William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2017
- For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
On April 4, 2009, William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens met at Biola University to debate the question of God’s existence. Craig is one of the world’s foremost Christian apologists. Hitchens, is a leading spokesman for the “new atheism” movement.
In front of an overflow crowd and a global internet audience, they debated the origin and design of the universe, the implications of human morality, the deity of Jesus, and the validity of Christ’s resurrection. It was a compelling clash of worldviews and an examination of the major arguments for and against Christianity and atheism.
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg
Debate starts at 12:55. You’re welcome
Oh...uhhh.....thanks.
Much love brother
TYFYS
@@bm359 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What debate?😈
I would rather have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned.
So, how much are you able to question your skepticism? Are you free to be skeptical of skepticism?
damn bro, you really owned him. "You aren't skeptical about your desire to be skeptical"
I don't want to sound like an apologist, I'm an atheist and just expressing something that is a current thing in my life. I just want to point out that this domain of unquestionable answers is not limited to the religious. In the secular corner, you could define stigmatized as exactly that. Things about which you are not supposed to be curious, or expressing skepticism will alienate you. This, I think, is a problem on both sides of such questions and I don't have such a good answer for how to better tackle it besides better more open conversation, compassion and some awareness of one's bias.
Now the real meat of what I've been thinking about recently is the issue that within groups, people will often agree on things like "be skeptical, have open conversations, talk with those you disagree with" and kind of romanticize it. The reality, however, means kind of shitty things. You surely don't want to waste your time listening to a flat-earther or a fascist. You don't want to contradict your friends on what your groups perspective is on covid regulations, or be the one to really dive into the numbers behind drug addiction to contradict society's made up mind.
@@thaDjMauz
The opening comment is nothing more than a slogan.
And although there is nothing in the comment to tell what side he takes, the theist or the atheist, I'd certainly guess the latter. It is so typical of the smug atheist and the comment could likely be applied more to the followers of atheism than theism.
In a representative clip, "Isn't God no Better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? or a 'Special Computer'?" where Dr. Craig debates the late Lewis Wolpert, Wolpert accepts all of Craig's assertions of the characteristics of God, but can't bring himself to use the word God. For him, it is nothing but reasonable to accept the characteristics of God but to use that title is beyond the pale. Talk about an answer that can't be questioned. Wolpert just won't allow himself (nor will his community) to name what he intellectually has no response to.
A similar thing happened with the late Sir Fred Hoyle. He just couldn't bring himself to acknowledge the Big Bang happened.
You just watched an hours long debate where answers were questioned and your response is that lazy slogan? Wow, lmao.
Don't know why they always stop the most productive parts of the debate. The back and forth dialogue is underrated.
This was a well structured and respectful debate, and hardly any question dodging. Very enjoyable to watch.
Christopher did dodge a lot of questions
@@Shalim_Kamran A question poorly made has no obligation to be answered. Every question Hitchens didn't answer outright, he had reasons for criticizing in their premise. It wouldn't do him any good to answer a question he doesn't think has the basis to be asked.
@@Shalim_Kamran Most of Craig's questions were not asked in good faith, as a way to provoke discussion. Most were "the god I believe in says so because that's how I personally interpret the writings of various, sometimes unknown, men from multiple millennia ago, so you can't disprove my beliefs." Hitchens addresses this during his time speaking.
@@CharlieQuartz If they were poorly made, then you could possibly answer them right? I humbly request of you to answer at least 2 questions.
@@metanoia29 Hitchens doesn't believe in God, therefore has no reason to judge anyone with the morality that Christianity brings up, but he continues to say that God is not a good God, for the following reasons.
1. He's not a good father because he doesn't respect our privacy, (he compares God with humans while he did that, and he can't do that because God and man are clearly different. Of course he has to watch his Creation 24/7 because how else will he know if humans are sinning or not?)
2. He doesn't care if his Creation dies brutality or not. (Which is absolute BS because he won't bring animals back to life simply because they were meant to be alive. God will not break his own rules even though he can, and also animals are not the magnum opus of God, so it won't matter if they die or not, after all humans now have the ability to bring some of the extinct animals back to life, so God's not worried for it because humans can bring them.)
3. He didn't care about early homo sapiens because they don't know what was going on in the world. (That's how humans would've learned and evolved into what we are today.)
Now he also goes on to judge the Old Testament, and says that God was exceptionally cruel during that time period. My answer to that is that God, as well as being impassioned, is also the Bringer of justice. Also the question to whether God exists or not, is also easy to answer. If there is a possibility that God exists, then He probably does exist. It's called the ontological explanation of whether God exists or not, I suggest you research into this. Another argument of his, is that "If God already made humans imperfect, how can they reach perfection?" The truth is, that God did not make humans imperfect, and he made them perfect in every way. What kind of an artist intentionally makes his masterpiece imperfect? It was Adam's sin that made humans imperfect, and I reckon you already know why, you already know how the downfall of Humanity happened. I've already made this comment very long, so I'll end it here. May God help you understand that He loves you, and wants to save you and many others.
Kudos to Craig for keeping the comment section open. Most apologists shut it down.
He knows there are enough gullible and naive people to accept his excuses and contradictions, and enough who wont understand hitchens reasoning
@@enterpassword3313 as the scarlet witch says “what reasoning?”
@@enterpassword3313 glad he used hundreds of actual references from scholars, scientists, physicists to back up his claims to shut all these dumb non belief claims up. So simple but who is too high on TH-cam🤣
@@markk1021 its pretty simple, which part did you not understand?
@@m7m746 um... what? You think wlc has actual evidence to back up his belief?
Wow, I can't believe this December it will be 10 years since Hitchens died. How time flies. May he rest in peace.
So 10 years ago he finally discovered if God exist or Not. 100% proof too.
@@StallionFernando He already knew before that.
God is a fictional character, based on earlier fictional characters.
Without faith in Christ for forgiveness of sins he wont be resting in peace. Read PERSON OF INTEREST by J Warner Wallace......
@@7ruijorge Wrong, and J Warner Wallace is not a credible source.
@@MrGreensweightHist anyone filled with the Holy Spirit is a credible source. Go read the book.....pride will stop you.....but persist past it.
Hitch held back just a little here. I think the hosts of this debate welcomed him and treated him with great respect, regardless of views and he gave the same treatment back. I also notice Hitchens cleverly keeps his cool when he enters a place or school of religion to have a debate, as he’s trying to win over a room he knows is biased against him. Truly was one of the greatest intelligent minds in the world.
Totally agree w you !
Hes not a philosopher or a scientist. He's not even a journalist. He's a polemicist.
Christopher got his ash handed to him. His brother probably did the same for many years. Christopher never got over his mom committing suicide. Looks like he blamed himself for the rest of his life. Very sad indeed.
@@aljay2955 hahaha what a loser. It's funny how people would rather lie to themselves than acknowledge truth
@@aljay2955 I don't know if he blamed himself but it stuck with him for sure. As far as losing? 😂 It's an easy task to trounce these toolbags, he's just being more polite than he sometimes is.
Hitchens: "the genital mutilation club is exclusively religious"
Well that didn't age well
Its kind of a cult isn’t it?
Depends how you stretch the definition
😭😭😭😭
I’m circumcised, and not because I’m Jewish. It’s not a big deal.
@@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime Its a useless and barbaric procedure, and you didnt have a say in the matter.
This is a good one. QA section is good. Part where they go back and forth in free form is great. The occasional comedic comments are great. Nice listen
I think the back and forth section was wonderful. I think it should have lasted longer.
It was nice to see two people with very different views have a cordial debate. Whatever side you are on, formats like this are a good thing for humanity. Being able to work together in a positive way despite differences is pretty cool.
I watched Craig debate a oneness Christian named Dale Tuggy who was very condescending and arrogant. I agree with you. We can debate without being jerks.
This was one of the most insufferable debates l have watch. I struggled to watch to the end…and most often fast for award when Craig was speaking. I could not listened to his nonsense and felt really sad that so many minds were being destroyed by this Fundamentalist religion. I feel sadden about the future of America.
@@malonesinclaire9201 I feel sad for those who only listen to those who they agree with. Being in an echo chamber is what has America where it is now. You can't fast forward life and only have the desired results that satisfy you.
What are you on about.. Hitch destroyed Craig..
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 nah. Atheists and evolutionists don't have a real leg to stand on. They borrow from a Christian world view and have to bend it to fit their narrative and usually just come off as arrogant and pompous jerks. At least this one was tolerable.
Did the intelligent designer use a white board for the design? Was he sitting or standing when the design happened? 🤔
I hope I’m honestly asking this: does anyone else get the impression that Craig is making assertions and presenting them as arguments?
yes just listen to 27:00 he litteraly said atheist dont see any problem with rape
Yes. It's the presupposition position. With that position, they make God a brute fact that doesn't require explanation.
Yes. He has an ability to talk so much, while saying so little. Its just mindgames and thoughbending. He might have half an argument rarely, but mostly its just typically religious nonsense
he made absolutely no progress arguing the question. We don't fully understand the source or nature of the universe, therefore God? But he sounded smooth. His wife will have said he won.
He claims to not have presuppositions. But he does.
Still one of my favs. I play this once a month for years now. My kids and all their friends love this one and end up sitting down. Clear Audio makes all the difference. 👍
And what's your conclusion?
@@kevinadamson5768 He listens to it every month and it clearly makes hitch look bad so I'd bet that he's a bible thumper who uses this debate is reinforcement for damage control over feeling like a retard from atheists usually plowing theists into the dirt in debates
Just seems like a better time where two people could have a polite debate without someone getting cancelled one way or another.
Its because religion is not in power
@@tradingcompanion1056That’s a dumb comment , even by internet standards
@@DaveS859 believe me you're not living in a religious society thats hell on earth
@@DaveS859 because you can't defy "god" or his "authorities" on earth
@@tradingcompanion1056 Quit being triggered. You said a dumb comment, so people call your comment dumb lol. Even most religious people are fine with separation of church and state.
Why Dr Craig acts that, if Hitchens cannot disprove the existence of something outside of time and space, that must mean it exists? It's bizarre
Where did you get that as Dr. Craig's approach? It's not. - RF Admin
Well he clearly laid out his reasoning to coming to the conclusion of creationism. His reasons for why it seems to be more likely. What his opponent did was say, “I don’t think you’re right” and gave no justification for statements like such.
Because that’s the athiest position you have the stance that such thing doesn’t exist so by definition you should have some type of proof of some kind or atleast some type of objective reasoning not just “religion bad because religious people have done bad things in name of religion”
@@Lolzzz483 Eh not really, religion is bad because religious scriptures has those words and religious apologists will simply say "out of context" or "misinterpreted" to dismiss it.
I think you just grossly misrepresented his argument
Love this
No words can explain how much the world needs Hitchens today
You > *"No words"*
You need exposure to more viewpoints. Even atheist ones. May I suggest,
*th-cam.com/video/fopo9E7UAVQ/w-d-xo.html*
You > "No words"
You need exposure to more viewpoints. Even atheist ones. May I suggest a video from CosmicSkeptic titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens"
@@samdg1234 cosmicskeptic fanboy gets in a comments section to rant about christopher hitchens and how bad his opinions are
@@ale6o
Your comment is almost indecipherable.
*"cosmicskeptic fanboy gets in a comments section"*
What comment section are you talking about? CosmicSkeptic made a video not a comment section.
*"to rant about christopher hitchens and how bad his opinions are"*
He is not ranting about his opinions. CosmicSkeptic and Hitchens share many of the same opinions about God. CosmicSkeptic is addressing the sophism used to deliver those opinions. Maybe you didn't listen to the video, or was it all over your head? Use google and look up the word sophism.
So funny in the regard that while Hitchens lived so much bad stuff happened here on this Earth🤣🤣🤣
Are there any agnostic teachers on this site?
THIS WAS A GOOD DEBATE!!!!!
Don't try and tell me that isn't David Lee Roth.
😋👍
😂 Spot on
😂😂😂 hahahahahahahhaha
Lmfao😂
I saw Scott Bakula
William always looks directly at Hitchens, but Hitchens for the most part looks at the crowd.
Yeah, con artists often learn the tricks and try to use them to fool gullible people.🤤
@@mbrum3230 If not every day.😜
Hitchens knows who he is trying to convince and it wasn't Craig, and so far it has worked. American population in 1970 was 90% Christian, now in 2023 it is 63%. Facts and evidence cannot be sugar coated 😊 Pointing out where someone is starting is irrelevant in this debate for those who will hear the arguments and change thier minds is the audience and those watching.
Interesting observation. It might be because Craig thinks he can convert Hitchens, or at least, plant a seed. While Hitchens, knowing he will not convince Craig, appeals to the crowd instead.
@@mbrum3230 spot on. And some of them are theists
"Believe it if you can, I can't stop you. Believe it if you like, you're welcome."
clever....but only some got it in the audience....
So many will believe in what they are told to believe in without question. Fear is evil excuse to make one believe. 'Believe or ELSE.' Utterly evil!
@@razony I know right. Evolutionists fear so much admitting what they believe and teach for they have so much to lose.
"Science" institutes and colleges threaten like bullies not to teach creation, "or ELSE."
@@razonythe same can be said on the opposite side. You believe what atheists say but not tons of actual evidence because you choose not to. If you don't believe then don't. You will never not prove God. You may say I can't prove God but when you can't even come to a conclusion without borrowing from our beliefs that's very telling. Also you're saying every part of our bodies on down to laminin that's shaped like a cross and holds our bodies together came out of nowhere sounds logically insane
@CeeJay611
You missed it. I'm not an Atheist. They are just as wrong. I do not believe in the 'biblical' God. That God is a manmade God made in the likeness of an evil man. There is a Divine source of everything that is of Love & Light. Look at the veridical evidence of NDE'S. The millions of them. Christianity is a scam from day one and it's time to WAKE UP from this deception. What Christians are doing is wasting their time here in this body/earth with the fear of believing in this religion. Your wasting away your lives in this mess of a religion. WAKE UP!
Hitchens makes a great and prescient point about the rise of russian nationalism and the rebirth of the Russian Orthodox church.
Hitchens is brilliant
A brilliant man would have offered proper philosophical refutations and premises to support atheism being more logically sound than theism. Hitchens failed in this regard.
5 mins into the debate and Craig is already strawmanning us.
The Big Bang doesn’t say that everything came from nothing.
Regardless, it doesn’t have anything to do with the existence of any god.
Yes it does. And yes it does. Checkmate.
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n you clearly know nothing about the Big Bang, or logic.
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n "Yes it does. And yes it does. Checkmate." It is more your side. Do you think Adam was created from dirt and Eve from his rib? They then repopulated the earth. Isn't that magic? Did Adam have sex with his daughters? Is that what the bible is referencing?
These debates should be structured so that you can only make one point in a single buttal. Not constant time and variable number of points, but single point and variable time. The moderator would need to be properly trained for this but ideally the debaters would know how to make one point at a time.
Craig should of been a 2nd hand car salesman
He’d make bank for sure
I enjoyed the debate. Both of them defended their positions extremely capably and cordially.
I don’t think so, as a proponent of Hitchens I think he made mildly contentious arguments , which did prank a punch nonetheless , with respect to Craig , I don’t think anything is off the table if you believe in the supernatural, it’s very easy to find unfalsifiable justifications for preposterous ideologies , you can just make up rhetoric which is exegesis in essence but just barely consistent with logic. I think it is the theists burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a supernatural dimension , not to defend what hasn’t been established, in other words begging the question
@@khanyisaqhuba6659well that’s cool but in a debate one side takes the affirmative and one side takes the negative or aff and neg. The structure of a debate demands that both sides partially bare the burden of proof. Especially when the topic of the debate is worded in such a way.
Craig ‘that doesnt prove atheism’ just demonstrates his misunderstanding of the word. Poor but expected
Athiesm affirms God doesn't exists, Theism affirms God must exist. Both camps have the burden of proof, but only one accepts said burden and the other doesn't.
@@t.d6379 Theists claim God exists, i simply don't believe that, this is not a positive claim, don't you know the difference between yes and no, the burden of proof is always on those that make the claim. Atheism is a lack of belief not a belief.
@@nealgrimes4382 the universe spawned into existence with no cause is quite a big claim
@@NosyFella I made no such claim, i don't know what caused the Universe, the really big claim is that you do know what caused the Universe.
@@nealgrimes4382 I agree that you did not explicitly make that claim
His very first argument "atheists have never been able to disprove god".
Really?. That is your very first argument? "You haven't proven this man-made non-existent thing doesnt exist".
Off button.
Which of these two Etheist is the best?
But our universe is not finely tuned.....it is chaotic, catastrophic, planets colliding, comets pounding Jupiter, whole galaxies colliding, black holes sucking up everything....
it is a giant game of pinball out there.
For Creation is _so_ perfect and God loves us _so_ much that he designed our bodies to require food to survive and He's going to feed _some_ people _some_ of the time! Blessed be Him.
I'm pretty sure that the children that die of hunger every 10 seconds around the world would _really_ appreciate some of that manna that God gave the Israelites during their journey out of Egypt.
Jupiter soaks up the comets so they don't hit us. Watch the debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens.
@@joeturner9219 So what it's not like that earth is the only planet. There are billions of galaxies which contain billions of planets. It is not a surprise that one of them happen to contain good conditions to support life
@@joeturner9219 really ? Then why create those unnecessary comets in the first place that comes shooting towards earth ? At least he could have saved the task or purpose he gave to Jove 😅
Go on, give your next excuse.. Make it up!
Doesnt make sense that just because you dont understand or know how the universe got created, that it must be a god
He cited the relevant evidence of mathematicians and physicists to answer that question
Just because it might not have been god doesn’t mean it wasn’t be a agnostic if you say you don’t know but to be a athiest is literally just religion on the opposite side of the same spectrum it’s a theology you have a strong conviction in something without one single thread of proof offer a better explanation
Brilliant debater, RIP Christopher, you will never be forgotten.🌷🌹
forgot him already. dont worry, Im sure he's enjoying hell.
@jpgrygus you do realise you've heard descriptions of Hell from the opposing faction right? What if Hell is actually a great place, and your God is set on making up stories about Hell to dissuade people from wanting to go there.
I'm sure North Korea makes America out to be a hellish country, but in reality it's not that bad of a place. So how do we know that isn't happening to Hell?
Logical inconsistency at it's finest
How can he rest in peace. If by his own beliefs an afterlife does not exist than he has cease to exist for ever he’s gone his memory and conscious
@@GuillermoCampos-jw1zj hes not resting in peace. whether he belives in the afterlife or not doesn't matter one bit....its still there. if I don't believe in gravity could I jump off a skyscraper and survive? chances are Hitchens ended up somewhere very very hot.
@@jpgrygusu are a delusional lunatic
Feels like these guys are speaking two different languages, funny thing is I can understand both but can't reconcile it in my headheart either.❤ Thanks for the value.
Your heart is not where you need to reconcile this.
@@tomrecane6366 my headheart?
You have that in common with the late Norm McDonald.
D best word salad of all time will be a discussion between Jordan Peterson, Kent Hovind & William Craig
@@tasiletoa1037 my money is on Kent, he just going 2 speed rap his entire speech & declare victory
I think they would fall instantly in love with each other and start frenching on stage -clasping each other’s butts frantically. By all that’s holy and unholy-please don’t let those two illogical men get together. There’s not enough KYjelly for that to occur.
Ouch!!
You guys are too thick to understand that's all
You forgot to mention John Lennox.
The world is a worse place for not having Christopher Hitchens in it.
The world is a worse place for removing ANY AND ALL mention or general moral teaching of Christ from every institution, most specifically the removal from school.
Whether you are a believer or not of the finer details of the BIBLE, I dont see how anyone could argue that morality was at its core and had subdued MANY of the sin and lonliness that has poisoned our society in such an overwhelmingly quick time.
@@TheNobleLoyalist I have never needed a belief of a god, any god take your pick, to tell me that I shouldn’t be a arsehole. I have met many lovely people that believe in a god and many who don’t. I have met many arseholes and generally horrible people that believe in a god and some who don’t.
If you choose to have faith that is all good and well but don’t use that faith to tell me that you are somehow more better than me.
The Catholic Church has committed and still commits horrendous crimes against children and seek to cover up the vile acts their priests perpetrate, they helped hide nazis after the war, never a good look.
My argument has always been, if children weren’t taught about religion or a god until they were of an age were their minds aren’t as easily led, say 14, not from school or parents etc and were then told there is an imaginary being that has never been seen, ever, that there is zero proof that this being exists or has existed. That he made a Virgin pregnant and his son turned water into wine, walked on water, was crucified and then rose from the dead and we know this because of a book that was written by illiterate primitives that tells you to own slaves, kill and many other atrocities. Tells you that a man parted a sea, another built a boat because he was told by a voice that there’d be a flood and a male and a female of every species of animal on earth including penguins and polar bears found their way to his boat and survived. A book that has been changed many times. Tell them this when they are 14 and see how many would believe the utter nonsense of any religion, a small child’s brain is easy to manipulate, fortunately I saw through the nonsense when I was a child, my parents never really bothered with religion, I don’t know what their thoughts were but it did me no harm. I got in trouble at school for not bowing for prayers and singing hymns etc but I didn’t care. I have grown to be a honest and hard working man that cares deeply about many things. I’m know what is right and wrong and I have manners.
Last year my dad died from cancer, he died an horrific death, a man that worked his arse off all of his life, loved and looked after his family, never had a bad word for anyone and kept himself to himself, what kind of god would sit back and watch a man die in that way, wasting away, unable to raise his arms, unable to stand? If there is a god and that is the type of sick, warped being he is then I’d rather not bother anyway. What god would allow his priests to rape children? What god would allow evangelists to rob people of their money while they live in luxury? Do those unfortunate enough to be born in a country where they have a different god get sent to hell through no fault of their own?
If you wish to believe in an invisible cloud wizard with zero proof of its existence then crack on, I’ll continue with my life believing in science and things I can see and that can be proven.
He's probably in an even worse place. Unless he changed at the end. I pray he did.
@@TheNobleLoyalist In school facts should be taught, not claims. I remember how religion was taught to me from first to fourth grade as if it was undisputed fact (this was 1986 to 1990), luckily a couple of years later I started thinking for myself and quickly realized, that everything in the old testament was just the desperate attempt of mankind to explain a world they couldn't understand - that's why it appears so ridiculous nowadays whereas the new testament is already not be taken seriously as there are four gospels that are so different that they just cannot be true.
As for the morality of the bible, for me personally there is just way to much incest, rape and human sacrifice in there to use this book as a moral compass.
In other words, I would never send my child to school where the bible is taught and I am glad that where I live religion is no longer a subject in public schools.
I miss him so much
I edge it little for Mr.Lane but Mr.Hitchens is an amazing debater I love to listen to. May he Rest in peace
CC completely misinterprets when Hitch says "or don't outlive it" showing the word *genital* instead @1:09:13. Then just 32 seconds later @1:09:45 he says our "genitalia" etc. Just a humerous observation.
Craig is an expert goalpost mover but ultimately vulnerable to the same issue that all faith-based advocates are, his pov hinges almost entirely on conjecture and baseless babbling.
Just because you didn't understand the arguments doesn't make them invalid.
@@MartinHindenesHis arguments really are Not that good. He is Just very confident at stating them. Behind his carefully selected words are a Lot of assumptions and leaps of Logic.
Does anyone know who William lane Craig says has a list of miracles?
He often refers to Craig Keener's two-volume set on miracles. - RF Admin
@@matthewstokes1608 Try learning some basic logic.
@@FourDeuce01… er, what are you prattling on about?
@@matthewstokes1608 English. Do you speak it?🤤
@@FourDeuce01 far better than you do, clearly
why does Craig keep dismissing all of facts that Cristopher has given him and repeated over and over. It's like talking to a wall.
Have you considered a different mic, like with a pedestal or a clip mic? Instead of sitting as always with your arm extended like you are
I've come across this debate and it amazes me how Hitchens never proposes alternative options for the creation of the world, life and morals etc. He only attempts to disprove or discredit the Christian stance without giving a reasonable or coherent replacement for the questions debated. Also, it's obvious that Hitchens doesn't understand the bible, it's context or who Jesus is. He may have read the bible but reads with a harden heart and with presumptions grounded in antagonism. He uses humor, charm and sarcasm to mask his lack of substance in his arguments.
No one understands the Bible, that's why there's innumerable denominations. Just different interpretation of something that is unreasonable and incoherent for which there is no reasonable replacement without more knowledge of the universe.
You have to be a fool to believe the Bible is the written word of a supreme being. I cannot believe anyone can believe such nonsense. Why did he show himself to Bronze Age peasants in the Middle East and not the humans to the east that could read or write? He chose a group of people over others. It’s all just so obvious and laughable
How is the Bible "unreasonable" and "incoherent" yet without a "reasonable replacement" due to our lack of knowledge of the universe? What incredibly poor reason.
@@user-rw5ok6rn5k because it makes baseless assertions without any verifiable evidence. Same as all other religions.
@@user-rw5ok6rn5k as far as the incoherency, why is there catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc if it's clear and everyone can agree what it says?
I love the cut to Hitchens face when Craig mentions the improbability of human life becoming real 56 mins in. He looks so disappointed that people think that's a "gotcha". Reminds me of when Jamie Oliver explains to kids what goes into chicken nuggets at Macdonalds. Every kid goes "ew, gross", then when he asks; "so now you know, who would order chicken nuggets?", every kid puts their hand up. Kind of a similar principle to what's going on here in this debate, honestly.
I don't think you give enough credit to Craig's argument. What he is saying is that the calculated probability of the sequence of events that must occur for intelligent life to exist at all are extraordinarily small. Because they are so small, that is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that life was not due to random chance.
This is a well-established process in statistics known as hypothesis test. You take the data of your sample, and you create a random model (a distribution based on its mean and standard deviation). IF the random model shows the phenomenon observed in the sampled data as being probable (usually with an alpha greater than 0.05) then you conclude that it is not unreasonable for the effect to have been the result of random chance. However, if the probability of a phenomena in a random model is less than alpha, then there is enough evidence to suggest that the phenomena observed was NOT due to random chance.
This procedure is used in many fields of science, including vaccination efficacy studies. If we apply this same line of reasoning, and we find that the probability of intelligent life is too improbable in a random model, then we can conclude that it was not due to random chance. Then it follows that there is good reason to believe that the parameters of the universe that made life possible were not randomly set, but rather "fine-tuned." This does not necessarily mean that it was a God that did it, it could've been an effect that is not conscious, but it is a good compelling argument to doubt the randomness origin of our existence.
@devilmansanchez I understand the argument. I was brought up Christian for 27 years. The issue I take is mainly the fact that it is used to discount the other side's argument. I just find it frustrating when two sides come together for a debate, and one (or sometimes both, I also find fault in the way Hitchens argues) doesn't discuss the point in good faith, because, "its such a small chance of happening, therefore it can't happen." The odds of getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery are tiny, but it happens every year, hundreds of times in the case of lightning. And I think that even when the odds are infantesimal, given the scale of space/universe/nothingness/time, I think the odds argument is weak. That's all I get frustrated at. And I think Hitchens was frustrated at that too.
I feel embarrassed on behalf of Dr Craig
Msgr Georges Lemaître, born in the 19th Century, was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics.
He was the first to theorize that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble.[
He first derived "Hubble's law", now called the Hubble-Lemaître law by the IAU, and published the first estimation of the Hubble constant in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.
Lemaître also proposed the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", and later calling it "the beginning of the world".
During debates, WLC avoids the bible like the plague.
His scientific babble is annoying
It's understandable, actually. Because if he doesn't avoid Bible it will be easier for Hitchens to make counter argument.
La evita por que el debate no es sobre la biblia, es sobre la existencia de Dios, genio.
@@arriuscalpurniuspisoWhy? Because you know it's true?
@@joeturner9219 No, because he does exactly what Hitchens accuses, that he attempts to retroactively squash and contort all new discoveries into his pre-existing belief system. Religion originally made very vast claims about the universe that were ignorant of what is now considered common knowledge - ignorance of germ theory, cosmology, plate tectonics, evolution etc. For example the religious were adamant that the Earth was the centre of the universe, until they were compelled to accept that it is not.
And since science continues to make significant discoveries about the true nature of the universe, people like Dr Craig have the reductive argument: "see, that's even more evidence for how wonderful our god is".
Dr Craig makes similar attempts in this debate to co-opt scientific fact into his pre-existing belief system. For example he quotes Saint Augustine and claims that 6-day Creationism isn't necessary nor is the belief of a universe that's only a few thousand years old. So he claims you are free to disregarding a fundamental part of the Old Testament as merely a guideline or allegory. Creationism was Church doctrine for a very long time, until it was disproven, and now Christians like Dr Craig attempt to co-opt things that Christianity previously rejected.
As Hitchen says in another debate, "they are getting nearer to the truth all the time".
I've always thought that.If this dude makes planets and stars and shit why would they give a feck about us and why send your son down in human form to be tortured to 'death'?
It's a fairy story...it never happened
Yeah also if he can condemn us 4 just d sin of one man den y didn't he just find another good man & 4give us cos of dat person but he instead decided 2 sacrifice his son 2 himself 2 4give us 4 a sin of simply eating from a fruit he made available
When you start asking questions the whole thing falls apart. The answers to those questions are never good. It's either speculation or anything idk it's in God's hands.
These, these fairy tales are the reason I failed Sunday school.
😂
@Emiliocab47 Actually it did happen and it's completely backed up by history.
How anyone can still believe in a religion after hearing this man speak is baffling
//How anyone can still believe in a religion after hearing this man speak is baffling//
Perhaps because they value truth over rhetoric. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrgi lold. What truth there is in Christianity ?
The exodus didn't happen . Adam and eve story is pure mythology, the mass resurrection of the Jerusalem graves story was pure fantasy and many more.
So again, what truth ?
@@mihaimoldo None of those are relevant to the arguments Dr. Craig defended in the debate. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg why not? His beliefs are based on the Bible , if a good portion of the Bible is wrong why even hold such beliefs ? One of his arguments is that God is benevolent which is why so many don't agree with WLC, there's 0 evidence for such a God .
@@mihaimoldo His case had nothing to do with the inerrancy or even reliability of the Bible. Rather, he defended the existence of God and the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The moral argument is sufficient to show that a perfectly good God exists. The resurrection shows that it is specifically the Christian God which exists. In order to defeat Dr. Craig's position, you'll need to object to the actual arguments he put forward. - RF Admin
How can Craig be such a seasoned debater on religion and still have absolutely no idea what atheism is.
Atheism is NOT a belief in the slightest, so saying "atheism is not true" just shows his ignorance of the oposing side.
I'm still yet to see a religious debater have any kind of integrity
False, athiest is the disbelief that God exists, which logically means they believe there is no God.
We miss Hitchens.
But I am sure he does not miss you.
@@joemildner5667 you are a very intelligent person. Congratulations!
Do you ?
@@clorofilaazul Hugo, I only try to speak in language darwinian apes are capable to understand.
@@joemildner5667 kinda diffcult to miss someone when you are dead
Hitchens: "Physics is not an ideology". Questioner: "I think that would be subjective" - What? Is this the level we are at?
Here’s a physics question fo dat azz
How did a 14 billion year old universe get 93 billion light years across is matter can’t move at the speed of light?
Other questions that haunt atheism:
How did life begin?
How does consciousness happen?
Atheism is for ydyots
@Chris Cuomo we don't know, therefore God, simples
@@patman142 you presume a non God explanation is possible without any supportive basis. That’s your problem.
“Some day someone will prove how it’s possible for this suspension bridge to just appear without being intelligently designed and created”
You’re going to die hoping and praying that some Poindexter will have a non God explanation for the existence, orderliness and size of the universe, life, and consciousness.
Tell me your top 3 favorite sins as defined be the Holy Bible. Just the top three. Be the only atheist who’s ever *ever* directly answered that simple question.
God is the best explanation for the existence size and orderliness of the universe, life, and consciousness.
Best explanation.
@@chriscuomo9334 yes, the most lazy explanation also. It's the most arrogant of positions thinking it's all done for us. Yet, for the vast majority of history, life has been an incredible struggle and people tended to die young. Only for advances in science we now have the ability to live longer and more comfortable lives. Are you referring to the same bible that says demons are a cause of disease? Seriously?
@@chriscuomo9334 Dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. Eventually, all the nearby galaxies would be beyond the observable horizon and we would only see the stars of our own galaxy
I think negative moral acts are rather easy to objectively quantify. The level of despair experienced by the victim relative to the crime. Regardless of how the offender feels about the act, the victim will naturally feel dread or despair when experiencing a negatively moral action.
Hitchens is magnetic, profound, and sorely missed.
Well, his Bible knowledge was sorely lacking, but in other areas he asked good questions, well worth pondering
@@DartNoobo His knowledge of fictional literature doesn't affect his ability to understand reality.
@@GeoffRosenstein then he should have kept his mouth shut about thing he had no idea about. This is reality of intellectual discussion. And it clearly demonstrated his arrogance and blindness in certain aspects
@@DartNoobo that's the kind of nonsensically vague criticism that I would expect from someone who uses a fake name.
@@DartNoobowrong
Hitchens was truly an interesting man.
and WLC is truly a nut
Well, he was wrong about God lol
@@charles3788 he was wrong about how paciified the masses are by those in power.... the ape masters have co-opted ancient fairytales and peddled them to vulnerable and needy people, keeping them a nice docile herd
@@charles3788 something something burdon of proof etc etc. Can you prove it though? Also which god? Do you wear fabrics? Should parents stone unruly children to death? Was it okay for Muhammad to marry a 7 year old? Any such questions
You couldn't be more right.
Craig believes in the witnesses (a few women ) that Jesus was not in the grave and presents that as evidence, but when Christopher asked about the verse that claims every grave in Jerusalem was opened during the resurrection, he throws that out of the window, despite the fact that no witness could ever confirm that.
He doesn't throw it out the window. He just doesn't find it to be relevant to the actual argument he's putting forward. The argument starts with facts which have strong support from historiographical methodology. It then offers the resurrection as the best explanation of the facts. The empty tomb is one of the most well-established facts following the death of Jesus, so then one needs to explain why the tomb was empty, not merely dismiss it because other details in the story might be less historically supported. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Stupid admin.. biased as hell... There is no god .. what is god .. your weakness?
While I can see how many finds this debate interesting, and it certainly is - many of the arguments presented by Dr. Craig, are really best left to cosmologist, physicists and astro-physicist to debunk, rather than a journalist, I'm sorry to say. A simple example is the one of the fine tuning argument, followed by Dr. Craig mentioning Entropy, which, by its very definition is not finely tuned, as it deals with the randomness of the universe, not a constant or a specified force.
Did Graig just say that there is no infinite in nature? Could je try halfing his remaing journey from here onto eternity?
My favorite part is where Craig says that he's not committing to the reality of demons, and in the next breath states that it is a historical fact that Jesus cast out demons. That's priceless.
Craig is saying for the purposes of this debate all you need to argue is that people believed he cast out demons in the same way that people believed they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. Craig's point was if you don't believe Jesus actually rose from the dead, you would need to explain this widely and suddenly adopted belief that arose regardless.
Funnily enough, Hitchens bringing this up is just an Ad Hominem attack on Craig; believing in demons wasn't important to anything in contention, but seemingly more of an attempt to portray Craig as some superstitious loon.
@@zebo6162 Not really. For starters, that's not what Craig said. He said that it was a historical fact that Jesus exorcised demons. And no, it was absolutely not an ad hominem attack. Hitchen's was refuting Craig's argument that "God is the best explanation for the resurection of Jesus." The point (which he explained) is that if individuals are exorcising demons, that's evidence of, and just one more example of, supernaturalism or magic. So even if it's true that an executed man was resurrected from the dead, that's hardly an argument for the existence of a particular God.
Who _exactly_ believed this Jesus supposedly cast out demons?
@@Theo_Skeptomai William Lane Craig.
@@citizenghosttown I meant _during the time_ this Jesus supposedly lived.
The saddest lesson of history is this. If we've been bamboozled long enough we tend to reject all evidence of the bamboozle, we've been captured. It's just to simply painful for us too admit to ourselves we've been taken. If a charlatan takes power over you you almost never get it back.
--- Carl Sagan
Great quote. But you've got to get the wording right and fix the grammatical errors if you're going to quote Carl Sagan, man.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
@@chrysology
Such ego.
Well, this charlatan might be either christian or atheist, it does not matter. The charlatan is a charlatan.
Hence MAGAts.
@@jelsner5077
I imagine people like you 100 years ago would have said “hence n***ers”
You’re the type that thinks people that disagree with or are different than you are less human…
That comes from secular humanism.
Dr Craig... Religion shouldn't be applied to society as a whole.
Also dr. Craig... The human species has no purpose without God.
I love how when you look at the youtube timestamps all the most watched moments are when Hitchens starts speaking
Because some people are unable of listening to counter arguments
@@izregistered It might also be because Craig spouts the same old, and quite frankly ridiculous Christian apologist arguments. It’s incredibly boring. Some of them are completely childlike in their presentation. Hard to listen to, and pretty embarrassing for the most part. At least when Hitchens speaks, there’s actually a good point being made, and is largely based on logic and reason rather than superstition, maybes and what ifs.
@@izregistered 🥱What did you say? Aha, arguments. Some "arguments", not rooted in reality and factless,are tiring to hear over and over again. Craig lost me instantly when talking about "atheism", because it doesn't exist. But he,instead of making his case for god, cling to this ridiculous claim and attacks "atheism" with also ridiculous claims and not arguments. In philosophy,and a god believe is a matter of it and not of reality, you argue with fact based arguments, always. You can make hypothesis about nearly everything,even about the claim a god exists, but if you left the path of using reality you already have lost! And Craig uses hypothesis on self-made arguments, guessing and lying. It's not really worth listening to him. People like Kant and Schopenhauer did a much better job when looking into this "Does god exist?" thing and came to the conclusion that there's no evidence for that. Craig is neither smart enough, nor is he a philosoph to make his case for the allegedly existence of the particular Christian god. He's weak in his argumentation,makes things up to use it to prove himself right. Even for a tenth grader, or highschool student, he can't defend shit and got crashed with logic based on facts, grounded in reality. You certainly are of limited understandings when it comes to these things. Craig like you are fools. One makes a lot of money of his bs,the other can't think for hinself because heavily biased, gullible and guided by a worldview based on myths, not evidence presented by science. And btw., no, atheists doesn't have to prove a negative, because no one can! Make your case,if you can. Until now is true. No one ever was able to prove god, any god, exists!
@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl "Craig like you are fools" I was once as arrogant as you on this subject. Using observation, reason and logic I concluded that intelligent design is all around us. I didn't say "perfect" design, because certainly there are significant problems in some of what exists. I don't need to use the watchmaker analogy or any of the other common arguments for Deism. When all is said and done, we are really only left with our own intelligence to conclude one way or the other that a creator/god could exist. I say a creator must exist because the evidence of created things exists around me. When I watch maple seeds spin and fall to the ground away from the mother tree I know that there is not enough time to have allowed this one thing to mutate and form over billions of years. That the tree lacks the intelligence to design an aerodynamic delivery system for its seedlings with purposes that go beyond evolutionary possibilities. Really, I could care less what you believe or if you think I am a fool. I'll just invite you to go sit beneath a maple tree in late September or October and simply watch what happens around you.
@@izregistered “I believe in god because I’m not smart enough to understand natural processes on earth” - Sino Rich 2023
I’ve watched this 3 times waiting for Craig to make a point
I’m watching it for the first time
he just uses old arguments that people have debunked even logically at the root, and then just says "Well he doesn't have positive evidence for a negative claim, so my debunked evidence for my positive claim must be more rational!"
@@ale6o Not at all. Listen again.
That's a funny way of saying you're deaf...
@@ale6o can you provide examples of the debunked arguments that he uses?
If god exists, and if god says he loves us, why won't he tell us which religion to believe? Why is he allowing us to kill each other over him?
Humans free will is why that is
@@justanotherguy9300 But his son also says that for he who believes nothing is impossible. If that's true where are those believers? Why aren't they stopping us from killing ourselves over him? Why aren't they in hospitals curing children who lay there sick with cancer or any other disease?
@Johan B. Well religion is another argument, I'm not Christian myself so I can't argue for Jesus, but my comment was strictly about God
@@justanotherguy9300 Me neither.
@@justanotherguy9300 r u of d opinion dat men do ds killings by dia own freewill & dat freewill was given by a God?
Thanks to Christopher Hitchens and others that I left the evangelical cult in 2007 and today I’m free of religion and don’t miss it at all.
Sadly, that's all you had. Religion. You didn't have God. You only believed intellectually in God but didn't have a relationship with Him.
It's interesting that Dr. Craig declares that his arguments use "deductive" logic --- meaning the conclusions he states MUST follow (unless his premises are unsound). But this is nonsense. Most of Craig's arguments are devoid of deductive reasoning.
The deductive logic of Craigs first argument (cosmological) goes no further than "the Universe has a cause." In order to conclude that God is that cause, Craig departs from logic entirely and descends into special pleadings.
Craig's teleological argument "God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the Universe" is also not based on any deductive reasoning process. It's an appeal to incredulilty - a classic illustration of "God of the Gaps". Also missing is the explanation itself. ("Gosh this all seems so fantastic and improbable -- therefore God")
Craig's argument about Jesus utilizes no deductive logic either. It is simply Craig's attempt to smuggle Christianity into a debate about the more general topic of theism.
Finally, Craig's last argument (witness the holy spirit) does not involve deductive reasoning -- it's not even an argument. It's an appeal to subjective experience. Craig is essentally saying that if you've been abducted by aliens, then you have good grounds for believing in aliens -- no further evidence is required. Terrific! The problem of course is that works for anything.
I would like to add his part at 20:30 when he starts to talk about cosmological constants and he states that "these constants are not determined by the laws of nature " which , i think is very disheartening to all of the hard work that went into developing these concepts. I was curious to see what ChatGPT had to say and it produced this "Mathematical constants like the gravitational constant, ( G ), are indeed determined by the laws of nature. They represent fundamental properties of the universe that arise from physical principles and observations. These constants are not arbitrary but are derived from empirical data and theoretical frameworks within physics and mathematics."
If infinity is just an idea, then how come god does not have an age and was, is and will be here forever? Does this contradiction not apply? Just a thought
Think away
If you take the literal metaphysical description of G-d in the Bible, G-d is light, he is the father of Lights. And if you understand the characteristics of Light you would know that time does not matter to Light.
Hence G-d being light and eternal makes absolute sense.
@@DonDezz thx for the feedback :-)
My man used Einstein to prove god
It's called special pleading and is the usual endgame of apologist arguments. "This thing can't be possibly be true, therefore god.", "But you just said this thing can't possibly be true and even if you had a god, it would be true of god.", "Well it's not true of god, because god is god."
I dont understand how a man can stand up in front of thousands of people and talk about how the universe was conceived rather than being compelled to explain how his God is right while the other 10,000 are wrong. How he could possibly know anything instead of speaking with such confidence in his folly.
He did
In reference to his resurrection argument
Sadly this type of argument requires lengthy presentation
And it doesn't matter whether you are a proponent of the minimal facts approach like Dr Craig
Or the maximum data approach
And yes the resurrection of Jesus may very well be the most credible miracle claim ever
It's not a joke
In fact, world-renowned atheist Antony Flew once said, “The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
The topic was: "Does God exist?" not: "Does the Christian God exist?" Therefore, Craig doesn't need to "explain how his God is right while the other 10,000 are wrong." He just needs to explain how A God is right, not particularly the Christian one.
"The universe began about 13 billion years ago.". Christian Apologetics would like to have a word.
I have a word for them but I would be banned if I said it here!
The problem is that someone who is trained at debating, like a lawyer or politician, would beat most scientists at debates such as this, even though it is the scientists who are closer to the truth. In the case of this video, they're both very good at debating. Nevertheless, debating just shows who is the best orator rather than who can get closer to the truth of the subject.
The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. Hitchins does not have to prove anything.
Craig's voice is really annoying.
If that's the case then both atheists and theists have the burden of proof. Only agnostics do not.
Some of Craig's arguments are pain to listen to
I would like to know what is the race of the Hitchens fans on board. If that's possible. Then I would like a strong exegetical study as to why it's so prevalent in this race of people.
It strikes me how Dr. Craig brings forward his arguments without showing emotionality or passion towards his beliefs, but with the rivalry of a lawyer coldly applying his dialectical skills to plead the cause for which he happened to be hired.
All the "holiness" aside, I wish at least one religious book had at least one statement that helped advance science.
Eg: I created light and it's the fastest thing in the universe.
I created microbes and until you discover antidotes, you shall die young.
About 800 years ago Jewish theologians came up with the concept for a constantly expanding and cooling universe. Pulled straight from scripture. They didn't need to be modern readers with knowledge of the Big Bang to make this interpretation. It appears the main scientific theory held today is quite old indeed.
Actually, the Bible did! At the time all the other religious lore inferred that a god created things within creation and never creation itself. The Bible said that God created everything
@@fatstrategist You're ignorant. According to the Hindu texts, Brahma set into motion the creation of the universe. However, he doesn't interfere in the affairs of the universe.
Uma das pessoas mais articulosas que eu já vi na vida.
Hitchens era, sem dúvidas, um homem de outro nível.
Ácido, engraçado, irônico, sarcástico... único.
I agree
His jokes is the only thing that he have. No argument just jokes for people to laugh and applaud.
@@polduran if you haven't graduated high-school than please do not misrepresent the man with multiple degrees' argument.
Hopefully his personality doesn’t send you straight to hell.
Así es la verdad.
On the q&a, he goes straight down the rabbit hole of "word definitions". The fine arguments about the definition of words proves god?
Interesting stuff. It seems to me, though, that there's a fair bit of 'ships passing in the night' in this debate. You can see this clearly in the question portions:
1:19:11 Craig wants to talk about the arguments for the truth of atheism and gets a little bogged down in semantic differences. Hitchens' response at 1:20:00 explains clearly that atheism is not in itself a belief system and cannot be proved or disproved as true or false; all atheism is is the assertion that God does not exist. That's it. So when Craig again asks at 1:23:08 "do you have any arguments that God does not exist?", Hitchens is understandably confused. Hitchens mentions unicorns a little later, so let's use that as an example of what's going on here:
We have 'unicornians' who believe in the existence of unicorns, and we have 'aunicornists' who don't believe unicorns exist. The default position for everyone will generally be that unicorns don't in fact exist because no one has ever seen a unicorn and we don't have any evidence for their existence (put another way, we are all atheists regarding the existence of unicorns). If the 'unicornians' do, in fact, claim unicorns exists, they are the ones on whom the burden of proof falls, because they are the ones claiming something extraordinary and unexpected. And this is the crux of Hitchens' complaint at 1:24:05, for he says that the evidence provided is not good enough for him to believe in God (and there are better explanations in any case).
Thus Craig's statement at 1:23:08 (and again at 1:48:41) that Hitchens has not met his challenge for the 'truth' of atheism, is not really a viable complaint, for Hitchens would argue that atheism in itself contains no truth or falsity: all it is is the refutation of another idea (theism). It's like saying "do you have any evidence that unicorns *don't* exist? No? This is therefore an argument that unicorns do exist, then" or "do you have any evidence for the truth of your 'aunicornism'? No? Therefore we must assume they exist". You can see at a glance that Hitchens has the stronger position here without even getting into the finer points of his critiques of Christian teaching. My 2c
hitchens arguments are quite compelling; while craig makes too many assumptions, particularly those he attributes to the non-theist side.
Could you give me one good argument that he gave in favour of the non existence of God?
@@Questioning_God i could, but it is up to those who claim the positive to offer good arguments. craig doesn't do that.
@@jays1de
How convenient.
Actually Craig gave four arguments (if i recall correctly) for the existence of God.
1. Kalam Cosmological argument
2. Fine tuning argument
3. Moral argument
4. Historical argument for the resurrection
@@Questioning_God and yet, i remain unconvinced. if God does exist, and He is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, why then does evil exist?
@@jays1de what specifically is unconvincing about those four arguments?
If a person is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give us free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. Badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. Evil is a parasite, not an original thing.
C. S. Lewis
very interesting .
Craig and he's using of words like "fact, true"
It's like "fact number one: Voldemort lost his powers after he killed Harry's parents, fact number two..."
It's incredible to me how Billy came to his closing statement without having listened to a single word his interlocutor said, and instead just repeated all the claims he started with despite them being directly addressed and corrected.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
That's all he ever does. He hopes the audience will self-brainwash like he does & forget everything his debate partner just said. Fat chance, dummy.
It’s incredible to me how you can make this conclusion having heard the full debate.
WLC specifically was addressing “does God exist?”, and provided arguments in favor, which were hardly even addressed by Hitchens.
Hitchens came to the debate talking about “why the Christian God is not one I think is moral”, and “why the Bible is not inerrant.”
These are a different topic from the stated one “does God exist?”
He did not provide any actual good arguments for atheism (to say, no, God does not exist), and failed to rebut WLC’s arguments in any substantive manner.
It felt like he was on side tangents rather than tackling the meat of the topic.
To his credit, he provided answers when pressed and was very cordial. I think he was sincere in his ideas, but he was severely underprepared to address the actual topic and the arguments
@dskoogle He did say that its a pointless thing to try to argue because of course you cant prove something does not exist. Its the same as trying to say that beacuse you cant prove that unicorns, fairies, santa claus therefore they exist. He said also repeatedly that to make extraordinary claims you need to present extraordinary evidence. The claim that beacuse the disciples thought that he had resurected is not enough evidence to suggest that therefore it is true as WLC kept coming back to. The same goes with the other arguments provided. Also, its a very common tactic in debate to try to put many opinions out there and say beacuse not all of them were argued therefore the other person conceded them as true. Which is what I think WLC was trying to do here. It also tries to leave no time for the other person to present any of their own opinions
Like what, for example?
Here is a fun challenge. Try to freeze the video anywhere where William lane doesn't look like he thinks the world of himself.
True, he has that effect on people
Looks like a typical Baptist preacher to me . Kinda has that Gavin Newson look too. I never trust those faces .
And hitchens is not arrogant by thinking he's cleverer than anyone else .
Loool so that's what you got from a 2 hour + debate.
Absolute nonsense.
I really applaud the host. He set a really nice and welcoming stage for this showdown!
The amount of copium in this comment section is astounding. Some of the time Hitchens didn't really address the question, "Does God Exist' and just went on a rant about religion in general. This debate was close but 99% of the comments here act like Hitchens blew him out of the water, when he obviously didn't.
Yoooo WLC is the goat, bro
Congrats on the W in this debate
WlC lost this debate... Still you're congratulating 😂😂
Winning and losing are one organic globule from which we extract what we need.
--White Men Can't Jump.
You obviously have a lot staked upon a WLC win. By all means, claim away, friend.
12:12 Atheism is a position about a deity's existence not a worldview.
Dude in the red tie reused his high school debate presentation. Thought it would hold up..
It's interesting to hear Craig say that the purpose of life is NOT to serve God. 2:05:00. Really? But Craig quotes Scripture and reminds us that Jesus said: "I have not called you servants; I have called you friends." Sounds very warm and friendly. But notice how Craig entirely skips over the preceding verse in the Gospels, where Jesus declares: "You are my friends if you do what I command."
I love this debate. Craig just presented his usual word salad & endless assertions, while Hitch calmly and rationally debunked most of Craig's nonsense.
Wow...how interesting perspectives hey... I thought Craig mopped the floor with Hitch...amazing... well, at least Hitch will KNOW by now...whether he was right or...wrong.
@@ShalomEntirety1 Craig doesn't even really have any arguments, all he's doing is quoting people. It's idiot-whispering.
@@turboepicgamedump7501 so is the dead dude...😉
@@ShalomEntirety1 Listen to the video, Craig wins the quotes quota by a landslide. He's in automaton mode.
@@turboepicgamedump7501 if you say so😉
Absolutely love Dr Craig and what he stands for
Absolutely!
We are the product of chance and within that experience we have the ability to evolve beyond all mind creation as we witness and observe around us all the chances that failed. We are the One looking for ourselves.
Your God does not exist.
Also most importantly, The Romans were brutal, violent, manipulative liars bent on ruling the world and their religion was an attempt to control the dying empire. Jesus and his story is just that! Nothing more. An idea keeping time with the changing, evolving people and the control they seek of you.
@@kevs6402 that's right... 'your' god does not exist... 'my' god does not exist; however, God exists.
product of chance? who told you that? did you just make that up?
if we are a product of chance, then, within that experience we have the ability to evolve beyond all mind creation... therefore if chance then evolution beyond mind creation... if you can avoid the lava men of course.
we, the collective, are the One, individual, looking for ourselves.
Shirley Maclaine called and she wants her theism back.
oooommmmmm
With all of the debates does anyone change their view?
Yes! Check out our testimonials page: www.reasonablefaith.org/testimonials. - RF Admin
It's rare, but it happens. What I wonder, is which way they change their view. I have a hunch, but I don't think it can be proven. I think that most people who watch debates are looking for confirmation of their views, or entertainment -- or may just be intellectually interested in the topic.
@@citizenghosttown Yes, it should be clearly stated that some convert to Christianity, but some also deconvert from it. - RF Admin
There are more and more atheists after those debates
Christianity is dying out.
The net change of religions due to religious conversion by Pew Research Center between 2010 and 2050.
Religion Switching in Switching out Net change
Religiously Unaffiliated 97,080,000 35,590,000 +61,490,000
Islam 12,620,000 9,400,000 +3,220,000
Folk religions 5,460,000 2,850,000 +2,610,000
Other religions 3,040,000 1,160,000 +1,880,000
Hinduism 260,000 250,000 +10,000
Judaism 320,000 630,000 -310,000
Buddhism 3,370,000 6,210,000 -2,850,000
Christianity 40,060,000 106,110,000 -66,050,000
I'm an Ex-Christian!
I still think its strange the leap Craig always makes. The kalam only says the universe had a beginning, nothing else. Where does he get a personal creator from?
He invented a gap and then inserted his god there.
You can know Him, Jesus loves you.
@GodSoLoved.Yeshua that's a nice assertion or thought. But I see no good reason to believe that. How do you respond to the outsiders test of faith. Equally, I'd guess you believe God to be a necessary being. So, where is the contradiction in the not god worldview?
@@johnferguson8794be already outlined his reasoning at minute 20
In short
1 Since the big bang didn't happen in a place but rather was the expansion of space itself
2 Then the Cause of it can't be a material entity
This leaves us with limited options
1abstract objects like numbers
2 platonic forms
3 a mind
3Of the three options only number three has causal capacity
The leap from 2 to three can't be questioned
As It follows basic logic
However if you want To refute the second deduction
You need to refute the premise on scientific grounds
(Note I am more of a philosophy guy than a physics guy so my only criterion for judging Craig's premises is what I find on popular websites like NASA science)
@kiroshakir7935 I appreciate the response. My issue is we can have some necessary concrete object at the end of a casual chain. Like the amplituhedron or some 11D membranes...who knows. The mind hypothesis just feels like an adhawk insert.
Entertaining two hours, however the subject of the debate, "Does God Exist?", was hardly discussed, with the exception of Dr.W.L.Craig. Mr.Hitchens should debate questions of natural
theology (branch of philosophy) which are pertinent to the subject, instead of wading into all kinds of cultural, sociological or historical topics.
So you didn't care for Mr. Hitchens compelling arguments that belief in a God, or Gods (or the god that you believe in one has to suppose) is demonstrably fallacious?
Note the sneaky way Craig uses the word "being" when he unpacks his cosmological argument. At 19:04, Craig repeats the conclusion of his argument and declares that something must have caused the Universe to come into "being." In the very next sentence he mentions the "being" that caused the Universe. It's a clever transition that plays on the dual meaning of the word. Craig smoothly moves from "some cause" to "some being" and hopes no one will notice.
Note the sneaky way this loser skips over the point Craig made about how only the only non-physical things we know of that can affect matter are minds!
It must be nice to be as deluded as this fool. You get to hear whatever you like!
@@truthisaquestion Nope. I provided the timestamp so that anyone can see exactly what Craig does -- he concludes that the "cause" of the Universe is a "being" and only THEN does he try to argue that this being is somehow "personal". It's clever stuff -- notice that he doesn't argue that the "cause" must be personal. He argues that the "being" must be personal. Very convenient and, of course, very circular.
But I'm glad you pointed out the additional absurdity of Craig's argument. The only non physical things we know of that can affect matter are minds? Did you really just write that? Please let us all know the last time a disembodied mind has ever affected matter. I'll wait.
Repeating Craig's weakest arguments isn't helping you. You're better off sticking to childish insults -- that's clearly much more your thing anyway.
@@citizenghosttown “I provided a time stamp”
So just bc he may not say it at that exact moment you decide to lie about his conclusion.
That’s misrepresenting his view.
So thanks for proving you are a liar that cannot be trusted!
Loser!
@@citizenghosttown “very circular”
The only thing circular is that you keep making idiotic errors and I keep correcting them.
The universe has a cause.
The cause must be non-physical.
The only non-physical thing we know that can affect matter are minds.
All minds we know of have agency (i.e. are persons).
THAT is the argument.
Not your delusional version.
The only thing you’ve proven is that you can leave out information to misrepresent Craig so you can misapply a logical fallacy you heard of, but clearly do not understand.
Thanks for proving you are a snivelling little liar!
I appreciate it!
As I have shown, this fool is so desperate to feed his delusions, he has to misrepresent Craig’s entire argument and broadcast his lies for all to see in the hope of some validation from another deluded fool full of incoherent babble.
I really appreciate that you keep doing that, as you are a perfect example of how desperately deluded atheists are!
Thanks for being my “Hitch-bitch”!
Really appreciate it!
1:08:00 The one process that can’t be explained is consciousness.
As soon as Craig just _assumed_ the big bang was caused by "a being", I thought, "ok, this is when the crazy begins!" 😢 He didn't let me down!!!
If you listen carefully, the "evidence" laid out or the reasoning is far superior to any atheist machination.
@Phazon Really? Please, enlighten me. There was, allegedly, a Big Bang so it "was obviously caused by a supreme being". Like a rabbit out of a hat, an arrogant and baseless assumption, and that's being generous.
Oh dude. I think "the crazy" began way beore you watched this debate.
If that's the extent of thought you put into this, you let yourself down.
@@truthisaquestion But I am talking _about the debate._ The crazy began in the 1st century...we all know that, but they had the excuse of ignorance. Nobody has that excuse any more.
@@garyt.8745 I think you watch these to just steal lines from Hitchens that you can repeat with the hope of looking smart.
You have nothing to contribute bc you don’t think for yourself.
You basically are saying “it’s unbelievable, so I don’t believe it”.
So I guess the Apostles lied and everyone else is gullible or crazy. Right?
Have you looked into it or are you waiting for someone else to say it so you can cheer and high-five your stoner buddies?