William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?", University of Manchester, October 2011
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 เม.ย. 2012
- This debate on "Does God Exist?" took place in front of a capacity audience at the University of Manchester (including an overspill room). It was recorded on Wednesday 26th October 2011 as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California and a leading philosopher of religion. Peter Atkins is former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College.
The debate was chaired by Christopher Whitehead, Head of Chemistry School at the University. Post-debate discussion was moderated by Peter S Williams, Philosopher in Residence at the Damaris Trust, UK.
![ไม่ต้องมีที่ที่ให้ฉันอยู่ แต่ขอแค่มีฉันอยู่ก็พอ (Spaceless) - getsunova [SHORT FILM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MuT0d_cvJkc/mqdefault.jpg)
It was interesting to see during the back and forth how Peter was constantly interrupting Craig, but Craig didn't interrupt him one time.
This is called respect
That doesnt mean craig is correct tho.
@@dayweed85 I didn't say it did. That would obviously be a different conversation. Craig is right for other reasons.
@@evidencebasedfaith6658 ive yet to see a thing hes right about.
@@dayweed85 Because you have failed to perceive any correct statement or concept from Dr. Craig certainly cannot support any fact that he has not spoken any truth. Perhaps it might be more conceivable to perceive either an a priori rejection of his arguments by you, or that you might not have the capability to understand his arguments. All of these could be right, but certainly not the Dr. Craig was entirely vapid in his arguments. In order for you to support your claim, you would need to cite every single statement from Dr. Craig, and prove why that statement is false, and I am sure that you cannot do that.
1:02:24
"There is nothing here, I will concede that, but it's an extremely interesting form of nothing. There was nothing originally, there is nothing here now, but it's through whatever event took place at the inception of the universe, it became an interesting form of nothing, which seems to be something." - Peter Atkins
What?
Peter Atkins is full of illogical empty statements. He is utterly contradictory, and makes blank assertions without backing them up by anything. He's so obsessed with the idea of nothing, that all the words that come out of his mouth mean nothing. Makes perfect sense to me from a psychological perspective. When Peter Atkins speaks he sounds as though he is constantly struggling with cognitive dissonance.
Whitney wait a minute! WhAt??!! Nothing is something???????? I gotta go
wait are you using his quote to show he said something that makes sense or makes no sense at all?
papinbala does it make sense to say to a whole audience that they are nothing, but not a nothing nothing , an interesting enough nothing to call it something?
andrew drewdrew What about an elaborate something the likes of which is actually nothing. Utter illusory. We all know what nothing is. Changing the meaning will not help.
“Philosophy is a complete waste of time” is a philosophical statement
Exactly
He used that saying with John Lennox and got owned..
Philosophy is thinking about life.
Good philosophy is clear thinking.
Bad philosophy is unclear thinking.
The statement "Philosophy is a complete waste of time" does not avoid philosophy, it's just bad philosophy.
@@cyrusreign Lenox is an intellectual midget and, in my opinion, had his arse handed to him in that debate.
Bill needs to brush up on his biblical scholarship if he wants to maintain the resurrection tale as unique to Christianity and unfamiliar to Judaism. Google knows best: The prophet Elijah prays and God raises a young boy from death (1 Kings 17:17-24) Elisha raises the son of the Woman of Shunem (2 Kings 4:32-37) whose birth he previously foretold (2 Kings 4:8-16)
The Lazy one is the one who need to call the other lazy rather than actually make a valid argument.
Combined
Basic Christianity evidence
IF Christianity is true would YOU become a Christian? If yes thank you for seeking truth. If no then you are on a happiness quest and have irrelevant subjective objections to God which wouldn’t matter if he’s real. For the truth seekers still here please look into this stuff. Also what do you have to lose? If you find this claim to be true you have answered the biggest question in the universe. If you find it to be false your life has no objective meaning anyway so the time you spent researching wouldn’t hurt whatsoever.
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus loves his creation died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live an objectively purposeless life so by researching and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. If Christianity is true you discover the BIGGEST answer to the BIGGEST question in the entire known universe. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. Remember this. Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Also many people don’t fully understand the faith and have MANY misconceptions that if they actually did research on the Christian point of view rather than just looking into atheistic objections they would see what i’m arguing for. I urge you to research.
My personally reasons for faith.
The reason I believe and have faith in that belief is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, everything we as humans know about science, and my life experience. I’ve witnessed miracles, signs, and wonders science could never explain.
*EVIDENCE:
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument. Think about how things like purpose and love seem like they actually matter rather than irrelevant chemical reactions. Look into the law and order of the known universe. The only reason we can even do science the way we do is on the assumption the universe has order. Look into Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, Watch near death experiences where people see Jesus or heaven and hell (especially from former atheists), look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, look science stated in the Bible before humans discovered it. Look into the archeological evidence for Christianity. Look into the laws of logic especially cause and effect and how that would point to a creator along with many other things. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t just trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.*
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. The Bible says those who seek God, find him.
God bless you!
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point TH-cam videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
Debate or discussion links:
th-cam.com/video/bhfkhq-CM84/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0tYm41hb48o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/w-d-xo.html
Apologetics
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
Why I ask “if Christianity is true would you become a Christian?”
(When I refer to atheists I really mean all non theists.)
God is the best thing for your soul. The reason I ask people If Christianity is true would they become a Christian is because I want to know if I’m dealing with someone mature enough to say regardless of what I don’t have the answers to I will accept the truth and worship the Christian God if he is indeed real. For example, if you tell a child who is 3 years old ice cream is not a healthy option for dinner every night. He will simply ignore the truth, pout, and want his ice cream. Regardless of what he doesn’t know about nutrition and regardless of the child not having all the knowledge capable of understanding the nutritious value of ice cream compared to vegetables for example he still refuses the truth and wants ice cream. Even if evidence is provided such as his grandfather looking healthy and mobile at the age of 105 who attests he eats vegetables everyday he still refuses. If God is real he is simply the best possible way for us on earth and after. We don’t have all the answers but if the Christian God is indeed real we must accept him and worship. Just as children refuse truth as do some atheists. Some atheists will go on about irrelevant subjective moral objections or things about God just like a child objecting to the vegetables. A child doesn’t know everything there is to know about nutrition just as the atheist doesn’t know everything there is to know about everything inside the universe as God would. Therefor an atheist who wouldn’t accept God if he is true is intellectually dangerously similar to a pouting child who wants his ice cream for dinner instead of vegetables. They both refuse the truth regardless of not knowing the bigger picture. I don’t see a way this can possibly be refuted unless you can present me an atheist who has more knowledge than someone who created the universe and knows all the complexities inside of it. Here’s another way to think about it. Imagine in principle if Christianity was proved wrong let’s say we had Christ’s body and it wasn’t resurrected and other evidence to go along with it. Essentially Christianity would be proved wrong in this instance. Imagine if I said “I’m still a Christian regardless of it being proved wrong and I’m ignoring truth because of my irrelevant objections to secular ways!” Or for whatever reason I still won’t reject Christianity even if it is proved to be false. Wouldn’t I sound like an immature naïve child? Now perhaps if I would be wrong and childish for ignoring truth, we both would. Anyone who ever denies truth is always wrong and childish in every instance I could imagine.
I’ll give one more example. Let’s say the child grows up to become a teenager. Let’s say I 100% prove that daily intake of only vegetables is more healthy than daily intake of only ice cream. Yet he still refuses the truth after being proven wrong because of irrelevant subjective objections. Does that teenage seem like an immature child or a truth seeking adult? It’s your choice. Be the pouting child or the strong adult no one is forcing you.
@@blakejohnson1264
If Christianity is false would you become an atheist ?
@@MartTLS 100% without a doubt! But just because in that hypothetical Christianity is false doesn’t mean God is… if Christianity was the one true worldview would u become a Christian and worship God?
@@blakejohnson1264
How could it become the one true worldview ? You’d have to change the whole Bible and then it wouldn’t be Christianity .
It’s a meaningless incoherent hypothesis.
@@MartTLS no I wouldn’t. If Christianity is true it makes the claim it’s the only religion. It’s the only truth. So if Christianity as is was true would you worship the Christian God and become a Christian? Yes or no? Trying to see how intellectually mature/ truth seeking people are before I get into this stuff. When people don’t answer or give answers like that their real answer is no and they know it’s immature to hold that position. I don’t know what your answer is but most atheists are hostile towards Christianity out of misconceptions so I’m guessing no? Correct me if I’m wrong.
1:46:55 "The person who thinks that he isn't doing philosophy or has no need of philosophy is the person who is not going to understand his own philosophical assumptions that he tacitly makes and therefore is uncritical of them."
I think William Lane Craig destroyed the entire debate with this one sentence. Genius.
100%
I agree.
Grow up.
The only thing that matters is if the thinking is a) LOGICAL and b) corroborated by EVIDENCE. Philosophy makes no virtue of either; it's just noise.
@@r.i.p.volodya Your do realize that your statement above ( which is essentially the same as Peter Atkins's) is an assertion, not a fact. Show me through logic and with evidence how your statement is true. And try to do it without philosophy.
It is almost unreal how great Dr. William Lane Craig is. Awesome!!
What were you watching No solid evidence just a lot hollow words. All you have to do is prove it. Get your GOD down here in front of the worlds media. or maybe give a link to his website. You god only exist in the minds of the believers. No proof just myths
Disingenuous is the word you are looking for
His greatness is unreal.
His greatness literally is not real
I’m tired of you people talking disrespectful about dr Craig , disagree with him on the issues if you must , but you show your ignorance when you diss respect a man who trying to share the Gospel with all of us . And the best argument you can come up with , are jokes and rude comments. You don’t have to believe what he’s saying is true , but please be respectful. The old saying is , if you don’t have something good to say about someone then don’t say nothing at all. ✝️☮️
I laughed so hard at the end when Craig finished with "That's what you think"
Have you ever noticed religious idiots think "so" is a complete sentence?
Craig looks like the kind of guy that points with his forehead.
@@josephno1347 what's with the insults and aggression?
@@brynertoma if I don't,who will?
@@josephno1347 1 less person. That's the point. Why can't people with different beliefs have a civil conversation that provokes thought?
In the nicest way possible, I'm not being sarcastic but comments suck at showing sincerity, but do you think that Christians genuinely hate people that don't follow Jesus?
Do you think Christians are delusional and can't handle life so they throw out logic and any common sense they have because they're comforted by a big daddy in the sky?
Have you ever read the Bible yourself and realized that it's a collection of historical documents just like any other book?
For example, you can read it and ignore all of the "rules", but at least read it like a history book and conclude for yourself whether the book is historically accurate or not.
Lastly, and I'm sorry for the novel comment, do you think that Christians love being ridiculed and hated?
Perspective: Imagine, please humor me here: Imagine being a Christian and you truly believe that there's a heaven and a hell and that trusting in Christ is the only way to be forgiven of your sins otherwise a person is eternally damned. I know that might be hard to be that "deluded", but just imagine it.
Now, how much would hate would have to have for someone to not warn them at all?
What if it is true? What if you died today and opened your eyes in front of a God you reject? Wouldn't you want someone to say something?
We don't like being laughed at. We don't like being treated as if we're broken insecure people that "can't handle the reality of life". We're people that love other people and if you have any sense of morality in you, you should realize that we're doing exactly what we should be doing by preaching - anything less would be immoral even from an atheistic worldview - especially since you know what we believe.
That's why I asked, why the aggression?
I find it rather ironic that Dr. Atkins consistently berates the office of philosopher, yet quotes Voltaire (a philosopher) in the same debate.
Caleb: I am not sure I caught that bit of hypocrisy during the debate, but that observation was spot on. Perhaps I was so disgusted by Atkins' tactics by then I was tuning him out. :0)
I think his tactic was to try and beat wlc at his own game. At least thats the only reason why i think he would do it. If its a quote he clearly had thought about using it. It didnt seem to just slip out of his brain
@vctjkhme Why you think every atheist is cynical? (Or do you assert that disbelief in God is already somehow cynical?) And how many levels deep do you practice critical thinking?
@vctjkhme let me guess.. You think wlc is deep.
@vctjkhme ohhh, honey no. hes not intellectually honest. im pretty sure he knows his arguments are bad, but they sound so good to people who already believe that he needs to repeat them over and over again. they dont work on people who dont already believe, you see.
After the closing statements, it seems to be that Atkins simply embarrassed himself in a way that is dangerous.
Ster: What, the "Scientists Rule, Philosophers Drool" argument? What isn't intellectually superior about that? Atkins can pretend he is on target, because he is not an archer. :0)
You mean by telling the truth.
It is so astonishing that a renowned scientist can declare : "philosophy is a complete waste of time".
Maybe that's why he looked like a complete tool here...
allafleche he meant philosophy is completely useless as far as understanding the world. That was the context of that statement. Remember he admitted that moral philosophy is useful.
Andrew: Sorta. :0)
Andrew Agyeman
He had a set of admitted things. He also said using antiquated philosophical stances was, not proper. After that he sighted Voltaire & Hume. In doing so he used what he denounced twice over as useless to back his points. Dr. Atkins honestly has trouble agreeing with Dr. Atkins on if philosophy is useful. Only one out of two was even about his caveat of moral issues & neither man disagreed there.
His stance is more akin to saying Dr. Atkins is not knowledgeable in philosophical stances & therefore views them as useless. It is not his wheelhouse, so no one should use it. It is why he tried to turn the tenner of the debate.
He dismisses mathematics just as easily. I was astounded at his arrogance and ego.
@@andrewagyeman3338 Even if he "meant" that about philosophy, it is no less absurd and of course, disrespectful, not to mention technically fallacious. "Science" itself is a popular term that is basically buying into certain appearances. It is in fact Scientific Philosophy. You don´t do Science by pushing any buttons.
"Philosophy is non sense...
Everything is non sense
I am non sense"
- Prof Nonsense
Hahah good stuff
Then it follows that your prose in it's completion........ is non-sense.
Jesus is Lord!!
FAITH MY FRIEND.....And....If I may add, quite frankly, looking at everything, including the grand design of the Universe, humanity, animals etc....It actually takes more faith to be an ardent atheist, then it does as a believer in God/Jesus Christ. This universe has cause, along with creation. It is finely tuned. Go ahead and don't think outside the box, and maintain your staunch attitude, for as the Bible even says...."The fool says in his heart there is no God". Each and every person, regardless of how righteous or wicked they lived, shall kneel before the Creator of this Universe one day...And, in closing, God has committed this judgment onto His one and only Son, Jesus Christ....
nah
God bless William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins.
Thanks again th-cam.com/video/y2JIz01MKho/w-d-xo.html
Do you think God will bless someone who does not believe in him?
@@cris5937es posible, la bendición generacional por ejemplo
@@cris5937He does every single day when He gives them a chance to live. A change to repent and believe. But it's their choice. God loves everyone.
I appreciate William Lane Craig
+M.I.P Productions Most delusional people with confirmation bias do.
+Red5614r personal attack are excuses that satisy only those who make them- Dr Craig is one of the smartest people in the world(thats why Dawkins is afraid to debate him)
+Beau LaVergne is he now? misspresentations of physics on several occasions along with failures to understand even basic concepts of physics. Fallacious arguments for all his claims. But he is one of the smartest people on the earth= by which metric could you possibly make that assesment?
+Ludvig Burman Interesting claims. What has he not understood? Plus what qualifications do you have?
skyangelnaruto have you watched Craig's "class" on the theory of relativity? There is youtube video detailing how badly he get's it wrong.
In his debate against Hitchens Craig falsely stated that science thinks the universe came from literally nothing, which would be impossible to deduce using the scientific method since a literal nothing leaves no traces.
In his debate with Sean Caroll he get's reprimanded by one of the top cal-tech physicists for his lack of understanding regarding the multi-verse modells, how quantum mechanics relate to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem etc....
In regard to the BGV theorem in general, Craig seems to think that the fact that our observable universe had a start, that somehow leads to the conclusion of god. As far as physics goes, this does not have to be true at all.
Mr Atkins' description of formation of the original universe sounds much like a miracle.
It’s called science - when you get your PhD in physics maybe you’ll understand.
@@lotus160 do you have a PhD in physics?
@@drka21 Yes.
So as I do know what I am talking about so can you provide an analysis of why you think it’s a miracle.
@@lotus160 I am happy to know. Good for you.
@@drka21 So you make an assertion about something and when asked to back it up with evidence you decline? This comment is not really for your benefit - it's for everyone else the see the fragility of the theistic position and the avoidance of rationality.
Have a good day.
1:33:54 why does he keep asserting that WLC is asserting simply “God did it!”; was he not listening to Craig’s arguments
Isnt that the bottom line tho? What else do you think wlc is claiming?
@@dayweed85 you are trolling for attention
@@paulhill2236 no answer then. Kay.
Grumpy Dai no answer then?
@@xanderbronkhorst902 u poor thing
If you haven't already watched - look up the TH-cam program - Dueling Professors with John Lennox and Peter Atkins. Atkins runs true to form. He doesn't really debate because he refuses to consider the opposition's points. He dismisses them out of hand as lazy or even hallucinations. Which convinces me that Atkins is, himself, lazy.
I can understand why you might be inclined to take psychological projection that literally in Atkins case. However, a problem with taking anyone at their word is the relevance of academic scholarship in all areas, the liberal arts. In this case, Atkins isn´t showing competence in evaluating "lazy people," he´s showing a prejudice, a form of psychologically distorted thinking. It´s more an extreme form of judgmentalism that he´s demonstrating. While probably a reflection to an important degree of his upbringing, it also reflects a trend in positivist anti-theism, as a twist on anti-science religiosity. The stereotyping is terrible, and reflects a few things, including the disproportionate valuing of "science" (i.e. scientific philosophy) and the vast undervaluing of interdisciplinary Comparative Religious Studies.
This.
Atkins may be a good chemist. But he is lacking in the philosophy department.
Rather than a naked assertion can you explain why you feel he is lacking.
Chemistry explains reality better than philosophy
Both chemistry and philosophy explain reality, philosophy is deeper than chemistry but you must learn about both... if you dismiss one of them your worldview will be deficient, just like Atkins view
I must have missed the last time philosophy led to the discovery of a new element or subatomic particle.
If you think that the only important thing is to discover some new subatomic particle you are more ignorant than I think.
Certainly chemistry is very important but if you are not aware that you are using philosophy to make your point you never could even speak about philosophy...
Why you think that chemistry and philosophy are somehow at war? Im very sure that is not your own idea
When Atkins debated Lennox, Atkins belittled mathematics...
When Atkins debated Craig, Atkins belittled philosophy...
It's like a juvenile running around on the playground shouting "my superhero is better than yours!"
Atkins hates religion, but doesn't realize that he is deifying Chemistry.
Well said lol
The difference in this debate and many others, is that one side has the truth in its favor, and the other side does not. That difference is undeniably recognizable.
I agree one uses reason and facts of reality while the other one uses faith and religion as if it was virtuous. No religion in the history of mankind is ever demonstrated any of its propositions from the right religion to the right interpretation of a book to the right book to a God to a soul to an afterlife at all. It always seems to be nothing more than feelings and hearsay personal testimony accounts and fallacious reasoning and continue assertions coupled with ignorance.
Did anyone else notice that Craig clapped after each talk from Atkins and Atkins just sat there when Craig gave a presentation?
The confidence of an obvious winner
@@nelsonsoto741 The decency of a Christian with high integrity, despite his adherence to some conservative spin.
Dr. Craig is clearly more courteous than Dr. Atkins. I’ve seen Dr. Atkins in other debates and he is equally just as prideful and rude.
Why would you clap to craig?
@@dayweed85 im not gonna lie ive seen u in these comments for about a year now. Im starting to think you’re only here to do clean up because u didnt like how the debate went
At 1hr51m we finally get Atkins thinking on his feet. He offers his great insight, his "modus operanda": "I do not want to obtrude into the lives of others". He urges everyone to do likewise (as if they don't already!) but has not the faintest idea how to support this in argument, presumably never having deigned to learn from the philosophers and - yes - Christian thinkers who have given their lives to just this task. The simple naïveté of his outlook shows through.
But he has a posh accent and a great lexicon so I believe what he says!
Peter Atkins literally understood nothing Dr. Craig said lol. Also, I found it funny that he (Atkins) was doing philosophy, as poor as it was, when he was trying to denounce philosophy itself.
M8 Craig understood nothing of what he himself was saying - He should be selling used cars, that's how cheap + false he is.
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter." WL Craig
Craig doesn't understand a thing he says.
@@peterkerruish8136 okay give an example of that and maybe us simpletons can explain it. Or you can cowardly ignore it. Have at it
@ZengroW Hey Zach "new" is spelt knew.....
They are professionals at debating and arguing. They are meant to point out the weakest points of each opponents arguments. I thought they both did fine jobs of arguing their points of view.
Excellent video - thanks for posting!!
That was one of the most one sided debates I’ve ever seen, it was brutal!!! Seems like they grab Atkins from the audience and told him “You are debating WLC in 5 minutes”
Not really Craig appealed to the supernatural & hearsay
@@Kratos40595 please give an example. Because he literally backed every statement by academic scholars (many non Christian ones). And he simply proposed that Theism is a better view that’s not an appeal to supernaturalism. It’s simply showing that the possibility of a supernatural answer is plausible. I could just as easily say something as silly as Dr. Atkins just appealed to scientism, and ignored all of the evidence that Dr. Craig provided.
But again, please give an example of your statement.
@@RandallChase1 WLC asserts the Bible stories are actually factually true, miracles via the supernatural… as he does the beginning of the universe. He states it came from nothing, he asserts an agent (God) without evidence, kick started the universe via supernatural means…
A: we’ve never seen any evidence of the supernatural, everything observed seems to come from emergence.
B: saying the universe came from nothing might be a childish argument - maybe nothing’ is an impossibility.
C: Asserting the Bible miracles are true but every other religion isn’t is special pleading, and ignores the development of societies and cultures that wrote the books of the bible. It was never meant to be the book it’s compiled as, and the dogma he derives is manufactured. Yahweh for example used to be a god of war among a polytheist religion & evolved over time into a monotheistic religion…
D: the gospels were written 30 - 60 years later by anonymous authors - stories passed around by word of mouth - hear say. To say they are the best explanation ignores the cultural reason why things like this develop- things like Paul was a Roman Jew, the creation of Jesus bridged the gap between the Jewish religion and the Roman gods - as the paintings under Rome of early Christians show.
First Jesus was thought of as a magical child bringing plenty like Dionysus, then a Jupiter like God, and finally a martyr… while in the holy land Christianity was a form of gnostic Judaism, following the teachings of the Rabbi Jesus to discover enlightenment/the divine…
@@Kratos40595then you are having a pressupostion which is not supported by the evidence
@@uganda_mn397 You mean William Lane has assertions & no evidence? Then yes correct
So many logical fallacies by Atkins, almost exclusively arguments from authority that he couldn't substantiate. You can't speak authoritatively without some semblance of context, which Atkins rarely provided. Craig on the other hand made his claim(s) or assertion(s) and explained why they were so, something that is so rare in discussions of this nature.
Feel free to point one out on of the fallacies you refer to.
WLC has zero argument. The cosmological argument presumes God in its premise (nothing can come from nothing, except God). The resurrection is a baseless claim of the supernatural and has no persuasive power. The argument from morality is flawed if you give any credence to the sermon on the mount. That is, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is a moral principle that has no need for God.
There was no good argument for God here.
@@billbaggins1688 WLC does have an argument, what are you even talking about? The cosmological argument is based on and supported by inferences made from science, and he explains every point in a way that almost any layman can understand the rationale. You don't get to decide whether or not something is an argument simply because you don't agree with it, that's an entirely different order of questioning. The cosmological argument does not presume or assume God because of X, but rather the fact that X exists at all given the nature of the evidence and our understanding thereof is reason enough to posit God as a reasonable solution.
Again, you don't get to decide whether or not something is baseless simply because you disagree with it, or in this case because you don't understand it. The "Resurrection" is not baseless, there is Biblical and non-Biblical testimony that corroborates the event. Not only that, the event must be considered as no credible historian argues the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore an event involving Him, with numerous testimonies, must be taken taken seriously.
Do you really have the audacity to project what you're accusing me of? So the argument from morality is flawed because it isn't dependent on God? Have you not studied this at all? If you did, you'd understand that the commandment stands only because we are created in the image of God, therfore we must honor ourselves as we would God. It literally has no meaning without God, if you still think otherwise, then explain to me why human life is valuable and your fellow man is worthy of being treated as you would yourself. You can take all the time you need, but I insist you take great caution as you try to answer because it won't be as easy as you think. In fact, you'd be the first to answer it, if you can avoid the logical fallacies lol.
@@billbaggins1688 Your summary of cosmological argument is incorrect. WLC isn't arguing that God 'came from nothing' but rather has always existed. Your answer to that charge could well be "well then why can't we say the universe has always existed?", which you are of course free to say, but there's actual evidence that the universe had a beginning (evidence Atkins continued to ignore, namely the BGV theorem).
@@billbaggins1688 WRT the sermon on the mount, I again find your summary flawed. The sermon on the mount was not given to introduce what morals are. Jesus' audience were the orthodox religious Jews who thought that merely by keeping the Mosaic law, they could earn righteousness. For instance, they thought that if they were faithful to their wife, they were righteous. In the sermon, Jesus says - if you've looked at another woman with lust, you've committed adultery already in your heart. To a devoutly religious Jew, this would have been offensive, which was the point.
But the moral argument is much deeper than that. The point of it is that no one on this earth can set objective morals. If you say murder is bad, and I say it's good, who is right? Set aside what's 'beneficial for society' as that too is ambiguous. The (overused) example of Hitler is appropriate...had he succeeded and created a 'superior' (his word) race, would that have made it ok? On an objective level, why was what he did wrong? There's no human answer to that question, but rather an appeal must be made to a higher authority. That higher authority doesn't have to be the God of the Bible, but the point is that it must be an authority that exists outside our realm.
@@benmishoe5999Incredible. What nonsense Craig and you talk? Consider no thing. It has no dimension or substance, and is literally no thing at all, and yet we are told that the being you claim exists (which must at least be powerful on Craig’s argument, which entails it has at least one property making it something, this denying the claim of nothing) is supposed to create something out of no thing at all. It’s not even no material. To quote Craig, quoting Kant, “from nothing nothings comes” and yet this exactly what Christian theists assert did happen!
But of course that’s not what the science or the BGV theorem says and Craig’s bastardisation of the science does nothing (pardon the pun) to give the slightest credence to theological claims, which are often little more than fanciful flights of unbridled imagination, such is the propensity to want to create comfort.
Of course, and here is a deep irony, there is nothing (again pardon the pun) logically incoherent or impossible about something being created from nothing, just as there is nothing logically incoherent or impossible for lightspeed to be exceeded (think about that Christians).
I am so privileged to live in this era of human history, where we can view the clash of academics at any given moment! William Lane Craig is a solid speaker and philosopher, and i'm sure Peter Atkins is brilliant in his discipline of chemistry as well! I am pumped to someday engage in these types of professional conversations :)
You´re not quite noticing that Atkins is not functionally literate in this context, which is philosophy. He is thus very unprofessional in content. He gets away with it because it is a popular forum, not professional. Atkins is also rude and insulting. The only thing professional on his end is the adherence to the format.
@@robinhoodstfrancis i assume hes just angry because wlc is super dishonest.
@@dayweed85 When you make an assertion, you need to justify it adequately. You call WLC "dishonest," as if you´re engaging in tit for tat with me. That means you´re ready to face the consequences of the honest truth. The truth begins with recognizing that "science" isn´t what it aspires to be. It´s original name as an activity was "natural, or scientific, philosophy." That is in fact what it is, a human activity of thinking, and just one using one kind of empirical methodology. "Science" isn´t actually the things it proposes about the Universe. It is ideas, no matter how linked to observable physical phenomena those ideas are. When it comes to complexities, "science´s" pretense and mystique of trying to identify with the grandeur of the physical Universe like a wolf in galactic clothing is nothing but a living, breathing flesh and blood human "wolf in galactic-sheep´s clothing." We see you.
The "facts" that it reasonably develops are philosophical in nature and subject to contextualization like Einstein showed about Newtonian mechanics, and DeBroglie et al´s Quantum Theory showed about Einstein´s "old" quantum theory. It is philosophy that studies the natural-physical-energetic realm using scientific empirical methods and naturalistic explanation, called "epistemology."
The next step, as other atheist naturalists have some inkling, Alexander Rosenberg and Sean Carroll in their own limited literacy levels, involves the question of the social studies disciplines. "Science," i.e. scientific philosophy, can´t reduce human experience to mere quanitifiable variables and experimental measurements. There has been a great foundation for understanding the interface by Bio Anthropologist Eliot Chapple, but few have paid attention to his body of work. Still, it´s based on the better known principles laid out by Pavolv´s dog studies and physiology of signal-to-symbol conditioning. JB Watson´s behavioral psychology also. The so-called "controversies" involve untenable claims to exclusivity: behaviorism doesn´t invalidate or supersede the complexities of human agency revealed more fully in therapeutic psychology, social service psychology, anthropology, and sociology, and so on, all as forms of MORAL philosophy supplemented by and a foundation of scientific and other forms of empirical methodology, depending. That includes various forms of introspection. All told, G Vico indicated the problem of mechanistic rationalism early on, and later Max Weber and Georg Simmel are credited with beginning to make strong assertions of antipositivism/interpretivism.
Both science and religion, consequently, are understood as human activities, with knowledge domains and phenomena domains, i.e. epistemologies.
Thus, your claim about WLC´s dishonesty fits into PA´s and others´ own lack of adequate literacy and understanding about scientific philosophy´s own limits and human context. WLC smoothly fits "science" into philosophy, and is only "dishonest" by failing to hammer home with all out brutal clarity this little detail that the scientist is misleading himself and others by trying to assert, in effect, that "science" has no limits. But you atheist materialists feed your own illusions, as with Stephen Hawkings stating that "philosophy is dead." Oops for you all.
@@robinhoodstfrancis look as soon as someone claims that an all powerful god exists outside of our universe and that that god cares what we do with our genitals im gonna just laugh at the believer. Can you tell me why such a god would care?
@@dayweed85 OK, for the same reason that Sigmund Freud isn´t irrelevant, and is far too little understood by America´s corporate-consumer society. Freud discovered that women with psychosomatic pains had been sexually traumatized. Gee, how quaint? Let´s see, what was that Hollywood Sex Scandal about again? What is that ruined Bill Cosby´s career in retirement? That made Al Franken resign from the US Senate? That got the GOP to blow $42 million trying to take down Bill Clinton (Monica Lewinsky was her name)? That led to OJ Simpson´s murdering his ex and a male friend? For them, it is all sex-related violations.
What did Freud and Jung do, as far as helping people with sex problems and more? Freud never got beyond terms like "abreaction" and "catharsis" for a healthy superego, ego, and id. Jung broke away, and talked about a collective unconscious and the Higher Self. He defined that HS in terms of the Imago Dei, the image of God, and Jesus Christ as that reference point. And so why did Jung try to help people go beyond just "catharsis"? He didn´t need to help Albert Schweitzer (who went from theologian to medical doctor in Africa) or Rev Martin Luther King. They wanted to help people and didn´t say, "Hey, John D Rockefeller made lots of money. That´s what Americans are supposed to do, isn´t it? That´s what all the beer commercials say." No, good people have found their way to Jesus, who is a major standard. To do good. And Jesus didn´t say, "Gee, be like the late Rev Billy Graham talking about being a Christian in a suit." Nor did he say, "Just do what they say in car commercials. Yeah, you´ll get the girls." And Jesus didn´t say, "Just be a Catholic." You look at good people, and you get a look not just at Schweitzer and Rev MLK, but FD Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt. And so on. Not tRump. Not the Republican Party pro-rich, pro-biz profits, and anti-social. Not all science all the time.
And then it comes back to you, and you ask questions like that, you have to ask why you don´t pay attention to all the effort that has gone into misleading you that anything except "sex life" is a crock.
You have been taught things in school. Time to get a little more real. You are hearing about BLM and CRT. Now, I don´t agree with just fingerpointing, but police brutality, against blacks and other poor people, is bad news. And US mass murders, more and more intense. What kind of country is this?
You are the one who has to start caring about anything, why you talk about a "sex life" instead of making this world a better place. Jesus spoke up for God out of his Jewish heritage. I went to Africa to teach, I went into social services to work with substance abusing moms and their kids. I volunteered in a homeless shelter. Like Schweitzer, it turns out, though I just found an ad on the Anthro dept board. Eleanor Roosevelt worked with the poor in settlement houses. FD Roosevelt went into poor neighborhoods in high school. Barack Obama knocked on doors for Ralph Nader´s PIRGs.
The Buddha, meanwhile, was a prince, and he chucked all the dancing girls to make sense out of the suffering in the world. He showed a better way with the Four Noble Truths. He was a little too smart for his own good. But, that´s OK. He made clear problems like ignorance, greed, and hatred, and how something greater guides people to enlightenment. The Buddha did his job, superbly.
Now, you want to know why God gives two sugars about your "sex life"? Man, I repeat, you explain why you can´t get your mind off your "sex life" and onto making the world a better place. Then, I´ll tell about the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth in more detail, covering more ground and history, and with more blood, sweat, and tears than WLC. The reason God cares is because that´s who God is, and that´s why people like me find when we seek. You ask why God cares, but that´s not question. The question is, why don´t you care about stopping the madness and finding out how and why? Like I said, you say something real about you, and I will tell you with blood, sweat, and tears. God is Spirit and Truth, and that Love that is Lovingkindness. But, you have to shake yourself out of that "sex life" trance first. And whatever else goes with that from beer commercials or making a lot of money and so on.
Dr. Craig: Assertion -> Evidence -> Argument
Dr. Atkins: Assertion -> Ad Hominem -> More Ad Hominem
Dr. Atkins: I rest my case.
No. All God botherers work like this: -> Assertion -> Argument -> No Evidence
@@paulwood3460 according to who?
@@sarshanden8033 According to “No Evidence”
@@paulwood3460Atheism is a religion when you realize this you won’t try to belittle God anymore
@@Bondservant.of.Christ Lesson time:
1. A disbelief in a claim is Not a religion, it’s just a disbelief in the claim - if one doesn’t believe in a🧚♀️is that disbelief in fairies a religion? Answer = No
2. An atheist cannot belittle aspects of the claim, because the atheist does not believe the claim. An atheist, however, can belittle the claimant. And generally the more ridiculous the claim the greater is the belittling.
Suggest more critical thinking and less wishful thinking. End of lesson.
The vast majority of what Atkins says is just ad hominem against theists.
Peter, Einstein once said, “If you have 60 minutes to solve a problem. You need to spend 55 minutes on thinking about it.” Therefore, sitting and reflecting of the problem creates an idea.
I love how science proves God
I love how you have a brain the size of a walnut
Of course it does, since it study his creation 😍
@@cymatti triggered atheist 😂
@@cymatti Remember Jesus loves you. He came as the Lamb of the world and died for us. GOD himself sacrificed himself for you and me so we may be forgiven and have eternal life in heaven, Repent and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Why take the chance of going to hell mathematically it makes no sense.
@@dj-rocketman8545 That’s got to be the most nonsense bundle of words I’ve ever read in one paragraph. You could have saved your time and energy with more important things. There is no Jesus, no God, no Trinity BS, the Bible doesn’t teach you anything about the universe, and you clearly don’t have a clue of what your talking about. I mean seriously, listen to what you just wrote... “He came as the Lamb of the world” as opposed to a came as a lizard, a cow, a whale, a kangaroo, an eagle? You think the answer is that he came as a Lamb, whether literary or metaphorically, to save the world?? If he’s God he could have come as anything. What the hell are you talking about!
CRAIG: Clear thesis, specific evidence and reason.
ATKINS: Presuppositions and unsupported general assertions, Ad hominem, More Ad hominem...
I thought Atheists were supposed to be the smart guys?
+Justice Gradowitz Exactly. You know what I think is a funny thing? Believe it or not, I think that it is actually evolution. This is because evolution allows mankind adapt to reality. If Dawkins is right about the "God Gene", that would actually be empirical evidence in favor of God because evolution adapts us to what we need. Ex. People who lived in colder areas adapted to the cold, and so did people who were in hotter areas. Evolution adapts us to REALITY ONLY, so if God is not part of reality, then why would we adapt to believe in something that isn't there? It's as ridiculous as adapting to be able to handle heat in a cold area. So if you're worried about evolution, it should be the other way around. We theists have the right of way with evolution.
+Konahriik Crystalblood I'm not really worried about evolution. I just find it sad that Atheists seem to use it as a God surrogate. I feel similarly about people who talk about the universe as if it something that cares for them. Adaptation is something everyone recognizes but somehow putting all your cards into a blind mindless process (natural selection) that doesn't aim at truth seems crazy to me I guess. Our human experience is so much more than processes and to deny that our experience is from a higher realm is strange when you witness human behavior, both the beautiful and the wicked. Guys like Dawkins and Atkins suck all the reason for rationality and real joy out of life with their scientific reductionism.
Justice Gradowitz Couldn't have said it better myself. Btw, tbh, I only like to use the evolution argument in favor of God's existence use because I love to piss off atheists. But if you're not concerned about it man, whatever. You know what's best for you. Good luck, keep fighting whatever demons you have to, and may the Lord's infinite good keep your heart warm.
+Konahriik Crystalblood LOL! Thanks, you too brother. I find I don't have to really do anything to piss off atheists.A good number of them already hate me or outright dismiss me when they find out I follow Jesus.
Justice Gradowitz You're right, they become automatically hateful of people when they find out they're religious. Check out this: lockerdome.com/gospelherald/8463451026759700
They (the atheist community) hate Bernie automatically when they found out he was Jewish. Poor guy.
I think Bernie is the best candidate. I don't know if you like him or not, but politics isn't the point here. What I'm showing you is that I agree with you when you say that atheists automatically hate or shun you for your faith. BTW that one comment of that guy raging...it's me, back in March 5th when I was really fucking pissed about something...I don't remember what, though. XD
I know its been said before and I will say again.
"Professing themselves wise, they became fools." Rom 1:22
Amazing that Saul of Tarsus knew Peter Atkins so long ago O.O
When theists destroy atheists, as happened here, I hope that some people change their mind and realize the truth.
What about the other 90% of debates where the atheists destroy the theists?
You claim the truth, yet you have no good evidence for doing so. The arrogance of the faithful...
@@IceyGuy90%? You're being very biased.
@@dayweed85The thing is, no one can "prove God" just like no one can "disprove" God. God is FAR above our finite brains and His Ways are higher than ours. We can't "figure out" God. All of our measly "logical thinking" and arguments can't even scratch the surface of God. God has provided more than enough evidence through His creation, through science, through history and through morality. It's just that some people are too stubborn to acknowledge it as God and are willfully ignorant. Atheists just don't like to accept the truth and don't like the idea of a just and moral God that will one day hold them accountable for their actions. Instead, they like to come up with their own ways of "explaining" the big questions in life. Such as "Why do we exist"? "What is the origin of life?" "Where did the first singularity and particle of matter come from?" "Where did energy come from?" Science can't even explain what caused its own "big bang" theory to happen in the first place. Evolution may be able to explain what happens when you HAVE life, but it can't explain how life actually BEGAN in the first place. Being an Atheist DOES requires faith. There are so many big questions left unanswered by science. Science, as wonderful and powerful as it is, simply cannot and will never be able to fully explain everything. You're expecting God to reveal Himself to YOU? Not gonna happen. It doesn't work that way. You seek after HIM. That's how it works. God is not obligated to reveal Himself to anyone. But there is a promise. If you truly seek Him with a sincere, honest and pure heart, He WILL reveal Himself to you. See, true Christians aren't Christians because of blind faith or intellectual belief. True Christians are Christians because they sought after God with all of their heart. Wanting to love Him. To know Him. To serve Him. To submit everything to Him 100%. That's why we have a relationship with Him. Because He revealed Himself to us. I think the issue with most Atheists (not all but most) isn't a "lack of evidence" thing. I think the main issue is because they don't WANT God to exist. They simply don't WANT to submit to God if He is real. That would mean they would have to give up a lot of the things they are doing that is wrong. Let me ask you a question, if Christianity was true, would you be a Christian? If God were to appear to you in front of your face in a dramatic bolt of lighting and said "I'm God. I exist. Here I am." What would you do with that intellectual belief? (Assuming you wouldn't just brush it off as a hallucination) Would you sincerely be willing to give up your sins and your way of living for God's Ways? To serve Him and love Him for the rest of your life? Or would your attitude be like "Wow. I was wrong. You really do exist God." Then just go on with your life and operate as if He doesn't exist? If your response would be the second option, then by no means is God going to reveal Himself to you. He doesn't care about someone's intellectual belief. He wants your HEART. He wants a RELATIONSHIP.
Love that punch vs punch at the end : William: "That's what you THINK?...." Peter: "YEAH"
What is the music in the beginning? Very nice.
Peter Atkins is embarrassingly bad in this debate. In particular, the discussion at the end show how little he knows about what philosophy is.
Justin: Atkins has written a startling sixty-five books. I suspect many of them involve the tingly feelings he invokes in himself by agreeing with himself in print. I am sure he is a great chemist (I believe that is his primary discipline), but he does not even use his scientific knowledge when debating, because this whole business of theology is beneath him, he feels, from the get-go, so why use his best stuff? Or, well, anything? Oh, sorry, he had the argument of "Elvis sightings". My bad. :0)
More Philosophical twaddle from the World's most self deluded liar WLC..who would not know a Fact if his life depended on it!
th-cam.com/video/yfqfihvb21o/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/0xpUWF2UkdA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/FQfujdlO4oY/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/cLEBqU3D2TU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/2pfjJ49wCcM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/xmmgUCEGVcQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/rak2YVNR1gI/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/SA4MUnDQpdw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/KFmWfiq9L6k/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/crk0KAnp5FQ/w-d-xo.html
Oh yes. Links and examples in: www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15106
conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/
@@megalopolis2015 Are you really ready to listen to his scientific knowledge?
I find it humorous that Atkins admits we have zero idea how an original universe could arise uncaused yet immediately states that a creator is unnecessary. How, if we are as ignorant about the creation event as Atkins supposes, can he make any claim about what is or is not necessary? It would be unfortunate if anyone placed any weight on this explanation that is no explanation. Calling theism "lazy" when his alternative is "we are absolutely ignorant" places not the smallest scratch on the case Craig built.
Nailed it. Six years ago yet.
I always enjoy listening to Dr. Lane's arguments.
Such as?
@@cipndaleLet me guess, you actually didn't listen? Because no matter what your mind is closed to God and you hate the idea of Him?
@@joeturner9219Hating god is like hating Santa Klaus. I don't hate anything, I'm just annoyed by the guys who believe in nonsense and then present themselves with their nonsense to solve the world problems.
@@ciprianpopa1503I was a bit abrasive in my comment to you. I apologize for that. But with all due respect, it is your own personal opinion that it's non-sense. It's subjective.
@@joeturner9219 It's all subjective till one proofs what he's saying. I can handle a contradictory exchange, don't worry. No need for apologizing, just back up what you are saying.
Dr Craig said "Professor Dawkins"
if only dawkins was brave enough to debate craig
Aidan K Dawkins tried explaining also so ez win for William.
He has better things to do than waste his time with the likes of Craig.
Wlc has nothing interesting to say. Talking to him is a waste if time.
@@dayweed85 Its not about whether he is interesting or not, what matters is who is right. Debates are for academic and educational reasons, not tor entertainment
@@aidank2108 Waste of time debating with someone who belives in and talks to an imaginary friend.
At 1:09:00 and 1:09:13, Dr. Craig refers to Atkins as "Dawkins". The audience laugh and he blushes.
ignatei You can tell that he's craving a piece of Dawkins. xD Dawkins will just be another one of his chew toys.
Jacob Pando I agree, William Lane Craig is one smart person.
ignatei It was hilarious. But he doesn't blush though. Also, see 1:50:22 - what was that? lol
+Jacob Pando Dawkins has said he will never debate Craig, so it probably will never happen. His reasoning is pretty lame though (he objects to Criag's view of God's judgement of the Canaanites).Isn't it interesting that so many others will debate him knowing this yet Dawkins chooses not to? Maybe he does believe it is justification for not debating someone. However, it's seriously mistaken and if he is so confident that his views are correct he owes it to everyone to have himself as the most well-known atheist debate the most well known Christian apologist out there. I think (and of course I can't prove this) that Dawkins is afraid. Frankly, Craig would embarrass Dawkins in a debate given how thoroughly he has dismantled many of his primary arguments including what Dawkins says is the main argument in the God Delusion. I don't say that triumphantly, but honestly. Dawkins influence is already waning in the atheist community. Thankfully fewer people see his arguments as worthwhile and certainly his often explicit promotion of a tactic of ridicule vs. reason (as if that exhibits intellectual integrity) is already starting to wane as well. Craig has already won even without debating him.
Brad, I certainly hope you are correct in saying that ridicule as a form of intellectual debate is waning. I do not yet see evidence on that, but I will try to absorb your optimism. For some reason this quote popped into my head from the Princess Bride: "You mean... You'll put down your rock, I'll put down my sword, and... [we] Try and kill each other like civilized people?" Sorry for the digression. Perhaps my brain is trying to shut out all memories of this "debate". :0)
I find it fascinating the way Dr. Craig merges the philosophic method with the latest scientific discoveries in his debates.
Are the transcripts of Dr. Craig's debates available?
@@ashley8154 Thank you!
Yes. This universe began to exist, therefor god. Its amazing.
@@dayweed85you misunderstood then, sorry to say
@@uganda_mn397 how so?
Peter Atkins did a much better job this time than their last debate. I think he stayed focus on Craig’s arguments and didn’t insult his audience near as much.
Only cry babies would feel insulted.
lmao wow I've seen Peter Atkins get owned before but this is next level! well done WLC :)
When does Atkins not get owned? Stephen Meyer owned him too, even Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens would own him if Hitchens wasn't dead.
@@stephenfletcher5391 Grow up. Meyer is a charlatan. Atkins is a distinguished scientist.
Take a seat.
@Ouwe Zeebonk Did that sound good in your head?
@@mcmanustony Dr Meyer is a charlatan? What an absurd and stupid thing to say.
@@Jim-mn7yq My response seems to have been "moderated" out of existence. I'll try again.
My comment is neither absurd nor stupid. Maybe work on your manners and *ASK* why I described him as such.
He describes himself as a scientist. He is nothing of the sort. He is a full time activist for a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group. He has a basic degree in physics and nothing more. He describes his pressure group as a "group of scientists"- founder Philip Johnson (lawyer, scientific training nil), David Berlinski ("writer", fake mathematician, doctorate in philosophy, never worked as scientist) Weikart (discredited historian, scientific training nil), Jay Richards (evangelical, scientific training nil).....etc. Those with any scientific credibility- Behe, Axe- have done mainstream science and not ID as their academic work. It is simply a lie for Meyer to describe his claque as a group of scientists.
He has listed his academic affiliation as "University of Cambridge". A lie. He was a STUDENT there, nothing more. He has currently no academic affiliation but Cambridge does sound an awful lot better than the truth: rented office space above a Starbucks.
I recently watched a painful Prager U video in which he says "I recently attended" a conference of evolutionary biologists in England. A look at the details shows that in whatever capacity he "attended", he was not an invited participant, presented no work, was not a contributor and took no part in the proceedings.....a bit like the difference between playing at the Masters and attending the Masters. He immediately jumped to the two "HUGE problems" (the Cambrian Explosion and "information') for evolution AS IF they were topics at the meeting he didn't participate in. They were not. He was simply lying.
Meyer has ONCE appeared in the peer reviewed literature. That one occasion was the result of CHEATING the peer review process and sneaking an idiotic lit review into a journal of research behind the backs of the board of editors. The paper was instantly dropped from PBSW and a statement issued about the cheating.
This barely scratches the surface.
Read this slowly.
Stephen. Meyer. Is. A. Lying. Charlatan.
love this debate. Craig does excellent job laying the case for intelligent design, the existence of Christ as God incarnate
Steve Morris He lays a case that is based on a fairy-tale so its all uphill for him. Do you actually believe the world is only 10,000 years old.
eddie Knight Dont you feel you are bring up points which has nothing to do with the debate? The question is does god exist ? bringing up religion does not seem to make much sense
God, religion. Kind of inseparable in a debate. The next bit referenced intelligent design.
eddie Knight You are so ignorant you don't even know what Craig believes while posting on a video of him debating...
Eddie...he uses the big bang as an argument for God. If you ever listened to him or read his work you'd realize that he is firmly on the side of the universe being 13.7 billion years old. It forms the backbone of so many of his syllogisms.
Nathan Fosdahl Ok, Religion relies on ignorance of facts and truth. that's obvious. So to the point. I have heard Craig a hundred times, he's a nice guy and some of His debates with Hitchens have been the most intelligent and witty. He's accepting that science has answers as far as it can have, that's progressive because most of the Christians I know believe what the bible says. But again however much hot air is blown its still all delusion.
one can be sure whenever WLC comes to the scene, there is a mop up team for his opponents XD
Yup. Every time. The competition is sooooo low
His impact on his claimed field is nil. He is not a significant academic philosopher.
@Kaizze C
How would you like to defend the proposition that the world is flat? That is the task his opponents are basically tasked with.
@@mcmanustony
Is that your attempt at deflection. Haha. Lame.
@@samdg1234 Can you explain this very odd comment?
The last three minutes of this debate are gold. WLC paints him into a corner and the audience laughs at Atkins lol.
Craig: "That's what you think?"
See, I can laugh at stupid questions too?
I won't attack back, for I know. wisdom was put inside to those who desire the truth.
When Peter starts talking about halving the distance to point out that there are infinities in the physical world, I don't think he's correct. That is a valid mathematical abstract, but if I'm not mistaken, there is every scientific reason to suspect that at it's most basic level, what we think of as matter, which may very well be energy at that level, exists in quantifiable distances that can't be halved. I think this is part of quantum physics, at least as we know it. Essentially, once you get small enough, there is a point you can label as 1, the next point over you could label as 2, but nothing can exist halfway between at 1.5, let alone 1.425486.
Yes! In reality, there are no actual infinities; you cannot say we have an actual infinite in time or space or resources. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything tends to disorder unless energy is put in to bring order; if there are actual infinities in the universe, then order and disorder don't matter since then energy and matter would be presumed infinite. What we can have is potential infinities; you can always add more of something, upwards to infinity, but Peter is working from the wrong direction subtracting from a presumed actual infinite to try and prove his point, but the problem of subtracting any number from infinity is that you still get infinity.
You are perfectly correct. But what it does is illustrate the lack of using infinity as an argument for something that exists in the physical world. Which is why the cosmological word salad is a bad argument.
@@matthewokeefe2788 "infinity" appears in mathematics, but there is no such thing as a number called "infinity". Saying something is infinite just means it continues or increases without bounds. Saying something "approaches infinity" is just a way of saying it keeps growing and never stops--it doesn't converge on any given number, but diverges.
I leave a quote from one of my favorite movies for professor Atkins "Run awayyyyyyy,, Run awayyyyyyyy, Run awayyyyyy".
Please add subtitles!
Very interesting debate.
Dr.Craig is like the Chuck Norris of christian apologetics👊👏👏👏
only if youre very ignorant about how arguments work.
Lol Atkins arguments were pathetic! Purely anecdotal and full of opinions. He completely misunderstood the morality argument. He made numerous philosophical statements criticizing philosophy. WLC on the other hand presented brilliant arguments with premises that were not just philosophically true but also scientifically cogent.
Which planet are you living on?
We have a kook here lol.
DarkKnight9i9 was obviously drunk when he/she watched this video.
Boy if you see shit comment in the section it always have to be the atheists 🤣 nothing new
@The Great Metropolis challenge wlc? Its been done a million times. He uses fallacies (god of the gaps, special pleading, personal incredulity) to confuse his sheep.
Is this a rematch debate? He debated Peter Atkins back when he was rocking a beard.
Vacant Crowd Oh I see
Vacant Crowd I sure wish Dawkins would go ahead and debate him.
Listening to Professor Atkins here just makes me disappointed that he is a professor let alone an intellectual in the first place. He ignores almost every point Dr. Craig makes and he tries to make fallacious claims to back up his "evidence"...which he gives none for his position! All he's done was make ad homs against Dr. Craig and philosophy in general instead of actually addressing the topic.
George Labe-Assimo That's a shame, if I said to you I believe in the great Hindu god of the sun Dinesh your arguments may actually align with the proffessors.
eddie Knight With both? In that case, certainly but Dr. Craig would make the better case.
Atkins' greatest strength, his passion for science, is also greatest weakness, i.e. his disdain for non-scientific explanation. Not only does he desperately want science to succeed (admirable), but he also wants philosophy and theology to fail (problematic). Because he doesn't want there to be a God he simply cannot give any objective assessment of the various layers of explanation. He repeatedly falls into the false dichotomy of 'religion vs. science' and is amongst the last remaining positivists in the academy. For that reason he will go down in posterity as a bit of an oddity but, even as a Christian who fundamentally disagrees with him, I still cannot help being enthralled by his scientific mind.
I was going to say something less complimentary about Atkins because I have serious reservations about his attitude (having seen him in other similar settings), but I think you have made a fair assessment there.
My answer is YES.
Atkins was so horrible i was tempted to skip over him
Yes Atkins is one of the worst Atheist debaters I have seen yet. Even worse than Dawkins, who is worse than Hitchens who is worse than Sam Harris and David Berlinski. To put Ricky Gervais or Stephen Fry in this comparison just wouldn't be fair
@@stephenfletcher5391 Technically, Berlinski is a skeptic, and rather open to the arguments of design.
@@stevedoetsch Being open to a argument does not make you any less of a atheist does it? Unless you want to classify the agnostic as separate from the atheist, and then ok, then I agree that the open to argument agnostic has a better argument than the closed to arguments atheist.
@@stevedoetsch But yes that was kind of my point, Berlinski is more of a skeptic and agnostic, but Sam Harris is more open minded too, because he believes in morality, and this open mindedness is exactly what makes David Berlinski and Sam Harris stronger in their arguments than Atkins and Dawkins.
I understand the sentiment but they are the best bits. Just grab some popcorn and enjoy.
The evidence for the Resurrection is very solid.
Of course it is. I am selling splinters of the true cross. I make them from recycled chocolate Santas. ;-)
1:08:20 - When Dr. Atkins says he there to be convinced by Dr. Craig, isn't "being convinced" just a psychological state? If they're debating to present arguments & rebuttals, how does convincing the other play into this?
William Craig is a Beast. He decimates his opponents. I've been following his debates for quite some time. He's a real pro. Lays Atheism open like a bad Quentin Tarantino horror movie. I mean come on, that's all Atheism really is... Bad slapstick and angry birds. Who could take atheist serious when they don't even take themselves serious. They come to debates knowing they lack any real evidence, just anger. After blithering along for over an hour when they finally open the floor for questions their angry minions attack like Scientologist at a e-meter sale. Atheism and Evolution are religions for adult thumb suckers
i don't believe in god as it ain't shown up, same goes 4 fairies ...guess u believe in both...sad lol...p.s.
dont get angry now, dude. it will make your sky fairy upset with you.
WLC is a beast?! Sad that you believe there’s a “tooth fairy” or “Santa Claus” somewhere out there and you actually pray to it, hoping for salvation- talk about thumb-sucking!
@@christopherianlister5212 I don't believe in god too. But I do believe in good logic or philosophy just like what MR. CRAIG had presented. Despite my atheistic view, I go with Craig's performance due to zero logical fallacy in his presentation.
They lack any evidence?? Are you actually that dense?? There are a huge amount of scientific peer-reviewed papers about literally any scientific field based on empirical evidence while WLC brings forth ZERO evidence ONLY philosophical thinking and you say atheists bring no proof??? Im pretty sure if you'd compare the IQ of theists and atheists, there'd be a huge gap and your ridiculously idiotic comment is the perfect example
I don't know if I will ever see another debate featuring Peter Atkins. He does nothing but insult the person with whom he is debating in the most personal manner to make himself seem superior, turning his nose up at anything that is not science in his "brilliant" view, including philosophy, yet arguing for objective truth based solely on evolutionary principles, disregarding the obvious philosophical opinions he has come to, disguising them as scientific conclusions the same way a kid would hide behind plastic glasses with a nose attached. Atkins does not debate; he is the snotty bully who sits in the chair behind you and pokes you hard in the back of the head until you tell him to knock it off, to which he responds by exclaiming to the teacher and the other children that you stole from him. I did not have to even watch this debate to know that Craig won, because he was the only person in that debate even arguing a viewpoint, instead of hurling insults and accusations at the other person to make himself look good. Enough is enough.
One night, while outdoors at the drive-in theater, the movie was boring so I began to look into the sky and after a few minutes (why I don't know) I asked God to show me proof of his existence and within a minute the clouds formed into a smiley face as they moved directly above me. They stayed that away for a couple of minutes and I felt so at peace. Once the feeling came over me the smiley face began to fade away. No, I didn't imagine it, I didn't see what I thought could be a smiley face it WAS a smiley face. I have had other experiences as well. I know God exists.
Then what are you waiting for, take it already.
You obviously are a loser so enjoy typing stupid messages troll. Out...........
The echo in the sound is very distracting.
That was the funniest "hmmm" I've ever heard, or at least for a long time, the one at 1:40:52.
WLC presents such a great represantation for Christian Theism. In these debates, he gives us reasonable arguments for believing in God. Dr Atkins just attacks religious beliefs and doesn't give us any good reasons to think that God does not exist.
Also, WLC calling him "Dr Dawkins" two times at 1:09:00 and 13 without even realizing it was really funny xD
The Reasonable Christian WLC twist and abuse science to conform to his presupposed beliefs. That is not reasonable. WLC wants, demands, that the event called "Big Bang" caused the universe to exist, but it is impossible to make such conclusions based on the evidence we currently hold.
The Reasonable Christian No, WLC does nothing of the sort. Dr Atkins is correct in attacking religious beliefs, as is anyone, because it's the responsibility of the proponent to show us why their perception of "god" is right. It's not Atkins's responsibility to do so.
1) WLC @ 5:30: Atheism can't be "true". Atheism isn't belief system, it simply rejects the idea of "gods".
2) WLC uses Kalaam, which has been debunked, repeatedly on both scientific and logical grounds.
3) WLC makes an argument that specifies what atheists have said about the universe, but he's actually referring to what the majority of the scientific community has to say, so as to paint it as an atheist conspiracy.
4) WLC then attempts to latch on to an absurdity that is present whichever way you put it, regarding the question of infinity. Which is simply a low-rent Deepak Chopra.
Beyond that, I've seen all that Craig has to present, I've heard all that he has to say and he's nothing better than detritus.
***** Since we do not currently have a working model that explains "the big bang" (hint, there are several very different working models being investigated like multiverse, mother/daugther universes etc.) should be enough. However another blatantly obvious question might be: "Where is the Nobel Prize winner for figuring out the origin/beginning/explanation of the universe?"
***** 1) Not necessarily. Most atheists are actually agnostic, but simply require evidence. However, one of the first problems is one of agreeing the terms of reference, i.e. what constitutes a 'god'. Until I know someone else's definition of what they think a god is, I don't know whether I'm addressing the god for which someone else is arguing. Of course, as soon as someone does start describing this god, the first question we can ask is how someone came by such information and take it from there. But there's no consensus on what someone MUST believe. The typical approach that's adopted by theists is that you don't "believe" in a god, so this must be a belief system. However, this is quite different to the way that I find atheism to work, because to me, atheism (from an agnostic-atheist perspective) is as simple as the belief that it's a good idea to tie your shoelaces, because it makes it less likely that you'll trip and fall over when you walk down the street, because evidence, experience and testing shows us that this seems to be true. However, I think that most people would agree that "tying your shoelaces to avoid tripping over in the street" isn't a belief system. On the same basis, I don't believe in gods because:
a) I don't know what a god is
b) The gods I've read of, I find no evidence for
2) There are a huge number of websites that debunk or address Kalaam, Iron Chariots has a discussion of it.
3) I don't know what atheists do (if you listened to many theists, we hang out as a secret cabal, plotting to take over and enslave the world), I only know what I think, which is that scientists may be correct about a number of things and they may also be incorrect about a number of things. However, when the scientific community agrees upon something, it's because it's peer-reviewed, so without having the time to investigate the questions fully, much of it may be beyond my understanding. But not knowing doesn't worry me and particularly if god (whatever that may mean) is unknowable, I'm not going to worry about what he/she/it may want me to do. If it mattered that much, such a god would make it clear to everyone.
4) I agree with the apparent abusrdity, but the fact that it may appear absurd is only problematic because of the concepts that we don't understand, because we don't understand everything in nature, but that's OK: It's completely scientific to say "I don't understand". It's also scientific to say "I can try to find out" and "I think I know what the answer is, so I'll test it". It's unscientific to say "I know because I got an answer from a book written by late Iron Age scribes, so I'm going to try to cram the reality of the universe into such a belief system".
But that's just my opinion.
***** I am sorry, but you are simply wrong. First of all, common sense is not evidence by itself, because common sense is flawed. Common sense tells us that if you drop a small coin and a heavy iron ball from the same height at the same time, the heavy iron ball will hit the ground first. Observation however tells us that they arrive at the same time and science can explain why. "The Big Bang" represents a threshold. After the bang, matter, space and time as we know it, is ("exists" however that word carries baggage Id like to avoid), but we know NOTHING about BEFORE the bang. That's why we cannot tell if this observable universe is the first one, or number X in a sequence of universes to be, etc. You then use "second law of thermodynamics" and "theory of general relativity" but fail to realize that they only explain phenomenons WITHIN our current universe. You simply cannot apply laws WITHIN the universe to the universe itself or what was BEFORE "The Big Bang" without evidence that it DOES apply.
if someone who made the video can help add the word below the screen should be more easier to understand for everybody and also perfect for the video
now i see why all these comments are against atkins. it was posted on a christian biased channel.
Who am I? Textbook Ad Hominem. Refute the people, not the arguments.
The fact of the matter is Atkins is philosophically blind.
The Guitar Whisperer whatever you say. Show me the error in his argument. I'm interested to know. Maybe I'll learn something
Who am I?
Atkins says that philosophy is useless for knowing anything, and that only science is valuable for gaining knowledge. The error is that in fact Atkins did not acquire the knowledge that philosophy is useless through utilizing the scientific method. In fact, Atkin's position is a PHILOSOPHICAL position of scientific realism, acquired via proper basicaliy, and is assumed to be true a priori before any experiment can be performed. Therefore, if his statement of scientific realism is true, then the statement of scientific realism itself cannot be trusted since it is philosophically derived, therefore, science CANNOT be the only reliable form of gaining knowledge. It's a self-defeating proposition.
The Guitar Whisperer ok now i remember. i think he could do better with the way he delivers his ideas. thanks for pointing that out. its been a min since i watched this one. i agree with you on that to a degree. science is not the only way to knowledge. though evidence based knowledge when it comes to claiming something exists clearly needs experience to validate it. a priori or deductive arguments dont impress me much. the soundness of a premise means more to me than the validity of a deductive argument. who cares if conclusions follow from premises if they cant be verified in experience? i think thats what hes trying to say. maybe atkins is coming at it from a pragmatic stance.
imo, its a probability distribution. things are only likely or unlikely to be true. my epistemology is agnostic and thats what i believe science does well. it never claims to know something for sure and will always change its mind based on new information. religion will never do this.
***** you cant deny the bias on a channel subscribed by and to a certain ideology. its not a fallacy because my statement was only that. it wasnt an argument, just an observation. if it was posted on an atheist channel, the comments would most likely be reversed.
Professor Atkins probably has tons of pain and bitterness in his heart, pray to God to open his eyes and relieve that pain.
Thats like saying you should pray to the boogeyman and it will help you relax.
Relieving Atkins agony is like agonising over giving pain to pain .
So apparently God has a plan, but you're arrogant enough to think He'll change it for you?
And I sincerely hope that experience removes the blindfold that you wear and removes the immense fear you possess. I know it’s scary but it’s ok to let your mind think. Being in constant fear is a horrible way to live and I truly wish that you gain the bravery necessary to face the world as it is- without the need for imaginary friends and wishful beliefs.
Have You ever seen a prayer work or evidence of being answered?
ouch
epic fail,
the scariest thing is he still thinks he's right even tho Craig wiped the floor with him
age of universe 13.7 billion years not the 6,020 the bible claims that's how we know the bible's fiction and willy is just a con man obviously...
@David Young yeah.. Typical craig
@@christopherianlister5212 first off the Bible doesnt say how old the universe or earth is. It just tells how how long human history is and thats 6000 years.
Second, to come to the conclusion of 13 billions of years there are many assumptions being made.
Even that the universe had a beginning wasnt so long ago rejected, even Einstein didnt believe in it first. If you truly think that all science today is a fact then you are not better than people in the past who also thought the same.
And just because stars are 13 billions lightyears away doesnt necesseraly mean they are that old. There are multiple explanations to it. For example when God created he created everything already mature, and when Adam & Eve were created as adults I doubt they had to wait millions of years to see the first star in the sky.
Also science makes the assumption that the Big Bang is correct, thats not the case. We just know the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang in itself has alot of problems and is just a theory from naturalists to explain the beginning.
Also you dont know how fast the speed of light was in the past and how fast it travels in which way (Einstein said this,it could be that it travels one way instant, you cant measure it), also how fast it is in space etc. etc. etc.
@@christopherianlister5212 6020 years? Just one guy's calculation. Personally I can live with 13.7 billion (although that number does get adjusted every so often.)
@@christopherianlister5212The Bible doesn't claim that the age of the earth is 6000 years old. It doesn't say how old it is. Some people take it out of context.
WLC circular logic 101: 1) Argue that god created the universe. 2) Argue that Jesus rose from the dead. 3) Argue with the fine tuning argument. 4) When confronted by someone doubting Jesus rose from the dead, refer to 1 and 3, then say it's more likely considering god created the universe. Final step: Consistently use a bunch of half baked unproven, arguments from probability and let them rely on eachother in a complete circle. Craig is a genius!
How is anything of that circular fallacy? Do you even know what that is? You must mean something else
its crazy how different the two come off. Atkins is constantly agitated and hostile. Craig seems like a normal nice person you can have a meaningful conversation with.
Atkins :""Philosophy is a waste of time" :))))))) He obviously doesn't want to put himself the hard question...
At least he is admitting he had nothing better to do than waste his time :D
@@stephenfletcher5391 People just don't want to know...
@@memememememe515 nah. Its more that some people just need to know, thats why theyll believe anything.
@@dayweed85 read your comment and tell me if you understand what you meant?!
@@memememememe515 yes
I like Craig's question about the universe coming out of nothing with no thought or purpose behind it's creation powers: why a universe or universes? Why not anything or everything. Why not fill the entire space that it has to create things with infinite matter leaving no room for nothing? lol.
This place looks pretty planned to me: leaving all that space between planets and star and people to inhabit. And why space and time? Why not space with out time or time with out space or both and no matter or matter and time with no space or .....
+Dillon Feast And i could ask the same thing about god. Why a god as opposed to no god? why an omnipotent god as opposed to a non-omnipotent god? etc...
"
This place looks pretty planned to me:"
The universe which barely even contains the conditions to let life appear on small speck of cosmic dust?
" leaving all that space between planets and star and people to inhabit. "
Ever heard of gravity and creation of stars?
@@disrupt94 I can answer that question.
- because it is more plausible that an orderly mind would create something that is more orderly and purposeful for the maximum potential of life, and sentient life no less, than all of the other goofy possibilities that Lane Craig was facetiously posing.
-it is even more necessary for an orderly BEING to maintain an orderly universe if it were to negate other more chaotic and self-defeating tendencies.
- because it takes an omnipotent god to be the architect or foundation of all fundamentally "universal" and "absolute" values like TRUTH or JUSTICE
-because a god that IS the cause of all these things, IS by default OMNIPOTENT, for there is nothing MORE potent. (and this would be a necessity, because if there were many gods who fought we would be back to square one with no better than one of the goofy chaotic possibilities before-mentioned)
Just some thoughts.
@@johncassles7481 " because it is more plausible that an orderly mind would create something that is more orderly"
Where do all these assumption stem from?
A) the universe is NOT orderly, and certainly not more orderly than God. There are some phenomena in the universe that that appeal to our intuition of order, but on the whole entropy is dominating. The entire realm of quantum physics is anything but ordered, and that is the basis for everything.
Our minds evolved around the natural world. Seeing patterns that appear like "order" in the natural world is inevitable, but why could it just not be as simple as certain constants dictating specific phenomena, such as the spherical shapes that gravity produces.
" for the maximum potential of life"
Maximum potential? Have you missed the fact that 99.9% of the universe is directly lethal to us? Have you been to universes with different constants to research all life-forms there? Otherwise, this is nothing but speculation.
" -it is even more necessary for an orderly BEING to maintain an orderly universe"
Then why is entropy rising?
You can’t have space without time or time without space. They are inextricably linked and dependent on each other for existence.
@@j-r-m7775 False. The universe is literally expanding into empty space, and that empty space was not dependent on some prior timeline, was it?
You are correct though, that time (as a function of entropy) requires a space in which it operates. If you broaden the definition of time however, to something like "a temporary sequence of events", then you don't need space for it.
Excellent debate, They need to use more common everyday language,
everyone keeps on saying that Atkins is stupid for saying that philosophy is a waste of time, but even worse is the fact that a lot of people clap, as if he has a good point. science is rooted in philosophy.
Atkins talks on:
25:10
57:00
1:17:00
1:30:00
Q&A 1:38:00
there is no refutation. twisting and turning words is not an argument, and that's Dick's strong point deception without valid argument using big word and sentences. I have seen Dick's debates and every time i really listen to him and when i pause and write down what he is saying (because i wasn't always that sure what he was saying when i first listen to him) it doesn't make sense whatsoever. So i did my critical thinking research and i am sorry to say he is full of it and he is only here for the floodlights and THE MONEY ding ding ding. That is my opinion based on research and if that makes me dishonest cretin i can live with that. On the other hand in this debate we have Peter Atkins who is not the best debtor in the world but he have all he needs to win every time against this deceptive artist and that's practical logical empirical knowledge.
ThomDull Atkins lost pretty bad though. There's no shame to admit it.
@Theologos dude, nobody is more dishonest than apologists. Control your feelings.
Psalm 92:5-6 “How great are your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep! 6 The stupid man cannot know; the fool cannot understand this.”Proverbs 1:22 “Fools, how long will you love being ignorant? How long will you make fun of wisdom? How long will you hate knowledge?”
Proverbs 18:13 “Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish.”
Proverbs 18:6-7 “Fools’ words get them into constant quarrels; they are asking for a beating. The mouths of fools are their ruin; they trap themselves with their lips.”
17. Proverbs 24:7 “Wisdom is too high for fools; in the assembly at the gate they must not open their mouths.”
Proverbs 26:11 “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.”
Proverbs 29:8-9 Mockers can get a whole town agitated, but the wise will calm anger. If a wise person takes a fool to court, there will be ranting and ridicule but no satisfaction.”
Ecclesiastes 10:1-3 As dead flies cause even a bottle of perfume to stink, so a little foolishness spoils great wisdom and honor. A wise person chooses the right road; a fool takes the wrong one. You can identify fools just by the way they walk down the street!”
Too many verses to count about fools.
His Word is awesome!
Didn't these two debate decades earlier?
No arguments, just ad hominem, gratuitous, snarky remarks. Well done.
Literally all Atkins did… or almost ever does. I want to respect the guy but he doesn’t say much of anything substantial enough for me to consider.
I am not gonna lie I love hearing Peter Atkins debates simply to hear him say ... Its just Laziness... lol
+Kevin O'Connor and that is bascially code word for atkins conceding
I love how Peter Atkins is projecting his own laziness every time he says "it's just laziness"
He's right, it is.
@@gooey5234 why would Atkins believe a fool like WLC and his bogus 'arguments'? WLC brings zero emphirical, provable evidence. Its all a bunch of nonsense and Atkins is actually being nice to him but he basically thinks WLC is a complete idiot (which he is)
@@nickverschoore4351 "That is just laziness"
“There is nothing here, although it’s a very interesting nothing. There was nothing and through whatever exceptional thing took place ...” Dr Atkins is jumping through the hoops of his own scientific desperation to prove that the magnificence of a god he does not believe in amounts to zero...
"Génesis 1/2, in my opinion , in a possible interpretation of these chapters, it isin't explicit a description, or limit of the extension of the "man" created, and how it was created. Leaving hyphoteticaly the existance of human spiecies possible, as its natural evolution process possible.Luis Maduro"Its a teology text i have written a few months. In my opinion reduces to futility the debate due to a reinterpretation of the sacred texts, and allows the possibilty of a intelligent design thru evolutionary process .What do you think?
Is it fair for Craig to treat infinity as a number to show that it causes "absurdities"? Infinity is qualitatively different from a single number such as 9; infinity is a descriptive convention or an abbreviation that means, "and so on..." and works as such. For example, pi is conceptualized as having infinite digits without being a logical contradiction.
1:09:34 He says that the mathematical existence of infinity is not in question, what is really in doubt is if an actual infinite number of physical things can exist in reality
The problem with scientists is not that they have data, but the conclusions they draw from the data. This is the philosophical side of scientific inquiry and the only part of it that matters--the "so what" principle of data collection in the first place. I have yet to find a scientist with philosophical acumen. The other problem with the practice is the assumption that their certain data collection represents the total data collection upon which to draw conclusions. This is presumptuous to the highest degree, and limits scientific conclusions to a language of unverifiability such as what we hear him making: i.e. "There is NOTHING in the universe that cannot be explained..." (30:16); "No one EVER says that" (58:04) etc. These are not statements that are verifiable, obviously. He doesn't know nor cannot know everyone ever, nor can he know everything in the universe. This is little more than a register of speaking with a marked absence of philosophical reflection or restraint that is the fruit of the assumption that the data collected and conclusions draw from that limited data drives a register of "absolute" speech. It is designed to project his personal confidence through the scientific endeavor. Bottom line: scientists are more often than not (at least recent ones) terrible at philosophical analysis and conclusion and inference. And it is those very skills which are called upon in debates of this nature.
***** Most scientists who have made progress have a philosophical hat of there own they often wear
Don't lump all scientists together. Science and Christian faith are not mutually exclusive. There are Christian scientists.
@@nancycrayton2738 sure. If their fields dont require a god.
I liken it to my sitting here looking at and observing the painting on the wall above my monitor. There it is. Now.. discuss it. I can, indeed, "measure" scientifically to my heart's content, and beyond as my techniques improve, all aspects of the painting that I come up with (extrapolate out to the entire universe of this debate's discussion), in trying to "understand it", ever deeper, ever more precisely. That tells me NOTHING of the "why" of the whole matter, or if there even IS a "why". Wish as I may, I'll NEVER come to the time of understanding the painting back before it's, the object of discussion's, existence. I may deduce correctly the nature of the moment the painting was began, and how it proceeded, but... You'll never, EVER know there was a painter, unless you... know there was a painter! KNOWING the painter, on the other hand (which I actually DO, in this case. But whether I do or not does not matter), absolutely does NOT dissuade me from all manner of also scientifically studying the painting, just as the non-artist-disbeliever, which leads me to "scientific understanding" of the painting, just the same, but as WELL as insights into the painter himself. And I literally "see" the truth of that in my painting example, since I literally know the painter. Atkins world is smaller than Craigs. Craig sees Atkins "measurements", and beyond. He knows his Creator God. I do, too. And so CAN you. It's not at ALL about merely "winning a debate" here. It's about eternal, ultimate, absolute Truths. Truths that have eternal consequences. I want BOTH guys to win!! He is The Way, the Truth, and the Life. And so MY reaction is... Lord, lead mister Atkins, as well as myself and ALL of us, to come to the place in life where we SEE your reality, undeniably, and find the peace and the joy in life from that Truth, that NOTHING else ever brings to us! You are that Peace, the true ultimate Joy. And that, because it's TRUE!
Maranatha, Lord Yeshua, Creator Jesus, the Redeemer from my sins. Yes. Yes!! And now... back to more science! I LOVE science! :) My mind (and heart) are insatiable! Indeed, the heavens DECLARE the glory of God!! Wow! :)
Steve Farmer. Very thoughtful commentary!
Very dishonest. As expected.
You just said they change and i quote "The reason that morals differ in different societies" the differ they CHANGE
You never answered my question about equivocation and composition fallacies
WLC is awesome, never get sick of listening to him
He is self delusion personified. So much so that it's sinister
WLC never gets sick of listening to WLC either.
He's like the drums in a rap song.
@@houmm08 You don't hate WLC you hate the proves God and that scares your soul.
You feel shame because God exists and you know your doing wrong.
Sin leads to hell, why burn forever when you can be with God?
@@houmm08Well, that's your own personal opinion. Maybe he actually makes sense to you and that gets under your skin. Maybe it even scares you a bit. Is your faith in your Atheism fading?
Embarrassment is to Peter Atkins as rain is to London!
Debate begins 4:45 - you're welcome 👍
Peter Atkins shows through his arguments that he believes the scientific method to be synonymous with God
Atheism and Evolution= a religion for Adults who don't want to grow up. Praise God for people like Dr. Craig!
+Alex Joseph I'm an atheist and have been for over 50 years. When I became an atheist I knew next to nothing about Evolution. I know more now and I do accept Evolution as a sound explanation of how the diversity of Life emerged on Earth.
But make no mistake, Evolution could be proven to be completely and undeniably wrong-headed tomorrow and I'd still be an atheist.
Why? Because the existence or nonexistence of a God is not dependent on evolutionary theory being wrong. God could, if he were real, have created the mechanisms of evolution, if he chose to. The only reason evolution is such a problem for believers is its conflict with a few ancient books. Evolution itself is not in conflict with Creator theory.
For me to believe God is real, there has to be strong evidence that god is real. Evidence that evolution is wrong, is evidence that evolution is wrong.... not that any other explanation is true.
Evolution has never been proven and never will, because it's a fairytale. And I'm sorry that you're an atheist, but there's strong evidence for God's existence, it's just about if you ignore it, or accept it. Goodbye
+dimbulb23 If evolution was wrong, then you'd need another explanation for the origins of diverse life. Given there are no better competing scientific theories, this would end up providing a strong reason to believe in intelligent design.If I flip a coin and tell you, "it's not heads," this evidence leads you to believe the flipped coin is showing tails.
*****
I don't need an explanation for the diversity of life. I accept evolution but I don't need it. If it went away, I wouldn't be so desperate that I'd believe ID.
I accept evolution because it seems a reasonable explanation for what it proposes to explain. Neither my life nor my atheism revolves around it.
And I reject ID because it asserts God and then goes on to say Evolution is wrong. It's isn't an explanation of anything. it's not on the other side of my coin.
The mistaken idea that it's Evolution or ID and there are no other possibilities comes from the fact that Genesis and Evolution are incompatible. So in the minds of some Christians this is the two sides of a coin. It's one or the other.
Other Christians see God as focus of their worship and their faith rather than the Bible. They aren't Book worshipers and are able to accept evolution and see Genesis as a simplistic creation allegory that can be appreciated for its message but see that its details were meant for a simpler time and for simpler people. They're are open to the possibility that Evolution is God's way of diversifying life on Earth and it's absence from the Bible isn't any more surprising than the absence of the Germ Theory of Disease or Law of Physics.
Evolution is the laughing stock of science, every time I ask an atheist, or professor for evidence of evolution, they never give me any.
Now people understand why atheism/evolution is declining worldwide.
Craig was brilliant as usual!
there is no evidence of God
@@akkalange6359 Do you even know what evidence is??? It's the existence of ANY FACT that makes the existence or non existence of a proposition more or less likely. A beginning of the universe is a fact that shows something outside of nature... that is by definition "surpernatural". The fine tuning of the "objectively" is not random or required. All that's left is purposeful. We know that chemicals do not of themselves randomly combine to turn into life. That again is evidence of something other than a natural cause... Anyone from there CONJECTURE the some other possibility. But in each case their conjectures, such a MultiVerse, are always without empirical evidence that they Conjectured cause ever existed. THIS IS NOT PROOF... BUT THIS CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SOMETHING BEYOND NATURE... But then when combined with SCORES FACTS IN THE BIBLE THAT WERE UNKNOWABLE AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN CONSTITUES EVEN MORE "EVIDENCE" OF HIS EXISTENCE…
@@bruce3102 vvell, that is a very clever argument for HIS existence.....but vvhat i am kuestioning vvhy the fook is catholocism the richest religion on the planet
it vvould be all over the nevvs vvith solid proof of God's existence but its not
@@akkalange6359 what does the wealth of Catholicism have to with the facts I presented? NOTHING PROVES GOD... BUT FOR DECADES, THE GROWING ACCUMULATION OF EMPIRICAL FACTS HAVE SERVED TO MAKE THE GOD HYPOTHESIS MORE AND MORE SECURE.
So how did the intemporal CAUSE anything without time. Cause is a temporal word
+mushroomfat That's very misleading. Craig *does* explain why the premises are more plausibly true than not and it's plain to see how the logic is sound in each one.
You just can’t beat WLC he’s got every subject down. At some point with both arguments you have to take a leap of faith and something coming from nothing is far more outlandish than design.
Indeed it sounds more bizarre saying something came from nothing! They know God exist but don’t wanna acknowledge him as God!
@@Bondservant.of.Christ god came out nothing. It came out of empty peoples heads.
@@dayweed85 Ok 👍
Regarding Atkins' insistence on the tired, 1,000 year argument presented by Craig, the moderator inadvertently gives in fact the best rebuttal where he says: "For those who have a sense of history, the last time these two gentlemen debated was in 1998, in Atlanta. The title was slightly longer than the title today, but it was similar. That debate still exists on the internet, and what I found fascinating is to see how the arguments have developed in that short a period."
Relatively is crucial in any debate
Thanks for the link. If my connection stops sucking, I may give it a gander. Still, putting forward a meaningful challenge is far from a full-out debunking or "dismantling," to use your language. My point to NyKwil1911 was that if Craig's argument really were completely bunk, he wouldn't win most of his debates. Which, frankly, he does. Atheist Luke Muehlhauser--one of the most objective voices on the "God" debate--freely admits Craig has won most, if not all, of his debates.