100% agree. There is no substance to his arguments. And like dyllahunty neither one actually prepare for the debate. Just mental gymnastics ans God is a means therefore he doesn't exist
nah hitchens was a intellectual giant ....what you see here is that he knows he is far more capable than he whom he is in debate and is just playing with him .... when hitchens takes a full lean into a debate there is very few people who can stand against him regarding this subject
@@robburdack4361" hitchens was intellectual giant " for plumbers kitchen porters careers all sorts of manual labourers taxi drivers etc etc etc etc yes he was for real intellectuals he resemble rather oposite state pygmy
Hitchens was brilliant rhetorician and his British accent went a long way to make him seem smarter and more attuned to the arguments than he really is. His debate with William Lane Craig exposed Hitchens.
The argument for an undetectable unfalsifiable metaphysical unsubstantiated unverifiable claim for a Christian bible god is automatically dismissed without evidence. Philosophical arguments don't prove any gods exist. Bible quotes and speculation is all any Christian apologist ever had. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Wow, what a great video!! I am not a debater or even involved in that realm, but the commentary from the gentleman in regards to the topics was explained so clear and simple. Great job!!
@@WiseDisciple So glad you have stuck with it Nate, wish I found you sooner, I would have been a man of God waaay sooner! God bless brother keep doin your thing, no doubt you are heading in the right direction! ❤❤👊👊🙏🙏
Ive never understood why people base their careers around disproving something they dont even believe exists. Imagine writing books and going to debates trying to disprove unicorns. If you dont belive it, stop obsessing over it.
Evil ,or ,put more generically, unnecessary suffering, needs no explanation from a naturalistic perspective. We live in a world indifferent to human suffering. The problem of evil does , however, render many versions of theism contrary to logic. It renders the all-powerful, allknowing god evil , the all good and all knowing god not all powerful and the all powerful, all-knowing all good god logically impossible.
@@lies_worth_believingyes. Those are all contradicting veiws. But it's not what being argued. Humans being made in God image means we are capable of evil so that's not even an issue. In order to love you have to be capable of hating.
@@WiseDisciple sorry but u don't appear to understand Hitchens argumentation. U are missing the point it literally triggers me. How can u teach others how to debate when u cannot even follow hitchens process of argumentation????
@@WiseDisciple To the topic of "something from nothing" Hitchens clearly says that we cannot know the answer. There is no proof for it and no Type of evidence that could explain where this something comes from. So he CLEARLY STATES: I don't know. Thats a perfectly fine argumentation. If u don't know something don't act like u do. And that's exactly what Turek does. He claims to know something without evidence. That is a fallacy and u should know that, being an expert in debating...
A debate about the existence of a god is pointless because it cannot be proven either way. However, a claim has been made on the part of the believer, it is therefore on the believer to prove that existence. And Hitch is absolutely correct in saying that it is not his job to know the origins of the universe, it is the thiest who must know. The thiest has a book revealing supposed thruthes. It is therefore on the thiest to prove those supposed thruthes are correcr
@@alex__3897 He's not an expert in debating, he's a Christian apologist. All the way through this he ignores mistakes and fallacies from Turek and then goes on to misrepresent what Christopher says.
Hitchens point on no knowing how the universe began is correct. He says we don’t know because we don’t know. That’s a fact. Only people who claim to know have to justify their views.
It is quite obvious that when you make an assumption or statement like God exists in a debate you are the one that has to prove its existence, by making arguments in favor .No one should have to prove the negative because if so I should be proving every single day that Santa or or leprechauns don't exist. This Chanel is traying to helado Cristians sell BS
The Kalam Cosmoligical Arguments, the Moral Arguments, the Contingencies Arguments, Fine tuning arguments etc etc. You Athiests are so ignorant that you would not even want to recognise the arguments brought forth by the Christian apologists. Well what I do I expect...your athiest after all...
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 well I don't need to call you ignorant to be right at least. Says much about the weight of your arguments, wich by the way are deeply and obviously flod, but you are the one who doesn't want to see, that fine, you are free to believe (thanks to your country being laic, by the way) cheers and godspeed
@@fidelecheverria6772 no, in fact atheists (like liberals today) change the meaning of words and pretend the meaning was aways the new meaning. Atheists used to say "God doesn't exist", until they finally realized they can't prove that assertion, so now you're moving the goalposts, while whistling and pretending nothing is happened. Since the vast majority of the world believes in a Higher Being in one way or the other, Atheists are the ones asserting something that goes against what is currently seen as indisputably true.
Why didn't Turek say anything about Samaritans being an offshoot of Judaism? The Samaritans are Jews that had children with other nations. So they had a grounding in God's morals eventhough they weren't seen as Jewish anymore.
Well, Hitchens certainly knows God exists now. Sadly it took his death to realize it. Even worse, he chose separation from God, and God granted his request. Hitchens is in a dark place now, devoid of light and absent from warmth, crying out to a God he now knows exists but no longer hears him. Hell is what he wanted, and Hell is what he got.
I'm just curious about a few things talked over in this video. You seem to be going over the arguments from both sides and "awarding points" based on some sort of competitive structure. Is this how formal debates are done? I'm not familiar with formal debates so I'm not quite sure on the structuring. In the same instance, if that is how debates are held, does it really apply in a debate such as this where religion is involved? Should there be a "scoring system" when ultimately the arguments given by both parties are to convince the listeners of their position and a regular scoring structure would be less relevant. Again I'm not well versed in debates so this is just my thoughts, if you will, my question. Besides that I also want to ask, just out if curiosity. When you take a debate like this, do you judge it unbiasedly and purely out of a formal debate point of view, or is it structured in such a way that is meant to make the Christian point of view look better (seen as, to my knowledge, this channel is based on improving people's abilities in defending their beliefs)
I’m not sure if debate rules either…. This is the third reaction to a debate video I’ve seen on this channel. From what I can tell, Nate does a good job of “awarding points” based on an impartial system. But he doesn’t pause to say “point for___”. He calls out good and bad questioning, good and bad answers and missed opportunities. It’s more like he’s a coach explaining what’s going well and what isn’t. I haven’t seen him champion the Christian or berate the atheist point of view, which is what I would have expected. He gives credit where it is due no matter the opinion.
Turek's big mistake is that he couldn't hide his frustration. He started to get shrill and raise his voice, while Hitchens kept his composure and looked much better to the audience. Turek should've been able to keep his composure better so that he looked better to the crowd. This is my main takeaway regardless of who technically "won".
That's something I noted many times when I watched Hitchens' debates with Frank, Lennox etc.. He always dodges the questions, yet people believe in what he say, not for something against atheists but why people use his debates? Regardless, may Hitchens rest in peace
On the contrary, Hitchens was not obliged to answer those questions. The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion. As Hitchens said, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Besides which, 'I don't know' is an answer, particularly if one is not claiming to know the origin of the universe in the first place.
The topic of the debate is "does God exist" both sides must present arguments why their position is the best position. One side cant just say "I dont like your arguments" Chris must present arguments for why God most likely doesnt exist. Chris seems just to present emotional appeals to God's existence, nothing substantial.
@@ceceroxy2227 The arguments of those opposing Hitchens are very much low-hanging fruit. As I said, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion and their arguments are so easily rendered invalid due to their lack of evidence. It is unnecessary for Hitchens to present arguments as to why his position is the best, because his opponents do so incredibly effectively on his behalf. Hitchens' stance is 'I don't know'. His opponent's stance is 'that which I don't understand I will call God'.
@@elvisleeboy I actually consider Hitchens the low hanging fruit. When a debate happens, just saying, no I dont believe you is not worthy of being part of a debate. If it is unecessary to prevent arguments for one side, then they shouldnt be there. If your whole thing is "Idont know" just go home and do something else.
@@ceceroxy2227 Except that horrific acts are performed in the name of God, and societies are profoundly affected by religious dogma, often to the point where people are killed if they step an inch beyond these man-made restrictions. Hitchens' arguments are valid, because while he knows he cannot state as a fact that there is no God, he can state that he sees no reason to believe there is. The low-hanging fruit surely has to be the one who claims to know something that they cannot. You seem to be struggling with the concept of the burden of proof. The person making the assertion must present something for the opposition to argue against, but instead they turn up to a battle of wits unarmed. You only need a shield if the opponent has a weapon.
@@elvisleeboy No, Hitchens is low hanging fruit when it comes to arguments for and against God, if you think that because horrible atrocities are done in the name of God is a good argument against God's existence then you arent quite the deepest thinker. Its not an arguments against God in the slightest, its just shows anyone can do bad things, now you could make arguments against religion like that if you want. When you come to a debate, there is no burden of proof one way or the other. Both sides must represent their view and why it is correct. Nobody has claimed God exists in the debate question, the debate question is "Does God exist" both sides must give their view and what evidence and reasons for their view. If the question was "Does Santa Claus exist" and I said yes, I would have to give reasons why I think Santa exists and the evidence for it, and you would have to give your reasons for why you believe Santa doesnt exist, a debate is a two way street, not one person making arguments and the other saying I dont believe you, thats not how debates work. So when it comes to debating this question, Hitchens is low hanging fruit when it comes to the arguments. Only had emotional appeals like religion does bad things or why does God care about my sex life, nothing substantive about things like contingency, the beignning of the universe, teleology, morality. why anything exists at all. He had nothing.
Great vid! Hitchens was a very charming speaker, but as you noted, he tends to dodge answering and not hold to anything solid - referring instead to the crowd and mockery rather than positions and answers. And to any who has read even a few of the things Hitler has said in private about religion (see 'Hitler's Table Talk', which was written by one of Hitler's accountants), Hitchens's assertion that Hitler was a Christian or Catholic or some such strikes me as (at best) naïve. Hitler was a smooth politician who manipulated his way to power and used religious rhetoric where useful. This is a common thing. So what did he really believe? Well, I did a bit of digging. ---- #1. Nobody believes Hitler worshipped a Jew. Jesus is Jewish. And Hitler, evil as he was, was not stupid. He refashioned the Gospels to make an 'Aryan Jesus', and whenever Hitler in his speeches spoke of Jesus's acts, he would primarily refer to Jesus's casting out of the moneychangers in the temple. Except he'd say that Jesus was 'casting the Jews out of the temple.' ---- #2. Yes, Hitler used religious phraseology often in his speeches, as many a politician does. Compare to his conversations in private, however, and we see that - like many a politician - what they espouse in public they despise in private. Here's a few quotes. I have more: check "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer (the Nazi Minister of Armaments) and "Hitler's Table Talk", which is a collection of Hitler's private statements and monologues as transcribed by Hitler's own private secretary, if you want to see more: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" ~ from "Inside the Third Reich" "In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. [...] The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. . . . The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew." ~from "Hitler's Table Talk" "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries." ~from "Hitler's Table Talk" "The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." ~from "Hitler's Table Talk" To paraphrase in short: Hitler: 'The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity, and my Reich is incompatible with religion and will eventually stamp it out. Indeed, Christianity's teachings lead to the systematic cultivation of the human failure. That said, why couldn't I have gotten a headstart with Germany having a different religion, like Shinto or Islam?' New Atheists: 'Hitler was a Catholic!' ----- The reality is, Dr. Turek was again right in asking the questions he did, and Hitchens was just dodging. And Dr. Turek was indeed right to use Hitler as an example. The 20th century spilled more blood than the previous 19 centuries combined: the bloodiest century in our history, and the one that proudly proclaimed 'God is dead'. The good news, however, is that while God indeed died (it was earlier than the 20th century when it happened), the tomb was empty the third day.
Good work! Hitler was not a Christian. But tragically, many if not most of his followers identified as such. They were most likely not real Christians, as most who say they are Christians are not. But the fact Germany was a Christian-majority nation is still a big stain on our history and reputation. It’s why it is important for Christians to 1) understand the Bible, 2) show no toleration for it being twisted to hurt other people, and 3) take action.
Frank asked the abortion question at 16:00 because he's going to show that Hitchens has no basis for morality. Hitchens cannot definitively say one thing is right or wrong, though that is what he believes. He's going to hum and haw like he always does. Frank asked this because it does directly relate to the main point. If ONE THING is objectively right or wrong, then God must exist. That is the thrust of Frank asking this question.
Thank you so much Nate for your work! It is so clear and concise and FRESH I have to thank you for the sacrifice of time and energy to put this out to the world through the Internet and TH-cam! You have no idea how profound and beautiful the gifts that God has given you are. Thank you and please keep soldiering on!!!
6 min in.. God works in mysterious ways 🤣🤣🤣🤣🙏🙏🙏🙏 Thank you Jesus, you make it more and more clear every second of my existence that I am making the right choice to come to You!!!!! ❤❤❤❤
In the first third of the debate analysis, I'm not seeing the connection between the duty of a debater to defend that God does not exist and having to claim knowledge of what came before the universe...? I don't see how the claim that there is no God would entail knowing everything?
Spend just a minute listening to Frank and he'll answer that question a thousand times! God didn't come about. God is the uncaused cause. Frank has said countless times that if time, space, and matter had a beginning, then the cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. This cause we call God. And if time and space didn't come into being, but are eternal and infinite then this present moment we are experiencing could never arrive, as there would be infinite time before it that would have to be traversed first. And, more to the point, we have no evidence for a physically infinite anything. We just have a conceptualization of it.
@@selderane Which again is a god of the gaps answer. Nothing in your answer leads to a god let alone one who cares about you. It is special pleading, with zero evidence, that a god, in this case the christian god, is the uncaused cause.
That’s such a naive statement. “It’s impossible to disprove a universal negative” is itself a universal negative, claiming those statements are incoherent. Circular. Stupid
You certainly lose a debate if you cannot provide a positive case for your position. The debate is not “Can we know God exists?” It is “Does God exist?” Playing a rhetorical game by saying he doesn’t need to answer the question is Hitchens avoiding the uncomfortable and ignoring the foundation of the debate topic.
What a stupid position. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Mathematically. It is false to assume that that in a debate one side has to argue for the position and the other has to argue for the opposite. False. In a court the options are not Guilty or Innocent. Th defence lawyer has only to reduce the value of the prosecution.
A married bachelor doesn't exist. Dragons in the sense of a winged-reptile that can fly and breath fire don't exist. A triangle whose interior angles don't add up to 180 degrees doesn't exist. The limit as x -> 0 of 1/x literally does not exist as in the correct answer is "Does not exist". A debate is not a trial. Trials only work that way in the US because the judicial system was designed to be an adversarial system. If the state wants to restrict your rights, then they need to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's only in criminal trials. In civil trials, the standard is only preponderance of the evidence i.e. more probable than not. There is no inherent property of Justice that necessitates that criminal trials be carried out this way, the accused could equally have to carry the burden to prove their innocence if the system was designed that way instead. If your position in a debate is "I don't know," then get the fuck off the stage and sit in the audience and let the people who do know do the talking.
Great video man. It really clears things up for me. Hitchens is good at engaging the crowd so he can get back up but he does seem to never answer a question straight up. Kinda dances around it an throws his 2 cents in about something different lmao. And people really think Hitchens killed the debate. Frank wasn't perfect but my money isn't on Hitchens. Lol
Well of course any reasonable sane person sees Turek is pretty solid on he's views but Hitchens always tries to dodge questions that are tricky to answer, he was an 'actor' and good at that.
His answers were a bit long winded, but I find he often answered the question fairly well. Do you have any examples for him not answering any questions directly?
I agree that Hitchens played to the crowd. This, of course, is only really effective based on crowd make-up. By this, I mean that the crowd was, it appears, mostly skeptical. For instance, had the debate been held at a large church, Turek’s initial jokes would not have fallen so flat. I acknowledge his delivery was a bit clunky, but hey it was his first debate, and honestly Hitchens (for some reason) was a giant among atheist debaters. He’s never honestly impressed me much. That is not to say that he isn’t highly intelligent, he is. I just don’t think he debates very good. People will view this debate through their biases. That’s why a lot of people think Hitchens “killed” it. I actually found a letter on the internet posted by an avowed “fanboy” of Hitchens’ who basically admitted, albeit painfully, that Hitchens fell flat in this debate.
First of all, good stuff! I like hearing your perspective, from the official rules of debate. I’m 14 minutes in and my initial thinking is that Hitchens is driving at the moral implications of believing God exists. Whatever the title of the debate, Hitchens is attempting to debase the belief that God is something *worth* believing in. That the belief is dangerous and enables-often encourages- toxic behaviors. Hitchens is not a scientist, he is a polemicist. While his tactics may fly in the face of official rules of debate, his rhetoric is epistemologically effective. By giving alternative naturalist explanations to Turek’s, Hitchens would be surrendering legitimacy to his opponent; that these are merely academic distinctions about theology. A great deal of Hitchens life work is to deny theological beliefs any such legitimacy. And to do that he redefines the confines of the debate to focus on the critical aspect: morality. If someone asks “When did you stop hitting your wife?” and, despite never hitting your wife, insists that the debate topic is settled in the question. . . you’re predetermining the range of acceptable information. While that may be the function of debate structure, I’m left wondering how interesting a debate like that would be. If you have any examples of a high-level debate that you would recommend, I’ll happily watch them. Anyway, back to the video 😇
This is a great point that someone else brought up as well! Hitchens was a master polemicist, which is why I'm such a huge fan of his! Loved his political writings especially. He's just one of those guys I imagine it would have been awesome to sit down and sip on a beverage and just chat! You're also right about the nature of debates, but those confines are there so that debates are singularly focused on the topic -- so that they can entail the most robust discussions related to it (at least in theory). A great debate... well, let me give you 2: 1) William Lane Craig vs. Shelly Kagan. Craig didn't win this one, in my opinion. But it was much more robust! 2) William Lane Craig vs. Sean Carroll. These are a lot closer to what debates are supposed to look like IMO. Thanks for your thoughts :)
@@WiseDisciple Your opinion of the finer points of debating etiquette is clearly a lame attempt to pull Turek out of the embarrassing hole he dug for himself in that debate.
Totally agree. I don’t understand the value in a debate on the question “does god exist?” and then limiting it to baseline facts to the exclusion of the moral, ethical, theological and sociological issues such a questions inevitably produces. There is no “proof” either way. Hitchens could recite the best scientific theories we have so far and then be countered by the Christian/theological argument but no one has hard facts on their side and those arguments have been made a million times. To encounter any original thinking and original argument you’d have to broaden the question to include the implications.
lol. It is not, contrary to your representations, the case that the negation must prove up an affirmative case. It's entirely sufficient to argue that the proposition remains unproved by the arguments given in its favor. And the question at issue was about 'does god exist', not 'can you explain the origins of the universe'. And Hitchens wasn't losing the debate. Turek invokes the alleged fact that the universe began to exist and then challenges Hitchens to give a contrary explanation. Pointing out that Turek doesn't know, because no one does, is entirely proper. Particularly given that Hitchens adds: but you claim to know; it's on you to show that it's true considering you're the one who's arguing that its truth supports your claim. And it's not at all the case that Turek has done anything other than assert that it's true; he certainly is unable to show that the universe began to exist. But he claims he can. It's fairly easy to settle the question as to who is winning or losing the debate: who has converted more people to their cause? Hitchens or Turek? It's Hitchens. And Hitchens wasn't conceding that god exists. He was taking the hypothetical and looking at the properties that this god would have... one of which is being all good and wise. And you teach debate? Dear lord help us.
"And Hitchens wasn't conceding that god exists. He was taking the hypothetical and looking at the properties that this god would have... one of which is being all good and wise. And you teach debate? Dear lord help us." *He teaches religious people to debate. Honesty be damned.
@@kelvinloeb812 1. “I wonder why it is that "Wise Disciple" only appears to reply to people who agree with him in the comments section” SMOKESCREEN!! Look up [Ad Hominem Fallacy] and [Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy]. If you launch personal attacks against Wise Disciple and appeal to ridicule instead of providing a logical rebuttal that’s actually a logical fallacy and is considered a concession of defeat by the judges in a formal debate. I accept your concession of defeat!! Look up [Ad Hominem Fallacy] and [Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy]. That’s science denying, TRIGGERED CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect. Furthermore, nice little echo chamber you’ve got going in this oh so rationally and morally “SUPERIOR” section!! As if there’s “no evidence” that the universe began to exist LOL!! Talk about denial. We know that you guys are mockers, haters and liars right? As Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil," “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.” Furthermore, the irony and the absurdity is that militant atheists liked to point to the the “Big Bang” as if this was an Earth shattering defeater for faith. The irony is that it was actually atheist scientists who coined the phrase “Big Bang” to mock the scientific evidence for the expansion of the universe, holding back the science for several years. Because they knew it undermined the infinite, steady state theory of the universe and they were uncomfortable with the fact that the “BIG BANG” was consistent with Genesis as it provided scientific evidence of a metaphysical beginning to “matter” and even a metaphysical beginning beyond philosophical naturalism to space and time itself right? The double irony is that George Lemaitre who formulated the “BIG BANG” theory turned out to be a devout Christian and remained so. Furthermore, the irony is that even the prominent scientist Steven Hawking, who clearly did not come from any particular religious perspective, helpfully pointed out that... “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (Steven Hawking). Sorry!!
Hitchens is very articulate. But once you get passed the rhetoric. He is just another "internet atheist" with the way he talks, responds, and can't defend anything he believes in.
The irony is the "heat death of the universe" is a complete human construct with little to no basis in reality. Garbage in Garbage out models of the universe. The Pythagoreans wouldnt even allow Hitchens within 100 yards of their school
Hitchens was brilliant, well educated, and well spoken but he lost his perspective and intelligence when it comes to Christianity. It was sad to watch, he was so smart and capable when not on the topic.
Hitchens is being asked to prove a negative, which is ridiculous. If you believe that one of the gods is real (unlike the other gods) then the onus is on you to provide evidence. That is one reason that formal debates like this are a silly idea. As for the origin of the Universe, there is strong scientific reason to believe that it did not have a beginning. Noether's Theorem plus the law of conservation of energy tells us that time is symmetrical, ie every point is the same as every other, therefore there is no first point in time.
Wiat, serious question: if there was a debate where someone argued for the flying spaghetti monster and the opponent thoroughly debunks and rebuts every argument… but doesn’t prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist, he loses? Wouldn’t that be closer to a stalemate, or he’d be leaving the audience as agnostics? Im a Christian, but my only argument against the spaghetti monster is God said there aren’t other God’s and that gravity keeps spaghetti on the ground. But even if I could make these two arguments, I wouldn’t have made any ground. I am learning the rules of formal debate for the first time on this channel.
It's amazing how clueless people who comment are. Claiming to be beacons of reasons and logic, instead of pointing out the flaws in the debate analysis, they resort to ad hominems\logical fallacies which they are accusing Turek of. The self-blindness is astounding
Sir, the origins of the universe, i doubt any believer can answer that with certainty. Hitchens is answering the question with his best explanation, what is the origin of the universe according to you?
It's perfectly explained in the bible and backed up by science.... The right answer for all the answers is always, "I don't know". At least Hitch was humble enough to say it. Far more humble than any Christian or there
I respectfully disagree on your statement about the burden of proof. The Christians are the ones saying that they know the answer to the origin of the universe so only they should present the evidence, not Hitchens. You seem to like using court analogy, but in this case, it's as if the plaintiff is accusing the defendant that he stole her purse and saying that the defendant has to have evidence that he didn't do it. The burden of proof's on the one making the positive claim, not the skeptic. I also definitely disagree that Hitchens should say one of the "explanations" of the origin of the universe because, quite frankly, there isn't one, even today. Especially not the multiverse theory, since it only moves the goalpost one more step. Also, there's zero evidence of its existence. Like, nadda. I mean, the math checks out, but so does a planet orbiting near Mercury until Einstein came along and introduced General Relativity which also explains its strange orbit. Thing is, regardless of what the pop culture/science tells everyone, we just don't know the origin of the universe, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, there is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse. Scientists are trying to find out, but the answer still eludes them 'til this day.
I see what you're saying here. I would just offer this in response: In debate, if the topic were worded a little differently... like "The God of the Bible Exists" then I could agree with your comments about burden of proof. Although, even there, whatever Hitchens would offer in terms of an argument (even if simply to negate Turek's position) still needs to be supported with good reasons. But I would definitely be more on your side in that case. The problem for me is (if I remember this right): The topic is an open question "Does God Exist?" And in that case, in order for there to be robust discussion, both sides should shoulder a burden. Ideally anyway... Thanks for the comment :)
I disagree with your assessment of the burden of proof. Turek is the one making the claim and therefore he has the burden of proof to provide the evidence. Hitchens is simply saying, "I don't believe you because you have not provided sufficient evidence." Hitchens has no burden of proof here.
@@dwayneconaway1733 bad analogy...could I say the moon is made of cheese and then ask you to disprove it...and if you can't therefore the moon is made of cheese
This is where I lost my ability to continue with the video. The guy behind this channel has such clear bias that he was utterly unable to see or mention this. Terrible.
He did provide the evidence, The ontological explanation as to why God exist, its a philosophical argument but recently received scientific backing. That even space and time had a cosmic beginning and if we're following the law of casualty, it means that there must exist something that is beyond space and time, beyond this material universe, that created the first cause which lead to the creation of space and time.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Even if we grant for arguments sake that you are correct none of it leads to a god let alone an intervening god and one who created the universe with in you mind. You are, as Hitchens put it, still holding an empty sack.
I won't be watching anymore debates with Hitchens. He doesn't know anything, can't answer questions, he's arrogant and makes dumb jokes to hide his ignorance. What a waste of time.
Omg. I'm speechless. Christopher Hitchens destroyed the arguement along with Frank's intellect. Apparently along with the intellect of this video and comment section. Smh.
@IdleBigots Yes and this idiot is demanding the Hitchens have an answer to how the universe came about, when cosmologist don't even know. And the obvious religious answer is 'we don't know therefore god'. LOL come on Hitch, tell this guy where the 'universe came from'. LOLOL
The "evidence of creation" is itself a topic that needs unpacked. The "evidence of creation" does not stand as an argument on it's own because it presupposes the correctness of one out of dozens of theologies, but is immune to testability. How is that valid?
One important thing to understand that there are more ways to examine something than science: in a debate about a metaphysical or supernatural target, you use philosophy and logic.
Best a non Christian debates atheists From my view these atheists are angry with Christians or christ ( incidently ) Hitchens first name is CHRIST ...OPHER Let a non Muslim or non Christian debate ...you will see a lose everytime God will win 🏆
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying “I don’t believe you” when someone claims god made it all is sufficient to rebuttal his point.
"And do you think that unto such as you A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew God gave a secret, and denied it me? Well, well-what matters it? Believe that, too!" Omar Khayyâm, Rubáiyát of Omar
So, if Hitchens doesn't really do debating, how did he ever get on the list of guys that should be debated? I mean, is this guy the best that the Naturalistic position can do?
I wonder why Frank Turek didn't point out from the get go that Hitchens had forfeited the debate by attempting to change the debate topic to his advantage by refusing to take the affirmative? Isn't he just blathering here a lot? He seems to get by with just sounding intelligent rather than making any substantive points Edit: to clarify, I mean Hitchens is blathering rather than making substantial points
I suppose Dr. Turek would have to answer that one. Maybe he thought his specific approach would flesh bring that out, so to speak, for the audience. Thanks very much for watching! :)
First 30 seconds "Hitchens isnt answering the question" 20 seconds later "His answer was i dont know" Just because he has to be nagative towards the question "is there a god" doesn't mean he has to answer the question of where did we come from. I know that as a christain you don't think "i dont know" is an answer, and thats sad. Your bias shines through. You're basically saying that because he can't say how the universe began, he loses. No one can. The positive claim is "god exists" The burden of proof is on the person making that claim. The person saying "i don't believe you" doesnt have to prove anything.
Frankly, over and over Hitchen's answers demonstrate that he ACTUALLY! - is agreeing with Turek - that God does exist - but that Hitchens really doesn't like God.
Man. Hitchens was so good at knocking down mistakes. And even better at uno reverse when he makes them. But many have pointed out that he was basically a paper shredder. Never gives you anything but excellent at shredding what you give. The goal was never to debate but to destroy religion. He was tremendous at that to uncareful opponents.
Good lord yes!! I love listening to David Wood, but he isn’t the greatest debater. He was a little sporadic and all over the place at certain times. Still, Matt Dillahunty kept avoiding questions, accusing everything he doesn’t have an answer to as straw manning, and gave David Wood no respect like he was a complete moron. I’m in no way atheist but I will say that Matt brings up some good points at times, but it’s so hard watching him debate with his arrogant attitude
I do agree, Matt Dillahunty can be very rude and condescending in his debates, he has insulted people’s beliefs like he did with Ray Comfort and Jonathan McLatchie.
I mean consciousness and concepts are immaterial. But they don't have a force of their own. So things like thoughts, morals, time, and ideas don't have a force without the material carrying them out.
Wait wait in the beginning of your video Hitchens gave his answer which is idk. Which is fine but you also gotta remember he's not a scientist like Neil Degrasse Tyson. I don't think he can accurately answer cosmological questions. Also just because he can't answer the question or doesn't know the the answer does not mean Turek wins the debate just because he has an answer, bc you have to ask the question, is Turek's answer THE answer? Then you would need break it down to find out if it's true. For example later in the video just like how Turek asked, "'The material world is all that exists.' Why is that thought true?" He's looking into what evidence makes the claim valid and is that evidence valid and true. It seems to me there's bit of bias coming from you just bc Hitchens can't present an answer and Turek is able to.
“bc you have to ask the question, is Turiks answer THE answer” Exactly!! That’s the point of the conclusion of this review Hitchens “doesn’t know” because if he did he would be omniscient so he just equivocates and uses rhetoric and appeals to extremes and appeals to emotion, ridicule and materialism! The fact that Hitchens didn’t even attempt or bother to seriously address Tureks opening claims or prove his own metaphysical presuppositions using the materialistic paradigm, metaphysical presuppositions such as morality, meaning, logic and purpose means that by the rules of debate Hitchens lost the debate but won the debate if the rules of the debate were who could get the cheapest laugh from the audience using rhetoric and equivocation. We are all basically non the wiser because Hitchens just used rhetoric and the (Appeal to Extremes, the Appeal to Ridicule, the Appeal to Humility, the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy, the Appeal to Nature Fallacy and the Appeal to Eliminative Materialism). The list goes on. He didn’t even adequately address any of Tureks nuanced philosophical and logical points about where Hitchens gets his morality from so it just creates resentment and frustration on both sides of the debate because absolutely no one learned anything new accept how to appeal to an audience and straw man moderate religious expression and your opponents questions. Hitchens skill at evading pertinent philosophical questions about where morality comes from using the (Appeal to Offence and the Appeal to Outrage Fallacy) would make him a perfect candidate for a British politician. “How dare you” ask me a pertinent and rational question about morality is Hitchens highly strung reaction to this deep question that genius”s have grappled with for centuries. Hitchens deserved an Oscar for his hand waving no nonsense performances and his rebellious juvenile responses were comedy gold. Oxford university churns out these type of characters and intellectualism like mechanically reclaimed meat from a sausage factory which is why the working class people in Britain aren’t so easily impressed by posh English accents and rhetorical devices such as the (Appeal to Offence and Appeal to Judgmentalism Fallacy). “How dare you” step on my toy sausage factory!! Equally, the “I don’t know” and neither do you response to avoid all burdens of proof is just the (Appeal to Pseudo Skeptism fallacy) and the (Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy). Its nothing more than (Pseudo-Skepticism and the (Two Quo Quay Fallacy). Because the fact is that there is no such thing as a true skeptic! The (appeal to pseudo Skeptism fallacy) includes formal fallacies and the assumption, implication or inference that an organization or individual bearing a form of title or stance regarding skepticism, adheres to a higher level of professionalism, ethics or morality than does the general population or the opponent they are debating just because he/she is sceptical about everything. We can all appeal to pseudo scepticism and eliminative materialism without providing evidence or theories. Equally, we can all paraphrase our world view in the negative. For example the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness, that is theism/deism/panentheism are just default positions and they are just a (lack of belief) in atheism until materialists/atheists can demonstrate that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence not mind and consciousness. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know” and inferring to the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory power and is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis. This is the pragmatic and scientific approach after all! Because reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience aren’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters). Eliminative materialism and a strictly reductive materialistic/atheistic paradigm is literally self refuting and question begging of the highest order as it assumes omniscience (God like understanding and knowledge) by asserting a universal negative when no one even knows what “matter” is. Equally, it asserts that there are no mental states, that there is only the brain (The Merelogical Fallacy). Which is a self defeating and absurd claim to make because what eliminative materialists are saying is that their own ideas and claims are mindless. How can you have a proposition that the mind doesn’t exist without undercutting all knowledge and even logic and science itself including your own position ? That means propositions don’t exist and that means that you don’t have a proposition, not even a scientific proposition. It’s beyond ironic and absurd!! Furthermore, according to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky… “There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky). I’m not making any appeals to authority but Noam Chomsky one of the most quoted intellectual giants of the 21st century easily demonstrates that Hitchens position regarding eliminative materialism and pseudo scepticism is total gibberish. Sorry but what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It seems to me there’s a double standard coming from you due to confirmation bias!. Ho the irony!!
@@georgedoyle7971 Wrong. Apparently you skipped the part of my comment where I pointed out how Turek can provide answer doesn't mean it's the correct one. You need break down what makes it correct and provide evidence for it. The way you're going about is just because one side says idk they're dismissed and lose because the other side has an answer. How do you know that answer is true?
@@kelvinhernandez4714 You’re not understanding, hitchens saying “i don’t know” holds no weight. Both sides need to provide some sort of objective basis for what they believe. Frank turek provided his basis, now it’s time for hitchens to provide his. It doesn’t matter which basis is absolutely true, it’s about probability. Hitchens provided nothing at all. IT HOLDS NO WEIGHT
@@hudgaming_7022 to say it doesn't matter which is true is wrong, bc you're being biased if Hitchens says idk. What's wrong with idk? He is neither wrong or right in saying idk, Turek however is giving an answer but how is that answer true/correct and is their reasoning and logic correct?
@@kelvinhernandez4714 Again, there’s no such thing as absolute truth. This is all based on probability. Which side sounds more convincing. Hitchens didn’t provide nada to provide anything convincing. Turek basis for morality and reason makes logical and rational sense, but Hitchens didn’t provide nothing to challenge his POV
Who created the Universe? Apologetics: God Journalist: I'm no expert on the subject, so i cannot explain it in detail, but ... Apologetics: HAAAA, they don't know. Told you it's god !!!! It doesn't really matter if he could have given a perfect recap of our understanding of the Big Bang at the time the video was filmed. First of all, the subject matter is so complicated that the vast majority wouldn't understand the implications anyhow. And secondly, apologetics always point to their circular logic, while people who actually try to understand how the natural world works understand that knowledge is slowly accumulated, sometimes forgotten and sometimes re-evaluated and dismissed. Religion is mostly just a support beam to feel cozy, knowing you got an answer to all the big questions so you don't have to worry. And a perfect excuse for being to lazy to look up evidence to the contrary. Most don't even read their one book. Look at this channel. You can buy merch, or donate money to the cause. Which is fair enough, if i had a niche where i could fleece people who don't require evidence for any claims, i would make money of them as well.
All you're doing is painting theists as being whatever you think they are and hand-waiving the exact issue you're whining that other people are whining about...Hitchens didn't stick to the debate topic and didn't answer key questions. Be honest and open and accept that all your complaints about theistic belief has NOTHING TO DO with how right or wrong they are, and it sounds like you don't want to hear it.
@@xravenx24fe The thing with theism is that there is no proof. Theism can use circular logic, pointing to whatever scripture is the basis of their particular dogma, be it the bible, the quran, the popol vuh or the many other ones there are. Or they can say there is a creator but no dogmatic rules, which is fine. Both are based on faith. Trying to reason faith is self-defeating. Science is just a way of understanding and explaining the natural world but it is and has to be based on facts that can be tested and confirmed. The more is confirmed, the less room there is for dogma. God becomes a god of gaps and the gaps become ever smaller. If you want to have faith that there is a higher purpose, that is fine. But pretending that there is a logical explanation for divine workings is ignorant.
Hitchens should have said I don't know, but he did some mental juggling, and used crowd and emotional appeal and unbelief against turek, and made a stupid statement that Hitler was a Christian when Hitler was anti-Christian and had a non-Christian ideology. Christian, this argument that Htchens made is crude, given that secularism has killed the most people in the entire world.
"Religion is something to feel comfortable with" So what comfort did the disciples and apostles and early Christians have when they were persecuted? Was having your skin ripped off like cat fur comfortable? Was being tortured, whipped comfortable?? Is being chased for a crime you didn't commit comfortable?!?
Hitchens looks board of the whole discussion. Will never understand why he would do this debate. He is not remotely interested in Franks answers or his questions.
I agree with the host. Hitchens does not answer some questions, instead he polemicizes. I think that supposedly evolution, survival obliges human groups to make rules that enhance their survival, make their group flourish. We live in a limited space, being social animals, humans live in groups and humans created rules that make living in that group better or that it promotes survival of the group. No god needed.
It’s more of a conversation than a debate it seems. There’s no way you have to give alternate evidence if your position is simply I don’t know or I’m not convinced by your assertions. He’s not claiming there is no god, so he has no burden of proof. Surely Hitchens position on “does god exist”, is I’m not convinced. Nothing more.
Wise Disciple your whole premise is wrong. This isnt a court case. They are not playing chess with opposing strategies, this is a common mistake by God bashers. Theists postulate they have found a God ( curiously only the christian one), atheists simply reject this. Hitchens does not have to explain where the universe etc came from, Turek says he knows, Hitchens has no obligation to offer an alternative hypothesis. You do not understand the burden of proof.
@William Wallis Your text is incoherent. (then his do you explain it) doesnt make sense. Even if God exists it doesnt necessarily follow that he is the explanation for everything. Some things exists as brute facts. For example, the ratio of a circle to its diameter is PI - God cannot change that, therefore it was a fact long before God came into existence. It sounds like youre trying to shift the burden of proof. If God exists then that burden lies with Turek - in the same way the burden of proof lies in the prosecution. In a court you do not have to prove your innocence or speak at all. Hitchens obviously points out the stupidity of assigning everything to an invisible bearded being, who smites gays, but he has no obligation to say anything.
@@azrael516 Yours is kindergarten theology. Ask a friend (if you have any) to explain the burden of proof to you. Once you understand it you wont sound so dumb. I say the universe was created by a pink rabbit - prove me wrong.
@@owenwilliams105The difference from a pink rabbit and God is that there is no evidence and arguments of the existence of a rabbit who created the universe while God has proof studies and arguments of its existence
@@azrael516 Were you a comedian before you went looking for God? The rabbit has an argument because I am postulating one. When you said 'proof studies' I nearly wet myself with laughter. Which God did you choose by the way? Imagine a huge sandy beach called 'Reason and Evidence'. You don't even have one grain of proof - if you did there could be no dispute. If there is a God then he is a moron for not providing substantive proof.
You keep saying that Hitchens needed to answer the question about the universe coming from nothing. Why though? Because Turek asked? His question is not actually the position being held. Scientists along with Hitchens don't make the claim that the universe came from nothing. The Big Bang Theory doesn't say anything about the universe coming from nothing. Only talks about the expansion. So Hitchens doesn't have to answer a question that doesn't actually match the position being held in the debate. Hitchens should've told Turek that his question is fallacious. Just like he did later with the morality question that Turek asked. The fact that you didn't mention this yourself, as a debate teacher, means you either also hold the position that Turek holds or are ignorant to the actual position. Education is power.
@Wise Disciple: I'd enjoy seeing you (or anyone) analyze the rather old debate between Dr. Bill Craig and Prof. Keith Parsons. I saw some dishonesty and manipulations from Prof. Parsons that I haven't seen anyone address. He seemed to employ what I'd term 'variable technicalities' (by ONE definition, his terms/assertions are correct; but not in a real, reasonable, relevant way), and attempts at vocal/psychological manipulation of the audience.
I found it interesting that you believe Turek won the debate. In my opinion, Hitchens won this debate. Turek just made what seemed to be endless assertions & logical fallacies without presenting any actual evidence.
I'm 100% convinced, and always have been, that Hitchens wouldn't be convincing to almost anyone if he didnt have the accent.
100% agree. There is no substance to his arguments. And like dyllahunty neither one actually prepare for the debate. Just mental gymnastics ans God is a means therefore he doesn't exist
nah hitchens was a intellectual giant ....what you see here is that he knows he is far more capable than he whom he is in debate and is just playing with him .... when hitchens takes a full lean into a debate there is very few people who can stand against him regarding this subject
Hes the master of saying nothing for long periods of time.
@@robburdack4361" hitchens was intellectual giant "
for plumbers kitchen porters careers
all sorts of manual labourers
taxi drivers etc etc etc etc
yes he was
for real intellectuals he resemble rather oposite state
pygmy
He’s really interesting to listen to though. I don’t like listening to his brother talk and they have similar accents.
Frank Turek: *What's 1+1 ??*
Christopher Hitchens: *Once upon a time...*
Turek: We can't know what 1+1 is without god
@@kelvinloeb812
Apologist: *1 + 1 = 2 here’s why*
Matt Dillahunty: *I’m not convinced*
@@kelvinloeb812 Frank would be correct..
@@kelvinloeb812Thanks for agreeing
@@Mike00513 He is like a broken record with that, doesn't say anything else lmao
Hitchens was brilliant rhetorician and his British accent went a long way to make him seem smarter and more attuned to the arguments than he really is. His debate with William Lane Craig exposed Hitchens.
He was sweating and all in that debate. It was crazy.
The argument for an undetectable unfalsifiable metaphysical unsubstantiated unverifiable claim for a Christian bible god is automatically dismissed without evidence. Philosophical arguments don't prove any gods exist. Bible quotes and speculation is all any Christian apologist ever had. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Wow, what a great video!! I am not a debater or even involved in that realm, but the commentary from the gentleman in regards to the topics was explained so clear and simple. Great job!!
Thanks for the encouragement!
@@WiseDisciple So glad you have stuck with it Nate, wish I found you sooner, I would have been a man of God waaay sooner! God bless brother keep doin your thing, no doubt you are heading in the right direction! ❤❤👊👊🙏🙏
I'd love to go to a debate and just make a magical rule where i don't have to answer questions. Must be nice lol.
Hitches was a plemicist first. Debator second. Naturally, wise disciple didn't miss this.
Christopher Hitchens admits that he doesn't know then he has no business telling Frank Turek that he's wrong
Hitchens has passed on to eternity where God will no longer be debated .
Ive never understood why people base their careers around disproving something they dont even believe exists. Imagine writing books and going to debates trying to disprove unicorns. If you dont belive it, stop obsessing over it.
He didn't base his career on that. He was primarily a journalist and writer.
He didn't base his career on that. He was primarily a journalist and writer.
It’s because atheists struggle with god more than anyone, ironically.
Hitchens calls religion evil, while NOT being able to account for the existence of evil.
Religion is evil because it harm people
Evil ,or ,put more generically, unnecessary suffering, needs no explanation from a naturalistic perspective. We live in a world indifferent to human suffering.
The problem of evil does , however, render many versions of theism contrary to logic.
It renders the all-powerful, allknowing god evil , the all good and all knowing god not all powerful and the all powerful, all-knowing all good god logically impossible.
if gods are good & god is everywhere how does evil exist without said gods permission,,,is that good
@@lies_worth_believingyes. Those are all contradicting veiws. But it's not what being argued. Humans being made in God image means we are capable of evil so that's not even an issue. In order to love you have to be capable of hating.
Wow. I was just wondering, "Does this guy have anything on Christopher Hitchens?" And here it is! And with Frank Turek no less!
Which debate would you like Nate to react to next? 😀
William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris
Matt Dilihuty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
Matt Dilahuanty vs David wood! morality debate
I would love to see you react to Kent Hovind vs InspiringPhilosophy on is Evolution Compatible with Christianity.
Bahnsen vs Stein
This reminds me of Matt Dillahunty's 'that's not evidence' strategy (as per your reaction to his debate with Mike Winger).
Right??
@@WiseDisciple sorry but u don't appear to understand Hitchens argumentation. U are missing the point it literally triggers me. How can u teach others how to debate when u cannot even follow hitchens process of argumentation????
@@WiseDisciple To the topic of "something from nothing" Hitchens clearly says that we cannot know the answer. There is no proof for it and no Type of evidence that could explain where this something comes from. So he CLEARLY STATES: I don't know. Thats a perfectly fine argumentation. If u don't know something don't act like u do. And that's exactly what Turek does. He claims to know something without evidence. That is a fallacy and u should know that, being an expert in debating...
A debate about the existence of a god is pointless because it cannot be proven either way. However, a claim has been made on the part of the believer, it is therefore on the believer to prove that existence. And Hitch is absolutely correct in saying that it is not his job to know the origins of the universe, it is the thiest who must know. The thiest has a book revealing supposed thruthes. It is therefore on the thiest to prove those supposed thruthes are correcr
@@alex__3897 He's not an expert in debating, he's a Christian apologist. All the way through this he ignores mistakes and fallacies from Turek and then goes on to misrepresent what Christopher says.
Hitch: Rules? We don’t need no stinking rules!
He’s never said that
My guy is actually validating the explanation of the start of the universe by the rules of debating?
I know right. So stupid.
Hitchens point on no knowing how the universe began is correct. He says we don’t know because we don’t know. That’s a fact. Only people who claim to know have to justify their views.
It is quite obvious that when you make an assumption or statement like God exists in a debate you are the one that has to prove its existence, by making arguments in favor .No one should have to prove the negative because if so I should be proving every single day that Santa or or leprechauns don't exist. This Chanel is traying to helado Cristians sell BS
The Kalam Cosmoligical Arguments, the Moral Arguments, the Contingencies Arguments, Fine tuning arguments etc etc. You Athiests are so ignorant that you would not even want to recognise the arguments brought forth by the Christian apologists. Well what I do I expect...your athiest after all...
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 well I don't need to call you ignorant to be right at least. Says much about the weight of your arguments, wich by the way are deeply and obviously flod, but you are the one who doesn't want to see, that fine, you are free to believe (thanks to your country being laic, by the way) cheers and godspeed
@@fidelecheverria6772 no, in fact atheists (like liberals today) change the meaning of words and pretend the meaning was aways the new meaning. Atheists used to say "God doesn't exist", until they finally realized they can't prove that assertion, so now you're moving the goalposts, while whistling and pretending nothing is happened.
Since the vast majority of the world believes in a Higher Being in one way or the other, Atheists are the ones asserting something that goes against what is currently seen as indisputably true.
Why didn't Turek say anything about Samaritans being an offshoot of Judaism? The Samaritans are Jews that had children with other nations. So they had a grounding in God's morals eventhough they weren't seen as Jewish anymore.
Hitchens uses his accent to try to appear smart but in reality he can’t answer the question and his answers are totally absurd.
Well, Hitchens certainly knows God exists now. Sadly it took his death to realize it. Even worse, he chose separation from God, and God granted his request. Hitchens is in a dark place now, devoid of light and absent from warmth, crying out to a God he now knows exists but no longer hears him. Hell is what he wanted, and Hell is what he got.
You believe that. You don’t know it because you can’t.
How do you know that.
Crap 😡answer
I'm just curious about a few things talked over in this video. You seem to be going over the arguments from both sides and "awarding points" based on some sort of competitive structure. Is this how formal debates are done? I'm not familiar with formal debates so I'm not quite sure on the structuring. In the same instance, if that is how debates are held, does it really apply in a debate such as this where religion is involved? Should there be a "scoring system" when ultimately the arguments given by both parties are to convince the listeners of their position and a regular scoring structure would be less relevant. Again I'm not well versed in debates so this is just my thoughts, if you will, my question.
Besides that I also want to ask, just out if curiosity. When you take a debate like this, do you judge it unbiasedly and purely out of a formal debate point of view, or is it structured in such a way that is meant to make the Christian point of view look better (seen as, to my knowledge, this channel is based on improving people's abilities in defending their beliefs)
I’m not sure if debate rules either….
This is the third reaction to a debate video I’ve seen on this channel. From what I can tell, Nate does a good job of “awarding points” based on an impartial system. But he doesn’t pause to say “point for___”. He calls out good and bad questioning, good and bad answers and missed opportunities. It’s more like he’s a coach explaining what’s going well and what isn’t.
I haven’t seen him champion the Christian or berate the atheist point of view, which is what I would have expected. He gives credit where it is due no matter the opinion.
You are so clever 😀
Hitchens was a ball of moist emotionality and illogical contradictions, always aiming for charming insults and ad hominems.
This comment would be more accurate if it was aimed at the comment section of this video.
Hitchens had the most eloquent filibustering and question-dodging I have ever heard
Yes. Nate won't say it because he's a pro, but we all saw it. Hitchens is smart, but not nearly as smart as everyone thinks. Just one man's opinion.
I would love to see you break down any of the debates between Doug Wilson and Hitchens.
I came here to say the same thing.
Are they good debates or does Doug cave to the pressure?
Saying that no one can know nor does know where outside the suitcase is a position?
Turek's big mistake is that he couldn't hide his frustration. He started to get shrill and raise his voice, while Hitchens kept his composure and looked much better to the audience. Turek should've been able to keep his composure better so that he looked better to the crowd. This is my main takeaway regardless of who technically "won".
That's something I noted many times when I watched Hitchens' debates with Frank, Lennox etc.. He always dodges the questions, yet people believe in what he say, not for something against atheists but why people use his debates? Regardless, may Hitchens rest in peace
Wise Disciple, please do analysis of Tureck vs Lowder, and Tureck vs O'Connor. This debate was hard for me to see Hitchens squirming in his seat
On the contrary, Hitchens was not obliged to answer those questions. The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion. As Hitchens said, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Besides which, 'I don't know' is an answer, particularly if one is not claiming to know the origin of the universe in the first place.
The topic of the debate is "does God exist" both sides must present arguments why their position is the best position. One side cant just say "I dont like your arguments" Chris must present arguments for why God most likely doesnt exist. Chris seems just to present emotional appeals to God's existence, nothing substantial.
@@ceceroxy2227 The arguments of those opposing Hitchens are very much low-hanging fruit. As I said, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion and their arguments are so easily rendered invalid due to their lack of evidence. It is unnecessary for Hitchens to present arguments as to why his position is the best, because his opponents do so incredibly effectively on his behalf. Hitchens' stance is 'I don't know'. His opponent's stance is 'that which I don't understand I will call God'.
@@elvisleeboy I actually consider Hitchens the low hanging fruit. When a debate happens, just saying, no I dont believe you is not worthy of being part of a debate. If it is unecessary to prevent arguments for one side, then they shouldnt be there. If your whole thing is "Idont know" just go home and do something else.
@@ceceroxy2227 Except that horrific acts are performed in the name of God, and societies are profoundly affected by religious dogma, often to the point where people are killed if they step an inch beyond these man-made restrictions.
Hitchens' arguments are valid, because while he knows he cannot state as a fact that there is no God, he can state that he sees no reason to believe there is.
The low-hanging fruit surely has to be the one who claims to know something that they cannot.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of the burden of proof.
The person making the assertion must present something for the opposition to argue against, but instead they turn up to a battle of wits unarmed.
You only need a shield if the opponent has a weapon.
@@elvisleeboy No, Hitchens is low hanging fruit when it comes to arguments for and against God, if you think that because horrible atrocities are done in the name of God is a good argument against God's existence then you arent quite the deepest thinker. Its not an arguments against God in the slightest, its just shows anyone can do bad things, now you could make arguments against religion like that if you want. When you come to a debate, there is no burden of proof one way or the other. Both sides must represent their view and why it is correct. Nobody has claimed God exists in the debate question, the debate question is "Does God exist" both sides must give their view and what evidence and reasons for their view. If the question was "Does Santa Claus exist" and I said yes, I would have to give reasons why I think Santa exists and the evidence for it, and you would have to give your reasons for why you believe Santa doesnt exist, a debate is a two way street, not one person making arguments and the other saying I dont believe you, thats not how debates work. So when it comes to debating this question, Hitchens is low hanging fruit when it comes to the arguments. Only had emotional appeals like religion does bad things or why does God care about my sex life, nothing substantive about things like contingency, the beignning of the universe, teleology, morality. why anything exists at all. He had nothing.
Any predestination debate?
Great vid!
Hitchens was a very charming speaker, but as you noted, he tends to dodge answering and not hold to anything solid - referring instead to the crowd and mockery rather than positions and answers.
And to any who has read even a few of the things Hitler has said in private about religion (see 'Hitler's Table Talk', which was written by one of Hitler's accountants), Hitchens's assertion that Hitler was a Christian or Catholic or some such strikes me as (at best) naïve.
Hitler was a smooth politician who manipulated his way to power and used religious rhetoric where useful. This is a common thing.
So what did he really believe?
Well, I did a bit of digging.
----
#1. Nobody believes Hitler worshipped a Jew.
Jesus is Jewish.
And Hitler, evil as he was, was not stupid. He refashioned the Gospels to make an 'Aryan Jesus', and whenever Hitler in his speeches spoke of Jesus's acts, he would primarily refer to Jesus's casting out of the moneychangers in the temple.
Except he'd say that Jesus was 'casting the Jews out of the temple.'
----
#2. Yes, Hitler used religious phraseology often in his speeches, as many a politician does.
Compare to his conversations in private, however, and we see that - like many a politician - what they espouse in public they despise in private.
Here's a few quotes. I have more: check "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer (the Nazi Minister of Armaments) and "Hitler's Table Talk", which is a collection of Hitler's private statements and monologues as transcribed by Hitler's own private secretary, if you want to see more:
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" ~ from "Inside the Third Reich"
"In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. [...] The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. . . . The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew." ~from "Hitler's Table Talk"
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries." ~from "Hitler's Table Talk"
"The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." ~from "Hitler's Table Talk"
To paraphrase in short:
Hitler: 'The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity, and my Reich is incompatible with religion and will eventually stamp it out. Indeed, Christianity's teachings lead to the systematic cultivation of the human failure. That said, why couldn't I have gotten a headstart with Germany having a different religion, like Shinto or Islam?'
New Atheists: 'Hitler was a Catholic!'
-----
The reality is, Dr. Turek was again right in asking the questions he did, and Hitchens was just dodging.
And Dr. Turek was indeed right to use Hitler as an example.
The 20th century spilled more blood than the previous 19 centuries combined: the bloodiest century in our history, and the one that proudly proclaimed 'God is dead'.
The good news, however, is that while God indeed died (it was earlier than the 20th century when it happened), the tomb was empty the third day.
Great points here! Thanks Derek!
thanks for sharing the info
Good work! Hitler was not a Christian. But tragically, many if not most of his followers identified as such. They were most likely not real Christians, as most who say they are Christians are not. But the fact Germany was a Christian-majority nation is still a big stain on our history and reputation. It’s why it is important for Christians to 1) understand the Bible, 2) show no toleration for it being twisted to hurt other people, and 3) take action.
You are all bad for the world.
@@Anti_wokeness Yes. That's the point of the Gospel. It absolutely is opposed to the systems of the world.
It's very bad for the world indeed!
Hitchens didn't answer anything.
Frank asked the abortion question at 16:00 because he's going to show that Hitchens has no basis for morality. Hitchens cannot definitively say one thing is right or wrong, though that is what he believes. He's going to hum and haw like he always does.
Frank asked this because it does directly relate to the main point. If ONE THING is objectively right or wrong, then God must exist. That is the thrust of Frank asking this question.
Thank you so much Nate for your work! It is so clear and concise and FRESH I have to thank you for the sacrifice of time and energy to put this out to the world through the Internet and TH-cam! You have no idea how profound and beautiful the gifts that God has given you are. Thank you and please keep soldiering on!!!
6 min in.. God works in mysterious ways 🤣🤣🤣🤣🙏🙏🙏🙏 Thank you Jesus, you make it more and more clear every second of my existence that I am making the right choice to come to You!!!!! ❤❤❤❤
Hitchens is not a man of understanding. He’s a con man. He speaks and nothing of substance really comes out.
In the first third of the debate analysis, I'm not seeing the connection between the duty of a debater to defend that God does not exist and having to claim knowledge of what came before the universe...? I don't see how the claim that there is no God would entail knowing everything?
How refreshing. Unsparing assessment of both sides.
First of all, what Frank was doing in that question was, "We don't know, therefore God". Where's the proof?
How did your God come about? No answer?
Spend just a minute listening to Frank and he'll answer that question a thousand times! God didn't come about. God is the uncaused cause.
Frank has said countless times that if time, space, and matter had a beginning, then the cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. This cause we call God.
And if time and space didn't come into being, but are eternal and infinite then this present moment we are experiencing could never arrive, as there would be infinite time before it that would have to be traversed first. And, more to the point, we have no evidence for a physically infinite anything. We just have a conceptualization of it.
@@selderane Which again is a god of the gaps answer. Nothing in your answer leads to a god let alone one who cares about you. It is special pleading, with zero evidence, that a god, in this case the christian god, is the uncaused cause.
Do you lose a debate if you cannot (and realize it’s futile) to disprove the unfalsifiable?
That’s such a naive statement. “It’s impossible to disprove a universal negative” is itself a universal negative, claiming those statements are incoherent. Circular. Stupid
You certainly lose a debate if you cannot provide a positive case for your position. The debate is not “Can we know God exists?” It is “Does God exist?” Playing a rhetorical game by saying he doesn’t need to answer the question is Hitchens avoiding the uncomfortable and ignoring the foundation of the debate topic.
@@adenjohnson5733 well said.
What a stupid position. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Mathematically. It is false to assume that that in a debate one side has to argue for the position and the other has to argue for the opposite. False. In a court the options are not Guilty or Innocent. Th defence lawyer has only to reduce the value of the prosecution.
A married bachelor doesn't exist. Dragons in the sense of a winged-reptile that can fly and breath fire don't exist. A triangle whose interior angles don't add up to 180 degrees doesn't exist. The limit as x -> 0 of 1/x literally does not exist as in the correct answer is "Does not exist".
A debate is not a trial. Trials only work that way in the US because the judicial system was designed to be an adversarial system. If the state wants to restrict your rights, then they need to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's only in criminal trials. In civil trials, the standard is only preponderance of the evidence i.e. more probable than not. There is no inherent property of Justice that necessitates that criminal trials be carried out this way, the accused could equally have to carry the burden to prove their innocence if the system was designed that way instead.
If your position in a debate is "I don't know," then get the fuck off the stage and sit in the audience and let the people who do know do the talking.
Great video man. It really clears things up for me. Hitchens is good at engaging the crowd so he can get back up but he does seem to never answer a question straight up. Kinda dances around it an throws his 2 cents in about something different lmao.
And people really think Hitchens killed the debate. Frank wasn't perfect but my money isn't on Hitchens. Lol
Thanks for watching and for the comment! Let me know if there's any debates you'd like me to react to :)
Well of course any reasonable sane person sees Turek is pretty solid on he's views but Hitchens always tries to dodge questions that are tricky to answer, he was an 'actor' and good at that.
His answers were a bit long winded, but I find he often answered the question fairly well.
Do you have any examples for him not answering any questions directly?
@@MaskedMass Maybe you should watch the video go see for yourself. lol.
I agree that Hitchens played to the crowd. This, of course, is only really effective based on crowd make-up. By this, I mean that the crowd was, it appears, mostly skeptical. For instance, had the debate been held at a large church, Turek’s initial jokes would not have fallen so flat. I acknowledge his delivery was a bit clunky, but hey it was his first debate, and honestly Hitchens (for some reason) was a giant among atheist debaters. He’s never honestly impressed me much. That is not to say that he isn’t highly intelligent, he is. I just don’t think he debates very good. People will view this debate through their biases. That’s why a lot of people think Hitchens “killed” it. I actually found a letter on the internet posted by an avowed “fanboy” of Hitchens’ who basically admitted, albeit painfully, that Hitchens fell flat in this debate.
First of all, good stuff! I like hearing your perspective, from the official rules of debate.
I’m 14 minutes in and my initial thinking is that Hitchens is driving at the moral implications of believing God exists. Whatever the title of the debate, Hitchens is attempting to debase the belief that God is something *worth* believing in. That the belief is dangerous and enables-often encourages- toxic behaviors.
Hitchens is not a scientist, he is a polemicist. While his tactics may fly in the face of official rules of debate, his rhetoric is epistemologically effective. By giving alternative naturalist explanations to Turek’s, Hitchens would be surrendering legitimacy to his opponent; that these are merely academic distinctions about theology.
A great deal of Hitchens life work is to deny theological beliefs any such legitimacy. And to do that he redefines the confines of the debate to focus on the critical aspect: morality.
If someone asks “When did you stop hitting your wife?” and, despite never hitting your wife, insists that the debate topic is settled in the question. . . you’re predetermining the range of acceptable information. While that may be the function of debate structure, I’m left wondering how interesting a debate like that would be. If you have any examples of a high-level debate that you would recommend, I’ll happily watch them.
Anyway, back to the video 😇
This is a great point that someone else brought up as well! Hitchens was a master polemicist, which is why I'm such a huge fan of his! Loved his political writings especially. He's just one of those guys I imagine it would have been awesome to sit down and sip on a beverage and just chat! You're also right about the nature of debates, but those confines are there so that debates are singularly focused on the topic -- so that they can entail the most robust discussions related to it (at least in theory). A great debate... well, let me give you 2: 1) William Lane Craig vs. Shelly Kagan. Craig didn't win this one, in my opinion. But it was much more robust! 2) William Lane Craig vs. Sean Carroll. These are a lot closer to what debates are supposed to look like IMO. Thanks for your thoughts :)
@@WiseDisciple Your opinion of the finer points of debating etiquette is clearly a lame attempt to pull Turek out of the embarrassing hole he dug for himself in that debate.
@@stevenrenton1679 no, he’s just analyzing the debate. And you’re too busy looking for an argument instead of actually understanding what’s happening
@@Seanph25 I wouldn't bother with an argument with a pretentious twit who thinks he can read my mind. Trot on Sean.
Totally agree. I don’t understand the value in a debate on the question “does god exist?” and then limiting it to baseline facts to the exclusion of the moral, ethical, theological and sociological issues such a questions inevitably produces. There is no “proof” either way. Hitchens could recite the best scientific theories we have so far and then be countered by the Christian/theological argument but no one has hard facts on their side and those arguments have been made a million times. To encounter any original thinking and original argument you’d have to broaden the question to include the implications.
Do a Greg bahnsen debate!
lol. It is not, contrary to your representations, the case that the negation must prove up an affirmative case. It's entirely sufficient to argue that the proposition remains unproved by the arguments given in its favor. And the question at issue was about 'does god exist', not 'can you explain the origins of the universe'. And Hitchens wasn't losing the debate. Turek invokes the alleged fact that the universe began to exist and then challenges Hitchens to give a contrary explanation. Pointing out that Turek doesn't know, because no one does, is entirely proper. Particularly given that Hitchens adds: but you claim to know; it's on you to show that it's true considering you're the one who's arguing that its truth supports your claim.
And it's not at all the case that Turek has done anything other than assert that it's true; he certainly is unable to show that the universe began to exist. But he claims he can.
It's fairly easy to settle the question as to who is winning or losing the debate: who has converted more people to their cause? Hitchens or Turek? It's Hitchens.
And Hitchens wasn't conceding that god exists. He was taking the hypothetical and looking at the properties that this god would have... one of which is being all good and wise. And you teach debate? Dear lord help us.
"And Hitchens wasn't conceding that god exists. He was taking the hypothetical and looking at the properties that this god would have... one of which is being all good and wise. And you teach debate? Dear lord help us."
*He teaches religious people to debate. Honesty be damned.
Excellent points, saved me the time to respond myself.
I wonder why it is that "Wise Disciple" only appears to reply to people who agree with him in the comments section
Stop being logical. The debate edgelord videomaker won't like this ☹
@@kelvinloeb812
1.
“I wonder why it is that "Wise Disciple" only appears to reply to people who agree with him in the comments section”
SMOKESCREEN!! Look up [Ad Hominem Fallacy] and [Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy]. If you launch personal attacks against Wise Disciple and appeal to ridicule instead of providing a logical rebuttal that’s actually a logical fallacy and is considered a concession of defeat by the judges in a formal debate.
I accept your concession of defeat!!
Look up [Ad Hominem Fallacy] and [Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy].
That’s science denying, TRIGGERED CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect. Furthermore, nice little echo chamber you’ve got going in this oh so rationally and morally “SUPERIOR” section!!
As if there’s “no evidence” that the universe began to exist LOL!! Talk about denial. We know that you guys are mockers, haters and liars right?
As Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil," “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”
Furthermore, the irony and the absurdity is that militant atheists liked to point to the the “Big Bang” as if this was an Earth shattering defeater for faith. The irony is that it was actually atheist scientists who coined the phrase “Big Bang” to mock the scientific evidence for the expansion of the universe, holding back the science for several years.
Because they knew it undermined the infinite, steady state theory of the universe and they were uncomfortable with the fact that the “BIG BANG” was consistent with Genesis as it provided scientific evidence of a metaphysical beginning to “matter” and even a metaphysical beginning beyond philosophical naturalism to space and time itself right?
The double irony is that George Lemaitre who formulated the “BIG BANG” theory turned out to be a devout Christian and remained so.
Furthermore, the irony is that even the prominent scientist Steven Hawking, who clearly did not come from any particular religious perspective, helpfully pointed out that...
“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (Steven Hawking). Sorry!!
Hitchens is very articulate. But once you get passed the rhetoric. He is just another "internet atheist" with the way he talks, responds, and can't defend anything he believes in.
I noticed that too. Even his million dollar question is easy to answer cause u can steel man it by addressing the positive and the negative answer.
The irony is the "heat death of the universe" is a complete human construct with little to no basis in reality.
Garbage in Garbage out models of the universe. The Pythagoreans wouldnt even allow Hitchens within 100 yards of their school
Hey Dude! This is really awesome! Someone needed to react to this bad debating :-D
Hitchens was brilliant, well educated, and well spoken but he lost his perspective and intelligence when it comes to Christianity. It was sad to watch, he was so smart and capable when not on the topic.
Just to be clear, you’re using Christopher Hitchens as an example of how not to debate rationally?
Hitchens is being asked to prove a negative, which is ridiculous. If you believe that one of the gods is real (unlike the other gods) then the onus is on you to provide evidence. That is one reason that formal debates like this are a silly idea.
As for the origin of the Universe, there is strong scientific reason to believe that it did not have a beginning. Noether's Theorem plus the law of conservation of energy tells us that time is symmetrical, ie every point is the same as every other, therefore there is no first point in time.
Wiat, serious question: if there was a debate where someone argued for the flying spaghetti monster and the opponent thoroughly debunks and rebuts every argument… but doesn’t prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist, he loses? Wouldn’t that be closer to a stalemate, or he’d be leaving the audience as agnostics?
Im a Christian, but my only argument against the spaghetti monster is God said there aren’t other God’s and that gravity keeps spaghetti on the ground. But even if I could make these two arguments, I wouldn’t have made any ground. I am learning the rules of formal debate for the first time on this channel.
If Hitchens were alive, I'd want him on my dodge ball team.
It's amazing how clueless people who comment are. Claiming to be beacons of reasons and logic, instead of pointing out the flaws in the debate analysis, they resort to ad hominems\logical fallacies which they are accusing Turek of. The self-blindness is astounding
Sir, the origins of the universe, i doubt any believer can answer that with certainty. Hitchens is answering the question with his best explanation, what is the origin of the universe according to you?
It's perfectly explained in the bible and backed up by science....
The right answer for all the answers is always, "I don't know". At least Hitch was humble enough to say it. Far more humble than any Christian or there
A formal debate structure and point system is irrelevant in this format... The topic in this instance is just to spark the conversation.
I respectfully disagree on your statement about the burden of proof. The Christians are the ones saying that they know the answer to the origin of the universe so only they should present the evidence, not Hitchens. You seem to like using court analogy, but in this case, it's as if the plaintiff is accusing the defendant that he stole her purse and saying that the defendant has to have evidence that he didn't do it. The burden of proof's on the one making the positive claim, not the skeptic.
I also definitely disagree that Hitchens should say one of the "explanations" of the origin of the universe because, quite frankly, there isn't one, even today. Especially not the multiverse theory, since it only moves the goalpost one more step. Also, there's zero evidence of its existence. Like, nadda. I mean, the math checks out, but so does a planet orbiting near Mercury until Einstein came along and introduced General Relativity which also explains its strange orbit. Thing is, regardless of what the pop culture/science tells everyone, we just don't know the origin of the universe, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, there is zero empirical evidence for a multiverse. Scientists are trying to find out, but the answer still eludes them 'til this day.
I see what you're saying here. I would just offer this in response: In debate, if the topic were worded a little differently... like "The God of the Bible Exists" then I could agree with your comments about burden of proof. Although, even there, whatever Hitchens would offer in terms of an argument (even if simply to negate Turek's position) still needs to be supported with good reasons. But I would definitely be more on your side in that case. The problem for me is (if I remember this right): The topic is an open question "Does God Exist?" And in that case, in order for there to be robust discussion, both sides should shoulder a burden. Ideally anyway... Thanks for the comment :)
I disagree with your assessment of the burden of proof. Turek is the one making the claim and therefore he has the burden of proof to provide the evidence. Hitchens is simply saying, "I don't believe you because you have not provided sufficient evidence." Hitchens has no burden of proof here.
that seems a little like going in to a boxing match and telling one boxer he can not throw punches, he's only aloud to block his opponent's.
@@dwayneconaway1733 bad analogy...could I say the moon is made of cheese and then ask you to disprove it...and if you can't therefore the moon is made of cheese
This is where I lost my ability to continue with the video. The guy behind this channel has such clear bias that he was utterly unable to see or mention this. Terrible.
He did provide the evidence, The ontological explanation as to why God exist, its a philosophical argument but recently received scientific backing. That even space and time had a cosmic beginning and if we're following the law of casualty, it means that there must exist something that is beyond space and time, beyond this material universe, that created the first cause which lead to the creation of space and time.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Even if we grant for arguments sake that you are correct none of it leads to a god let alone an intervening god and one who created the universe with in you mind. You are, as Hitchens put it, still holding an empty sack.
I won't be watching anymore debates with Hitchens. He doesn't know anything, can't answer questions, he's arrogant and makes dumb jokes to hide his ignorance. What a waste of time.
Omg. I'm speechless. Christopher Hitchens destroyed the arguement along with Frank's intellect. Apparently along with the intellect of this video and comment section. Smh.
@IdleBigots whats wrong point did he presented.
@IdleBigots Yes and this idiot is demanding the Hitchens have an answer to how the universe came about, when cosmologist don't even know. And the obvious religious answer is 'we don't know therefore god'. LOL come on Hitch, tell this guy where the 'universe came from'. LOLOL
@IdleBigots you would see the exact same with the atheist.
My god 🤦
The "evidence of creation" is itself a topic that needs unpacked. The "evidence of creation" does not stand as an argument on it's own because it presupposes the correctness of one out of dozens of theologies, but is immune to testability. How is that valid?
One important thing to understand that there are more ways to examine something than science: in a debate about a metaphysical or supernatural target, you use philosophy and logic.
Best a non Christian debates atheists
From my view these atheists are angry with Christians or christ
( incidently ) Hitchens first name is CHRIST ...OPHER
Let a non Muslim or non Christian debate ...you will see a lose everytime
God will win 🏆
Please please pleeeaaase react to a James White debate
Doug Wilson vs hitch
Subscribed
Today they call this atheist strategy the "Dillhunty Dodge"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying “I don’t believe you” when someone claims god made it all is sufficient to rebuttal his point.
A commonly repeated claim but its ultimately not true.
@@christophertaylor9100 it’s incredibly true.
Hitchens had an eloquent way of expressing his foolish circumlocutions. Which in the end exposed him as what Psa 14:1, 53:1 and 92:4-8 declare.
☆☆☆☆☆ content
How about the ''WHO IS GOD'' debate between Joe Ventilacion and Dr. James White. Would you please make a reaction to that..
Thank you Immanuel! Yeah this one has been requested quite a bit. It’s definitely on the list!
I'll debate you in full view of everyone if you like?
"And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well-what matters it? Believe that, too!"
Omar Khayyâm, Rubáiyát of Omar
So, if Hitchens doesn't really do debating, how did he ever get on the list of guys that should be debated? I mean, is this guy the best that the Naturalistic position can do?
I wonder why Frank Turek didn't point out from the get go that Hitchens had forfeited the debate by attempting to change the debate topic to his advantage by refusing to take the affirmative? Isn't he just blathering here a lot? He seems to get by with just sounding intelligent rather than making any substantive points
Edit: to clarify, I mean Hitchens is blathering rather than making substantial points
I suppose Dr. Turek would have to answer that one. Maybe he thought his specific approach would flesh bring that out, so to speak, for the audience. Thanks very much for watching! :)
You epitomise blathering by failing to make a tenuous point without having to amend your first attempt.
You call him Christopher Hitchens.
I call him Mr. Scoff&Strawman.
This debate perfectly illustrates why.
First 30 seconds
"Hitchens isnt answering the question"
20 seconds later
"His answer was i dont know"
Just because he has to be nagative towards the question "is there a god" doesn't mean he has to answer the question of where did we come from.
I know that as a christain you don't think "i dont know" is an answer, and thats sad. Your bias shines through.
You're basically saying that because he can't say how the universe began, he loses. No one can.
The positive claim is "god exists"
The burden of proof is on the person making that claim. The person saying "i don't believe you" doesnt have to prove anything.
Sad to say this, but Turek is not built to debate Hitchens and keep up with his antics. Doug, WLC and Lennox are.
Agreed. WLC did a much better job keeping his composure and calling out Hitchens when he would start to filibuster.
Frankly, over and over Hitchen's answers demonstrate that he ACTUALLY! - is agreeing with Turek - that God does exist - but that Hitchens really doesn't like God.
Man. Hitchens was so good at knocking down mistakes. And even better at uno reverse when he makes them. But many have pointed out that he was basically a paper shredder. Never gives you anything but excellent at shredding what you give. The goal was never to debate but to destroy religion. He was tremendous at that to uncareful opponents.
In the appeal of emotion and incredity?
David Wood v Matt Dillahunty may be a good debate to go over
Good lord yes!! I love listening to David Wood, but he isn’t the greatest debater. He was a little sporadic and all over the place at certain times. Still, Matt Dillahunty kept avoiding questions, accusing everything he doesn’t have an answer to as straw manning, and gave David Wood no respect like he was a complete moron. I’m in no way atheist but I will say that Matt brings up some good points at times, but it’s so hard watching him debate with his arrogant attitude
I do agree, Matt Dillahunty can be very rude and condescending in his debates, he has insulted people’s beliefs like he did with Ray Comfort and Jonathan McLatchie.
@@WillhideOnIce I think David does a fine job, Matt is incompentent with actually making arguments for his view.
That job was a blood bath. Wood crushed him
I mean consciousness and concepts are immaterial. But they don't have a force of their own. So things like thoughts, morals, time, and ideas don't have a force without the material carrying them out.
Your content is fireeeee… why don’t you have more subs
Zero evidence for religion therefore zero chance of proving a negative.
Hitchens would of blitzed you in a debate the world needs him more than ever the Catholics still dont like being told
Wait wait in the beginning of your video Hitchens gave his answer which is idk. Which is fine but you also gotta remember he's not a scientist like Neil Degrasse Tyson. I don't think he can accurately answer cosmological questions. Also just because he can't answer the question or doesn't know the the answer does not mean Turek wins the debate just because he has an answer, bc you have to ask the question, is Turek's answer THE answer? Then you would need break it down to find out if it's true. For example later in the video just like how Turek asked, "'The material world is all that exists.' Why is that thought true?" He's looking into what evidence makes the claim valid and is that evidence valid and true. It seems to me there's bit of bias coming from you just bc Hitchens can't present an answer and Turek is able to.
“bc you have to ask the question, is Turiks answer THE answer”
Exactly!! That’s the point of the conclusion of this review Hitchens “doesn’t know” because if he did he would be omniscient so he just equivocates and uses rhetoric and appeals to extremes and appeals to emotion, ridicule and materialism! The fact that Hitchens didn’t even attempt or bother to seriously address Tureks opening claims or prove his own metaphysical presuppositions using the materialistic paradigm, metaphysical presuppositions such as morality, meaning, logic and purpose means that by the rules of debate Hitchens lost the debate but won the debate if the rules of the debate were who could get the cheapest laugh from the audience using rhetoric and equivocation. We are all basically non the wiser because Hitchens just used rhetoric and the (Appeal to Extremes, the Appeal to Ridicule, the Appeal to Humility, the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy, the Appeal to Nature Fallacy and the Appeal to Eliminative Materialism). The list goes on. He didn’t even adequately address any of Tureks nuanced philosophical and logical points about where Hitchens gets his morality from so it just creates resentment and frustration on both sides of the debate because absolutely no one learned anything new accept how to appeal to an audience and straw man moderate religious expression and your opponents questions. Hitchens skill at evading pertinent philosophical questions about where morality comes from using the (Appeal to Offence and the Appeal to Outrage Fallacy) would make him a perfect candidate for a British politician. “How dare you” ask me a pertinent and rational question about morality is Hitchens highly strung reaction to this deep question that genius”s have grappled with for centuries. Hitchens deserved an Oscar for his hand waving no nonsense performances and his rebellious juvenile responses were comedy gold. Oxford university churns out these type of characters and intellectualism like mechanically reclaimed meat from a sausage factory which is why the working class people in Britain aren’t so easily impressed by posh English accents and rhetorical devices such as the (Appeal to Offence and Appeal to Judgmentalism Fallacy). “How dare you” step on my toy sausage factory!!
Equally, the “I don’t know” and neither do you response to avoid all burdens of proof is just the (Appeal to Pseudo Skeptism fallacy) and the (Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy). Its nothing more than (Pseudo-Skepticism and the (Two Quo Quay Fallacy).
Because the fact is that there is no such thing as a true skeptic! The (appeal to pseudo Skeptism fallacy) includes formal fallacies and the assumption, implication or inference that an organization or individual bearing a form of title or stance regarding skepticism, adheres to a higher level of professionalism, ethics or morality than does the general population or the opponent they are debating just because he/she is sceptical about everything. We can all appeal to pseudo scepticism and eliminative materialism without providing evidence or theories. Equally, we can all paraphrase our world view in the negative. For example the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness, that is theism/deism/panentheism are just default positions and they are just a (lack of belief) in atheism until materialists/atheists can demonstrate that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence not mind and consciousness.
There’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know” and inferring to the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory power and is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis. This is the pragmatic and scientific approach after all! Because reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience aren’t made of “matter” they are made of (what matters). Eliminative materialism and a strictly reductive materialistic/atheistic paradigm is literally self refuting and question begging of the highest order as it assumes omniscience (God like understanding and knowledge) by asserting a universal negative when no one even knows what “matter” is.
Equally, it asserts that there are no mental states, that there is only the brain (The Merelogical Fallacy). Which is a self defeating and absurd claim to make because what eliminative materialists are saying is that their own ideas and claims are mindless. How can you have a proposition that the mind doesn’t exist without undercutting all knowledge and even logic and science itself including your own position ? That means propositions don’t exist and that means that you don’t have a proposition, not even a scientific proposition. It’s beyond ironic and absurd!!
Furthermore, according to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky…
“There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky). I’m not making any appeals to authority but Noam Chomsky one of the most quoted intellectual giants of the 21st century easily demonstrates that Hitchens position regarding eliminative materialism and pseudo scepticism is total gibberish. Sorry but what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It seems to me there’s a double standard coming from you due to confirmation bias!. Ho the irony!!
@@georgedoyle7971 Wrong. Apparently you skipped the part of my comment where I pointed out how Turek can provide answer doesn't mean it's the correct one. You need break down what makes it correct and provide evidence for it. The way you're going about is just because one side says idk they're dismissed and lose because the other side has an answer. How do you know that answer is true?
@@kelvinhernandez4714 You’re not understanding, hitchens saying “i don’t know” holds no weight. Both sides need to provide some sort of objective basis for what they believe. Frank turek provided his basis, now it’s time for hitchens to provide his. It doesn’t matter which basis is absolutely true, it’s about probability. Hitchens provided nothing at all. IT HOLDS NO WEIGHT
@@hudgaming_7022 to say it doesn't matter which is true is wrong, bc you're being biased if Hitchens says idk. What's wrong with idk? He is neither wrong or right in saying idk, Turek however is giving an answer but how is that answer true/correct and is their reasoning and logic correct?
@@kelvinhernandez4714 Again, there’s no such thing as absolute truth. This is all based on probability. Which side sounds more convincing. Hitchens didn’t provide nada to provide anything convincing. Turek basis for morality and reason makes logical and rational sense, but Hitchens didn’t provide nothing to challenge his POV
Who created the Universe?
Apologetics: God
Journalist: I'm no expert on the subject, so i cannot explain it in detail, but ...
Apologetics: HAAAA, they don't know. Told you it's god !!!!
It doesn't really matter if he could have given a perfect recap of our understanding of the Big Bang at the time the video was filmed.
First of all, the subject matter is so complicated that the vast majority wouldn't understand the implications anyhow. And secondly, apologetics always point to their circular logic, while people who actually try to understand how the natural world works understand that knowledge is slowly accumulated, sometimes forgotten and sometimes re-evaluated and dismissed.
Religion is mostly just a support beam to feel cozy, knowing you got an answer to all the big questions so you don't have to worry.
And a perfect excuse for being to lazy to look up evidence to the contrary. Most don't even read their one book.
Look at this channel. You can buy merch, or donate money to the cause. Which is fair enough, if i had a niche where i could fleece people who don't require evidence for any claims, i would make money of them as well.
All you're doing is painting theists as being whatever you think they are and hand-waiving the exact issue you're whining that other people are whining about...Hitchens didn't stick to the debate topic and didn't answer key questions. Be honest and open and accept that all your complaints about theistic belief has NOTHING TO DO with how right or wrong they are, and it sounds like you don't want to hear it.
@@xravenx24fe The thing with theism is that there is no proof. Theism can use circular logic, pointing to whatever scripture is the basis of their particular dogma, be it the bible, the quran, the popol vuh or the many other ones there are. Or they can say there is a creator but no dogmatic rules, which is fine.
Both are based on faith. Trying to reason faith is self-defeating.
Science is just a way of understanding and explaining the natural world but it is and has to be based on facts that can be tested and confirmed.
The more is confirmed, the less room there is for dogma. God becomes a god of gaps and the gaps become ever smaller.
If you want to have faith that there is a higher purpose, that is fine.
But pretending that there is a logical explanation for divine workings is ignorant.
straw man argument
Hitchens should have said I don't know, but he did some mental juggling, and used crowd and emotional appeal and unbelief against turek, and made a stupid statement that Hitler was a Christian when Hitler was anti-Christian and had a non-Christian ideology. Christian, this argument that Htchens made is crude, given that secularism has killed the most people in the entire world.
"Religion is something to feel comfortable with"
So what comfort did the disciples and apostles and early Christians have when they were persecuted? Was having your skin ripped off like cat fur comfortable? Was being tortured, whipped comfortable?? Is being chased for a crime you didn't commit comfortable?!?
I wouldn't be caught dead in a debate with Frank Turek...and I agree with him wholeheartedly!
Debate or not, you are somehow not understanding why Hitchens answers the way he does.
Hitchens looks board of the whole discussion. Will never understand why he would do this debate. He is not remotely interested in Franks answers or his questions.
I agree with the host. Hitchens does not answer some questions, instead he polemicizes. I think that supposedly evolution, survival obliges human groups to make rules that enhance their survival, make their group flourish. We live in a limited space, being social animals, humans live in groups and humans created rules that make living in that group better or that it promotes survival of the group. No god needed.
Debate teacher reacts. 🤣😂🤣😂. Just happens to be a devout Christian, not biased at all.
Ad hominem He raised some of Hitchens' mistakes, he said that Hitchens could say I don't know.
U wonder if hitchens believe in God now 🤔
It’s more of a conversation than a debate it seems.
There’s no way you have to give alternate evidence if your position is simply I don’t know or I’m not convinced by your assertions. He’s not claiming there is no god, so he has no burden of proof.
Surely Hitchens position on “does god exist”, is I’m not convinced. Nothing more.
Wise Disciple your whole premise is wrong. This isnt a court case. They are not playing chess with opposing strategies, this is a common mistake by God bashers. Theists postulate they have found a God ( curiously only the christian one), atheists simply reject this. Hitchens does not have to explain where the universe etc came from, Turek says he knows, Hitchens has no obligation to offer an alternative hypothesis. You do not understand the burden of proof.
@William Wallis Your text is incoherent. (then his do you explain it) doesnt make sense. Even if God exists it doesnt necessarily follow that he is the explanation for everything. Some things exists as brute facts. For example, the ratio of a circle to its diameter is PI - God cannot change that, therefore it was a fact long before God came into existence. It sounds like youre trying to shift the burden of proof.
If God exists then that burden lies with Turek - in the same way the burden of proof lies in the prosecution. In a court you do not have to prove your innocence or speak at all. Hitchens obviously points out the stupidity of assigning everything to an invisible bearded being, who smites gays, but he has no obligation to say anything.
@@owenwilliams105Going to appeal to ridicule and the crowd?? The God exists debate also falls to atheists to prove that God does not exist.
@@azrael516 Yours is kindergarten theology. Ask a friend (if you have any) to explain the burden of proof to you. Once you understand it you wont sound so dumb. I say the universe was created by a pink rabbit - prove me wrong.
@@owenwilliams105The difference from a pink rabbit and God is that there is no evidence and arguments of the existence of a rabbit who created the universe while God has proof studies and arguments of its existence
@@azrael516 Were you a comedian before you went looking for God? The rabbit has an argument because I am postulating one. When you said 'proof studies' I nearly wet myself with laughter. Which God did you choose by the way? Imagine a huge sandy beach called 'Reason and Evidence'. You don't even have one grain of proof - if you did there could be no dispute. If there is a God then he is a moron for not providing substantive proof.
You should react to the debate between James White and Douglas Wilson on Paedocommunion.
Thank you!
Atheist: “I believe in nothing.”
“How did the universe begin?”
Atheist: “imagine if you can….”
You keep saying that Hitchens needed to answer the question about the universe coming from nothing. Why though? Because Turek asked? His question is not actually the position being held. Scientists along with Hitchens don't make the claim that the universe came from nothing. The Big Bang Theory doesn't say anything about the universe coming from nothing. Only talks about the expansion. So Hitchens doesn't have to answer a question that doesn't actually match the position being held in the debate. Hitchens should've told Turek that his question is fallacious. Just like he did later with the morality question that Turek asked. The fact that you didn't mention this yourself, as a debate teacher, means you either also hold the position that Turek holds or are ignorant to the actual position. Education is power.
Because he agreed to a debate. That's why. By nature of what they're doing they're expected to answer during cross-examination
@Wise Disciple: I'd enjoy seeing you (or anyone) analyze the rather old debate between Dr. Bill Craig and Prof. Keith Parsons. I saw some dishonesty and manipulations from Prof. Parsons that I haven't seen anyone address. He seemed to employ what I'd term 'variable technicalities' (by ONE definition, his terms/assertions are correct; but not in a real, reasonable, relevant way), and attempts at vocal/psychological manipulation of the audience.
Interesting! I'll check it out, thanks for the suggestion! :)
The more debates on topics like this I watch the more ridiculous atheism is
What is the name of the ending song plz?
I found it interesting that you believe Turek won the debate. In my opinion, Hitchens won this debate. Turek just made what seemed to be endless assertions & logical fallacies without presenting any actual evidence.
What logical fallacy did Frank do?
You edited a lot of Hitchens answers out on this.