictions. Like a god who condemns you for the sexual desire he designed in you
Some of the main things
@@lawrenceeason8007 This is an extremely shallow view of Christianity.
1) What kind of evidence did you look for?
2) What immorality?
3) What contradictions? Your example does not regard the sinful nature of mankind.
Where did you learn this from?
As a Christian, I have to say I did like Hitchens, as a person, not a debater. I found someone with so many of the same concerns I had, willing to stand for his beliefs, but hard to convince for sheer effect of will. Before Christ, I was much the same.
saying that hitchens has no idea of these things is the most cocky statement anyone ever uttered. Disagreeing is fine, but saying that hitchens doesn't know his stuff is just straight up delusional.
As an atheist, I feel WLC was the better debater (eventhough I think he's wrong). His arguments were better formulated, and pointed out that Hitchens didn't quite address them at all. However, WLC also completely missed the points Hitchens made. In the Q&A part he posed questions that H clearly stated during his talk.
Even so, I feel WLC's arguments are still very unconvincing to non-believers, and only strengthen the faith if you already have it.
If we can only talk about god with philosophical methods and not scientific ones. Then what's the point in believing that god actually exists.
@@JDG1301 Exactly. My eyes rolled every time Craig said (more or less) “I’m making a logical philosophical argument about the existence of God, not an evidentiary argument” as if that was supposed to support his claims...
@@slickmullet3891 : is it possible that God exists?
@@JDG1301 Probably because science isn't the only way to discover truth
@@slickmullet3891 There's plenty of evidence that God exists. The Bible is a good start. The New Testament is a historical text. After that look into Eucharistic miracles.
I watched the debate. I am a Catholic, and I really enjoyed the debate. I appreciate Hitchens's swagger and charisma, and he can sure turn a phrase.
Honestly, I did find the debate challenging. It is true, that in the sense of an academic debate, Craig won, clearly -- he always stays on topic, he never gets distracted, and Hitchens did almost nothing to address Craig's points . And yes, Hitchens was basically always only a rhetorician. In a lot of ways, this debate (and Craig's debate with Sam Harris) felt like two very intelligent respectable people, just talking past each other, rather than actually debating one another.
All the same, they say arguments don't make converts -- that no one was ever philosophically/logically 'argumented' into belief in Christ. It's always ultimately issues of the heart and soul that really make the difference.
I feel that Hitchens played his part well in that sense, though as an atheist. I do not think his points were purely path-etic (that is, merely emotional pleas). But, I do think the unrefined, perhaps cynical points Hitchens made had a pithiness behind them, in the lingering sense, that Craig's clearly correct academic points did not.
Honestly, I used to find it hard to understand why someone would be an atheist. And, me personally, I am trying to be the best Christian I can be, and live out my sainthood every day. But, it was debates like this (and the Sam Harris debate) that made it clear to me why people might be atheists, even if I obviously disagree.
Hopefully that will give me some common ground at least, if I find myself witnessing to/dialoging with an atheist.
There is a lot of wisdom in what you wrote here Matthew. And please continue to fight vigorously to instill Jesus in you everyday, light is the combatant of darkness... not argument. Argument is a catalyst for light to transfer, but if the spirit you carry isn’t of light your arguments, no matter how compelling and eloquent their construction, will prove unyielding.
You said it seems these new atheist Craig debates have a lot of talking past one another to which I agree. I’m sure you’ve lived long enough to observe that 99.99% of debates or arguments, in the public or popular forum, divulge to talking past opposition.
So I don’t think the purpose of these debates is to win Hitchens or Harris over as much as it is to demonstrate on film that, at the highest level of scholarship, Christianity holds its own and beyond with any worldview.
God has and will continue to use Craig to demonstrate this. Not only will Craig’s work be important in the conversions of many many people, but it will also be important to many who find themselves low on faith in the church, and in need of seeing how faith stands, even against the new atheists who carry a demeaning and condescending facade of intellectualism- who eye roll and look down upon the primitive fairy tales of the Bible since they couldn’t possibly be true.
The purpose is to combat the present, yet nonsensical, societal belief that faith cannot be intellectual.
Craig’s work is indeed of God and many will be helped and saved via the work God has done through him- and many other great apologists of course.
For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Philippians 2:13
@@JoshuaTCoe Romans 14:22 "The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves". Take a cue from your own book and stop proselytizing.
"Craig won, clearly"
That's according to everyone who already agree with him (Christians)
You'll probably find that most atheists regard Hitchens as the "winner"
@@mablesfatalfable6021 I'm not on Reddit or Twitter. And I don't know what "midwits" is supposed to mean. Try using proper words.
@@olivertatlow8537 Not really. Hitchens did not address Craig's points for the most part, so there's no way of 'winning' that way.
Even if you regard Craig's arguments as silly, you still need to logically refute them.
Hitchens didn't do it and just used sophistry instead (very useful for clicks, but not in formal debates).
NOBODY who interviews Craig ever talks about his loss to Shelly Kagan. We really need him to speak about this publicly
He answered a q&a about it.
I think Dr. Craig had talked about this in the Ben Shapiro Show.
@@loveyourneighborandenemy967 was that the one where the atheist insisted he go first?
Btw shelly seems like a nice guy
@@educationalporpoises9592 yea I think
Put the section where he imitated Dawking! WLC had me laughing out loud
Dawking?
@@williamaitken4544 Second cousin of Dawkins
@@williamaitken4544 Fusion of Hawking and Dawkins
Should have been an octave or so higher but well what ever, was still funny haha
I am an atheist and loved that debate
Why are you an atheist?
@@Israel_Vazquez Because I haven't found any argument for the existence of a deity that was convincing to me.
@@alexsch2514 so what do you believe then? I've seen plenty of evidence for the biblical God, but none supporting atheism or naturalism
@@Israel_Vazquez I believe in very few things. I am even uncertain about my own existence and the existence of the universe. I only make a few very basic unsupported assumptions because without them practical thought would be impossible.
1) reality exists
2) through reason and evidence reality can be explored
And I am very skeptical about those basic assumptions as already said, but in order to make any further thought we must assume those.
To say that you have seen plenty of evidence for the biblical God is quite interesting, I, for example, have never seen evidence of any deity. And by the way, so misunderstanding doesn't arise, my definition of deity is "a non physical being in control of one or multiple aspects of nature"
@@alexsch2514 do you understand absolute truth?
Even as an atheist I have to say that Hitchens lost that debate. Hitchens had a lot to say about the harm religion does, but not so much about the existence of God, which is a different question. While I don't find WLC's arguments convincing at least he presented them well structured and Hitchens didn't counter them properly.
It was an entertaining debate. I am not a fan of people who skip the basics of science like energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Find evidence of how energy came to be before ascribing that there was nothing at the beginning of the universe. As far as I can tell the “nothing” at the beginning of the universe is a no evidence myth.
Maybe energy was created, but without being able to genuinely answer that energy has a beginning, the premise of only god could have created it and created it out of nothing is super premature.
This was the debate that intellectually set the foundation for me to become a Christian
Hitch won on rhetoric.
Craig won by substance.
It was a an amazing blockbuster type of debate it was great.
So many atheists in this comment section are so butthurt about hearing Hitchens having lost the debate.
I forgot the content of it, but I do remember recently watching a video by CosmicSkeptic, who pointed out that Hitchens weapons werent arguments, they were rhetoric and sophistry.
That's what baffles me as well.
People going from rhetoric and never ever stopping in hopes to get emotional high ground so that you have to agree with them or pose as horrible person.
Does it remind anything, hmmmm?
Craig did the best job I’ve seen in a debate with Hitchens, and I was frustrated that Hitchens didn’t directly answer some of his challenges, but Craig’s argument was extremely flawed, although it sounded great. He foolishly ends his organized argument, which he repeats, with the idea that he has felt God through experience, which is laughable after saying belief in a God is the more rational worldview. He also uses teleological arguments that are widely disputed and convenient for a God believers.
You are overlooking the fact that one's experience can coincide with the more rational world view. In fact, if one's experience is real, then it will necessarily coincide with the more rational world view. So your laughing is based on a false dichotomy.
Hitchens was a joy to listen to and that was the only reason I watched that debate.
However it was pointless, as all debates with christian apologists are.
They play in 'god mode', and every gamer knows that's cheating.
They argue in an abstract world, void of need for proof for their outlandish claims.
Their 'evidences' are clearly unsubstantiated and even nonsensical assumptions.
WLC is nothing more than a stale 'god of the gaps' debater.
WLC stating that there's a law of causality (everything needs a cause) isn't even a principle in science.
However, for some unsubstantiated reason, WLC stops at god; apparently he doesn't need a cause.
It's not because one can concieve something in the mind (abstract) that it becomes true, reasonable or a better explanation.
The premise that god doesn't need a cause was never demonstrated by WLC.
Nor the something from nothing etc...
In football (soccer), when you are offside, the goal is invalid.
But for some reason christian apologists believe they are allowed to score from offside.
They can cheer all they want in the illusion they "won" but deep down they know they cheated and won nothing at all except for the trophee of dishonesty.
Isn’t it unnerving to some Christian listeners understanding that this is a confession to the fact that nobody has stood there ground under the scrutiny of debate with the most well known atheist thinkers of the last 2 decades to the point that a decent showing from one Christian amounts for them to a sign from god ( apparently they don’t see that as a flaw in their positions intellectually).More to the point should you not allow your attention to be drawn to the fact that Craig’s inability to present evidence for a Christian God over any other divinity owing to the fact that nobody knowing what happened at the beginning of the universe is a basis for uncertainty not a Christian world view isn’t exactly great for a man who thinks he bested an opponent in debate who effectively pointed this out thus reducing Craig’s case to a rhetorical balancing act even though god was supposed to be settling the score with the atheist community for their numerous victories. Based on that isn’t it the height of hypocrisy that they are claiming victory for the Christian cause based on Craig’s skilled rhetoric that failed to rise to the provision of evidence for God while claiming that Hitchens who spoke from his understanding of theology and science and who pointed out this very issue in Craig’s case during the debate is essentially a peddler of rhetoric.
@@Another_Caesar hitchens did not object to his positions even, just went in a totally different direction and ignored everything craig said.
I forgot the content of the WLC vs Hitchens debate but wasnt the Kalam Cosmological Argument part of it?
If so, then I do think that Hitchens doesnt understand it. Neither do you.
Because, the only entity which could create the universe is one that is timeless, spacelss, matterless, doesnt change, and personal or something like that.
So regardless of whether you call that God or not, fact is, you cant find evidence with any scientific method, because all scientific tools and methods are based on time, space and matter and require time, space and matter to analyze.
At this point WLC likes to swing the discussion/debate towards Jesus Christ and his Resurrection, for which there are like 20 or so sources, which support the Christian claim.
And from there he can infer that the only thing that makes that possible is said entity.
And we Christians call this entity God.
Interesting how people can have so different perspectives on the outcome of that debate.
It was the only debate Hitchens lost when it came to religion, which is some achievement, considering the amount of debates he had throughout his life.
I saw the part of the debate where Craig assumed all of his own points and shifted the burden of proof onto Hitchens to disprove them, but I missed the part where Hitchens got trounced.
He always says ‘if you believe x is possible then that proves theism, Christopher hasn’t proven it impossible, therefore god’.
But wait, Craig never shows that x is even possible. He just assumes it. So, why should anyone have to prove x impossible?
That is a perfect description.
@@sjd1446 yep that is exactly the case. Craig is allowed to just make arbitrary postulates and move on with no justification, but Hitchens has to prove god does not exist - can Craig prove Zeus does not exist?
@@JackChessa Pathetic argument!
Great clip! Getting myself a Catholic Woodworker Rosary now
Abbandon idolatry and come to JESUS
@@boriserjavec6470 What are you talking about? Catholics were with Jesus thousands of years before your heretical "church" even existed, whoever you are
David Gonzalez you shouldn’t sir, the idea that “catholicism was in the beginning” does not line up with what He taught the apostles. Historically that has been proven, biblically that has been proven. I hope you get out of that jezebel and get with a bible believing church.
Even WLC is not a Roman Catholic for he knows that the RCC is false religion.
For me William stating Christopher had no idea of any good arguments for or against the existence of god is all the evidence and thinking person should need to
That debate was more even than others I've seen Hitchens get involved. But Craig still didn't convince me at least of God's existence.
I think Hitchen did very well against Craig, not being well versed in the apologetics. I'm sure Atheists or people who don't have a great stake on believing in a god will say Hitchen won and believers will day Craig won.
I liked the civility shown by both sides.
The arguments these apologists use are so convoluted and honestly have all been debunked, that I believe that the reason they exist is to give the believer a glimpse of hope that there is a possibility that their God exists, but they certainly aren't convincing to many people who are not already primed with a wish to believe.
I've never met a Christian or any other religious person who has told me that they believe in God because of the Cosmological argument or any other argument that apologists use.
That's true these arguments bring no one to faith, they strengthen those who already have faith.
People believe because they WANT to believe
People disbelieve because they don't WANT to be believers.
I have asked many Christians why they believe this stuff and most answer with more of what they believe. Only one person (of hundreds) said they believed because it made them feel good, which is a reason. Now, I don't not-believe because I don't want to. I simply haven't been shown any good reason to think it's true, so I can't believe it until the evidence shown convinces me. In checking out the origins of the gospels, I am even more convinced that the supernatural claims of Christianity are not true.
I remember that debate for two things. WLC's argument; 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2 The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Is that an equivocation fallacy? And CH's assertion that he's not evidence for God therefore God doesn't exist. Is that a non sequitur fallacy?
WLC's argument is begging the question, he is assuming that the universe had a beginning. So that argument is a non sequitur.
CH isn't saying that god doesn't exist. He's saying that he doesn't believe that god exist because there is no sound evidence that god does exist. It's like arguing whether aliens visit earth or big foot or fairies exist.
@@JDG1301 lol WLC had a list of “worst objections to the Kalam even I couldn’t have come up with” and yours is right smack in the middle
@@JDG1301 “WLC's argument is begging the question, he is assuming that the universe had a beginning. So that argument is a non sequitur.”
It is assuming the universe had a beginning, but that doesn’t make his argument invalid. And it’s not a non sequitur as the conclusion does follow logically from the premises.
“CH isn't saying that god doesn't exist.” Yes, he is. He said he hasn’t found evidence therefore God doesn’t exist; that’s his non sequitur fallacy.
"Is that an equivocation fallacy?" No. It's a basic syllogism. And it holds its ground pretty well.
I watched it many years back and like you Matt I was more than pleasantly surprised to find Hitchens meeting a man who he couldn't really manage. I did like Hitchens in general however against my will mostly which I think might help explain his popularity, he was a likeable rogue. I also am a fan of his brother Peter who is also incredibly intelligent like Christopher was
Hitchens was also quite civil with John Haldane...he had a good nose for what might work in a situation ...a good example was what he thought on being questioned on the human genome...switching the basis of the question to a pre genome world.
Chris had no understanding of the arguments for the existence of God? I guarantee he could explain nearly all of the arguments on the creation side.
@G Will I kind of agree, WLC is an excellent debater, he is a formidable opponent even though he doesn't have a shred of evidence to back up his side of the argument.
Nakadu come to think of it, no adversary of WLC has ever proposed a plausible objection for Professor Craig’s arguments for God’s existence. I don’t think anyone has ever proved God’s inexistence.
@@optimisticdork8380 that's right, because "god" is such a vague term and yes, there could be some sort of creator being.....who knows?.....but the Bible (old and new testament) is easily debunked, which is the same as debunking the Christian god.
@@nakkadu who knows? well, there isn't any alternative when it comes to the origin of the universe. no property of physics had ever existed, and certainly no quantum particles. you're just left with God :v
@@optimisticdork8380 my point is that even if you assume "something" created the universe, and even if you call that thing "God", that's as far as you can take it....religious people pretend to know what "god" wants, they make up stories of heaven and hell, they claim to have absolute morality, etc....that's why I said WLC must be a great debater as he doesn't have any evidence to back up what he says.
I watched that debate just now, having not seen it before, and personally I think Hitchens won it substantively. Don't know how you could come to a different conclusion. Craig was a courteous and amiable debater, but Hitchens was the stronger intellect and the more widely knowledgeable.
Laura Meszaros it’s comments like yours that make me wonder if we’re all experiencing the same things. Dr. Craig was clearly the more impressive intellect and it was abundantly obvious from the moment they walked on the stage. Craig has so much more of a depth of knowledge in philosophy and theology that it was undeniable. Hitchens is a great writer and and an entertaining social critic but in no way is he a sophisticated philosopher or scientist
Even common sense atheism admitted hitchens' defeat
Confirmation bias. That was the debate that converted me from being a life long heavily entrenched athiest. Thay time I decided to approach the debate with a completely open mind.
Hitchens only hurled insults on Christians but he didn't refute piece by piece the arguments of WLC. On the other side, WLC burned the arguments of Hitchens piece by piece. It seems that Hitchens was debating the monster inside his head rather than confronting the intellectual presentations of WLC. Also Hitchens looks tame and sickly in that debate. He can't even close the button on his breast.
I think Matt and Craig should watch the debate again.
Likewise
Why
me three.
Giving credit to God for the hits (re: “the Lord used this debate to counteract the influence of Hitchens...”) and dismissing the misses, apparently. I wonder why he doesn’t similarly think that God is using debates that Craig performs poorly in (i.e. against Shelly Kagan, Sean Carroll, Ray Bradley, Bart Ehrman, perhaps others) to similarly counteract Craig’s influence on people. But really every theist does some version of crediting God for playing a strong role in things that go in their personal favor, and not crediting God for playing a strong role in their personal failures, disappointments, losses, etc.
Have not seen the Bradley or Ehrman debates but Kagan and Carroll were really interesting vs Craig. I wonder what Craig would say about those experiences.
Ehrman clearly lost his debate with Craig so I am not sure what your point is.
@@markrutledge5855 - 😂
Are none of the two protagonists of this clip ashamed of their posture?
WLC doesn’t even understand the definition of an atheist, as became clear in the debate. Hitchens politely trounced him.
that is one laughable characterization of Craig's knowledge of the subject xD
@@mobilegamingexp4402 True - for sure you can't take his argumentation seriously
Thank you for posting this. I was at this debate as a young atheist. Hitchens was very low energy and I left feeling underwhelmed, as did my friends who attended with me. Over a decade later and I now agree with Dr. Craig.
He decidedly did NOT take Hitch to the woodshed. Did you even watch it?
3:15 'Hitchens was a lamb in wolf's clothing.' The thing about Hitchens is that he _always_ goes as low as his interlocutor does --- but Craig didn't go low, so, for the most part, neither did Hitchens.
I must have seen a different debate. WLC got trounced in the one I saw, and am seeing again.
Just watched it last night, Craig put forward a far more coherent case that Hitchens ignored and instead rambled about religious atrocities
Well, to me what Craig did was give reasons why having a God is good, but he never showed evidence for God's existence. Just claims. I think he even admitted there was none. The debate is about God's existence! Show it!
To me, Hitch made his claims and provided evidence that the existence of a God with the qualities given by the world's religions could not fit what we see. He then supported that by outlining religious atrocities.
The man was brilliant
Since I have a foggy memory, I'm gonna watch it again and look for the "more coherent case" you mention . The impression I got of WLC was that he did not address the topic, but I've seen him in other debates so I could have him mixed up with himself. lol
There were one or two points that CH made that WLC didn't address, but I recall CH basically avoiding WLC's entire arguments. I remember it as CH getting stomped out.
But hey, we have our biases.
I sent the Corona
William Lane Craig and David Lee Roth are twins, separated at birth.
When someone says someone is charming never means they are right. Liars can be charming. In fact, there are many reasons to be suspect of a charmer. You can get away with a lot if you can make people laugh.
Hitchens tried to debate God that he didn't even understand. Not in the slightest. And the sad part is that regards all atheists that i've seen. None of them know what the Bible even contains and they are basing their arguments on their bad interpretation. None of them even thought of listening or reading some work of theologists to at least try to understand who God is. And yet they call theists blind believers.
So you have the "right" interpretation then?.....good to know.
@@nakkadu k
@@nakkadu you do realize that interpretations don't differ that much among Christians . Somebody misinterpreting the scriptures is a personal problem . It doesn't mean the text is imperfect it mean the reader is imperfect
@@Israel_Vazquez so YOU have the "right" interpretation then?
@@nakkadu im confident i have it right. The right interpretation is the message the authors were conveying. It's not that hard to discern
How did he win when the vote before it started was 50/50 for who was right and after it was over 70/30 in favour of Hitchens being right, every debate I've seen with this guy in he has not won yet these videos would make it seem like he destroys all these people
Why does it matter if a majority believes something?
I am an atheist and live hitchens. Craig did a much better job than most but I would not say Craig took him to the cleaners. hitchens was never necessarily defeated, but it was a very good debate.
So, William Ln., Craig is declaring himself the winner in the Hitchens debate. Not exactly a totally objective conclusion. I’ve watched that debate three or four times, and that’s certainly not the way I see it.
Hitch is one of my favorite modern thinkers and orators, but he lost that debate. I’ll never forget it because I was a huge fan and thought him invincible. I’ve never seen anyone do that well against Hitch.
@@derek9153 Neither have I, and after watching this debate more than once, I still haven’t.
In what world did he beat him in that debate? It was very obvious that Hitchens made him look ridiculous. Everything Craig said was based on faith, not fact...
Bollocks..even cosmiskeptic admits he lost!!!!
@@lotus9865 Source please? All I've seen is CS showing a flaw in one of Hitchens points. Not that he lost the debate. But, I would like to know if CS did actually say that Hitch lost the entire debate and why. Please provide the link. Thanks
@@billguthrie2218 yeah sure, it's a tricky one, as he admits it in a TH-cam video of his, in a reply to someone's comment! So it's tricky to find, I screenshotted it. But I'll find it and try and described how to find it as accurately as possible
@@lotus9865 I highly doubt CS would say Craig "won" the debate. Depends on what "won" means. I'd have to read and understand the context. Having been a Christian who studied for the ministry, I became painfully aware of Christian disregard for context and nuance to reach inaccurate conclusions.
@@billguthrie2218 Hey bud, I just double checked and CS said that " Craig clearly won" the debate 😂😂😂😂😂😂 and went on to give a mini justification as to why he thought that! Sorry to disappoint! I'm guessing you'll respond saying I'm lying, probably mock me, and then maybe even call out CS! But if you really want me to direct you to it, to humble you once and for all, let me know!
That's an awesome story
Video and time stamp where Dr Craig tells Hitchens to study the arguements lol
th-cam.com/video/2j3VU1T8ALU/w-d-xo.html
1:58:47
The fact that you need to make a video to state you won a debate says enough....
True mate.
Bro the atheists do the exact same thing every time hahahah
Yes and to do it when your opponent can't even respond back says even more...
Craig took Hitchens to the woodshed? Nonsense is the nicest word for that claim. Please. Believe what you like, but extraordinary claims still demand extraordinary evidence, and all Craig had to offer was a pleasant manner and the same old same old. He didn't lay a glove on Hitchens.
What's your evidence for the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The statement sounds cool and catchy, but in reality makes no sense. Why would extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence?
You really need to watch that debate again pal.
@@evancawley3236 I've watched it four times start to finish. I stand by everything I said.
@@davidblackburn3396 I feel like your being very biased there. Did you see the debate between John Lennox and Christopher Hitchens ? What did you make of that?
@@evancawley3236 It's been a while, but if memory serves Lennox just offered the standard boilerplate. Atheism is nihilism, (NO!) without religion the sky would fall, (prove it) and Jesus is a real swell fella, and permit me to now quote a bunch of people who agree with me. As we all know, the number of people who believe a claim, large or small, has no bearing on whether that claim is true. None. My only biases, by the way, are in favor of reason and evidence and against superstition and blind faith.
Craig took Hitchens to woodshed?
Nice joke 🤣
Craig got his butt handed to him.
Hitchens never had an issue being the only heretic in the room, he actually relished it. Nor was he vulgar or profane, even when discussing religion, for which he harboured a needless hatred. As a Hitchens admirer, though one who found him unreasonable and myopic on the topic of faith, I do feel he’s being wholly mischaracterised in this instance. To me, his refusal to publicly denounce Marxism, and the folly of his own advocacy of the ideology, was by far his biggest indiscretion.
Here we go, 'faith' and a hatred of religion, which is usually justified, what is ther not to jhate about make believe.
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 Really?, knowledge is not something you just assert,it has to be demonstrated, we can prove what we know to be true, example, evolution can be proved, there is no evidence for creation. An atheist simply asks for evidence as a default position, therefore cannot be a false premise. Faith is believing something without evidence, and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So without spouting bible verses, where is the evidence for any god?
He says that Hitchens didn't know anything about the subject of god?,....well when its all make believe, that could apply to anyone.
Timothy williams
He didn’t say that at all. Way to twist his words. Such foolery and nonsense. Listen again
@@chrisgagnon5768 You listen again, that's exactly what he said, and was used as an introduction by the smug r sole with the headphones, ''you took him to the woodshed''. No one ever bettered Hitchens because he knew his subject inside out, and easily cornered these charlatand that make a living by lying and pretend to know all the answers,.....''its in Genesis'',.....fantasy land.
Timothy williams
Apparently you didn’t listen again. Stay ignorant I guess. Your loss
@@chrisgagnon5768 Oh I listened, to the make beleive utterings and pontifications of the ignorant, you are obviously hearing impaired.
Timothy williams
He clearly says Hitchens had no understanding of the ARGUMENTS for the existence of God. You stated something different. Take the L and move on.
It’s strange how they think they won the debate, in my view , Hitchens won hands down, and would slap you again, if he was still here!
Jesus told his listeners to love their enemies.
Unfortunately the listeners didn't listen.
Such a great interview. Dr. Craig is amazing. Thanks for having him on!
Clickbait, please do not use his name without him agreeing to this (youll prolly not get it because he died) also Craig's argument is nothing compared to those of Hitchens.
How
Even most atheist philosophers agree that WLC trounced hitch in that debate
Do you know he had cancer for many years and never spoke about it and still did this work while ill.
I watched this debate with a totally open mind. At that time I was just getting into the atheism/theism debates. I have to say that in my opinion W L Craig's arguments only seemed to make sense 'if' his God is real.
For example, using Christ's sacrifice to back up his argument only works if he can provide actual evidence of Christ's actually being miraculous [working miracles] and there is none outside of the Bible.
So I came away feeling that Craig's arguments were not convincing at all?
Christ's sacrifice is a historical fact.
It happened! There many books on it!
Recommend this one:
The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ
You're correct in surmising that the case for Christ only really works if Jesus was actually crucified and then resurrected, not only for WLC in his debates, but for Christianity as a whole.
There's been a flood of revisionist history written about the topic over the last 200 years or so, such that the waters have been muddied to a considerable extent, with many outright lies promulgated about the Gospel account - so it's no wonder so many find the objections from Hitchens, et al, convincing.
The good news is that those who take the subject seriously and investigate the claims both for and against with honesty and integrity do tend to find the holes in the detractors' arguments, as well as the oft times hidden but thoroughly unassailable foundation for the belief in Our Lord's eternal sacrifice.
@@ironymatt
_'those who take the subject seriously'_
I have.
_'investigate the claims both for and against'_
I have.
_'the thoroughly unassailable foundation for the belief in Our Lord's eternal sacrifice'_
There are none to my knowledge despite spending years debating the subject?
My friend, we will have to agree to disagree it seems? 🙄.
@@johnhammond6423 My friend, your disagreement isn't with me, but with 2000 years of scholars and saints, many of whom suffered and died from severe persecution rather than renounce Our Lord. Anyone can say whatever they like on the internet, but you aren't even using question marks correctly.
It is your soul after all, and it's only Jesus who was crucified and resurrected so that your soul may be saved. Perhaps you're mistaken?
@@ironymatt
Errrr, I used a question mark because it was a question?
_'2000 years of scholars and saints, many of whom suffered and died from severe persecution rather than renounce Our Lord'_
And that somehow proves your God is real? [whoops, used a question mark again]
_' Perhaps you're mistaken?'_
perhaps? [darn it, another question mark!] :)
_'It is your soul after all'_
The overwhelming evidence is that we are just an evolved ape [homo sapiens] the concept of a soul is make believe drummed up by religion..
Poor thing. Thinking this guy took Hitchens down LOL
He did. You are extremely unfamiliar of Hitchen's debating tactics. His favorite one is "evade answering questions". Next to that is "Tu Quoque ". xD
More WISH-THINKING from the people who brought you “Intelligent Design”. Notice how Mr. Craig said that he was worried he might be “trapped” and defeated by “Rhetoric” rather than by embarrassing facts?
WLC still gets hitslap even after his deadth.
Such a self-congratulating channel. No thank you.
Really?
Sam does this too.
Leave the channel and go if you don't like it.
To be fair hitchens did get utterly destroyed and only someone with the deepest confirmation bias will tell you other wise. As an athiest I decided to watch that debate with an open mind. it changed my entrenched views completely. If only hitchens had lived longer so he could have converted a few more people with his lack of debate skill.
Did I just hear that correctly? Dr Craig just said that the “lord” used their debate as a tool to counteract new atheism?? Hahahahaha...people in the comments please, you don’t really take this seriously right? As if the “lord” has nothing better to pay attention to in the world than their discussion hahah wow.
How mature of you James
That was the debate that converted me, even though I was a deeply entrenched ricky gervais reddit type burden of proof phobia athiest
I must have been watching a different debate from this post. Mr hitchins does understand just didnt agree with .
Hitch said one thing which shatters most of Craig's arguments:
"The basis of a good argument is that it's falsifiable, not that it's unfalsifiable".
I like Craig, he's a very reasonable debater but he does not present any evidence which supports his claims. For example, using the improbability of life as evidence of intelligent design is not a good argument. The odds are astronomically low, that's true, but the universe is billions of years old, there wasn't a singular chance but unlimited chances over a long stretch of time in a vast arena. Stating that objective moral values require a God is true, but it's not a good argument. These values don't need to exist, there's no compounding reason to believe they do. I feel like Craig's strength is appealing to the audience, confounding them to search inside themselves. It's an emotional sway. He also relies heavily on ancient historical texts too. Jesus' disappearance from the tomb and his apparent reincarnation... There are so many things that could have really happened. Tricks, mistakes, lies, etc. Another final note is that Craig says "from nothing, nothing comes" when talking about the beginning of the universe. He says this is evidence that a God who lies beyond spacetime must exist. A lack of understanding in science usually paves the way for an argument claiming God exists.. but perhaps the foundations of the universe existed without a beginning, it's impossible to say because this understanding exceeds out knowledge and the laws of physics as we know it. Either way, there is no evidence of the existence of a divine creator in the world today.
I think Hitch went easy on him, maybe because Craig is such a nice guy.
William L Craig is awesome and smashed Hitchens, enjoyed it
“A lamb in wolf’s clothing” Perfect description of Hitchens and his arguments.
4.7 million views now
Hitchens wiped the floor with WLC. All William did was assert objective moral values but never proved morality itself is objective.
Pat Aherne Please give an example. I’ve watched the debate probably 10+ times over the last 8 or so years
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 If that were true, WLC would be the most famous person on earth.
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 That is hilarious thank you for brightening my day.
Nah. There are decent atheists who can actually give arguments but not hitchens. He was just good at sounding sound.
@@enragedgamers2918 fairs, but you've gotta admit Lennox wiped Hitchens...and the class man Hitchens was admitted it.
To the woodshed? Absurd, WLC is full of wishful thinking.
Caliban even atheists admitted it ,Hitchens was left red faced and even if u suggest wlcs arguments are poor , Hitchens surely did nothing to suggest they were
WLC took Hitchens to the woodshed, and Hitchens showed WLC how it works.
Amazing. Craig is little more then an arrogant pseudo-intellectual who put some lipstick on a pig. His arguments are the same nonsensical arguments all apologists make, but with big words that fool his believers. His lack of logic skills and understanding of evidence is amazing.
Hitchens brother is a Christian now.
Hitchens destroyed Craig in that debate. These guys are both dulted to think they represented belief in God well.
Im not saying you are, but do you think that it is Possible that you are biased.
I'm shocked that this comment section actually thinks Hitchens in any way lost this debate? Craig is the one with the proposition that God exists, and so he has the burden of proof. Hitchens had nothing to prove at all, and so of course he won.
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 Would you explain why you believe that? Thanks
I don’t see how any good Christian couldn’t be an atheist.
Why?
@@KarstenStangeland I’ll try my best to explain what I mean:
Doubt is a fundamental aspect of Sin, Penance, Revelation, Redemption, Faith and the Holy Spirit. It _might_ be more appropriate to say that it is the epistemological cornerstone of the belief system.
In the context of Sin / Penance / etc, Sins pertaining to doubt are _the_ serious subject matter, and that is very consistent.
The most clear example are Venial vs Mortal Sins in the Catholic Church. Confession and penance are for Mortal Sins.
◦ Venial sins are petty trespasses, mistakes, and deviation from proper behavior. Nobody cares about those. Venial sins are _not_ an existential issue.
◦ Mortal sins, which pertain to loss of faith, are the existential threat that to the person that falls out of salvation.
That’s where genuine penance, redemption, revelation, faith, finding salvation _actually_ happen.
You are expected to be a Sinner. You are expected confess and make penance and seek salvation _regularly._
_The_ Unforgivable Sin, the _only_ “unforgiveable” sin in Christianity is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why?
Because the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, _is_ your... good/guilty conscience and inner voice for lack of a better term. It guides you. It is the mechanism by which one arrives at faith.
The Unforgivable Sin is not Unforgivable insofar as you can’t be redeemed, it’s unforgivable in that denying it prevents you from accepting faith and seeking forgiveness.
This is why being deceived, the fruit of the tree or knowledge, etc _are_ the original sin. Without diving into the subject of _free will_ specifically, this is why Augustine discusses the enfeeblement of the will. That’s why you need the Holy Spirit, to not be misguided.
_____________________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12:2
_____________________________
Christianity and faith isn’t about betting on Pascal’s wager. Sin isn’t about being rude, or a murderer following rules because they’re afraid of hell.
It’s about the epistemological test of faith, and not being misguided or used. Resistance to the Pope is licit for a reason.
Anyone trying to _”prove”_ the existence of deities or scripture isn’t doing anyone any favors. You can still be deceived, and find yourself at odds with much of philosophy.
David Hume’s writing on _Miracles,_ is _very good._ His thought experiment essentially states that miracles cannot be provable or rationalized because they are, in effect, impossible occurrences.
The impossibility element has also been applied to Revelation, insofar as it is necessary for any Revelation to be unmistakeable.
Doubt is an absolute necessity. Without doubt you do not have faith. Without doubt you do not have sinners. Without doubt you do not have salvation.
I would be _highly_ suspicious of anyone who either dismisses or disregards doubt.
@@-John-Doe- You seem to be very educated on the matter and I find your comment both fun to read and informative. However, you state "I don’t see how any good Christian couldn’t be an atheist." and go on to use both examples and theological principles from the Catholic Church.
This is perhaps a problem because Catholicism varies greatly from Christianity.
Problem number one: In this quote here you rightly state a fact about the beliefs of the Catholic.
"The most clear example are Venial vs Mortal Sins in the Catholic Church. Confession and penance are for Mortal Sins.
◦ Venial sins are petty trespasses, mistakes, and deviation from proper behavior. Nobody cares about those. Venial sins are not an existential issue.
◦ Mortal sins, which pertain to loss of faith, are the existential threat that to the person that falls out of salvation."
This is a problem because it is a very common belief in Christianity that one can not lose one's salvation. You can, of course, lose your faith and your view of God but when you die you will go to heaven if at one point you rightly declared your salvation in God. When judgment day comes and God asks you, a former Christian, "What did you do for me" you will wish you are dead because that will not be a fun conversation. However if one places their faith in God and then goes to rape murder and pillage the question has to be asked was their coming to Christ real.
You don't lose your faith because you did not earn your faith nothing you did amounts to God letting you into his house. It is God's grace and mercy that allows you passage through Jesus Christ.
You go on to speak about more Catholic beliefs however I do want to address your thoughts on miracles.
You state
"David Hume’s writing on Miracles is very good. His thought experiment essentially states that miracles cannot be provable or rationalized because they are, in effect, impossible occurrences."
In fact, the greatest miracle of all is not the death and resurrection of christ what would be an even greater and more impossible feat was if the 50 to 100 people who saw him afterward were faking it. If they all had strange visions and hallucinations about seeing him after his body was sealed in a tomb, that would be a greater miracle than coming back from the dead.
You claim that a no-good Christian couldn't be an atheist yet in your statement you don't mention the word atheist once. Also, your faith and sin examples are from the wrong religion. All I'm saying is that your orignal statement makes no more sense to me than it did before.
@@KarstenStangeland I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I do enjoy the history, philosophy, theology, etc of Christianity.
The Roman Catholic _(Greek: καθολικός, romanized: katholikos, lit. 'universal')_ Church is indeed Christian. All Roman Catholics are Christian, however not all Christians are Roman Catholic.
_(I will note, the notion of Catholics not being Christians is something I’ve seen a couple of times, and tends to be a very frowned upon misconception)_
Other reasons would be it being the largest denomination of Christianity on the planet, its history, philosophical contributions, its Canon Law , etc.
I referenced it as _an example_ for a number of reasons, particularly in this case in regards to its clarity on the subject of doubt.
Similarly, I did not dive deeply into the matter of _Free Will,_ given the depth of that subject, because there are denominational differences.
_______
On Miracles: Yes, you are correct. I reference the Resurrection in its full context, including appearances.
I use Hume’s point because I’m discussing the compatibility of doubt and faith.
Arguments against miracle claims, philosophically, _(reference Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an overview)_ break down into two categories. Impossibility arguments and... I’ll call it _”impossibility to prove.”_
_Most_ atheists fall into the category of being unconvinced. If it were proven, they would be convinced. That’s the intellectually honest philosophical position.
Hume’s point is that _even if it were true_ the nature of the subject is such that it is impossible to prove.
That’s a big difference.
It’s an impossible request. Ask them, _”What could convince you...?”_ The point is _nothing could_ convince someone once they’ve painted themselves into that epistemological corner.
That requirement for perfect knowledge and proof is often what keeps people out of faith, rather than open it to them - and it’s a purely secular point to be made.
Understanding that doubt is a common and acceptable aspect of faith not only opens the door to more people, it also keeps more people from losing their faith as well.
@@-John-Doe- I have still not heard an argument why any good Christian couldn't be an atheist. I am really dying to know now.
"Most atheists fall into the category of being unconvinced. If it were proven, they would be convinced. That’s the intellectually honest philosophical position."
Would this not make them agnostic?
In regards to free will, if there is not free will atheism is not a choice because you were predestined to not be a Christian which means you have to be something else, or rather you were predestined to be something else. If there is free will the choice is free.
All Roman Catholics are Christian in the sense that they worship the same God however their view is of a faith plus works view of salvation which has no biblical root at all. In that sense, it is a completely different thing. Catholicism and Christianity are completely different even though it's the same God they worship.
The same as Judaism and Christianity are different even though they worship the same God.
All I want to know is what "I don’t see how any good Christian couldn’t be an atheist." means.
I wonder how Dr. Craig feels about his exchange with Scott Clifton a.k.a. Theoretical Bullshit
Wow, I literally just saw the debate. It is clearly how Christopher Hitchens had zero knowledge about this arguments. I think his “arguments” were really poor. I usually don’t talk like this about atheist, I am always honest when an atheist really know how to debate, but he just was really bad at it.
Really? Craig has the burden of proof, Hitch didn't have to prove anything, Craig did, and he failed.
Christoper destroyed him in the debates. Glad i don't believe in the fairy tales that they tried to implant into my mind as a child! ...
Frank Tilson
Yeah rock and monkey ancestry is better to believe in eh bud...
@@chrisgagnon5768 Atheist get out of bed every morning for the same reason as you, chum.
We need to take a piss.
@@lordfraybin so......
LanceReactor
Nah
@@chrisgagnon5768 they say we're crazy...but saying that we evolved essentially from a rock... isn't?
I think he was well behaved, because he knew he was in too deep.
Ya he didn’t mop Hitchens in the debate lol. Go watch it lol
Im sorry, did we watch the same debate? Lol
Yes, we did. Hitchens' 'arguments' amounted to nothing more than rhetorical overkill. He wasn't familiar with the arguments nor did he have any serious objections to them...
cool muso Craig literally just makes god of gaps arguments, they are literally almost all fallacy
@@kevinpurnell9465 but he didn't?
@G Will oh cmon hitchens simply pulvarized craigs arguments into nothing.
@@AtriadGamasekav lmfao 😂
Hitchens mopped the floor with Craig in the debate.
Edrei Argueta
Ok atheist
Which debate were you watching. You cannot objectively say Hitch won that debate. He clearly lost, and miserably I might add. Hitch himself somewhat admitted this in a phone interview a few days after. Sam Harris and other major atheist’s agreed as well.
@@jamesmurphy9013 a lot of the atheists here claiming Hitchen's won are in denial.
I’m sorry but only a Christian would believe that Craig took Hitchens to the woodshed in that debate. Quite the opposite, Craig was well out of his depth and clearly misunderstood Hitchens at every turn.
That's what I thought
Craig didn't misunderstand. He has been corrected on the cosmological argument multiple times, and still uses it exactly same way.
In fact, most theist use this as their best argument for god.
For me it is so sad to see still so many people thinking that Hitchens won that debate, really. Like, look for better atheists to defend like Graham Oppy! But not Hitchens! Even some atheists have pointed out the amazing fallacies he commits and misunderstanding of everything
So much for Hitchens. The $12000 Biola paid him was a waste. Thanks for defending the faith Craig
Where in the heck did Craig wipe the floor with Hitchens? I've seen it. I've never seen anyone "wipe the floor" with the great Christopher Hitchens
Lawrence Eason Hitchens never engaged or even seemed to know the arguments. Hitchens relies heavily on his rhetoric and red herrings without understanding philosophy. Ultimately though it’s perspective as It probably depends on what beliefs one hold prior to the debate.
@@willrosch3627 well I don't see it that way. Hitchens was a dominant force in these debates and many theists gave him those props as well. He was highly sought after and some were intimidated by him
@@willrosch3627 but I prefer my own take on the arguments. Do you have any evidence for a god?
Lawrence Eason Is If you watched the debate then you know “some” of the arguments and evidence for God that was presented. Whether or not you agree with them is your belief. Hitchens himself also gave no support for his own view outside or suffering I.e argument from Evil, which has been largely abandoned by Philosophers.
@@willrosch3627 well my argument on the immoralities in the bible is that it calls into question the entire narrative. Because if the narrative is based upon a good, moral and just god then we shouldn't even find one immorality. The fact that we find many is problematic for the entire biblical narrative.
My view is I reserve belief until sufficient evidence is presented. There is no need for support on this view.
Hitchens got by to on his personality. His quick pithy wit
Does anyone really think Craig won that??? That’s a belief worse than the existence of god in my opinion.
Wait what? I’m not sure we watched the same debate lol.
Rhetoric ?!
Hitchens crushed WLC with wit and pure consequentialism.
What else is there in a debate other than waiting for your side to clap ? Gtfoh
Trent Farnsworth
Show yourself the exit
Gladly .... I can’t believe I even took the time to peek back into the big top of “ invisible heroes “ again.
Honestly , it’s a guilty pleasure and nothing more .
I’m out ! 💨
@@trentfarnsworth3596 You're just saying that because you're biased
You are the definition of confirmation bias. Even other athiests will admit that was a bad debate for him.
Blah Blah Blah. Hitchens barley broke a sweat and William pulled his typical "insert god into gap" fallacy over and over again. The person who had no arguments was William. Sorry, Pal, but your memory fails you in miserable fashion.
Craig can sound impressive but his arguments are empty and flawed. His special pleadings and baseless assertions leave you in a whirlpool of circular arguments and dubious insertions. Hitch could certainly be a show pony with week arguments, but Craig as a debater is always holding an empty sack.
Reading the comments of people who have watched the debate has me extremely confused and concerned. That debate was hands down a "hitch-slap" if anything. Dr. Craig was lost on any point made by the late Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Craig didn't comprehend anything Hitchens was saying and wouldn't address it at all. Now, I do wanna say that I was raised as a Christian. But as my life went on and the thought of God or anything of that nature faded, I came across debates about it. I wasn't bias on either side of the question because I quite frankly just didn't care all that much. So I was at a very good starting point in my early 20's to hear debates on such a baffling question. The debate they're talking about, and what everyone is referencing, is the first debate I listened to that made me question everything that's been taught to me and millions of others. I think it's clear you only hear what you want to hear, and listening to these with a bias puts you at a disadvantage to actually hearing both sides. In my case, I was able to actually hear both sides. And I can assure you, Dr. Craig did not "win" the debate. There was no debate. Christopher Hitchens absolutely demolished Dr. Craig. The only one to ever come close to pushing Hitchens was D'Souza. But, if you still want to think that Dr. Craig handed it to Christopher Hitchens... well... I guess I can see why you're religious. We need to step away from these archaic stories and move forward with science, reason, and truth. Thank you for coming to my irrelevant TH-cam TedTalk.
Craig got absolutely destroyed in every major debate he ever had 😂. Hitchens wasnt the only one to demolish the great lie but he always was the best at crushing the con mans plans .