It’s plain childish and irrational. Nothing supernatural has ever been any time, anywhere throughout the entire history of humanity. The bronze age os a good place to bury mysticism.
Your comment is true for both sides. Which is normally the case in these type of polarized debates Confirmation bias. Very rarely do you listen to anyone who is truly trying to advance the subject, because they never want to concede anything. Subjective truth.
Benjamin Park That life on atheism is objectively meaningless, which Hitchens could not deny. Think of it as a useful fiction if you must, but an anthropomorphised creator sets the moral standards for human behaviour, offering meaning, purpose, a common rulebook, and a likely adaptive advantage for believers. It's hard to judge exactly what Craig actually believes regarding miracle work, eternal salvation, etc., but it doesn't really matter. His apologetics Hitchens did a very very poor job of penetrating.
@@hdlamb1170 Explain to me how an anthropomorphised creator in anyway adds objectively to the meaning of life other than being a subservient play thing for a celestial dictator?
@@dariussparkes7080 Meaning would be subjective or intersubjective in my view. I personally wouldn’t argue for objective morality on theism as Craig does, but there are plenty of his videos if you have the time. In any case, as for being a subservient plaything for a celestial dictator, I guess I’d choose to look at it as scripture simply laying out the nature of reality using a moral framework. So when we are told of painful toil, that is just what is necessary for us to thrive. They’re not so much arbitrary commands. The reasoning is there if we use our God-given brains to think about it, so to speak.
@@hdlamb1170 While I admire Hitchens a great deal I do agree he lost this debate by quite a wide margin. Hitchens was great on history and literature, but not science. From what Dr. Craig said in an interview Hitchens had 1-2 weeks prep time for this debate. Which I mean- it's just not enough time to develop the understanding of science required to debate an actual scientist academically. The Penrose V Craig debate highlights this a lot better I think.
I find it utterly perplexing that so many people think that Craig actually has a decent argument here! The onus is on the theist to provide demonstrable evidence for their claims, otherwise their claims are by definition; baseless. Moreover, if there is no basis in reality for said belief, there is no logically valid reason to believe said claims, thus atheism.
Mark Edwards He doesn't say the sky is blue, he says there isn't an imaginary celestial dictator (for which we have no evidence for at all) living there. Also, of the '9 out 10' people you mentioned, statistically they each believe in a different thing. The burden of proof isn't just to the 1 atheist, it's to the other 8 that don't hold the same belief. I would add, the statistic itself is horribly wrong.
Mark Edwards Mark, Im sorry to tell you mate, but you do not understand what the burden of proof is, and what atheism is. 1) the burden of proof IS on the person/s who are making a positive claim, ie: a god exists and did/does this........ 2) atheism is simply the *disbelief* of the first claim a "god exists", due to a lack of evidence. Atheism does not cover anything else, except that one claim, it doesnt make *any* claims nor does it cover any other subjects. 3) your comment is guilty of no less than 3 fallacies: - Argumentum ad populum; *"when 9 out of 10 people on the planet"* - Shifting the burden of proof; *"the burden of proof is absolutely on the 1 guy asserting the other 9 are completely wrong"* - False equivalence; *"If 9 people say the sky is blue.."* An argument that is based on fallacies is by definition; an invalid/false argument. Im not trying to be rude in any way mate, Im simply trying to show you where you are wrong and why, I hope you take the time to do some research and work out for yourself exactly why everything you said in your comment is wrong.
+Mark Edwards huh...If you have a statistically valid sampling of observations showing that the sky is blue "9 out of 10 people at random that have no presuppositions or other biases to say one way or another" and you can repeat your experiment many times then anyone (regardless of any other beliefs) inspecting the data will have to accept that there is a very high probability that the sky is in fact blue. It may not be but it would seem very likely to be. So Sky is easily 'proved' to be blue per the knowledge gained from that experiment. If someone - even some ONE - says colour is a myth and illusion then it's time again to roll up your sleeves and re-examine your 'sky is blue' hypothesis. Make a new test that tries to address the illusion hypothesis. It's likely that it can be falsified. If so we have supported 'the sky is blue theory'. If not then we have new information and must revise the theory or create a new one - humans observing a cloudless sky describe the color as 'blue'. Science rocks! :) PS - note that the burden of proof is still on the claimant. If one claims the Sky is Blue you have to prove it. If you refute that proof then fine but we have some damn convincing/testable evidence. If you're going to claim there is an illusion of blue then you have to substantiate that with some evidence too. "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Thank you Mr. Hitchens.
Christopher:" That would be sorcery, would it not?" Craig: "No, it would be an illustration of Jesus's ability to command even the forces of darkness...."
+444lonnie well the fact that you need to express your views like this, probably mean that you arent that convinced. who created the almighty? he cannot have just popped out of nothing?
+444lonnie lol, and who created jehova? you see how the only reasonable explanation is a universe from "nothing" and then a big bang? no plan, no choice no deitys wish. it just happened.
I think Hitch didn't do a very good job of getting the point of the terminology across. My understanding of the terms is pretty simple, atheism and theism relate to belief and agnosticism and gnosticism relate to knowledge. So they are not mutually exclusive terms and in fact complementary with one elaborating on the other. Agnostic theists exist as do gnostic atheists and all other combinations. I would only contend that to claim gnostic atheism or theism is against the general understanding of epistemology that occupies most people raised in either a Christian or scientific cultural background as they both do not consider absolute knowledge to be available to human beings since in the former case that is the argued reason for free will and in the latter its simply seen as the inevitable flaw in our perception of reality and the reason for the rigours of the scientific method which considers the highest level of certainty to be theoretical, as in the theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, and so on. The only obvious exception would be math which is the only thing I know of that can provide true absolute proof.
I can't grasp why some people think Christopher Hitchens was a great thinker. Intelligent and witty he was, but his thinking is not rigorous. This video exemplifies his subjective feelings-based irrationality.
The existence of god is an unfalsifiable belief. This is the same for fairies, unicorns, elves, Zeus, and Apollo. Belief in the supernatural is tempting because it cannot be falsified. Religion and theism are essentially sanity in numbers. Enough people fall into this mental trap that it seems normal to be there. Must be okay since everyone else seems to be suffering from it, right?
Atheism is a response to dogma, superstition, and the manipulation of the unfalsifiable. Atheism has no content, no holy books, no direct line to a non-material reality. If atheists seem to be religious in their responses, it is only because of their proximity to religion itself. To be against astrology, a person would need to speak in their terms to engage the absurdity of it.
+Mendicant Bias the subject matter surrounding theology are abstract concepts such as morality and honesty which require philosophical reasoning to debate because they are clearly abstract thus not tangible. You make a common, ignorant mistake as many atheists and conflate abstract concepts with superstition which illustrates your lack of understanding of basic philosophy, the root of debate. Internet trolls are demonstrably not skilled debaters.
@@alib4486 The core of theology rests in a belief that god exists and uses supernatural and miraculous means to demonstrate his/her presence. Abstract philosophical reasoning can be useful to guide a conversation but it cannot supersede the need for material evidence and falsifiability. Morality is not an abstract concept. Morality is contentious, cultural, and open to revision and yet all humans seem to demonstrate some moral understanding along with non-human species as well (tinyurl.com/z79h73q). Regardless of the complex arguments and lengthy theological apologies, real evidence still counts! The perception of god seems to be very sensitive to the local customs and culture of a particular region, only sharing the common trait of being outside the realm of testable evidence, falsifiability and skeptical inquiry. The root of this debate between WLC and Hitchens was on the existence of god, not the basic philosophy. Theists borrow from philosophy and logic to build a wall around their carefully curated beliefs. Theism is commercialized philosophy neatly packaged for minds willing to privilege belief over other, better means for seeking the truth.
"You redefine Atheism as meaning some kind of A-theism". Is this guy fucking serious?? A professor of theology and he doesn't even understand the etymology of the word "Atheism"?
He should have said anti-theism... which is actually what Hitchens is.. though, on the topic of whether a god exist or not, he is an atheist and would, as I understand it, be swayed if there was credible evidence for an existence of god, even if he did not like it.
Etymology and definition are two different things. Atheism has always been defined in philosophy as the belief that God doesn't exist. Non-theism is the lack of a belief in God. An atheist is a non-theist, but not vice versa. So Craig was actually right.
To learn from this you must see the points that aren't argued. If you hold either in high regard, you will see which statements that the opposition doesn't press to disprove. Both are professionals in their fields and know what is factual and what is up for interpretation. solid debate
Lie. We are atheists because we don't believe in a god, not because we're asserting a god doesn't exist. If you choose to give the word 'atheist' a different definition, then we would no longer be atheists... we would simply need another word to define our position. If I redefined 'theist' as someone whom can prove that a god exists, then there would be no theists. There are however lots of people whom believe that a god exists, but that wouldn't fall within my new definition of theist.
@@noreexic If you're a believer I certainly wouldn't be mentioning 'burden of proof' if I were you. Evolution is the best explanation period for the beginning of life on earth, meaning god most definitely did NOT create humans or any other living thing. Why is this so hard to understand for believers? I'll tell you why, because it doesn't fit what they've been brainwashed to believe. That my friend is the definition of 'no proof whatsoever'.
+Vic 2.0 Can you explain to me hitchens response in 5:45 is? the one where he ended by saying it was a "non sequitor". It seems to me that hitchen is evading the question but probably just me failing to comperhand it. thanks!!!. saw your post on another video and you explained these arguments really well
This was a great clip. Instead of listening to a bunch of canned replies, this was a nice give and take between two well spoken people, with a little bit of light-hearted banter tossed in for good measure.
It's a problem for me that such a well educated man like Dr Craig can not only believe such ancient stories to be factual but admit that he does to hundreds of people. How can this be. I suppose the same thought process applies to the people who are insisting that Hitchens somehow didn't win the day.
Fun fact most smart people are theist, you can check on every school because most of the top students believes in God. I can't even imagine doing science without the belief of existence of God.
every few months I stumble across this video and have to watch it. I love to see the late great Hitchens squirming in his seat. Craig has been debating since he was 15 and is a master. Hitchens got derailed big time. I have to give it up to hitch though, he got more balls than dawkins. Dawkins runs from Dr. Craig like a big bully who just got his ass kicked. all Christians owe dr Craig a bow of recognition for dedicating his life to defending the truth of theism. and when you read the hate that some atheists have for dr. Craig, it really puts into perspective how much true evil exist in this world today. it's like Craig infuriates the atheist so much that the hate inside them grows...!!!! evil hates truth.
+TheCosmicWarrior ahh classic, the, 'he's just boring', card has been played. A card played in times of true denial and desperation. It doesn't work anymore. When you dismiss one of the greatest public intellectuals and best selling authors of our time as 'boring', you concede that you are either extremely glib or extremely naive.
So many people seem to be of the impression that Hitchens was flustered, or somehow lost this debate. I'm not sure that you were watching the same clip as me. If you were, I suggest that you go and read about successful cross-examination and in particular I would recommend reading the cross-examination of Oscar Wilde by Carson. Hitchens did exactly what one would do in a court-room. He began slowly, by getting the 'witness' to agree with certain propositions. These allowed him to set up his big question: that the alleged miracles of Jesus do not prove the truth of his gospel. This is one of the most critical questions he could have asked, given the number of people who seem to believe that they do. He then demonstrates how curious it is that this man claims to know the truth of god, but thinks that numerous other religions are false and wrong. He expects the audience to use their own initiative and to understand the ridiculousness of such a proposition and he does not labour the point. This is one of the essential skills of an advocate. You have to be invisible. Get in, get what you want and get out. Ultimately, I would suggest that he did a far better job than his opponent, but that's just my view I guess ...
This video illustrates Craig's sophistry perfectly. First, he begins with a straw man and pretends that Hitchens' position is "God does not exist" -- when Hitchens has already made abundantly clear what his view is and why he holds it. (which Craig ignores entirely). So obvious and so disingenuous. And my favorite part at 8:13: "I'm not saying Jesus actually exorcised demons or performed miracles, but he demonstrated an unprecedented sense of divine authority by exorcising demons and performing miracles." Got that?
just pointing something out..and sounds like u just agreed and justified it by claiming most people do...lol...Hitchens was not the type to get nervous
Craig is a 'blind faither'. He happens to believe in the Bible. To put it briefly : the Bible = God exists; the Koran = Allah exists and finally The Mr Blobby book = Mr Blobby exists too. I think that Christopher Hitchens is being much to polite!
He actually does not Mae that argument ... he presented 5 arguments for the existence of God earlier in the debate .. however hitchens does not address these arguments here which says a lot hitchens arguments or ability to debate craig
Having said that, however I must admit that it's far simpler to express rationality and logic and reason in words than spiritualism or faith. We somehow need to be receptive to fantastic ideas to understand them and I would never envisage a situation that maketh me jump to the divine rather than seeking a true explanation.
It's remarkable to see how much more was covered when Craig was being questioned. No dodging of questions, just straight answers. I think Craig only got in 2 or 3 questions while Hitchens got in 5 times that. If you don't call that dodging, then you are a very biased individual.
Atheists rely on puffy rhetoric, instead of reason. Dr. Craig has spent his whole career studying rational arguments... so he can articulate them perfectly in seconds.
He says "I can't claim atheism is true. because atheism is the belief that a certain proposition isn't true". But in that statement, he still claimed that he cannot prove what he believes to be true. So therefore, the rest of his argument goes out the window.
Mitch Peters What he's saying is that atheism is the rejection of the god claim. So it's not a belief system like theism but it's the belief that theists simply haven't made their point.
Christopher's mind and ability to argue is so much greater than to debate something as trivial as the historicity of biblical claims. I do think he realizes this and he provides a dialogue in this debate that is facetious and entertaining. When he debates the morality of biblical claims and actions, it provides a lot more food for thought.
@@thediggg5499 i guess i have to choose between a whiskey drinking athiest who has authority issues or Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is more reliable and logical.
Science does establish a number of objective basis for morality. Harm can be measured. Pain can be measured. Hunger can be measured. We do not need the subjective, contradictory, unsubstantiated and therefore delusional belief in the supernatural to establish morality.
of course not...it requires the additional step that humans agree that inflicting pain on others should be avoided. "Do unto others..." the Summarian code (well before the monotheism of Judea). See, the Agnostics and Atheists have no problem with the concept of human beings developing a moral code because we do not believe in the supernatural or revelation. Moral codes derived through reason predate religious belief (Socrates, Plato, etc.) so the fact that there are objective indicators of pain that cause harm are then subject to the application of reason to develop moral codes. We cause pain when we go to war, but it is justified by certain moral precepts, is it not?
Theodore Araujo+ " additional steps " in avoiding causing pain is only a human preference. "Do unto others" is for the week according to Niche. Moral coding has always revolved around people who needed it. There are plenty of people, without legal consequences, given the choice would and do live lives hurting others for their gain. Objective reasons corporately have to be inflicted onto all people individually so that all people can be treated fairly. This view of morality is still lacking in the sense of individual ideals of right and wrong. Science cannot tell you if hurting someone is wrong. Yes it may tell you it inflicts pain, yes it may tell you this can cause decay in society, however, it still can't say it is morally wrong. It has no grounds. If it was better corporately in the long run to hurt one another would you be having this conversation still? What moral coding would you be appealing too? If one knew he could kill someone and prosper his family and generations to come and the one who was killed had no family, would this be wrong? Why? Objectively it lead to a better evolutionary process that effects us corporately. ( hypothetically assuming more was gained overall than lost by doing this) We cause pain in war. We both know, at least I hope, that Hitler was not good in the moral sense. Why? He was just trying to do what nature does everyday. Filter out the week genes according to his ideals and standards. The Germans, through brain washing, thought they were doing the right thing. Now I agree that he shouldn't of murdered people but what makes what he did wrong or evil in the moral sense? All true morals are measured by some sort of standard of what we think good is. This standard of good does not come from science. We are appealing to something bigger because we were created by something bigger. I think all people know this but choose to suppress it.
I think it's just WLC's definition of "agnostic" that is not exactly correct. Withholding the belief in something due to its lack of evidence is an atheistic view. Hitchens said that "agnosticism is evasive," so clearly he does not want to be labeled agnostic.
Why would anyone doubt the existence of a supernatural god man for which every shred of evidence for his existence is based on the demonstrably fictional mythology of his cult?
Yes Brian,there are people who do not have faith that jesus christ exists. that's why we have the word faith. either you have it (for something you have never seen or heard) or you don't. that's the very definition of faith.
Hitchens said " And I know you believe in the resurrection." Craigs reply was "Yes for that I believe we have good evidence for." Really?!? Good evidence??? Let me guess an ancient book written by guys 100's of years later who weren't even there. Is that your evidence Dr Craig?
It's not a single book, there are contemporary accounts, and the witnesses that saw Jesus post-mortem were even stated by name. Try to familiarize yourself with Craig's arguments before you critique.
People 100 years from now are going to look back at these debates and "thank heaven" that human beings have evolved beyond the world views of the W.L. Craigs of our time. The nonsense that he spews is an embarrassment to our current generations of intellectuals and rationalists.
um....excuse me goober, but religion has been responsible for far more deaths than any man made weapon, Now, you still have time to pull your head out of your ass if you want to because anyone who defends religion has their head in you know where!!!
While I can appreciate what you're trying to do here, Gooby (interesting name, btw), this is a tired old argument that religious people like to use when confronted with the fact that religion has been the single most divisive product of civilization. The non-religious seldom ever (IF ever) do anything in the name of their lack of belief. The religious, on the other hand, often do horrible things in the name if their religion or their god. Theists then try to argue that it was the lack of religious moral framework that led to the atrocities committed by, say, the Soviets, but that argument is a catch 22 and says nothing of the reason, then, that the religious are so eager to commit equally horrific atrocities. Whatever the case, I stand by the great Steven Weinberg when he said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion".
your ending reminded of a movie that I saw.......shawshank redemption......simply put.... I was straight on the outside, but it took prison to make me a criminal
Thomas Huxley invented the word 'agnostic' from reading the works of Thomas Carlyle. One chapter in Carlyle's Sartor Resartus led Huxley to accept a religion without theology. Here is the quote, From the correspondance of T.H. Huxley:"...when I look back, what do I find to have been the agents of my redemption? The hope of immortality or of future reward? I can honestly say that for these fourteen years such a consideration has not entered my head. No, I can tell you exactly what has been at work. Sartor Resartus led me to know that a deep sense of religion was compatible with the entire absence of theology. Secondly, science and her methods gave me a resting-place independent of authority and tradition. Thirdly, love opened up to me a view of the sanctity of human nature, and impressed me with a deep sense of responsibility.", H
Hitchens and his dribble. He MUST dabble in order to capture the attention of the audience and move them away from the fact that he is not really trying to answer the question.
Even if the classical definition of atheism is ah-theism (which it isn't), Craig's point would stand. Ah-theism encompasses a variety of different views which are meaningfully different, and it would be important for Craig to figure out which view Hitchens actually held. Hitchens ended up admitting to an actual atheist position that God doesn't exist, but then wanted the burden of proof of the agnostic position rather than providing an argument that God doesn't exist. Turning specific language into general language doesn't change the reality of the multitude of non theistic views.
@@HeyYoGizmo It would have been painfully clear if you bothered listening to Craig. Ah-theism encompasses all non theistic beliefs, which would include atheism, agnosticism, or possibly other views without a belief in any God. Atheism is a part of that and specifically pertains to an active disbelief in any God, and must actually be defended. It doesn't matter if you agree with these semantics, just that there is a meaningful difference between active disbelief and simply non belief. Craig wanted to understand Hitchens view so he could more effectively critique it.
6 minutes of blubbering and evasion for Hitchens to answer even a single question. And it's only an incredibly basic one: "Would you say God does not exist?" What's even more embarrassing than his performance, however, is that people are actually so caught up in fanboyism to think he did anything other than humiliate himself.
" There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable. "
Craig ends with something very interesting; he says _"Within the cristian camp, there is a large diversity of perspectives... I'm sure there are views that I hold that are probably false"._ If only Hitchens had enough time to delve into that subject, he may have had the opportunity to reveal that Craigs theological beliefs are based on preference and not on evidence.
As you said bonk, if he had the time... Craig utilizes many frowned upon debate tactics and one of them is the Gish Gallop.... just spout anything and everything in a fast way so the opponent doesn't have time to counter and then at the end point out that he never answered.
The physical isn’t all there is. If you truly hold that position, then you’re a true naturalist. In this view, even concepts like love and justice and abstract objects like numbers don’t truly “exist” in a physical sense
I admire Dr Craig's humble concession that some of his theology may be in error and that he is 'trying' to get it in order. THAT is awesome. Too many opinions and comments here come from pride and a mind that is already made up. We need to continue searching... all of us.
Yes, every person thinks that all of their own opinions are correct, but only a fool actually thinks that he, himself, is correct about everything. An honest person knows that it's impossible to be 100% correct all of the time.
Probably because Hitchens saw that he did get dismantled in the debate (you can find the whole thing elsewhere). If you listen to Dr. Craig's post-debate comments, he recounts how Hitchens was genuinely surprised that a Christian had intelligent arguments to support his view.
Klaus von Zeit Its sad to say that there arent a lot of them out there. Many blindly believe without question which makes them weak. Though christianity can be like science in a way, the more you question the more you may get to know. But just like in science there are unanswered questions.
+TheCosmicWarrior No, you fail to understand the atheist position. It does not make a positive claim. It simply posits that the evidence fails to support the assertion of any deity. In fact, Craig doesn't even have a cohesive, consistent definition of his god.
He DID defend it and he didn't phrase it that way, a point he made in different ways multiple times because of Craigs apparent inability to understand anything :D also Hitchens is not having to defend against the evidence of a god because there isn't any, he is merely correcting Craig and pointing out the massive holes in what craig puts forward.
Well, consider this: Have you ever cared to wonder if fire is essentially a good thing? On a furnace, yes, on your skin, no. No subjectivity there. Is cyanide objectively bad? It's useful for many things, but you know that for your health it's damaging, for sure. So wondering about their "objective" value is superfluous. I'm convinced that if we manage to measure sentient well-being and the relationship of actions towards that, it will also render the "universal" value of these irrelevant.
What Hitchens doesn't understand when questioning Dr. Craig about the stories of exorcism and miracles is that Christ acted upon his own authority and didn't feel the necessity of appealing to God for the power to perform the miracles. Whether or not the miracles occurred is actually beside the point - Christ was staking out ground as to who he IS, in much the same way as Yahweh speaks to Moses on Mt. Sinai - "I am that I am."
TheBlackJacksItalia I am not Catholic, nor do I like that religion. I am a Christian. And it sounds as if you simply have an axe to grind with Catholicism...good luck with that.
It's difficult to take somebody (Craig) seriously who uses phrases like, ''commands the forces of darkness''. The last resort of an utterly untenable position.
He is using a general term that describes ALL DARK FORCES, speaking from a Christian perspective. It isn't difficult to understand with a small sense of Christian philosophy. Especially since the Christian perspective is an extreme duality of forces either being good or evil.
1B. It’s not an assumption, it’ a conclusion. There is a distinction between the laws of nature and their constants. The laws are set, their constants are not; they are just “set-in” as initial conditions of the universe. It’s these constants that demonstrate the fine-tuning. Do you deny that universe is fine-tuned for life? (arrogance, etc. Arguments aren’t emotional - red herring)
Sadly as intelligent as many say Hitchens was, he could not seem to be objective and simply offer arguments without getting emotional and taking offense to someone daring to question his beliefs.
Atheism is an emotional condition, not a reasoned argument. You will never find an atheist who can maintain intellectual honesty all the way through a debate with WLC. I tried to find one and was extremely disappointed. It's like watching a crooked politician babble.
+Amirah Hands he is saying that the lock of magnificence of the evidence is why the evidence so far presented does not live up to the standard of evidence for a claim of a supernatural caliber.
Amirah Hands It does if the claim is supernatural. I will admitt that magnificence is perhaps missleading as a word. Hitch puts it better at another point. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I would assume you follow this same principle yourself.
To all the knobs who say "Craig won this debate" or "Hitchens had a bad day" - did any of you actually bother to watch the whole debate? Hitchens didn't have a bad, he was just as brilliant as always. Craig proved to be the usual snake oil salesman, having rhetorics as his only weapon, not understanding words he's using and, basically, he didn't need Christopher to destroy him. Craig destroyed himself in this debate.
Uh, dude, he's very candid about believing in demons. Just check out his work. He was in front of a mostly Christian crowd, he had nothing to hide. He was choosing his words carefully that to make his grander point about Christ's authority, not trying to veil his belief in demons. You're criticizing him, essentially, for being tactful in a debate.
"he might even realize that we don't believe in god" No. Come on now. We all secretly believe in god and are denying his existence because we want to live lives of reckless debauchery. Why do you think the national academy of sciences is always hosting drunken orgies?
Medical Mystery count me in as well. Because at least the orgy would be consensual, contrary to the nefarious child molestations Pope Francis attempted to obscure.
Thats part of debate....many atheist try understand what a persons idea of theism is because of the many different ideas of what God is to many people.
"Hitchens doesn't give anywhere near as compelling an argument for the non- existence of God." Sad that its lost on you that he's just being a good sport by debating the vague interpretations of a holy text. Craig has lost the core argument before the debate even began. All Hitchens is doing is humoring him.
1:05... Hitchens was WAY too smart to say something this stupid. Every time I hear him say it I have to shake my head in despair. The statement "X is not true" is itself a proposition which can be true or false! Nothing could be more obvious. If you say "reading is good for the mind" and I say "that statement is false", we have both made claims which can be either true or false, predicated on the actual fact of whether reading is good for the mind or not. It's just pitiful how someone as articulate and intelligent as Hitchens was could make such idiotic arguments in this debate.
kewltony "x is not true" and "it is true that x is not true" are logically the same statement. Therefore the claim "theism is false" is the same as the claim "atheism is true". So why did Hitch keep waffling and refuse to defend the statement that atheism is true? Simple answer: He had no arguments to support that position. He thought atheism was the default position. He was clearly wrong despite his brilliance in other fields.
I'm embarrassed to share a name with Dr. Craig. He's making it up as he goes along, and it's ridiculously weak! I seriously doubt the veracity of his faith, if he is indeed a PhD then I'm sure he has read enough to cast his own 'faith' into doubt and is now just propped up as an apologist for the academic paycheque and book deals it brings!
He has a Ph.D. in Philosophy, which is rather sad considering his poor performance in this debate. But then again, tasked with defending religion, I think his appearance in this video was inevitable regardless of his educational background.
Marius Periwinkle Craig has a very clear and logical train of thought. Hitchens seems scattered and rarely addresses the points. If this debate was adjudicated, Craig would win hands down.
+Hmm Thinking Only if the audience was stacked. "Command even the forces of darkness". This is not clarity or logic. It is just nonsense. Too bad that Hitchens was so leniant and lets him get away with such statements. This should have been a slam dunk for Hitchens, but somehow he let this trickster do his deed.
Marius Periwinkle Unfortunately with most of these atheist genius' their greatest weapon is wit. When they cant out maneuver on logic they resort to 'flying spaghetti monster' comments. Hitchens was smart in being 'lenient' otherwise he would have come off as many atheists do, bitter. Considering Hitchen's (arguably) has the upper hand, given the relationship between logic and evidence, he should have won this. But at the end of the day, Craig provided a far more logical argument, and in this case, God is real.
Too bad Hitchens didn't do so good with his answers. An immediate "my position is that there IS absence of evidence, not evidence of absence". And "our social instincts and sense of empathy are objective, observable and independent of interpretation" would have been better, wouldn't they?
This is just frustrating, Craig really doesn't seem to understand Hitchen's responses, and so he just persists in asking more and more silly questions. He needs to realise that the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim; not with the person who is unconvinced of that claim.
raami jackson Actually, you're completely wrong. So is Craig. Theism is the BELIEF a god exists. Atheism is the lack of a belief. The positive statements there is or isn't a god is just that. When Craig says there is a god, which is stepping beyond his belief in theism, the burden is completely on him and him alone to prove it. Same for any christian or other type of theist who positively claims there is a god. Craig is dishonest when he claims his "arguments" need to be refuted for a claim of atheism to be rational. Atheism is completely rational since no argument of christianity has ever been substantiated. Let's get to the agnostic issue. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. It means one can not know something. When someone says they are agnostic, since they can't know something, they can't believe in that particular thing they are agnostic towards. Since the persons who calls themselves agnostic regarding god claims they don't believe either way- they are ATHEISTS. In fact, every single person I have personally met who call themselves an atheist, are also agnostics! So you see boy, the atheist has no burden of proof when confronted by agnostics. We are agnostics! You christians waste so much time!
It has always seemed clear to me that WLC quite clearly understands his opponents arguments (and probably, to some degree, agrees with them), but he is not paid to move toward the position of the opposition, no matter how logical their arguments may be. He has made his living, and his reputation, from debating and opposing atheism.
immaturechildofgod Then you really should watch it again. This time revove the god glasses and maybe you'll see the idiocy WLC spouts. Casting demons into pigs and "commanding the forces of darkness" SERIOUSLY???An adult can utter childish fairy story nonesense like that, and you still imagine him to be credible.
me too hitchens never answered his question all he said is God is evil and anything you assert abt God doesn't make sense so God doesn't exist. but that isn't the question at all.
they think hitchens won cos its funny to them. hitchens only make funny jokes abt God but look deep down his arguments is the worst. he complains abt how evil God is and I do not know where he got those morals from some how God being mean makes him not exist.
2. Mind-independent - agreed , for the most part. Technically it is: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. This is just an attempt to redefine the word good as “supports well-being”; essentially using good in a non-moral sense--a certain chess move is “good.” Harris has not solved the "value problem" as he puts it nor has he solved the "is-ought" problem.
Hume's response was specifically aimed at the Ontological argument. So, on this basis should we reject intuition? Intuition is the basis for understanding the reason why P implies Q. It's the basis we use for understanding logic and accepting rationality. Are you suggesting that we should reject such intuitions based on Hume's assertion?
"Command even the forces of darkness." I laughed at loud at that. What is this, Star Wars? What reasonable person can believe in "forces of darkness"? It's so childish .
By saying that phrase "command the forces of darkness", Craig is stating He believed Jesus had power over even the strongest of evil. And thats childish to you?
watch Hitchens body language, the avoidance and tangents he went oof on. He was visibly shaking and it wasn't rage... There is nothing here that suggests Hitchens dominated this segment of the debate.
This is where Logic 101 comes into play, and, as much as I appreciate Hitchens wit and humor, he seems to completely ignore Craig's reasonable criticism being: do you have any arguments leading to the conclusion that God does not exist? There seems to be this mantra in the "New Atheist Movement," dealing with the term "Burden of Proof," that they seem to exempt themselves from. In Logic you have propositions and beliefs about those propositions. The Proposition God Exists is affirmative, the Proposition God does not exist is negative. Just because Craig takes an affirmative claim does not mean he is the only one who needs evidence for what he believes; i.e: when dealing with beliefs about propositions, you have to have reasons for your belief AND NON BELIEF of things because that non belief, in a sense, is still a belief about a proposition one way or another. Hitchens ignores this point, and oddly enough seems to fumble his mic right when Craig pushes him, because he isn't willing to defend his own belief, and he basically just half-asses it by saying "well you haven't offered enough evidence." I agree with his point that the evidence ought to be magnificent, but on his end has he offered magnificent evidence to conclude that Empiricism and Atheism are the only tenable positions. Again, he is not addressing this in a proper logical manner.
"any god that requires defend it in a debate or in a comments section does not deserve my worship" It's not exactly God who's defended, but that human belief in God is reasonable.
1 Peter 3:15. Also didn't you read Acts, Hiob, any Prophets - a lot of argument about God in there? Or Jesus debating with the High Priests, Pharisees, Saducees etc. (Mark 12, for example)? It is all over the Bible. If you believe that Christianity is true, you will defend it. That's done with argument - and if others don't agree and you engage, the result is debate.
1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be prepared to give a defense for why we believe what we believe if we are ever confronted on it. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to defend the existence of God because He needs us to defend him.
and any atheist who spends his entire life abusing and ridiculing the same God ( sam harris, hitchens and that intellectual midget dawkins) he does not even believe in does not deserve my respect
It's amazing that someone can be taken at all seriously after they have admitted that they believe somebody cast devils out of people and into pigs. I do wish Hitchens had stayed closer to the hard-hitting points in this cross-x. Craigs arguments are all fallacious and there's no need for soft-balls at the end.
+Deego the Great I don't want to speculate as to why Hitchens seemed to conclude with soft balls, but I myself can see clear flaws in all of Craigs arguments and I suspect that Hitchens was a much smarter man than I.
Without specifically claiming it Christopher is asserting a verificationism position when he prefaces with things like 'I haven't see any evidence, etc'. Even the wiki page, not any bastion of theism much less christian apologetics, presents why that verificationism was discarded as unsubstantial a long time ago.
![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)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
That line Craig says, "Jesus could even command the forces of darkness" sounds like a line straight out of Dracula.
lessevdoolbretsim Jesus existed. No serious historian denies this
He may have existed but nothing supernatural occurred of course.
It is just as believiable as Dracula
It’s plain childish and irrational.
Nothing supernatural has ever been any time, anywhere throughout the entire history of humanity.
The bronze age os a good place to bury mysticism.
If by forces of darkness Craig means evil, the Bible has god saying he is responsible for evil.
You cannot argue with a person who simply says "I believe practically anything when it's written somewhere".
Show that person where it's written to be in exact opposition to where it was previously written... then can you argue with that person?
Your comment is true for both sides.
Which is normally the case in these type of polarized debates
Confirmation bias.
Very rarely do you listen to anyone who is truly trying to advance the subject, because they never want to concede anything.
Subjective truth.
Nice exchange. Unlike others, I gained perspective from BOTH of these men. Everything worthwhile is not an overt competition...
Benjamin Park
That life on atheism is objectively meaningless, which Hitchens could not deny. Think of it as a useful fiction if you must, but an anthropomorphised creator sets the moral standards for human behaviour, offering meaning, purpose, a common rulebook, and a likely adaptive advantage for believers. It's hard to judge exactly what Craig actually believes regarding miracle work, eternal salvation, etc., but it doesn't really matter. His apologetics Hitchens did a very very poor job of penetrating.
@@hdlamb1170 Explain to me how an anthropomorphised creator in anyway adds objectively to the meaning of life other than being a subservient play thing for a celestial dictator?
@@dariussparkes7080 Meaning would be subjective or intersubjective in my view. I personally wouldn’t argue for objective morality on theism as Craig does, but there are plenty of his videos if you have the time. In any case, as for being a subservient plaything for a celestial dictator, I guess I’d choose to look at it as scripture simply laying out the nature of reality using a moral framework. So when we are told of painful toil, that is just what is necessary for us to thrive. They’re not so much arbitrary commands. The reasoning is there if we use our God-given brains to think about it, so to speak.
@@hdlamb1170 While I admire Hitchens a great deal I do agree he lost this debate by quite a wide margin.
Hitchens was great on history and literature, but not science. From what Dr. Craig said in an interview Hitchens had 1-2 weeks prep time for this debate. Which I mean- it's just not enough time to develop the understanding of science required to debate an actual scientist academically.
The Penrose V Craig debate highlights this a lot better I think.
I find it utterly perplexing that so many people think that Craig actually has a decent argument here! The onus is on the theist to provide demonstrable evidence for their claims, otherwise their claims are by definition; baseless. Moreover, if there is no basis in reality for said belief, there is no logically valid reason to believe said claims, thus atheism.
+Jim Kensley Craig has sources of information denied to everyone else in the world.
+AussieNaturalist Well stated Aussie!!
Mark Edwards He doesn't say the sky is blue, he says there isn't an imaginary celestial dictator (for which we have no evidence for at all) living there. Also, of the '9 out 10' people you mentioned, statistically they each believe in a different thing. The burden of proof isn't just to the 1 atheist, it's to the other 8 that don't hold the same belief.
I would add, the statistic itself is horribly wrong.
Mark Edwards
Mark, Im sorry to tell you mate, but you do not understand what the burden of proof is, and what atheism is.
1) the burden of proof IS on the person/s who are making a positive claim, ie: a god exists and did/does this........
2) atheism is simply the *disbelief* of the first claim a "god exists", due to a lack of evidence. Atheism does not cover anything else, except that one claim, it doesnt make *any* claims nor does it cover any other subjects.
3) your comment is guilty of no less than 3 fallacies:
- Argumentum ad populum; *"when 9 out of 10 people on the planet"*
- Shifting the burden of proof; *"the burden of proof is absolutely on the 1 guy asserting the other 9 are completely wrong"*
- False equivalence; *"If 9 people say the sky is blue.."*
An argument that is based on fallacies is by definition; an invalid/false argument.
Im not trying to be rude in any way mate, Im simply trying to show you where you are wrong and why, I hope you take the time to do some research and work out for yourself exactly why everything you said in your comment is wrong.
+Mark Edwards huh...If you have a statistically valid sampling of observations showing that the sky is blue "9 out of 10 people at random that have no presuppositions or other biases to say one way or another" and you can repeat your experiment many times then anyone (regardless of any other beliefs) inspecting the data will have to accept that there is a very high probability that the sky is in fact blue. It may not be but it would seem very likely to be. So Sky is easily 'proved' to be blue per the knowledge gained from that experiment.
If someone - even some ONE - says colour is a myth and illusion then it's time again to roll up your sleeves and re-examine your 'sky is blue' hypothesis. Make a new test that tries to address the illusion hypothesis. It's likely that it can be falsified. If so we have supported 'the sky is blue theory'. If not then we have new information and must revise the theory or create a new one - humans observing a cloudless sky describe the color as 'blue'.
Science rocks! :)
PS - note that the burden of proof is still on the claimant. If one claims the Sky is Blue you have to prove it. If you refute that proof then fine but we have some damn convincing/testable evidence. If you're going to claim there is an illusion of blue then you have to substantiate that with some evidence too. "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Thank you Mr. Hitchens.
Christopher:" That would be sorcery, would it not?"
Craig: "No, it would be an illustration of Jesus's ability to command even the forces of darkness...."
+Simon Kempe Haha I know right? I was disappointed to not hear Hitch say "you'll forgive me for not seeing the distinction..."
+444lonnie well the fact that you need to express your views like this, probably mean that you arent that convinced.
who created the almighty? he cannot have just popped out of nothing?
*****
Couldn't tell you. I've never been that sure of anything, other than mankind's capacity for being mistaken.
+444lonnie and there are many many believers. you are so close to denouncing your faith, you're almost there
+444lonnie lol, and who created jehova? you see how the only reasonable explanation is a universe from "nothing" and then a big bang? no plan, no choice no deitys wish. it just happened.
I've never seen Hitchens this nice before.
Sumtinrandom he did a interview before the debate on his thoughts on Dr Craig and he spoke kind of highly of him surprisingly
Craig believes that stone age Jewish religious could cast out evil spirits from pigs. Thank you.
Craig was hitchslapped so thoroughly here even his nose looks a bit crooked.
"You redefine atheism to mean a sort of a-theism or non-theism..."
Did he really say that?!
Yes... Sigh
I think Hitch didn't do a very good job of getting the point of the terminology across.
My understanding of the terms is pretty simple, atheism and theism relate to belief and agnosticism and gnosticism relate to knowledge.
So they are not mutually exclusive terms and in fact complementary with one elaborating on the other. Agnostic theists exist as do gnostic atheists and all other combinations. I would only contend that to claim gnostic atheism or theism is against the general understanding of epistemology that occupies most people raised in either a Christian or scientific cultural background as they both do not consider absolute knowledge to be available to human beings since in the former case that is the argued reason for free will and in the latter its simply seen as the inevitable flaw in our perception of reality and the reason for the rigours of the scientific method which considers the highest level of certainty to be theoretical, as in the theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, and so on.
The only obvious exception would be math which is the only thing I know of that can provide true absolute proof.
man its nice to see two people go at it in such a manner
I can't grasp why some people think Christopher Hitchens was a great thinker. Intelligent and witty he was, but his thinking is not rigorous. This video exemplifies his subjective feelings-based irrationality.
The existence of god is an unfalsifiable belief. This is the same for fairies, unicorns, elves, Zeus, and Apollo. Belief in the supernatural is tempting because it cannot be falsified. Religion and theism are essentially sanity in numbers. Enough people fall into this mental trap that it seems normal to be there. Must be okay since everyone else seems to be suffering from it, right?
Same could be said of Atheism.
Atheism is a response to dogma, superstition, and the manipulation of the unfalsifiable. Atheism has no content, no holy books, no direct line to a non-material reality. If atheists seem to be religious in their responses, it is only because of their proximity to religion itself. To be against astrology, a person would need to speak in their terms to engage the absurdity of it.
+Mendicant Bias the subject matter surrounding theology are abstract concepts such as morality and honesty which require philosophical reasoning to debate because they are clearly abstract thus not tangible. You make a common, ignorant mistake as many atheists and conflate abstract concepts with superstition which illustrates your lack of understanding of basic philosophy, the root of debate. Internet trolls are demonstrably not skilled debaters.
@@alib4486 The core of theology rests in a belief that god exists and uses supernatural and miraculous means to demonstrate his/her presence. Abstract philosophical reasoning can be useful to guide a conversation but it cannot supersede the need for material evidence and falsifiability. Morality is not an abstract concept. Morality is contentious, cultural, and open to revision and yet all humans seem to demonstrate some moral understanding along with non-human species as well (tinyurl.com/z79h73q).
Regardless of the complex arguments and lengthy theological apologies, real evidence still counts! The perception of god seems to be very sensitive to the local customs and culture of a particular region, only sharing the common trait of being outside the realm of testable evidence, falsifiability and skeptical inquiry.
The root of this debate between WLC and Hitchens was on the existence of god, not the basic philosophy. Theists borrow from philosophy and logic to build a wall around their carefully curated beliefs. Theism is commercialized philosophy neatly packaged for minds willing to privilege belief over other, better means for seeking the truth.
"You redefine Atheism as meaning some kind of A-theism".
Is this guy fucking serious?? A professor of theology and he doesn't even understand the etymology of the word "Atheism"?
He should have said anti-theism... which is actually what Hitchens is.. though, on the topic of whether a god exist or not, he is an atheist and would, as I understand it, be swayed if there was credible evidence for an existence of god, even if he did not like it.
Etymology and definition are two different things. Atheism has always been defined in philosophy as the belief that God doesn't exist. Non-theism is the lack of a belief in God. An atheist is a non-theist, but not vice versa. So Craig was actually right.
To learn from this you must see the points that aren't argued. If you hold either in high regard, you will see which statements that the opposition doesn't press to disprove. Both are professionals in their fields and know what is factual and what is up for interpretation.
solid debate
Dr. Craig is surprisingly reasonable, and that's coming from an atheist. I wish all Christians were as articulate and sane.
You can tell what a wonderful debater Craig is when right from the start he can't even understand what atheism means and means not.
It's the atheists that have redefined the word to weasel out of a burden of proof
Lie. We are atheists because we don't believe in a god, not because we're asserting a god doesn't exist. If you choose to give the word 'atheist' a different definition, then we would no longer be atheists... we would simply need another word to define our position. If I redefined 'theist' as someone whom can prove that a god exists, then there would be no theists. There are however lots of people whom believe that a god exists, but that wouldn't fall within my new definition of theist.
@@noreexic If you're a believer I certainly wouldn't be mentioning 'burden of proof' if I were you. Evolution is the best explanation period for the beginning of life on earth, meaning god most definitely did NOT create humans or any other living thing. Why is this so hard to understand for believers? I'll tell you why, because it doesn't fit what they've been brainwashed to believe. That my friend is the definition of 'no proof whatsoever'.
''command even the forces of darkness!'' (du du du du, du du du, du du du)
+Vic 2.0 Can you explain to me hitchens response in 5:45 is? the one where he ended by saying it was a "non sequitor". It seems to me that hitchen is evading the question but probably just me failing to comperhand it.
thanks!!!. saw your post on another video and you explained these arguments really well
This was a great clip. Instead of listening to a bunch of canned replies, this was a nice give and take between two well spoken people, with a little bit of light-hearted banter tossed in for good measure.
It's a problem for me that such a well educated man like Dr Craig can not only believe such ancient stories to be factual but admit that he does to hundreds of people. How can this be. I suppose the same thought process applies to the people who are insisting that Hitchens somehow didn't win the day.
Note, that William Craig is educated primarily in theology and philosophy of religion.
Because he backs up his words with facts and logic.
Fun fact most smart people are theist, you can check on every school because most of the top students believes in God. I can't even imagine doing science without the belief of existence of God.
If you believe in God, what is the issue with believing in a virgin birth or resurrection?
@@ajpalazuelos3831 Logic? He believes in miracles ffs.
Doesn't William Lane Craig look like the older David Lee Roth? Just sayin..haha
Oh my lanta- now that you mention it , he totally does!
When someone starts an answer with "Yes I believe that as a Christian...." you know the question was about magic.
every few months I stumble across this video and have to watch it. I love to see the late great Hitchens squirming in his seat. Craig has been debating since he was 15 and is a master. Hitchens got derailed big time. I have to give it up to hitch though, he got more balls than dawkins. Dawkins runs from Dr. Craig like a big bully who just got his ass kicked. all Christians owe dr Craig a bow of recognition for dedicating his life to defending the truth of theism. and when you read the hate that some atheists have for dr. Craig, it really puts into perspective how much true evil exist in this world today. it's like Craig infuriates the atheist so much that the hate inside them grows...!!!! evil hates truth.
+Nick Glaeser he has debated since he was 15 and he has still not learned how to not use fallacious arguments?
Did he try to rip his own mic out I've never seen a dodge attempt like that ever.
LOL its called the Butterball defense, where you drop things, fall over, need to pee its an old defense :P
nature2rule haha you called it spot on XD But Hitchens asked for it :P
***** BUTTERBALL DEFENSE LOL
***** is happier than yours :P
+TheCosmicWarrior ahh classic, the, 'he's just boring', card has been played. A card played in times of true denial and desperation. It doesn't work anymore. When you dismiss one of the greatest public intellectuals and best selling authors of our time as 'boring', you concede that you are either extremely glib or extremely naive.
So many people seem to be of the impression that Hitchens was flustered, or somehow lost this debate. I'm not sure that you were watching the same clip as me. If you were, I suggest that you go and read about successful cross-examination and in particular I would recommend reading the cross-examination of Oscar Wilde by Carson.
Hitchens did exactly what one would do in a court-room. He began slowly, by getting the 'witness' to agree with certain propositions. These allowed him to set up his big question: that the alleged miracles of Jesus do not prove the truth of his gospel. This is one of the most critical questions he could have asked, given the number of people who seem to believe that they do.
He then demonstrates how curious it is that this man claims to know the truth of god, but thinks that numerous other religions are false and wrong. He expects the audience to use their own initiative and to understand the ridiculousness of such a proposition and he does not labour the point. This is one of the essential skills of an advocate. You have to be invisible. Get in, get what you want and get out.
Ultimately, I would suggest that he did a far better job than his opponent, but that's just my view I guess ...
Yeah, I was watching a different clip
Ryan Leigh not so many “people” seem to be of the impression that Hitchens was flustered, so many CHRISTIANS seem to be of that impression 😉🤷🏽♂️
Wow,Hitchens got this Craig to admit that its possible that jesus was just another magician. I lolled.
Craig just argues terminology and technology. Craig uses the fallacy of necessity.
When it comes to actual logic, Craig gets Hitchslapped.
If you can't explain it enough, you don't understand it enough - Einstein
Craig is a bad used car salesman. What ever he says does not work. He is all horse feathers.
This video illustrates Craig's sophistry perfectly. First, he begins with a straw man and pretends that Hitchens' position is "God does not exist" -- when Hitchens has already made abundantly clear what his view is and why he holds it. (which Craig ignores entirely). So obvious and so disingenuous. And my favorite part at 8:13: "I'm not saying Jesus actually exorcised demons or performed miracles, but he demonstrated an unprecedented sense of divine authority by exorcising demons and performing miracles." Got that?
4:05 lol extra nervous...fondling with pen and ear bud with shaky hands...lol
Like most people on a stage... Your point?
just pointing something out..and sounds like u just agreed and justified it by claiming most people do...lol...Hitchens was not the type to get nervous
+Matthew Morgan Do you believe that there is a God?
+marquelx94 No, I was raised to believe in the Christian god, but I don't think I ever bought it.
Craig is a 'blind faither'. He happens to believe in the Bible. To put it briefly : the Bible = God exists; the Koran = Allah exists and finally The Mr Blobby book = Mr Blobby exists too. I think that Christopher Hitchens is being much to polite!
He actually does not Mae that argument ... he presented 5 arguments for the existence of God earlier in the debate .. however hitchens does not address these arguments here which says a lot hitchens arguments or ability to debate craig
His arguments were... In one ear out the other. I guess.
"Ahhh theism" should be a comedy sitcom
It's obvious that Craig knows how to win debates but he can never actually win an argument with such fallacious logic
Having said that, however I must admit that it's far simpler to express rationality and logic and reason in words than spiritualism or faith. We somehow need to be receptive to fantastic ideas to understand them and I would never envisage a situation that maketh me jump to the divine rather than seeking a true explanation.
It's remarkable to see how much more was covered when Craig was being questioned. No dodging of questions, just straight answers. I think Craig only got in 2 or 3 questions while Hitchens got in 5 times that. If you don't call that dodging, then you are a very biased individual.
Atheists rely on puffy rhetoric, instead of reason. Dr. Craig has spent his whole career studying rational arguments... so he can articulate them perfectly in seconds.
"There's no claim I can make where I can say atheism is true". Hitchens totally contradicted himself.
Listen to his whole statement! He explains himself..
He says "I can't claim atheism is true. because atheism is the belief that a certain proposition isn't true". But in that statement, he still claimed that he cannot prove what he believes to be true. So therefore, the rest of his argument goes out the window.
Mitch Peters He says this is statemant, not the belief
vako xurcidze That's irrelevant. By stating it, obviously, he believes it.
Mitch Peters
What he's saying is that atheism is the rejection of the god claim. So it's not a belief system like theism but it's the belief that theists simply haven't made their point.
Christopher's mind and ability to argue is so much greater than to debate something as trivial as the historicity of biblical claims. I do think he realizes this and he provides a dialogue in this debate that is facetious and entertaining. When he debates the morality of biblical claims and actions, it provides a lot more food for thought.
He was terrible...distracted and evasive.
@@3joewj the opening line of Craig was responded to, corrected and on point. Baseless straw man’s get you no where
@@thediggg5499 i guess i have to choose between a whiskey drinking athiest who has authority issues or Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is more reliable and logical.
The rejection of a single claim does not constitute a "belief system" no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.
Science does establish a number of objective basis for morality. Harm can be measured. Pain can be measured. Hunger can be measured. We do not need the subjective, contradictory, unsubstantiated and therefore delusional belief in the supernatural to establish morality.
Theodore Araujo being able to scientifically measure levels of pain doesn't make causing pain or harm objectively wrong, morally...
of course not...it requires the additional step that humans agree that inflicting pain on others should be avoided. "Do unto others..." the Summarian code (well before the monotheism of Judea). See, the Agnostics and Atheists have no problem with the concept of human beings developing a moral code because we do not believe in the supernatural or revelation. Moral codes derived through reason predate religious belief (Socrates, Plato, etc.) so the fact that there are objective indicators of pain that cause harm are then subject to the application of reason to develop moral codes. We cause pain when we go to war, but it is justified by certain moral precepts, is it not?
Theodore Araujo+ " additional steps " in avoiding causing pain is only a human preference. "Do unto others" is for the week according to Niche. Moral coding has always revolved around people who needed it. There are plenty of people, without legal consequences, given the choice would and do live lives hurting others for their gain. Objective reasons corporately have to be inflicted onto all people individually so that all people can be treated fairly. This view of morality is still lacking in the sense of individual ideals of right and wrong. Science cannot tell you if hurting someone is wrong. Yes it may tell you it inflicts pain, yes it may tell you this can cause decay in society, however, it still can't say it is morally wrong. It has no grounds. If it was better corporately in the long run to hurt one another would you be having this conversation still? What moral coding would you be appealing too? If one knew he could kill someone and prosper his family and generations to come and the one who was killed had no family, would this be wrong? Why? Objectively it lead to a better evolutionary process that effects us corporately. ( hypothetically assuming more was gained overall than lost by doing this)
We cause pain in war. We both know, at least I hope, that Hitler was not good in the moral sense. Why? He was just trying to do what nature does everyday. Filter out the week genes according to his ideals and standards. The Germans, through brain washing, thought they were doing the right thing. Now I agree that he shouldn't of murdered people but what makes what he did wrong or evil in the moral sense?
All true morals are measured by some sort of standard of what we think good is. This standard of good does not come from science. We are appealing to something bigger because we were created by something bigger. I think all people know this but choose to suppress it.
What is the name of the scale(s)that measures harm, pain and hunger?
Whats the measuring unit for harm, pain and hunger?
Hitchens was obviously drunk on stage here, but that's okay - one needs alcohol to deal with William Lane Craig.
W L Craig's brilliant BS tactics would lead anyone to drink.
yah, don't let the evidence get in the way....
One needs alcohol to be an alcoholic.
he almost always had Scotch on stage, and, regaled the fact that he would have to drinks at lunch followed by two bottles of wine.....
Sandy Pidgeon Very sad.
You can watch debates all day. It might be great entertainment to you. The problem is what are you going to do about it?
Hitchens was dodging. He never answered the question about whether he is an agnostic or atheist.
I think it's just WLC's definition of "agnostic" that is not exactly correct. Withholding the belief in something due to its lack of evidence is an atheistic view. Hitchens said that "agnosticism is evasive," so clearly he does not want to be labeled agnostic.
Do people really believe Jesus didn't exist? WOW.
Why would anyone doubt the existence of a supernatural god man for which every shred of evidence for his existence is based on the demonstrably fictional mythology of his cult?
Too many fallacies in your last statement to count. Opinion doesn't count as evidence. But thanks for sharing.
+Jen Martense lmao *slow clap*
Yes Brian,there are people who do not have faith that jesus christ exists. that's why we have the word faith. either you have it (for something you have never seen or heard) or you don't. that's the very definition of faith.
Yes I'm one of them
Interesting fact: Dr Craig’s face has never healed from the immensity of hitchslaps received throughout.
Hitchens said " And I know you believe in the resurrection." Craigs reply was "Yes for that I believe we have good evidence for." Really?!? Good evidence??? Let me guess an ancient book written by guys 100's of years later who weren't even there. Is that your evidence Dr Craig?
It's not a single book, there are contemporary accounts, and the witnesses that saw Jesus post-mortem were even stated by name. Try to familiarize yourself with Craig's arguments before you critique.
I still hold out hope, that I will someday discover a theist who accurately describes atheism, instead of making up their own wrong answer.
People 100 years from now are going to look back at these debates and "thank heaven" that human beings have evolved beyond the world views of the W.L. Craigs of our time. The nonsense that he spews is an embarrassment to our current generations of intellectuals and rationalists.
Edward S Exactly......religion is absolutely detrimental to the progress of humanity,
um....excuse me goober, but religion has been responsible for far more deaths than any man made weapon, Now, you still have time to pull your head out of your ass if you want to because anyone who defends religion has their head in you know where!!!
While I can appreciate what you're trying to do here, Gooby (interesting name, btw), this is a tired old argument that religious people like to use when confronted with the fact that religion has been the single most divisive product of civilization. The non-religious seldom ever (IF ever) do anything in the name of their lack of belief. The religious, on the other hand, often do horrible things in the name if their religion or their god. Theists then try to argue that it was the lack of religious moral framework that led to the atrocities committed by, say, the Soviets, but that argument is a catch 22 and says nothing of the reason, then, that the religious are so eager to commit equally horrific atrocities. Whatever the case, I stand by the great Steven Weinberg when he said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion".
your ending reminded of a movie that I saw.......shawshank redemption......simply put.... I was straight on the outside, but it took prison to make me a criminal
Edward S can say that to god when you stand before him,,see if it holds any water.
So many "edgy" commenters lol
Thomas Huxley invented the word 'agnostic' from reading the works of Thomas Carlyle. One chapter in Carlyle's Sartor Resartus led Huxley to accept a religion without theology. Here is the quote, From the correspondance of T.H. Huxley:"...when I look back, what do I find to have been the agents of my redemption? The hope of immortality or of future reward? I can honestly say that for these fourteen years such a consideration has not entered my head. No, I can tell you exactly what has been at work. Sartor Resartus led me to know that a deep sense of religion was compatible with the entire absence of theology. Secondly, science and her methods gave me a resting-place independent of authority and tradition. Thirdly, love opened up to me a view of the sanctity of human nature, and impressed me with a deep sense of responsibility.",
H
Hitchens and his dribble. He MUST dabble in order to capture the attention of the audience and move them away from the fact that he is not really trying to answer the question.
"You seem to redefine atheism to mean a sort of ah-thesim"
Do you WLC fans actually think this is a smart sentence?
Even if the classical definition of atheism is ah-theism (which it isn't), Craig's point would stand. Ah-theism encompasses a variety of different views which are meaningfully different, and it would be important for Craig to figure out which view Hitchens actually held. Hitchens ended up admitting to an actual atheist position that God doesn't exist, but then wanted the burden of proof of the agnostic position rather than providing an argument that God doesn't exist. Turning specific language into general language doesn't change the reality of the multitude of non theistic views.
So what’s the difference between atheism and ah-theism
@@HeyYoGizmo It would have been painfully clear if you bothered listening to Craig. Ah-theism encompasses all non theistic beliefs, which would include atheism, agnosticism, or possibly other views without a belief in any God. Atheism is a part of that and specifically pertains to an active disbelief in any God, and must actually be defended.
It doesn't matter if you agree with these semantics, just that there is a meaningful difference between active disbelief and simply non belief. Craig wanted to understand Hitchens view so he could more effectively critique it.
@@GodzillaFreak it obviously wasn’t clear, which was why the crowd laughed at his attempt to differentiate the two 😂
@@HeyYoGizmo Did you listen at all or was it just in one ear out the other?
6 minutes of blubbering and evasion for Hitchens to answer even a single question. And it's only an incredibly basic one: "Would you say God does not exist?" What's even more embarrassing than his performance, however, is that people are actually so caught up in fanboyism to think he did anything other than humiliate himself.
+ihatealigators I agree. I like Hitchens, but he messed up an opportunity to really grill Craig about his essentially irrational beliefs.
the funny thing is so many atheist think hitchens won. when every sophisticated people know he lost wholfully.
Back when I was an atheist, even I thought Hitchens got slaughtered in this debate
William Lane Craig shouldn't have to debate if he already knows his position is true. Notice how he constantly revises it too.
" There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable. "
Please clone Hitch, I see no other voice of reason with the vinegar he had. We just may need him in 30 years. If not much sooner.
Craig ends with something very interesting; he says _"Within the cristian camp, there is a large diversity of perspectives... I'm sure there are views that I hold that are probably false"._ If only Hitchens had enough time to delve into that subject, he may have had the opportunity to reveal that Craigs theological beliefs are based on preference and not on evidence.
Brilliant
As you said bonk, if he had the time... Craig utilizes many frowned upon debate tactics and one of them is the Gish Gallop.... just spout anything and everything in a fast way so the opponent doesn't have time to counter and then at the end point out that he never answered.
The physical isn’t all there is. If you truly hold that position, then you’re a true naturalist. In this view, even concepts like love and justice and abstract objects like numbers don’t truly “exist” in a physical sense
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I admire Dr Craig's humble concession that some of his theology may be in error and that he is 'trying' to get it in order. THAT is awesome. Too many opinions and comments here come from pride and a mind that is already made up. We need to continue searching... all of us.
Yes, every person thinks that all of their own opinions are correct, but only a fool actually thinks that he, himself, is correct about everything. An honest person knows that it's impossible to be 100% correct all of the time.
Why does hitchens look so dismantled in this? Am I missing something here?
Probably because Hitchens saw that he did get dismantled in the debate (you can find the whole thing elsewhere). If you listen to Dr. Craig's post-debate comments, he recounts how Hitchens was genuinely surprised that a Christian had intelligent arguments to support his view.
Klaus von Zeit Its sad to say that there arent a lot of them out there. Many blindly believe without question which makes them weak. Though christianity can be like science in a way, the more you question the more you may get to know. But just like in science there are unanswered questions.
It helps when your opponent is going through chemotherapy & slowly dying.
Mike August Correct me if Im wrong but doesnt chemo cause hair loss?
Craig fails to realize that the burden of proof is on him, not on Hitchens.
No, he doesn't. The one making the ridiculous claim holds the burden of proof.
+TheCosmicWarrior No, you fail to understand the atheist position. It does not make a positive claim. It simply posits that the evidence fails to support the assertion of any deity. In fact, Craig doesn't even have a cohesive, consistent definition of his god.
He DID defend it and he didn't phrase it that way, a point he made in different ways multiple times because of Craigs apparent inability to understand anything :D also Hitchens is not having to defend against the evidence of a god because there isn't any, he is merely correcting Craig and pointing out the massive holes in what craig puts forward.
***** LOL Not only are you deluded in your world view but you apparently can not see nor hear either without washing it in bullshit :D :D :D :D
God exist and there aint nothing you can do than argue
Well, consider this: Have you ever cared to wonder if fire is essentially a good thing? On a furnace, yes, on your skin, no. No subjectivity there. Is cyanide objectively bad? It's useful for many things, but you know that for your health it's damaging, for sure. So wondering about their "objective" value is superfluous.
I'm convinced that if we manage to measure sentient well-being and the relationship of actions towards that, it will also render the "universal" value of these irrelevant.
What Hitchens doesn't understand when questioning Dr. Craig about the stories of exorcism and miracles is that Christ acted upon his own authority and didn't feel the necessity of appealing to God for the power to perform the miracles. Whether or not the miracles occurred is actually beside the point - Christ was staking out ground as to who he IS, in much the same way as Yahweh speaks to Moses on Mt. Sinai - "I am that I am."
never thought I'd ever witness an adult saying "the forces of darkness" with a straight face
then you don't know many adults. Grow up.
vennie brice sorry I don't go to church, i dont like pedophiles
TheBlackJacksItalia Your statement is twisted, hateful and ridiculous....try to do better.
I bet you're an altar boy
TheBlackJacksItalia I am not Catholic, nor do I like that religion. I am a Christian. And it sounds as if you simply have an axe to grind with Catholicism...good luck with that.
It's difficult to take somebody (Craig) seriously who uses phrases like, ''commands the forces of darkness''.
The last resort of an utterly untenable position.
+Hank Schrader It was a poor choice of words.
He is using a general term that describes ALL DARK FORCES, speaking from a Christian perspective. It isn't difficult to understand with a small sense of Christian philosophy. Especially since the Christian perspective is an extreme duality of forces either being good or evil.
+Hank Schrader He uses that phrase because he was trying to avoid saying "the devil" and by virtue, admitting to the devil's existence.
MirVids From a christian perspective, there are more dark forces than the devil. There are actually a number of devils in the bible. Satan is the Lead
Chuck-U Farly Can you give a discription of religion?
1B. It’s not an assumption, it’ a conclusion. There is a distinction between the laws of nature and their constants. The laws are set, their constants are not; they are just “set-in” as initial conditions of the universe. It’s these constants that demonstrate the fine-tuning. Do you deny that universe is fine-tuned for life? (arrogance, etc. Arguments aren’t emotional - red herring)
Sadly as intelligent as many say Hitchens was, he could not seem to be objective and simply offer arguments without getting emotional and taking offense to someone daring to question his beliefs.
Atheism is an emotional condition, not a reasoned argument. You will never find an atheist who can maintain intellectual honesty all the way through a debate with WLC. I tried to find one and was extremely disappointed. It's like watching a crooked politician babble.
I find it absolutely amazing that Hitchens manages to keep a straight face when Craig talks about what he believes...lol
he said the lack of magnificence in the evidence is why he can't accept it. lol
+Amirah Hands he is saying that the lock of magnificence of the evidence is why the evidence so far presented does not live up to the standard of evidence for a claim of a supernatural caliber.
Ludvig Burman that's ignorant. Evidence doesn't have to be magnificent for something to be true.
Ludvig Burman he's argument sounds more like a emotional one. He has his own personal preference towards what evidence he can accept.
Amirah Hands It does if the claim is supernatural. I will admitt that magnificence is perhaps missleading as a word. Hitch puts it better at another point. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I would assume you follow this same principle yourself.
Ludvig Burman sorry I don't. I think a women having twins by 2 different men is extraordinary do I think the evidence for it is No.
To all the knobs who say "Craig won this debate" or "Hitchens had a bad day" - did any of you actually bother to watch the whole debate? Hitchens didn't have a bad, he was just as brilliant as always. Craig proved to be the usual snake oil salesman, having rhetorics as his only weapon, not understanding words he's using and, basically, he didn't need Christopher to destroy him. Craig destroyed himself in this debate.
You know what is really sad and depressing, but somewhat amusing? That there are those still who think Craig "won" this debate.
You mean people like Luke Muehlhauser ?
Wow chris looked very nervous
Alex Montoya Christopher
*Christopher
Wow. Look at how Dr. Craig tried to filibuster his way out of whether or not he believed in demons.
Uh, dude, he's very candid about believing in demons. Just check out his work. He was in front of a mostly Christian crowd, he had nothing to hide. He was choosing his words carefully that to make his grander point about Christ's authority, not trying to veil his belief in demons. You're criticizing him, essentially, for being tactful in a debate.
Captain Crunch Owns Count Chocula So he doesn't believe god is omnipotent?
Bearhill Wut. How on earth did you infer that? Non sequitur is not a strong enough word...
Filbert Lam you gave a concise answer he said yes and then explain himself how is that a filibuster
He gave *
Is that blurb directly from the dust jacket on his book?
If your god is omnipotent, then he/she woudn't need someone to defend his existence to the athiest.
"You redefine Atheism as meaning some kind of A-theism" WOW
I think he got us there guys, he might even realize that we don't believe in god!!
"he might even realize that we don't believe in god"
No. Come on now. We all secretly believe in god and are denying his existence because we want to live lives of reckless debauchery. Why do you think the national academy of sciences is always hosting drunken orgies?
Well then... atheismexposed.tripod.com/modern_scientists_NAS_God.htm
AThagoras 4 years late, are there still science sex orgies? Tag me in
Medical Mystery count me in as well.
Because at least the orgy would be consensual, contrary to the nefarious child molestations Pope Francis attempted to obscure.
I love how most atheists don't even seem to know the definition of atheism.
Hilarious how Craig has spent his life debating atheists without apparently ever figuring out what it means.
Thats part of debate....many atheist try understand what a persons idea of theism is because of the many different ideas of what God is to many people.
+Dan Rather How so?
+Dan Rather Of course not - atheism makes no claim.
+Dan Rather Why would he have to explain 'origins'?
"Hitchens doesn't give anywhere near as compelling an argument for the non- existence of God."
Sad that its lost on you that he's just being a good sport by debating the vague interpretations of a holy text. Craig has lost the core argument before the debate even began. All Hitchens is doing is humoring him.
Craig's arguments about demons in pigs are childish.
1:05... Hitchens was WAY too smart to say something this stupid. Every time I hear him say it I have to shake my head in despair. The statement "X is not true" is itself a proposition which can be true or false! Nothing could be more obvious. If you say "reading is good for the mind" and I say "that statement is false", we have both made claims which can be either true or false, predicated on the actual fact of whether reading is good for the mind or not. It's just pitiful how someone as articulate and intelligent as Hitchens was could make such idiotic arguments in this debate.
So instead of saying "x is not true" you want him to say "it is true that x is not true"?
kewltony
"x is not true" and "it is true that x is not true" are logically the same statement. Therefore the claim "theism is false" is the same as the claim "atheism is true". So why did Hitch keep waffling and refuse to defend the statement that atheism is true? Simple answer: He had no arguments to support that position. He thought atheism was the default position. He was clearly wrong despite his brilliance in other fields.
I'm embarrassed to share a name with Dr. Craig. He's making it up as he goes along, and it's ridiculously weak! I seriously doubt the veracity of his faith, if he is indeed a PhD then I'm sure he has read enough to cast his own 'faith' into doubt and is now just propped up as an apologist for the academic paycheque and book deals it brings!
He has a Ph.D. in Philosophy, which is rather sad considering his poor performance in this debate. But then again, tasked with defending religion, I think his appearance in this video was inevitable regardless of his educational background.
you have brain damage or didnt listen to the video ?
I like Hitchens, but Craig smashed him in this debate.
Not exactly. But this was a soft ball, and Hitchens should have done much better than he did.
Marius Periwinkle Craig has a very clear and logical train of thought. Hitchens seems scattered and rarely addresses the points. If this debate was adjudicated, Craig would win hands down.
+Hmm Thinking
Only if the audience was stacked. "Command even the forces of darkness". This is not clarity or logic. It is just nonsense. Too bad that Hitchens was so leniant and lets him get away with such statements. This should have been a slam dunk for Hitchens, but somehow he let this trickster do his deed.
Marius Periwinkle Unfortunately with most of these atheist genius' their greatest weapon is wit. When they cant out maneuver on logic they resort to 'flying spaghetti monster' comments. Hitchens was smart in being 'lenient' otherwise he would have come off as many atheists do, bitter. Considering Hitchen's (arguably) has the upper hand, given the relationship between logic and evidence, he should have won this. But at the end of the day, Craig provided a far more logical argument, and in this case, God is real.
+Hmm Thinking yeah i agree WLC is a BOSS!!!!!
Atheism can't be either true or false. As a question it's nonsense.
Too bad Hitchens didn't do so good with his answers. An immediate "my position is that there IS absence of evidence, not evidence of absence". And "our social instincts and sense of empathy are objective, observable and independent of interpretation" would have been better, wouldn't they?
This is just frustrating, Craig really doesn't seem to understand Hitchen's responses, and so he just persists in asking more and more silly questions. He needs to realise that the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim; not with the person who is unconvinced of that claim.
Yea that's true if they believe with certainty that there is no god. I just tend to define atheism as non-religious that's all.
raami jackson Actually, you're completely wrong. So is Craig. Theism is the BELIEF a god exists. Atheism is the lack of a belief. The positive statements there is or isn't a god is just that. When Craig says there is a god, which is stepping beyond his belief in theism, the burden is completely on him and him alone to prove it. Same for any christian or other type of theist who positively claims there is a god. Craig is dishonest when he claims his "arguments" need to be refuted for a claim of atheism to be rational. Atheism is completely rational since no argument of christianity has ever been substantiated.
Let's get to the agnostic issue. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. It means one can not know something. When someone says they are agnostic, since they can't know something, they can't believe in that particular thing they are agnostic towards. Since the persons who calls themselves agnostic regarding god claims they don't believe either way- they are ATHEISTS. In fact, every single person I have personally met who call themselves an atheist, are also agnostics!
So you see boy, the atheist has no burden of proof when confronted by agnostics. We are agnostics! You christians waste so much time!
It has always seemed clear to me that WLC quite clearly understands his opponents arguments (and probably, to some degree, agrees with them), but he is not paid to move toward the position of the opposition, no matter how logical their arguments may be. He has made his living, and his reputation, from debating and opposing atheism.
Brian Keith Jones WLC handed Hitch his ass in this debate-- I love Hitch but it wasnt close...
Glen V, they're just "eluding you're a moron," so ignore them and keep on trucking. For science. Loser.
I'm sorry but all I saw in this was attempts at question dodging and ad hominems from Hitchens.
immaturechildofgod Then you really should watch it again. This time revove the god glasses and maybe you'll see the idiocy WLC spouts. Casting demons into pigs and "commanding the forces of darkness" SERIOUSLY???An adult can utter childish fairy story nonesense like that, and you still imagine him to be credible.
me too hitchens never answered his question all he said is God is evil and anything you assert abt God doesn't make sense so God doesn't exist. but that isn't the question at all.
they think hitchens won cos its funny to them. hitchens only make funny jokes abt God but look deep down his arguments is the worst. he complains abt how evil God is and I do not know where he got those morals from some how God being mean makes him not exist.
2. Mind-independent - agreed , for the most part. Technically it is: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
This is just an attempt to redefine the word good as “supports well-being”; essentially using good in a non-moral sense--a certain chess move is “good.” Harris has not solved the "value problem" as he puts it nor has he solved the "is-ought" problem.
Hume's response was specifically aimed at the Ontological argument.
So, on this basis should we reject intuition? Intuition is the basis for understanding the reason why P implies Q. It's the basis we use for understanding logic and accepting rationality. Are you suggesting that we should reject such intuitions based on Hume's assertion?
"Command even the forces of darkness." I laughed at loud at that. What is this, Star Wars? What reasonable person can believe in "forces of darkness"? It's so childish .
The battles of good and evil in Movies are all influenced by accounts in the Bible and other religions. So shut up kid.
Your comment is too juvenile to respond to.
Sam Vicchrilli You're the one committing a fallacy, and I'm juvenile? Okay, boss.
By saying that phrase "command the forces of darkness", Craig is stating He believed Jesus had power over even the strongest of evil. And thats childish to you?
The same force that is driving anti-God movement. We see so many atheists and it is a solid proof that "powers of darkness" is real.
watch Hitchens body language, the avoidance and tangents he went oof on. He was visibly shaking and it wasn't rage... There is nothing here that suggests Hitchens dominated this segment of the debate.
So you spent the whole time watching his body movement but didn't listen to his words?! That's a silly way to understand somebody
biro24 He didn't say to not listen to the words. You could if you want but he's saying pay more attention to the body movemntb
Andrew Swingler Craig-fantastic!
It's called being hung over.
this was 2 days after he found out he had cancer i think even wlc would have not been at their best
This is where Logic 101 comes into play, and, as much as I appreciate Hitchens wit and humor, he seems to completely ignore Craig's reasonable criticism being: do you have any arguments leading to the conclusion that God does not exist? There seems to be this mantra in the "New Atheist Movement," dealing with the term "Burden of Proof," that they seem to exempt themselves from. In Logic you have propositions and beliefs about those propositions. The Proposition God Exists is affirmative, the Proposition God does not exist is negative. Just because Craig takes an affirmative claim does not mean he is the only one who needs evidence for what he believes; i.e: when dealing with beliefs about propositions, you have to have reasons for your belief AND NON BELIEF of things because that non belief, in a sense, is still a belief about a proposition one way or another. Hitchens ignores this point, and oddly enough seems to fumble his mic right when Craig pushes him, because he isn't willing to defend his own belief, and he basically just half-asses it by saying "well you haven't offered enough evidence." I agree with his point that the evidence ought to be magnificent, but on his end has he offered magnificent evidence to conclude that Empiricism and Atheism are the only tenable positions. Again, he is not addressing this in a proper logical manner.
You need to listen to the whole debate if you think Craig supported his beliefs with more power.
any god that requires defend it in a debate or in a comments section does not deserve my worship
"any god that requires defend it in a debate or in a comments section does not deserve my worship"
It's not exactly God who's defended, but that human belief in God is reasonable.
Nowhere in the Bible does God demand people to debate on His behalf. These debates are purely from human choice and decision.
1 Peter 3:15.
Also didn't you read Acts, Hiob, any Prophets - a lot of argument about God in there? Or Jesus debating with the High Priests, Pharisees, Saducees etc. (Mark 12, for example)? It is all over the Bible.
If you believe that Christianity is true, you will defend it. That's done with argument - and if others don't agree and you engage, the result is debate.
1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be prepared to give a defense for why we believe what we believe if we are ever confronted on it. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to defend the existence of God because He needs us to defend him.
and any atheist who spends his entire life abusing and ridiculing the same God ( sam harris, hitchens and that intellectual midget dawkins) he does not even believe in does not deserve my respect
hitchens part of the cross exam was simply comical he even admits some of his questions were ridiculous. if I was him I would've felt embarrassed
Daniel Eyre bO000ooo
lol the end comment of the chairman was quite humourous xD
5:05 the side eye is so funny lol
It's amazing that someone can be taken at all seriously after they have admitted that they believe somebody cast devils out of people and into pigs.
I do wish Hitchens had stayed closer to the hard-hitting points in this cross-x. Craigs arguments are all fallacious and there's no need for soft-balls at the end.
Probably because Hitchens *couldnt* refute his arguments at the time.
+Deego the Great I don't want to speculate as to why Hitchens seemed to conclude with soft balls, but I myself can see clear flaws in all of Craigs arguments and I suspect that Hitchens was a much smarter man than I.
BrooklynRagtag Some people perform poorly under stress. Who knows what happened.
+Deego the Great Honestly, he might have been drunk. He did love his whiskey.
I'd like to hear the Kalam argument disproven.
Haha Hitchens got exposed.. I was embarrassed for him LOL
Without specifically claiming it Christopher is asserting a verificationism position when he prefaces with things like 'I haven't see any evidence, etc'. Even the wiki page, not any bastion of theism much less christian apologetics, presents why that verificationism was discarded as unsubstantial a long time ago.
11:50 a classically hilarious exchange. 😂