William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins (with Commentary from Stephen Woodford)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
DEBUNKED channel: • The Watchmaker Analogy...
To visit the DEBUNKED card game website: www.debunkedcardgame.com/
To support me through merchandise: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/ra...
To follow me on Facebook: / rationalityrules
And to tweet with me on Twitter: / rationalityrule
--
Timestamps:
00:00 It works… Bi***ES!
00:55 What If You’re Wrong?
03:08 Question Morphing
04:44 We’re All Screwed
07:04 Don’t Underestimate the Wager
08:07 A Craigian Strawman
--
References:
1) Dr. Craig Rebuts the "Best Atheist Arguments" from Ricky Gervais and Co: • Dr. Craig Rebuts the "...
2) An Undeniable Prognosis (Best Atheist Arguments): • An Undeniable Prognosi...
3) William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins (with Commentary from Stephen Woodford): • William Lane Craig vs ...
4) After Life - God: • After Life - God
5) Gish Gallop | Speaking of Research: speakingofresearch.com/2012/0...
6) Ragnar & King Ecbert Discuss Heaven & Valhalla S04E14: • Ragnar & King Ecbert D...
7) David Mitchell on Pascals Wager: • David Mitchell on Pasc...
8) The Genius of Pascal W/ Dr. William Lane Craig: • The Genius of Pascal W...
9) My series of Pascal’s Wager: tinyurl.com/t73q8jq
10) Richard Dawkins - If Science Worked Like Religion: • Richard Dawkins - If S... - บันเทิง
![แม่กลองสองใจ - ซีแกรม โตเกียว มิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GSQfVjcr_f4/mqdefault.jpg)
I've never heard Richard Dawkins say "bitches" before, but it's one of the best things ever.
There's a video of Richard Dawkins here on youtube in which he reads his 'fan mail'. The 'fans' use rather colorful language, and it's really funny to hear Dawkins read it out loud. Go watch it, if you haven't already. :)
@@LadySophistry Sounds fun, definitely gonna check this out, haha!
Thx :)
damn, I've never seen Cena comment before.
@@LadySophistry What makes it funnier is Dawkins struggling to control his laughter at the idiocy.
indeed
"Any God worth “believing in” would surely prefer an honest agnostic to a calculating hypocrite."
- Alan Dershowitz
.
FUCK YEAH!!
(Sorry, man. I got a little excited there for a second.) :P
@@UTU49 hahaha!
Johnnie Johnson did Dershowitz actually say that? Wonder why then he's such a full throated supporter of one of the world's premier example of a hypocrite.
Same quote from way back by Patanjili.
Brahman or prehaps Spinoza's God fits that bill.
Equally, stating: "I say I believe in God only because I'm afraid of being wrong," is surely not going to fool God? Pretending to believe in something isn't actually believing in something. If a flat-Earther puts a gun to your head and asks you if the world is an oblate-spheroid, saying "no, it's flat" isn't going to make you believe it to be so.
The original point of Pascal’s wager is to fool yourself into believing, not to fool god. That doesn’t make it any better, of course
My favorite objection is Pascal's mugging. If our only metric is the threat of eternal punishment and reward, what reason would someone who accepts Pascal's wager have to deny a mugger who claimed to be working in favor of a god who threatens such things.
Craig’s entire argument is ‘believe in god, just in case, so you won’t go to hell’. Ridiculous.
Yep and they had to invent the idea of hell in order to wield that threat. Then they had to rape and murder children and non-believers just to prove they knew what they were talking about.
I might add (for the sake of the argument): he would only be right if the 'real' god is exactly the way he thinks he is. And those chances (even IF there was a god) are 1 in a fantastillion. Even IF there was this bible-god: I don't like that creature at all, imagine spending eternity with such monster...
Fire insurance. Just in case. God can't tell the difference.
-Judy Garbage, Dumpster Dive Film Review of A Thief in the Night.
@Lunar Night lol.. none of the gospel authors are named mark, Mathew, luke.. gospel authors aren't named.. btw ever Heard of Kenneth Copeland..it's that easy to manipulate people.
Ugh no, not really.
Even if we consider only one god, Pascal's wager is not a good argument, because an all knowing god would not be tricked by a person who simply betted on his existance to get into heaven, I mean, that is dishonest.
Then since a shallow deal isn't enough
Why wouldn't you analyze religions
He did mention that in the video tbf, it's a pretty clear discrepancy in an already heavily flawed argument.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things,
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things - that takes religion"
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics.
It's true to some extent. Regardless of religious belief, political belief or non-belief, people are still capable of committing unspeakable acts of violence. It only takes the right motivation. Revenge is a powerful one. Historically speaking, the dehumanizing of specific groups is another one. Like some Germans during WW2 with the Jews. It's much easier to commit atrocities against a person if you don't see them as a person. I think most people are capable of evil things, so to speak, if the circumstances are right. It's fortunate that most people are not put or rather forced into such situations where they feel they don't have any other choice.
@@madman2u
'Some Germans during WW2' wore belt buckles saying "Gott mit Uns" (God with us)
and they also colaborated with the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Amin al-Husseini,
during said war - Islamofascism.
Hitler was a Catholic till the day he died.
Never met a good person. All have been jerks or dicks and intolerant.
"Does your house have meteorite insurance?"
"No."
"Why not? What if your house gets hit by a meteorite?"
"I don't think that's very likely..."
"Then stop trying to sell me hell insurance - we have no way to calculate the likelihood of hell."
Oh, it's far worse: if we assume that most gods are exclusive and demand worship (arguably the case, going by Craig's ideas), then the chances of picking the right god is infinitesimal, meaning you're screwed regardless.
This leads to an inherent inconsistency with the argument, because it brings up the notorious Trilemma, therefore we can summarily reject the Wager as absurd.
I don’t believe that the wager should be exclusively applied to convert people, but engaging in basically any faith with proper skepticism and intention usually can only help your life from a practical perspective. Choosing to believe in something gives some but not all a greater purpose than if they had not believed. And ppl always say “what happens if you pick the wrong one?” I believe there is no wrong one. Same thing with being an atheist. Choosing a faith based on you believing that it can only help you is not wrong. People get too caught up with this Christian, wrathful god. Why can’t ppl just be fine with their personal choice and not try to impose their choice on others? (This def goes for the religious ppl too)
@@nathantang9964 "Choosing a faith based on you believing that it can only help you is not wrong."
The problem is if you choose to believe something that has no good evidence can lead you to a mindset that makes you gullible to other cons.
@@nathantang9964 that doesnt help, you must center god before yourself and for that assuming god does really exist (even if its not) and for that you must not believe in evolution by natural selection, old earth, etc.
So, its contradictory why pick such particular god or religion?
Does religion necessary to lived up? Yes, if you are well conditioned about its belief system and it does really help.
and No, you have many choices to live your life to the fullest without a particular god, you can practice stoic, dharma, etc.
If God was all loving, there wouldn't be any risk to atheists, period.
Well it depends what you mean by “all loving.” Do you mean he is all loving to humankind, or he loves everything including evil.
@Lunar Night But judges can't judge over their own sons - conflict of interest.
When you die you burn. That's your price for living. God made you so he can smell you burn in the after life for ever. And he loves that to.
@@Alienshade And the smell of burnt flesh, by OT confession...
God is not all loving, he is just and you Andrew have sinned.
“But what if you’re wrong?”
Do not cite Pascal’s Wager to me witch.
I was there when it was debunked.
Just start calling every religious person who gets on your nerves a witch xD
Lmao.. Best😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
I got this reference! I'm so proud of myself!
Pascal's wager is the equivalent of a "like for heaven/ignore for hell" facebook meme.
The only argument you really need against Christianity is that "Doctor" William Lane Craig is, apparently, their premiere luminary.
I tend to say "all you need to know about how convincing the arguments lf each side are you o ly need to look at who they are targeting. Theists target children and the poorly educated, atheists target the educated, curious, and critical thinkers
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN HIS THUMBS???
@@lukostello Is this why every secular culture insists on education being mandatory and taught through a centrally approved curriculum?
@@darkfazer because not all ideas are true so we have peer review to double check against our biases to ensure that all ideas being taught have practical application.
darkfazer, teaching children secular topics is no where in the same ballpark as indoctrinating them into any certain position on any particular religion.
“What if your wrong?”
Then I would be wrong.
@Nicolas Broszky but when you will actually have kids you will actually do the same to them as of what the believers do , dis-courging him towards being a religious , teaching him some things are actually facts and fuck the religious people who don't think so , and that would be actually turning atheism to also not be a choice .
As I see you have also thrown religion in garbage and forced atheism into people saying that belief isn't a choice and that it shouldn't exist into our world anymore which actually is simply forcing believes
IMO believing should actually continue even if it's wrong in everything cause that would actually give us the choice to do what's right and what's not and if religion just dissapears , atheisting your kids would count as blind believing cause there is literally nothing to argue with it .
To Empedolces : By the ways the answer to any question in the world was never the same it is that's how things go , if I tell you what will happen if the sun turns from the west and then you answer me it would turn from the west , that has nothing to do with real life reality , when any human is answering any question its impossible that the answer is actually the same as the question , that's actually a scientific principle unless if you don't want to understand anything .
@Baby BEE yea like that will happen , the same humans that program their child's to be religious are the same humans that program their childs to be atheist , over many generations in the family of atheism , it will become something no argues about like what happens with theists , its not a matter of education its the human behavior that over time when there is no arguments he will tend to be lazier and take things as they are and spread them to other people ( his child's in this case ) and again your saying that when they are "educated" enough also doesn't make sense cause you didn't illustrate what type of education the kids will be receiving in atheists countries like in europe kids receive evolution as an undeniable fact at an early age if that's what you mean then no thanks ..
@Baby BEE And all of this actually has nothing to do with my point , my point was even if religion is wrong in everything it should continue so that there would be an arguing area so that your meanings of not programing children to have a specific view would make sense ..
Its a problem of you mate not me
@@MohamedNabil-xz5ob 1. You can't claim to know what someone you've never met is going to do in a hypothetical future. Not a logical argument. Don't use it.
2. You can't generalise all atheists as one group.
3. I am an atheist. When I have kids, I will educate them in critical thinking, and tell them they can be religious if they choose - I will encourage them to seek out information about all religions and decide what is best for them. But I will also tell them that religion needn't be their entire identity.
"
Pascals wager, in a vacuum, says you should be a Christian.
But we arent in a vacuum, so there that goes
The irony of the wager is that it is NOT a Christian argument. It just argues the economics of believing in any god, if they have an afterlife. Even in a vacuum.
I'm not convinced that the chance of God is finite and non-zero. It could be infinitesimal.
Well you as an atheist actually shouldn't even discuss the mechanisms of getting pascal to work cause you aren't a believer so even if we say Muslim Christian Jew Hindu it wouldn't matter what the other side of the Pascal is cause you will actually never be it or you aren't it in the present at least , that's why didicating pascal's to a specific religion as for being an atheist actually doesn't make any sense at all
Thus I would actually ask you why do you feel like obligating a specific religion into the other side of pascal while any could work ( the answer to pascal will still remain the same actually ) or I can actually to make you feel pleased do some fast calculations to get a religious constant of generally being a human and entering heaven and then actually making a general religion out of that to be compared with your non-believe in the other side of pascal so that it has nothing to do with any religion ..
And yet the answer would be the same ..
@Claudia Solomon I never said this , this only states you didn't understand a single line of what I said , you can discuss pascal wager as an atheist but didicating it to a specific religion like what this dude did in the video , doesn't make any sense at all in the terms of results ..
Good to see that you’re doing a series on this: I know I’m going to love it.
tony banks except Stephen was right, math and logic are methodology to infer the relationship between values, values which exist because of the physical nature of the universe.
A methodology that’s a byproduct of reasoning all creatures have on planet Earth. Just a more developed form.
tony banks it wasn’t a annihilation. It was a straw man, argument, and I reiterated why. Think for yourself rather than blindly follow someone else. You have no argument of your own.
tony banks except in regards to logic and math, they aren’t an ethereal framework of which Craig suggests. The universe consists of values. An animal can hear a noise and reason it’s a predator. It can weigh the value of one against the other.
Math and logic are an extension of this innate nature to discover the relationship between values, over time we have a methodology so we can also conceptualise & hypothesize.
The fabric of the universe is binary so patterns naturally form and have values. Those values exist whether we are there discover the relationship or not.
tony banks 😂nope... though maybe the argument got confused around methodology of which Craig leaped upon, Stephen was still essentially correct for the reasons I’ve already given.
tony banks again you’re not able to think about it yourself and refute my points, you’re just being a bit slanderous... as as someone once said
'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.'
Pascals Wager fails on the fact that if a person’s belief is motivated by the prospect of some afterlife reward after doing a cost benefit analysis, then that belief is insincere, which an all knowing deity would have to reject based on that improper motivation. You can’t choose to believe something, you either believe it or you don’t.
Good point, if god is that easily fooled I'll just make sure to pretend to repent at the pearly gates.
Pascal's Wager is even more interesting as it is a rationalization on why to believe if you don't because there is no evidence. He affirms all that. It is actually a strong hint imo that he was a non believer and sought a way to rationalize a way towards belief because being an unbeliever was overall unhealthy.
I believe in Pixie-Lord Anneshazzahar
Who said [GNOMES II 23:33] "1. Believe not in me, and have your rectum skewered for eternity with the pain of a thousand red hot pokers - 2. never dying, always screaming for mercy that cometh not"
You should do the safe thing too and believe as I do in Pixie-Lord Anneshazzahar - just in case.
It's not worth it not to believe.
If - as is self-evident from THE BOOK - Pixie-Lord Anneshazzahar is real, then you will be rewarded if you believe in him [GNOMES I 1:1] "1. I am absolute. 2. And all shall believeth in me or be condemned forever" - and suffer dire consequences for eternity if you don't
If he turns out not to be real (which is impossible: SYLVANS III [11:33] clearly states "22. For that which can be thought is real. 23. And I was thought and became so. 24. I exist")
... then you've lost nothing either way.
It's a NO BRAINER!
I mean - I accidentally touched the iron after I forgot to turn it off - it was agony, and that was only for a fraction of a second!
And the reverse is that a god who would punish someone for not having learned something yet is not only immoral but stupid.
Essentially the most... polite... reply to “what if you’re wrong” is:
That’s a good question, and should always be, at least, considered. But a stronger question that you could ask is “what if we’re BOTH wrong”...
polite does not always bring up the best point. Religion is mostly based on how you are raised not on what you self discover and many stay under a religious banner due to social reasons rather than self development
So, in theory, I should seek the religion with the most horrendous afterlife punishment and actively worship to avoid it? ;p
Yep. And hope that if you're wrong then the Jehovah's Witlesses are right. Because they don't have a hell.
Absolutely and an omniscient god would never figure your brilliant plan out or be bothered by your true motivation.
@@bdf2718 They don't? Seriously? That sounds nice.
@@youwaisef One of the saner aspects of Witlessism. Most of it is even crazier than many other denominations, but that is somewhat saner.
But it also means that if you're not absolutely 100% sure about it, don't go with Witlessism. Even 99.9999999% sure is not enough. It's the Pascal's Wager thing.
Assume you've narrowed it down to Witlessism or Islam (neither believe that Jesus was god). Even if you're 99.9999999999999% sure it's Witlessism, go with Islam.
Choose Islam, Islam is right - eternal joy.
Choose Witlessism, Witlessism is right - eternal joy.
Choose Witlessism, Islam is right - eternal torment.
Choose Islam, Witlessism is right - nothing.
The only way to avoid eternal torment is to choose Islam, not Witlessism. Choose Islam and you get eternal joy or oblivion. Choose Witlessism and you get eternal joy or eternal torment.
@@bdf2718 You know I had to double check your original comment and what you were talking about because you kept writing Witlessism instead of Witnessism and that got me confused tbh. I thought it was this deep philosophical concept I had never heard about, but nope it was a just pun haha. Anyway, if that's how Pascal's Wager works and I'm to choose between the Witlessism and Islam, then Allah is the one true god I guess... Thx for the explanation.
Pascal Wagers presents god as mobster running a protection racket. “That’s a nice soul you got there. It’d be an awful shame if something was to happen to it in the afterlife. I mean- I’m just sayin’ is all. Yup, an awful shame.”
God is Italian, the stories are true.
To be fair, so does the bible. Not so much god, as godfather.
If you do what the boss says not only will he not break your kneecaps, you'll get to go to his party. Everybody loves the boss's parties, he says so.
That's really a distortion of what Pascal had to say on the matter. At best, the Wager is only an analogy.
@@Magnulus76 I once jokingly told a friend that I had colitis. “Really?” He asked. I answered “yes, all the time I walk, my balls collide.” He took a moment to think about it and responded, totally seriously, “I thought one was supposed to hang lower to prevent that.”
I guess some people just don’t do humor.
You make fantastic videos, your arguments are sound, and I'm proud to watch and share them. Please keep up all of your great hard work!
William Craig is one of the most dishonest apologists of all.
He makes me nauseous
Just listening to his gloggy voice spewing dishonesty makes me nauseous..
Can''t stand people like this..They remind me of American politicans / politicians in general.
They will be dishonest in our face by trying to play mental gymnastics, word salad, deflecting and piviting..
@Mark Aguilera he knows what he's doing. Or He's a moron.
What is he dishonest about?
@@Jett-King - it's not mutually exclusive. He's likely _both_ dishonest and stupid.
@@rolandkinczel4168 - the extremely dishonest William Lane Craig based his entire career on a patently absurd pseudo-philosophical argument known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Most amusingly, the Kalam argument was invented by a *Muslim* to "prove" *Allah* was real. Craig twisting exactly the same argument to "prove" Yahweh is real shows just how absurd the Kalam argument is.
I watched Matt Dilahunty's video on Pascal's wager. He also looks at the original form of the Wager, where Blaise Pascal says that God is incomprehensible and Christians cannot prove the existence of God. Which is why his wager isn't an argument for God.
When I heard of Pascal's wager in some amount of detail, it suddenly sounded a lot more like "here's why god doesn't exist, but please don't kill me".
Though I've never read the original, therefore I can't tell whether that's accurate.
Once again, a great video. I’m always happy when I see one of your videos pop up.
It's hard to believe that WLC is still so cocky considering how many times he's been spanked.
He's a long-form back and forth type of guy.
Basically, he never acknowledges having had any argument of his debunked.
Narcissism is a helluva drug.
I don't like the way he was smiling was Dawkins was answering that first question. Did he know the camera was still on? I guess it was a pleasant smile though...
I'm genuinely wondering what makes everyone so certain that their own worldview has never been debunked, and am also wondering if there's a consistent way of getting over that tendency...
Watching these, I’m really stunned that a person with an academic background like Dr Craig is so bad at deciphering & formulating arguments.
You can’t make money from wishful thinkers if you have honest arguments. That’s all theistic apologetics is, an attempt to make the irrational seem rational.
He knows his audience. He's not targeting people like us, he's targeting fellow believers. For that market it's a very convincing argument. Of course anybody who understands logic, reason and critical thinking isn't going to be taken in, but like I said, that's not whom he's aiming for.
sadly, he is smart enough. in a bad way. he can speak fluent, coherent English, and he knows that his country is full of people who want some1 talk about their favourite myth. those people believe in magic. they won't spot the failed arguments, they just enjoy the talk they themselves could never deliver. and craig earns good money with that.
The David Mitchell part was very funny. Good video, as usual.
Noting that this video is refreshingly level headed. Kudos to you
Finally! After many months, I’ve found a new channel worth my subscribtion.
I think being Debunked in real time is why Craig doesn’t allow comments on his videos or allow his videos to be used by others.
Yes possibly. He doesn't want logic and evidence to burst into his echo chamber.
Craig usually exploits the rules and time limit of debate to present his arguments as believable by his (usually uneducated) audience.
With enough time any expert can tear apart his bullshit.
I can’t just choose to believe just incase. It’s ridiculous.
Ikr. I bet God would be able to distinguish the real believers from the pretenders.
You can it would be stupid but if you want you can convince yourself of anything
@@daraghokane4236 But you would still know that you weren't sincere in your beliefs.
@@bloccoaspirale1867 It was scary when I found out that people can gaslight themselves.
The idea that people can convince themselves of something they know is untrue seemed unbelievable to me but when you see how some people are it's the only explanation I can see.
That's where the "fake it until you make it" rhetoric of theists kick in which i find to be pretty stupid really.
Thank you for uploading this. You're a great youtuber. I appreciate you.
Great content - I'm always waiting for you next production. Keep it up! Cheers to your YT Algorythm!
Yes but can either side disprove witchcraft?
I'll leave that to you, fine Sir ;)
the bible explicitly teaches that witchcraft and sorcery are real so no. bible says it, i believe it, that settles it.
Smitty The bible also says the Earth is flat. Do you believe that too?
@@masterdreamer1858 😂😂 I love Christianity
@@masterdreamer1858 What else should one believe? I am one of the many flat-earthers from around this globe!
In a resent religious argument, I pointed out that I had lived a
reasonably good ethical life....school teacher, married for 31 years raised children ....and had valid reasons for being an atheist. If I was wrong and god did exist then he would understand. An all powerful benevolent creator of the universe would forgive me and welcome me into heaven far more readily than someone taking a safe bet in a gambling game. A least I am honest about my beliefs and have tried to live an honest life. Can the evangelical Trump supporters say the same?
As Bertrand Russell put it, "... if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."
The evangelical Trump supporters will say that kidnapping the children of refugees and sending them to gulags because of the color of their skin is good and honest because those people are getting what they deserve, and anyhow it's completely justified by all the innocent blastocysts we're saving.
I watched the original video, I'm glad you responded to it. Do more please if you can
Great content - I'm always waiting for you next production. Keep it up! Cheers to your YT Algorithm!
Keep up the good work!
have you ever seen a more robotic human? Look at wlc as he sits there grinning during the video clips... holy shit! LOL
I' was thinking of a dummy used by ventriloquists...
@@maxslamer for sure haha
I was thinking the same thing, he's becoming creepier and creepier by the years.
Hope he stays away from kids. :)
He even has an artificial sounding voice.
Microsoft Lane Craig
The T-600s had rubber skin. We spotted 'em easy.
Loved watching this playlist.
Really enjoy your channel! very easy to understand the logic in every word you say...its even better for non english speakers like me! keep it up! the world needs more Racionality!
Hey man, theres a point on Pascal's infinity that I don't know if you have ever consider.
Pascal was a great mathematician, but not a great economist. He was thinking about _quantity_ but not about _value_ , and those not always correlate.
If an eternal life happens to exist, then sure, it would be infinitely more valuable than an finite one, due to sheer quantity.
However, if you only have one finite life, I would argue that that life has infinite value, due to its rarity.
If each person has one finite life and one infinite life, it's a one to one ratio and thus not rare. If you are referring to the number of years spent in a finite life on Earth vs infinite years spent in Heaven, the years of life on Earth are more rare but that does not increase their value by definition. I could say that finite years in Hell are more valuable than infinite years in Heaven due to rarity, but most people would NOT value ANY time spent in Hell. And, I think, most people would argue that there is more value to infinite years in the glory of heaven with God and your loved ones than the finite years in the questionable quality of life on Earth (especially for the disadvantaged, of which there are many), without the obvious presence of God, and only our loved ones to spend that time with, except we don't even get the entirety of our life with our loved ones. The quality of years on Earth, despite their rarity, is questionable at best compared to Heaven. Without Heaven, life on Earth is all we've got, it's better than life elsewhere in the Universe from what I can tell, and my life is better than many others from what I can tell, so I am thankful for the quality of life I live. (Athiest)
@@AndyAlegria lets consider, for sake of the argument, the the Universe will exist forever (infinite time). So you might have an infinite after-life (that you spend in either heaven or hell), or you might not. If you only have your finite life, the time you spend living is infinitely more rare (thus, more valuable) than the time you "spend" not existing.
Now back to Pascal's wager. If there's a God/after-life, you'll have an infinite gain (after-life in heaven) if you believe, or you'll have an infinite loss (hell). Either way is an bet on infinite, right? But, if there's no God/after-life, and your finite life has infinite value, then you either have a infinite gain (by living it to fulfillment) or an infinite loss (by spending it waiting for an after-life that will not came).
Pascal probably knew that his argument was flawed. He just chose to ignore it for cultural reasons.
Wow, WLC talked about atheism and DIDNT mention Stalin or Mao.
I'm baffled!
This is my favourite new channel!
Awesome vid! First time I’ve come across your channel. Subscribed! Thanks
The Abrahamic god being the god that created everyone and everything, before creating everyone, he already assigned an eternal punishment for the “sinners” and a heavenly reward “believers” and knew exactly who would get eternal torment in hellfire still wanted to create the universe. Such a merciless god if you ask me.
It gets worse than that because at no point does this capricious god give the doubter sufficient evidence to come to a different conclusion other than there is no god.
But god is merciful.
Mark Costello Agree. Always, this god gives ONE book to be accepted or rejected and often people reject not because they are idiots, but because the ONE book is often filled with contradictions, scientific errors, and not compatible at all with today’s society and therefore not convincing. The least we can expect is undeniable, logical proof but there isn’t. That’s why I have rejected this god.
Mark Costello I was a capricious doubter and yet God still found me and saved me.
Tom Douglas What is concept of “saving”? Apparently god decides to save you but he decides to let other women of all religions (including his) be raped and beaten to death, he decides to allow creeps to kidnap little children to have no idea who god is, so if these children die, they die unsaved, and they go to hell forever. If they go to heaven, that is unfair to all the other people. What about babies who die young. Tens of millions of children die before the age of 13. What about them? If they believed in the sacrifice of Christ, they would get eternal heaven, but if they prayed to the wrong god but with sincerity, love, and devotion, again, they would get hell. Fo you still not see the problem. What about those offered financial help by missionaries to convert to other religions? What is their fate? Hell?! What about those who have had tough life situations that have caused them to give up on god. What is their fate? Hell?! God does not save about four and a half billion people which he knows will suffer before he created the universe.
But he decided to save you.
I have never been able to imagine why any thinking person would take WLC the least bit seriously.
You're not wrong. It's all very well to spout off convoluted apologetics in seminars to a friendly and largely ignorant audience, but when it comes down to it, he still relies on the same old straw-man tactics and fallacious arguments the rest of them use. He just polishes the turd and wraps it in tinsel.
You just defined religion and cults.
To be fair, I have much the same reaction to all classically oriented metaphysical philosophy. As a first-year graduate student back in the day, we had to take a survey course in philosophy and theology-one of those major book per lecture sort of courses. This wasn’t a history of philosophy and theology course so much as a course on more or less modern philosophy and theology meant to orient our current thinking on religion. I had a terrible time with it because I simply would not believe that my professor and the books were saying what they seemed to be saying. I would not believe that what I understood them to be saying was even remotely suitable for a mainstream, modern academic institution such as the one I was attending-and I was a Christian at the time. I eventually came to realize that I was understanding everything just fine. It was classical metaphysical philosophy that was batsh*t crazy. It’s basically Plato meets Christianity, and hence the root of all evil.
Here's five hours of him vs Lawrence Krauss. th-cam.com/video/mj4nbL53I-E/w-d-xo.html. When you realize that WLC is the best apologists have to offer, his arguments make Christianity and their god seem more and more absurd.
Some whackadoodles were telling me in comments that they rather listen to a man with multiple PhD's in philosophy and 30+ years of experience in debates, than .. me. And that his arguments are valid and unbeatable. Even tho I told them - well, just listen to what he says, it's that easy. But god glasses don't allow them to see any flaws. When WLC gets cornered in debates he says "I had a personal experience (spooky feelings) with god, so he exists." The only way you can refute that is to say, well.. you're hallucinating.
Your videos are really enlightening❤️❤️
Great Vid, really enjoyed this one.
I wonder how Craig would feel if I told him that he has "a belief in not believing that Santa Claus is real"
WLC loves to switch up the question/definitions and then accuse the other person of switching up the question/definitions. Seen him do it quite a few times now
I've noticed this a lot too (projection). It is something that someone disingenuous would do, and yet I'm still not quite convinced that Craig is doing it on purpose.
@@rationalityrules that's not the point tho. (intention)
@@rationalityrules They are not that ignorant. He does the switch on purpose because his answer in all cases is god. he understands how to argue such that to define a win hence the point where he switches between talking about theism and Christianity as it suits. It is quite clear how he manipulates since if I was arguing the point the other way I would do exactly the same.
The point of pascals wager is that you are comparing one infinite options compared to a finite option. when you are doing such it is obvious but you are not just a theist, you can't believe in all gods every pantheon demands exclusivity they demand worship (it is why I love the Nonstampcollectors work) so you are betting between several finite options and that is often the point.
Dawkins highlights that the issue of a geographical rationale for different forms of theism and the exclusivity of each makes firstly Pascals wager a nonsense because ignoring the atheism option and just comparing to theistic options leaves no obvious choice. This is then compounded by the fact they choice is often muted by geography before we even go through the issue of each holy books meaning and tenants such that there is no obvious logical choice to be had.
No if WLC cannot see that then I would say he either is very dumb, suffering from cognitive dissonance or my favourite he is a liar, as often by omission. Now having seen him a Turek and other apologist argue they are pretty sharp guys so I cannot see ignorance being the case.
His job is not to persuade a atheist to change his mind but a theist to hold the line so I find that you do not see through that somewhat surprising.
To be fair though, don't pretty much all Christian apologists do this from time to time, especially the presuppositionalists?
@@rationalityrules I suppose it's how he was trained to operate, at least in part.
Love your content.
I don't remember having more fun watching a reaction video than now, this is just brilliant!
By the way, Debunked arrived, already played it, its fun and thought-provoking! Greetings from the atheist country, Czech Republic
I cringe every time i hear the phrase: "atheists beliefs." How can i have a belief in not having a belief? It doesn't make sense 😂
Yes. Apologists often try to paint atheists, which come in a million stripes and thought processes, as if they are just another religion. It's irksome. On the other hand, Atheists do believe things, even if they are skeptical of other things.
It is my opinion that belief occurs the moment your mind maintains a concept. You did not have a belief about God until someone described God to you and, from that point forward you held a belief about the existence, actions, and worthiness of God. You held no belief about the Great JuJu under the Sea but now that it has been brought to your attention, you [probably] hold the belief that some people believed it existed and you also hold the belief that it did/does not exist in reality. Mental conception leads to beliefs.
@@AndyAlegria Well.....you can see how that may be refuted, I'm sure. And you make different claims about the two fake deities you mention, but okay. ADDING HERE: If one is introduced to the concept of a god, and they totally buy it, or totally don't buy it based on that introduction, what does it illustrate, to you?
@@guyjperson How would you refute what I said? And I did not make two different claims about the deities I mentioned. Worded differently, yes, but mentioning either/any deity causes you to form beliefs about that deity's existence, actions, and worthiness which, for the Great JuJu under the Sea, is most likely no existence, no actions, and no worthiness while for the Christian God (or any other), it may be the same or difference.
@@AndyAlegria Having a concept of something, being able to envision it in one's mind, doesn't necessarily lead to belief. I can conceive of an indigent Dracula with a sign that says "Will Work For Blood" That doesn't mean I believe that our sad, downtrodden Vamp is indigent, works for blood, or exists.
Your two deities there are god and the Great JuJu. God gets a whole thing about worthiness and actions. The Great JuJu gets "you might believe some people believed it and you might believe it did at one time exist." Your bias is showing.
Just conceiving of something doesn't lead to belief. Proof or inculcation might, but not conception. There is a Great Sea Turtle holding up the Earth. The turtle is green with a black carapace. The Great Turtle's name is Maturin. It's nice.
You have it's name, position, nature, and what it looks like. Do you now believe that to be true?....Why not?
How WLC is taken seriously is beyond me. He's almost as bad as Frank Turek in my opinion. Especially since he puts forward the requirement of an opposing interlocutor to have a degree in order to be "worthy" of his time and attention in a debate.
the worst one out there is probably Kent Hovind.
@@paulwettstein7071 Well Kent Hovind is a literal convicted fraud and he's so dishonest that even other creationist organizations have distanced themselves from him based on the claims he's made.
Nobody besides his dim witted minions and donors takes him seriously to any degree.
@@paulwettstein7071
Fake PhD from a hut in the middle of nowhere. I suppose something like Trump "University".
The insistence on the degree of the interlocutor is such a marketing move. It sets him apart as "the intellectual apologist"
His claim to fame is a small refinement to the *Kalam* cosmological argument, which is named after an *Islamic* scholar.
Craig uses it to "prove" deism, then uses his internal argument of personal relationship, to switch to Christianity. He is such a scam.
Finally someone who sees Craig for what he truly is, nothing but the naked emperor.
I can’t articulate why I find your content helpful to humanity as a whole. I continue to say your composure and applied stoicism towards religiosity is a refreshment to contemporary 21st century rationalism and thought. I applaud your dedication and composure when dealing with the matter and (lost articulation here)... so, I’ll just say I’m happy ppl like you exist. I appreciate!
Looking forward to the next ones.
I was wondering why all these apologists use irrational arguments to defend their beliefs, but this highlighted the clarifying reason. Belief is irrational if you rationally examine religion, you realize its irrationality. The only way to defend the irrational is with irrationality. Not to say there are not some good arguments, but as time goes on, they become harder to defend. It would almost be better to believe is some amorphous personal diety that to choose one of the existing.
What's the best colour, red or blue?
Do you realize there are more than two colours?
Just answer the question dammit!
Yep - the best response to that whole Pascal's Wager drivel is that it's a *false dichotomy.* When it's honestly expressed in terms of all claimed and possible gods, it's exposed as just a garbage con-job.
Me, a silli boi- "purple and/or yellow"
Oh how I wish people could just answer the fucking question.
But what if you're wrong?
@@redeamed19 consider the implications of me being wrong.
I've just discovered your channel. Here's what I think & can say about it:
You explain things rather than just 'telling truths'. You give your opinion & base it on facts, evidence and bibliography. You have your points of view, and you can back them up.
I'm not a bright person, but even I can see that you are. I love your channel already.
Subscribed!
So happy to see you commentating on this "response". Please debate Cameron asap!
Craig: Classic Dawkins misinterpreted the question as being about Pluralism and bringing up the weaknesses of Pascal's Wager. Completely misunderstanding her.
Also Craig: so what she's really bringing up is Pascal's Wager
It never ceases to amaze me how lightly christians take their ninth commandment.
Christian _apologists_ are the primary violators of the Bible's commandment against speaking falsehoods.
But there are actually plenty of nice, honest, Christians who keep their beliefs to themselves. At least here in Australia.
Stephen your editing cracks me up
Im so happy you used a clip from Vikings
"The atheism side is in real trouble" - WLC. Isn't that the "poisoning the well" fallacy??
*poisoning*
@@zapkvr Hey, poising or poisoning, it's not like Billy Craig has any fucking clue what either of those would even mean. He's restating Dawkins' own point and thinks that makes Dawkins wrong because he's too fucking clueless to have a goddamn clue.
_If you were born in Pakistan, you'd likely be a muslim!_
*OH YEAH DAWKINS IF **_YOU_** WERE BORN IN PAKISTAN THEN **_YOU'D_** BE A MUSLIM! TAKE **_THAT!_*
Good job Craig, you scored the winning goal for the other team.
@@EdwardHowton
But like all your doing is smearing tactics.
@@EdwardHowton yup
@@EdwardHowton All the Muslims go to Limbo when they die because they haven't been baptised. When Jesus comes back they will be given a choice.
10:05 What I hear WLC saying: I'm rubber and you're glue! My Strawman of what you're saying bounces off me and sticks to you!
Omg i lost it at the ending 😂 well played mate
Loved that David Mitchell clip from QI. Great video Stephen!
I disagree Stephen. The fact that there are, or have been, different beliefs around the world, or through time, DOES disprove Biblical Christianity because the New Testament states that God's law is written on people's hearts (Romans 2, 15 and elsewhere). Was it only written on the hearts of Christians? In which case it would seem to be something of an empty gesture.
Maybe God's handwriting is just really bad and everyone just makes the best guess they can based on the writing system they learned? That could actually explain it! Look at the correlation not so much with geography but with writing systems!
So one person reads "Christ died for your sins" because that's what it looks like if you're used to the Latin alphabet, and another person reads, "wouldn't pancakes taste really good right now?"
If I cut up a Christian and pull out his/her heart to look at will I then believe in god?
Hmmm but surely if I do I'll then go to hell
Doesn't seem worth the trade off
Pedantic Brit No, you won’t go to hell - just tell the god that you’re sorry and all is forgiven! After all, heaven is FULL of mass-murderers, cheaters, liars, etc., who just said they were sorry before they died! Hell is where you go if you do something truly horrible like not believe the right set of fairy tales.
@@DaveTexas ah of course. Thats great because if I dont find gods rules on the first person, how can I be sure that person was really a Christian? I'd have to keep going.
There are roughly around 1000 religions in our world, some of them are animistic and some are shamanism and some are polytheisms and some are monotheisms. Different cultures give different names to their personal gods. Suppose in a stone age culture , there are hunter-gatherers , farmers, smiths, painters, craftmen ,..Etc. The hunter believe in their personal hunter god and the farmers believe in their agrarian god etc... Everybody in those believed in their own personal gods . They don't know how the nature works. How rains fall? How animals and humans are born?How day and night occur ? ..Etc they didn't knew the answer so they invent a god or a goddess.
Using the same logic of Pascal's wager, what if there's a God that sends meat eaters to hell and vegans to heaven? better be vegan just in case. Also don't wear red shirts just in case this God doesn't like the color red, also don't eat bananas, don't sit on green chairs...
Pascal's wager is not an argument, it's a "what if", imo it shows that religion scares people into believing in it and that religion is based on fear more than reason
Great content.
Thank you for bringing some reason to TH-cam!
At the strawman part just look at Cameron’s face. He is like:
“Wtf are you doing oldman? And I presented you as a intellectual thinker...”
Cameron's channel is just a deconversion channel forever waiting 'the right time'.
WLC is very learned and erudite but male bovine excrement, even when presented in an erudite manner, is still just bullshit.
Wlc treats philosophy as a legal process, like a lawyer. He's entirely one sided and simply wants to win the argument. Being correct is not his objective.
( THE ONLY PROOF JESUS IS LORD ON EARTH AND HEAVEN) th-cam.com/video/cMnFY0JGQ8A/w-d-xo.html
In this second installment of “The Sabbath Challenge: Jesus is Lord and Saviour, The Proof of His Imminent Return, we will be considering His role as Saviour and how it is directly linked to the Sabbath. Now we can rest assured of His salvation since He has demonstrated He is Lord over all by the means of the Sabbath as I showcased in the last installment. I presented 2 infallible arguments which my case is built upon.
1- The God of the Hebrews makes exclusive claims of the Sabbath, which is directly linked to the 7 day cycle. (Note: all other nations kept a different weekly cycle for the worship of their false gods).
2- The God of the Hebrews prophesies the universal application of the Sabbath, which is directly linked to the 7 day cycle, His sign and the means by which He demonstrates His authority over all affairs, whether earthly or heavenly, ipso facto rendering void the worship of the gods of the nations by the replacement of their weekly cycle.
1- The sunday law. @ 0:03:30
2- Ministries that will keep you updated on this sunday law. @ 0:04:10
3- The Sabbath removes the burdens of sin. @ 0:15:30.
4- The war in heaven concerns satan presenting his case against the saints of YAHWEH. @ 0:17:00
5- The Godhead (Trinity) doctrine demonstrates God’s humility, love and justice, the means by which He saves His children. @ 0:19:45
6- Why has YAHWEH allowed satan to be admitted in His presence? @ 0:29:30
7- By what standard is satan accusing us? @ 0:30:25
8- Who is satan really presenting his case against, God or men? @ 0:32:50
9- Our victory over sin helps establish the throne of YAHWEH. @ 0:48:15
10- The burdens of our sins are also carried by God, as He sanctifies us through the sabbath. @0:48:40
11- The lessons of the 7 days of creation, the practical steps to being victorious over sin.
12- Is Jesus our rest? We analyse the different meanings and applications of the word “rest” by considering Greek and the Hebrew. @ 0:53:15
13- The unbreakable link between righteousness and entering the rest of YAHWEH. @ 57:00
14- The direct link between the place of “rest” and the 7th day Sabbath referred to in the Greek as Sabbatismos. @ 0:58:15
15- Where is the resting place? The answer is: The bosom of The Father. @ 1:02:20
@@yourwayoryahwehtestedbyfir681 What are you talking about?
5:20, nailed it mate😂👌👌
Glad to see adds
Hey Stephen, hope you're well. Any update on when we can expect to see Debunked card game? Really looking forward to buying it. 🙂 Thanks 👍😊
If you worship no god, then you run no risk of worshipping a "false" god.
Oh no, is Craig actually defending Pascal's Wager here? Are you *kidding* me? That's the single most *ludicrous* argument for belief in a god I've ever heard.
Fear is the greatest motivator mate.
Is it the worst argument for a specific God or for theism itself?
BananaJunior11 I don’t think that’s totally accurate. As most religions have negative consequences for not believing, choosing almost any religion would be better than choosing none, no?
For example, if you accidentally swallowed poison that would kill you, and you were offered three vials. One has the antidote the other two are placebos, but you can only chose to drink one. Would it not be better to take your chances by drinking one instead of not drinking any?
To me there are many many issues with Pascal’s wager. But it is a coherent argument that does demonstrate the practice benefits of choosing a religion over atheism.
@@rolandkinczel4168 I couldn't disagree more with both the wager and your analogy. It's not a simple case of "other two are placebos" it's that all three of them are potentially poisonous as well. If you choose one god you are actively going against all other religions thus putting yourself at worse odds. If all of them are potentially true (no matter the probability) then you should believe in ALL of them. Your analogy states that one vial is the antidote aka that one god is true which you can't demonstrate which makes your analogy flawed and fallacious.
If you wanted to make it as close as possible to the actual situation, it would be something like this: you don't know IF any of them are antidotes OR if any of them are poisonous. Thus you'd be better off drinking all 3 of them hoping that one works and that others, or their combination, doesn't kill you.
BananaJunior11 1/5000 is a massive chance, especially when the stakes are eternity. If you swallowed poison and there are 5000 pills to chose from, 1 is the antidote and 4999 are placebos, would it still not be better to take one pill?
With regard to a God that rewards atheism it’s certainly possible. However, the question isn’t really about possibility alone. It’s also possible that there is no God. Pascal’s wager is about making pragmatic choices. No one actually teaches that there is a God that rewards unbelief. So it’s not a practical choice to make. Pascal’s wager is about making choices that offer you the greatest outcomes.
This is certainly a blast from the past.
5:18 I swear by all the gods that might or might not exist, this version of Pascal's wager is the one that came to my mind two days ago.
Craig's passion for dishonest representation is almost as strong as Stephen's passion for linen.
I was a bit baffled by Alex's chat with WLC. Alex seems to give him a great deal of respect but his arguments are the usual same old bunch of sophistry.
Damn I never heard Richard Dawkins say "bitches", but it was oddly satisfying.
Nice video!
The question was, "What if you're wrong?" Dawkins answer before he tried to change the question was basically, anyone can be wrong. That is non-responsive. He does not say what, if he were wrong, he would do, or say, or feel, or think, or whether he might even have no reaction at all.
Bertrand Russell gave a better answer to a question that, though not identical, was very similar. He said he would tell God, "You did not provide enough evidence!"
Whatever answer is the "best", I would make sure that (like Dawkins here) I wouldn't be giving the believer who asks this question the satisfaction of hearing their beliefs regurgitated and being granted the status of being "right", even in a hypothetical. I translate the question as : "tell me what happens to you if I'm right". I would say, "why don't YOU tell the audience what YOU believe happens when I'm wrong and we can assess the merits of it". Or perhaps... "IF I'm wrong doesn't establish what is actually true".
Well spotted.As for BR..god asked what evidence would have satisfied you?.
daviddeida. God, being omniscient, knows exactly what would convince each and every person, right?
@@damienschwass9354 Of course each person is made in its image,so they inherently know..What is relevant is the person would deny that knowing because of.......
daviddeida. Knowledge is "image" now? You're saying that every human is omniscient, all knowing, like god?! Even babies?!!
The mental gymnastics required to be a theist is incredible
Yes and mental gymnastics required to believe that universe came from nothing is incredible too.. Bitch
@@indicphilosopher8772 tell me fancy pants. Who is your god. We are nothing more than fancy ants. I can assure you the god that you worship is man made and you can prove nothing to the contrary because the evidence for whatever you believe is lackluster and unprovable at best.
@@indicphilosopher8772 also, name calling. Perhaps you should seek therapy for your personal problems and tell your mom that your sorry for being such lousy kid.
@@scottjobe
Didnot Atheist Richard Dawkins use the word bitches in this video???
@@scottjobe
I dont worship god..
You dont know anything about me.. I am a Philosophy student not theology student and i dont agree with majority religions including Hinduism..
So, dont make stupid assumptions
The Great JuJu of the Mountain is always my go-to reference for in debating theists in honor of this clip of Dawkins.
Thanks for the last lol at the end.
Don't let Craig's lipstick and earrings distract you from his dishonesty.
or his big phony smile.
Sean Carrol anihilated WLC and how faulty his beloved Kalam argument reaall is, how much he misunderstands about the universe.
yet WLC haven't learned anything from that.
Great video as usual, Stephen!
Can you let me know what mic do you use? It sounds very balanced. I'm digging it.
10:27 "Thank you kindly for the view, bitches" that was funny and attractive lmao
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Stephen Roberts
Also, I will never get over the intellectual dishonesty and covert threats in built into Pascal's wager when brought up by these people. Because if they assume one can in fact be unconvinced by the God proposition (and not simply trying to fool the god they all innately "know" exists to try and "justify one's own sin"), and they assume that one is to be not just not rewarded but punished via an unstoppable and irredeemable eternity of torture, then not only are they fine with torturing people for their own personal inately held beliefs, but propose that one should pantomime faith and try to delude oneself even if one does not believe it to avoid their all loving God tormenting them for all time.
"Delude yourself or be tortured forever because of what you were not convinced of" does not sound like what any supposedly "maximally great" being should demand, especially if one insists on calling said being not just loving but as loving as is possible, more loving than any being that has ever existed, in fact.
It's almost as if the entire entire idea of God's will is a cop out to justify their views and subjugate others to it.
Thank you
That “b*tches!” at the end had me laughing!
The way Craig looks and sounds doesn’t help what drivel is coming out of his mouth 🤷♂️
I just wants to punch Craigs face every time I see it. I cant help it, he just has that effect on me.
@@andymawby52 That's called a punchable face. I have the same reaction with not just him but also Ray "Banana" Comfort, Ken "Ark Con" Ham and Kunt Hovind.
I actually feel a sting in my stomach every time I hear the cadence of his tone.
I think it does.
Craig may be one of the best sophists ever. (Woodford himself has said that he finds Craig the most challenging of the living apologists.)
Craig's smugness and condescension immediately put those contending with him on their heels.
All Christian arguments boil down to the simple fear of spending eternity in Hell. How that gets twisted into LOVE is beyond me.
Casey Spaos The idea of Hell is actually not Christian. It came from paganism and was mistranslated in the bible. All original translations just point to death, not a fiery place of forever burning.
All religion is based on the projections of hope and fear. They’re emotion-based first and foremost. Then they try to make the rest of objective reality work around these strong feelings of hope and fear. “God” has been, and always will be, the single most encompassing projection for human hopes and fears that has ever existed. Reality is scary when you realize that nothing is looking out for you and that when you die it’s just lights out, so people invented God to assuage these hopes and fears. That’s all there is to it.
Thanks!
Nicely broken down and expounded on.