Daniel Dennett on William Lane Craig 

@Davidson 1 you have problems.

@@davidson1807 please tell me ye are being ironic and not seriousm

@@davidson1807 well the main joke was about daniel dennett resemebling santa clause a hell lot :)))

He debated Trent Horn a while ago and didn't do well at all

Craig dodged a debate with Dr. Jaco Gericke over the specific existence of Yahweh.

Sounds hard for him to do so since he's writing a book holding a fringe position against the historian consensus that Jesus's existence is a historical fact

@@salz446 So what? Craig holds an infinitely more fringe position, factually and scientifically, in believing that this Jesus actually rose from the dead. Shouldn't stop a debate.

@@Bluesruse It is not scientifically nor factually more fringe to hold that Jesus rose from the dead. There are many more scholars that believe Jesus rose from the dead than there are scholars which believe Jesus didn't exist. Some of these are non-christian, even (Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes). Plus, it is easier to find an informed non-christian taking the evidence for the resurrection of Christ seriously (Antony Flew, Alex O'Connor etc.) than finding an informed non-christian taking mythicism seriously (look at what the atheist Tim O'Neil has to say about it, for example. Spoiler: it is not good). But in the end of the day, the resurrection is supported by the evidence and Jesus' mythicism goes against the evidence.

This car has done 200.000 miles. It's a car that has proven itself enough. Therefore you should buy this car and pay me lots of money for it.

Ain't that the truth!

Rather vacant that critique

@@user-mn3ob5no1x Craig has only as much power as low iq people grant him.

@@user-mn3ob5no1x Your objection, equally vacant.

Such courtesy, he is a generous man..

Caveat emptor.

So is Craig.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Ha, hardly. He is much more combative and much more of a gamesman; using rhetorical technique and a debating prowess to try and "win." Dan just has a kind hearted good faith conversation. Actually, the fact that you think Craig does the same makes me think you havent watched very much of his content or if you have then you arent being very objective. Craig is a first rate debater, in the event you think they make great conversationalists go try his techniques at your next dinner party and see how many friends you make.

@@davidcline471 also Craig insists on "not" understanding İslam, as far as I see.

but Dennet does, right? Or you do?

@@JCDisciple the joke flew over your head, it seems

@@JCDisciple what we can comprehend of the god of the bible we learn from the bible. That is enough to know that that god likely does not exist and if it does, it is powerless to intervene.

@@johnelliott5859 wow you have a black belt in ignorance! Have you not read the Book of Revelations? It seems this book flew over your head. Please take time to read Revelations and you will see how God will restore earth back to the time of the state of Garden of Eden and the Devil, Death and Sin is finally dealt with God's wrath and reward the righteous with eternal life.

@@rolandjosef7961 whose interpretation should I focus on? I have read revelations multiple times. However, I don't find the bible a divine authority. Too many errors and some heinous moral issues with the inspirer.

If true, then why does he appear to win most of the debates? If everyone on youtube is aware of all these obvious "flaws" then why do the debtors never seem to be prepared for them? Craig's been using pretty much the same debate and structure for over 20 years. Kalam's refutations have not held up in a debate, only on kiddos youtube response videos.

" If everyone on youtube is aware of all these obvious "flaws" then why do the debtors never seem to be prepared for them?" - They are, and in most of these debates I get linked of WLC "owning" his opponent the person did refute every argument quite well, but only the good ones can communicate it in a well enough fashion where the audience that is already on WLC's side sees it as anything except being on the defensive. There has been much debate (ironic) as to whether these debates even matter or if they even counterproductive since who reasons the best is not often the winner of the debate and instead of making people think about what they believe they usually make people 'double down' on their opinion and believe it even harder.

This is probably a bad idea, but I'll indulge it a bit. I don't generally debate people on youtube because it's a) a waste of time, b) mob mentality and the lowest common denominator tends to come out and C) I doubt anyone is actually interested in exploring the topic, just want to sound clever with cut and paste from how to argue with Christian/Athiests websites. Don't take it personally, I don't know you and have nothing against you. Having a claim against an argument is not a refutation. WLC has been a very willing player for a lot of arguments against Kalam, and made concessions throughout his career where necessary. When challenged appropriately, he concedes (not during the debate) and modifies his arguments. For example, he backed off claims against mass hallucinations when presented with evidence. There are others, this one just comes to mind first. Most simply put, WLC may be a genius, but he has a lot of people helping him test and refine his approach. He's not a singular mind. He's not actually even trying to prove God through syllogisms like Thomas Aquinas failed at. The purpose is more to show that there is compatibility with science and faith, and that one does not need to "turn off the brain" to believe in God. So, in that vein, the debates are good. Saying people only "believe it harder" only helps demonstrate it is not an intellectual matter. Belief is fundamentally a moral choice. As Anthony Flew (atheist at the time) says, Christians believe because they want to, Atheists don't believe because they don't want to. So, for us Christians, the debates are not a matter of proving God or no God, but making the sure people understand that the choice of a God is acceptable to the rational mind. To be honest, God, to us, is not a matter of the mind as much as it is of the heart.

"Don't take it personally, I don't know you and have nothing against you." - Never would. I understand the same pitfalls of communication on RU-vid. I always strive to behave differently and stick to the issues and not let things devolve into some back and forth mud fight. "The purpose is more to show that there is compatibility with science and faith, and that one does not need to "turn off the brain" to believe in God. So, in that vein, the debates are good." - On one level I can respect this approach, on another I think it's a bit of a sellout. A discussion about the concept of a theistic being in the universe not being in absolute contention with 'science' or the scientific method is one thing. To say that "faith" and science can mix doesn't work though when you start talking about specific faith beliefs and the person is unwilling to move that belief in the face of evidence showing that belief to be false. There is a very good reason WLC rarely talks about his faith specifically; he can give arguments that are in actuality arguing for at most some vague often deistic and not even theistic concept and the audience can then hear that argument and take it as a sound argument for their faith beliefs and God when they are not. WLC has furthermore said of his personal faith that he does not value scientific evidence very highly. "Saying people only "believe it harder" only helps demonstrate it is not an intellectual matter." - That I would be in total agreement with. The two sides are fundamentally fighting different fights. The fact that an audience member can hear something from the other side that should be contradictory to their belief and make them think instead usually makes people anchor their belief in even deeper is because both sides are looking for something different in the debate. If I'm moved by moral claims, by faith claims, then scientific concepts and reasoning are not likely to phase me and visa versa. As far as people identifying as a member of a particular religion or identifying as non-religious I try not to let that factor into my judgment of a person because there are great people (smart, moral, list off the good things) on all sides of that divide, as well was people that I wouldn't associate with for that matter.

Anthony Landrum "To say that "faith" and science can mix doesn't work though when you start talking about specific faith beliefs and the person is unwilling to move that belief in the face of evidence showing that belief to be false." So science can prove the existence of God. Which is what this statement means. For in order to prove a belief false, the process has to be able to prove the belief true also. The most common belief, let's say young "Earthers", you (or someone) claims science proves this false. Well sir, you are just flat out wrong. Anything using time as a factor is only accomplished through non-provable relationships based on an assumption of "conceptual measurements". There is absolutely not one person on this planet that has observed the Earth making 4.5 billion revolutions around the sun. There is absolutely not one scientist on this planet that has predated something using carbon 14,13 or radioactive isotopes and then observed those processes for millions of years to prove the claimed outcome. Which, direct observation is necessary for it to be science. There are approximately 30 different "scientific" measurements within nature that contradict each other in regards to when this planet was capable of sustaining life. One example is the increasing amount of helium in the Earths atmosphere due to radioactive decay. The age of the Earth;s atmosphere is a point of contention in regards to the accuracy of other claimed sciences concerning this topic.The helium we observe in today’s atmosphere is a function of its initial concentration when the atmosphere was formed and a balance between the flux in and the flux out. The differential equation for this situation is: dn dt = − c c 1 2n Assuming c1 = 2 × 106 atoms cm-2/sec-1 and c2 = 4.54 × 10-16sec-1, the time required to reach the helium concentration of today’s atmosphere would be 1.76 million years. This period is over 2,500 times shorter than the generally assumed age of the earth. If on the other hand, N(o) was not zero, but half of today’s concentration, the time would drop to 890,000 years. If n(o) was 9/10 of today’s concentration, the time would only be 180,000 years. An alternative to the long-age model, and one which runs counter to the basic assumption of the evolutionary/uniformitarian model, is that the earth’s atmosphere is relatively young (less than 10,000 years). Under this assumption, the helium content of today’s atmosphere would be almost completely primordial. During the 10,000 years or so since its creation, less than 1% of today’s helium would have been added by the decay of radioactive materials in the crust. The recent discoveries of helium coming through the crust from the mantle where no radioactive decay process is known to produce helium, has led to the statement that primordial helium exists in the mantle. Why then, is it so hard to believe that primordial helium also exists in the atmosphere? The lack of an escape mechanism and the likelihood that, the helium we observe in the atmosphere is primordial provides evidence that the earth’s atmosphere is quite young. I have merely posted the summary prior to the conclusion that was at the end of a very long scientific publication. refs. Bates, D. R. & McDowell, M. R. C. (1957). Atmospheric helium. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 11, 200-208. Mayne, I. E. (1956). Terrestrial helium. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 9, 174-182. Nicolet, M. (1957). The aeronomic problem of helium. Annals de Geophysique, Tome 13, Fascicule 1, 1-21. Nicolet, M. (1961). Helium, an important constituent in the lower exosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 66(7), 2263-2264. Turekian, K. K. (1959). The terrestrial economy of helium and argon. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 17, 37-43. Larry Vardiman PhD.

Don't project your inability to comprehend their debate to Christians

Absolutely not I'm a craig fan (barring some of his moral arguments) and definitely still making up my mind

Depressingly plausible. I can't help but wonder how many Craig fans stopped listening to him when he started saying that killing children and infants was actually a good thing. Consider the stereotype that many of his fans are those who are easily emotionally manipulated, then consider the big red button that is 'kill kids for god'. There had to have been some backlash over that. I also wonder what it says about those who continue to support him and where they fall on the emotion-rationality scale.

@@tehspamgozehere They are SO good at rationalizing though. My favorite uncle was a very devout, and also a very smart man, but when it comes to topics like this, he can twist himself in knots trying to figure out how to justify it.

Lol

Taxtro Maybe that has to do with you? Because there are not a single assumption made in any of his popular arguments. Most of his arguments relies on other scientific theories, like the fact that the universe has a beginning. However, that is not an assumption made out of thin air, as you seem to believe. It is very much an educated guess and arguably the most likely scenario given our contemporary knowledge of science. All his arguments are constructed by scientifically consented facts and logic between them. If you disagree, I challenge you to find an example that we can argue over. Since you are making the claim, you have the burden of bringing the evidence. Else, you are just making unfounded statements. Or should I say... Assumptions?

samuel mork bednarz You mean the first part of his Kalam Cosmological argument? "Everything that begins to exist has a cause..." That's not the case. It's merely an argument from intuition. What applies within the universe must not be true for the 'beginning' of said universe. Nonetheless I would be willing to yield that. The second part goes: "The universe began to exist..." Now that's a mere assumption. There is numerous cosmological models of an eternal universe without a beginning. So far it sounds intellectual, but after that he just goes completely bananas, claiming the cause of the universe must be a perfect, personal deity. It's basically passing the bucket; arguing from infinite regress and then stopping.

Taxtro *“"Everything that begins to exist has a cause..."* *That is not the case. It is merely an argument from intuition. What applies within the universe must not be true for the 'beginning' of said universe.”* That is silly. There is not a single example of something coming into existence without a cause. Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations at this in response to me but I hope we don’t have to argue about that because frankly my experience is that when people say that quantum fluctuations make particles “pop” out of nothing they generally have no idea what their talking about. Nonetheless. If you want to make that point, I am ready when you do. In addition, you are right. The argument certainly has an element of strong intuition. However, that is because it is completely logical. Nothing cannot create. Not only have we never seen that it can but in addition, it would be a logical contradiction of terms. If nothing created something, we would stop calling it nothing. Your right that the beginning conditions of the universe was vastly different then the current conditions. Natural laws probably do not apply. However, this is not a natural law. This is a matter of basic logic. Nothing = nothing. *“Nonetheless I would be willing to yield that.”* Fantastic. The second part goes: *“"The universe began to exist..."* *Now that is a mere assumption. There is numerous cosmological models of an eternal universe without a beginning.”* That is not an assumption. The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory. Edward Hubble measured the red shift, which proved that the universe is expanding from a beginning point. Even Einstein initially thought the universe was infinite but then Edward Hubble famously invited him to his telescope to show him the evidence. Following which Einstein made the famous quote “I now see the necessity of a beginning”, you claim that other models explain this. I want to know which? Because all the alternate models I know about have quite famously failed the task. Oscillating models(models in which the universe is expanding and contracting) are all unstable and non the less the BGV theorem proved that even oscillating models have to have a beginning point since no energy could account for it. *“So far it sounds intellectual, but after that he just goes completely bananas, claiming the cause of the universe must be a perfect, personal deity.”* That is not going bananas, he has some very serious, reasonable arguments to support that jump. His argument is based on logic that arrives when interacting with the given facts. If the universe is finite and nothing comes by nothing that means that: there was something prior to the universe that created it. 1:Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time, = space less and timeless. 2:It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent. 3:In addition, it had to be able to make a change in actions in order to derive a change to create a finite universe even when the effect that the change came from is infinite =whatever the “thing” is it had to be capable of making conscious decisions. These are not “assumptions” they all have reasonable grounding. Even if we are wrong. Even if William lane Craig is wrong and there is no god. You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense. Claiming that he argues on assumptions is just being unfair and irrational. It rather makes your bias seem obvious. Tbh.

samuel mork bednarz "That is silly. There is not a single example of something coming into existence without a cause." Yes, that's why I said it is intuitive. All this happens within the cosmos. "Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations" The 'big bang' probably happened by very similar mechanisms. The energy it needs to start our universe is exactly 0. "Nothing cannot create" It's another assumption, that true philosophical nothing even exists. "The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory." The big bang marks an expansion of space-time. Cosmology deals with a larger context. Our universe might only be one of many states of low entropy in a super space. "Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time" Then it cannot be a conscious being. "It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent" How is that? A universe needs no energy to be "created" and it is clearly not created with special care. "whatever the “thing” is it had to be capable of making conscious decisions" Which requires it to have time. "You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense" No, not at all. The argument from the "finely crafted universe" is bad as well, but much better than this one.

Taxtro *“"Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations"* *the 'big bang' probably happened by very similar mechanisms. The energy it needs to start our universe is exactly 0.”* not even close. Although virtual particles pop into existence from no prior material, they do so only, when there is a fluctuating sea of negative and positive energy present. That means that even if it turns out that the universe came about by quantum fluctuations the sea of energy cannot itself be eternal eater and by the same rules you would be reasonably justified in believing that the sea itself has a prior cause. Therefore, you only really pushed the question back. Which is why we say that whatever the base logos is. It has to be outside of time because nr1 it has to account for time nr2 if it is in time it has to be finite since you cannot have an infinite number of events meaning that any cause that is in time will itself have a case. (Unless we are talking potentiality, which we are not in the case of past infinities) conclusion? Every cause must have started by one cause that is outside of time. Thusly, we can also conclude. Quantum fluctuations is not a good explanation. *”"Nothing cannot create"* *It's another assumption, that true philosophical nothing even exists.”* I never said it does (currently). I am fully aware that we have very little to no examples of any kind of vacuum containing zero particles. However, the trial of logic is saying that if all things have a start there was a time when not all those same things existed. The question is. What did exist before the other things? Normally in nature things never appear, they just change state. Like a tree is changed into a chair by means of kinetic energy usually involving tools. However, quantum mechanics proved that although we do not have example of nothing in the philosophical sense things could have a start without needing prior material. Though the same line of quantum mechanics proved that even things that do appear without any prior material cannot do so on its own. This all accumulates to a very reasonable claim= nothing cannot make something. If you want to say, “well we don’t have any examples of ‘absolutely nothing” then that is a valid point but it hardly proves that “nothing”, when it is here, could make something. That is my point. If you can consent to that one hypothetical scenario then we can further the discussion to figure out if there actually ever was any “nothing” Furthermore, if our space-time has a start, then unless our space-time came about from another space-time then there had to be nothing prior to it. In the philosophical sense. I know you might want to say that we might have come from a past space-time. In addition, that is not an unreasonable statement but as I already argued. Even that space-time has to have had a beginning. Therefore, you would only push the question back, so at bottom you have not really explained anything. This means that the only two possibilities is that there exist an infinite number of past universes. Alternatively, that there exist a cause outside of time that made the universe out of nothing. To be frank both of these alternatives sound fucking insane. However, I have come to learn that when we get this deep into science most things does. Quantum mechanics sounds sketchy to. No matter how insane, one of these have to be true. As long as at least on of them is possible, it does not matter how insane it is. So which one is it? An infinite number of mother universes or a base creator? In think, we can agree that actual infinities are nothing but an idea and can’t actually exist unless time is constantly moving backwards and forwards at the same time. Which is completely insane all by itself. Alternatively, maybe time is a cube like on the b theory of time. Which means that time is actually not moving forward rather every time is all the time actual. Which is also insane. Alternatively, as I believe. Something is outside of time that like quantum fluctuations is capable of creating material from non-material but on a much larger scale. This Last one might sound equally crazy but it is just as reasonable as any other explanation and in my own opinion, it makes more sense since we can already test for these kind of properties and the alternative seems to rely on making time infinite in the past, which I am convinced, is actually impossible. We can argue all you want but claiming that I am making assumptions is a gross lack of knowledge about the complicated logic behind it. *"The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory."* *The big bang marks an expansion of space-time. Cosmology deals with a larger context. Our universe might only be one of many states of low entropy in a super space.* are you referring to some type of oscillating model? I already dealt with that. Do you want be to go into detail? *"Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time"* *Then it cannot be a conscious being.* why? Like you, yourself implied. We do not know about the state of things in the vacuum of nothing. (Nothing meaning the lack of time in addition to space) I am saying that according to our logic there had to be a conscious mind outside of time. Are you saying there is a contradiction? You should further detail your position so I can more effectively deal with it. Else, I am just shooting in the dark. *”"It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent"* *How is that? A universe needs no energy to be "created" and it is clearly not created with special care.”* I disagree, it clearly is created with special care, but that is an entirely different discussion. Now to your question, because the thing that created everything had to be able to create everything; else it would not have been able to create it, IA by definition Omnipotent. Regardless of how much energy he/she/it had to use to create it (which is probably zero since there could not have been any preexisting material. So your probably right about the energy input) *"You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense"* *No, not at all. The argument from the "finely crafted universe" is bad as well, but much better than this one.* I think your underestimating the argument. I hold my opinion. You have to be able to at least admit that this argument is well thought through and deserves our research. If not then I find it hard to take you seriously.

A pathetic attempt, and a pathetic comment, you are cringe inducing.

@@NationalPK Please address the points in the comment, offer a rebuttal to each.

Even if Craig's perfectly valid arguments are the smokescreen for a feeling in his heart, the fact remains: his arguments are perfectly valid. I'll explain. First, it's a law of logic called the principle of sufficient reason which states that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Secondly, Alexander Vilenkin has gone on the record stating, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” That means that the first law of logic, when compounded with the BGV theorem, predicts - necessarily - a cosmic cause. C=A+B if and only if A+B does = C; therefore C= A+B. The logic is as inescapable as the math used to calculate the rate of cosmic expansion. The universe had a beginning, and everything that begins also has a cause. What, then, is the nature of this cause? Dr. Craig then proposes that the cause of the universe must've been either due to physical necessity, chance or God. He demonstrates precisely why physical necessity and chance cannot be considered plausible candidates for the universe. Physical necessity can't explain such an outcome because nothing physically exists prior to the cosmic beginning, and chance can't explain the outcome because the odds of the universe coming into being within life-permitting parameters are 1 in 10 to the 500th' power. And since it's completely implausible to believe the universe is a consequence of physical necessity or chance, that means the universe must be the consequence of God. In other words, his argument goes like this. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause of the universe is either physical necessity, chance, or God. The cause of the universe is neither physical nor chance. Therefore, the cause of the universe is God."

" The cause of the universe is either physical necessity, chance, or God." As my good buddy Father Guido would say, you have proof of this? Could be universe farting pixies. After all, if "the odds of the universe coming into being within life-permitting parameters are 1 in 10 to the 500th' power," then there ya go 'cause here we are. As my dear friend and confidant Sally Bowles puts it, "It's gotta happen, happen sometime."

Proof is not evidence. Proof is a logical process of checking the logic. By falsifying necessity and chance, God is proven by law of logical consequence.

First, you haven't shown that necessity, chance, or some god are the only choices. For all we know, there could be some timeless quantum field we haven't figured out yet that makes our being here now the cause of the universe coming into being then. Second, if a god, which god? There are a few thousand, you know. And third, your god is proven by logical consequence? Please. The only logical answer at this point in our explorations is "We don't know, but we're working on it."

It's actually quite simple. The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic which states any principle which contradicts itself must be false. In this case, your search for a NATURAL reason for the universe that ISN'T causally rationalizable is a contradiction in terms. Thus there can be no NATURAL reason for the cause of the universe in terms of natural causality that isn't self-refuting. Secondly, your search for a NATURAL reason which ISN'T government by mathematical possibilities is a contradiction in terms. In this case, your search for a NATURAL reason for the universe that isn't statistically rationalizable is a contradiction in terms. Thus there can be no NATURAL reason for the cause of the universe in terms of natural causality that isn't self-refuting. As for third options other than God? That's the logical fallacy of moving the goal post - the error of logic of inventing new conditions to avoid having to admit a conclusion when the conclusion has satisfied the initial conditions. Your demand that we invent a third option to avoid having to admit God's existence is logically fallacious and unjustified. Furthermore, it's a contradiction in terms: the search for a natural reason for the universe that isn't rationalizable in terms of reason itself, which deals solely in either statistics or causality in so far as rational causation is concerned. So here's what we know. It's a contradiction to claim the universe itself was caused by necessity, and it's a contradiction in terms to claim the universe itself was caused by statistical fortune. The existence of a third, unknown option is logically fallacious to propose in terms that aren't either governed by logical laws of cause and effect or statistical chance. It is also self-contradictory. Therefore, we've shown that necessity and chance are the only logically possible alternatives to God. You're argument is refuted.

nicksum29 This. I have never seen a response to WLC's arguments that wasn't either Ad Hominem or a complete strawman, with the exception of 2 atheists, Graham Oppy and Quentin Smith. Those are the only 2 atheists that I think have anything worthwhile to say. Also, Peter Millican is a cool guy. Other than that, the new atheists are a bunch of sophists calling other people sophists, for all I can see.

Endeavor I wouldn't call the new atheists "new". They contribute very little new material, and that which they do contribute is usually so riddled with patchwork references that one statement contradicts the other. Much like reading the Gospels, ironically enough.

nicksum29 The main difference between a 'new' atheist and the traditional atheist is that the catholic church is not allowed to burn them at the stake anymore.

nicksum29 you sound mad

nicksum29 Sean Carroll already defeated Craig in a debate.

I also doubt we're alone. But we don't know what the statistics are.

***** School me? If you used those tactics over and over you would never "school" anyone. The only people who fall for his Bullshit and think he's a good debater are the idiots who don't see how fallacious his arguments are.

***** you don't want to learn a damned thing. That's fairly obvious. If you honestly wanted to learn anything then you would presumably leave all the snark and sarcasm out of it. Don't waste my time.

*****​​ you want an answer? Fine. The common anscestor of all life on earth is known by the acronym LUCA for "Last Universal Common Ancestor", given what we know of genetics and biology, it was most likely a very simple single celled organism, very much similar to modern Bacteria, possessing no nucleus and having been descended from simpler, self-replicating chains of proteins. There is no Nobel Laureate for abiogensis because we haven't yet discovered the principle method by which it occurred, although there are a variety of theories, based on what we know about DNA and RNA, in the future, with more evidence and further research, we should be able to discover which theory is the most correct. If you think that somehow the scientific uncertainty concerning this topic is at all discrediting of the whole enterprise of science, you are dead wrong. This is _how science works,_ when we don't know something we don't just throw our hands in the air and say "SCIENCE DOESNT KNOW! GODDIDIT!!" because if we had, we'd still believe to this day that hurricanes were caused by Poseidon having a bad temper and lightning was Zues' anger. I have a particular disdain for those people who latch onto any area that science hasn't been able to solve yet and say "See? Science can't answer that! God is the only way!" Their certainty will only make them look like fools when we discover the true causes. Science isn't afraid of uncertainty, it thrives in it.

***** any cause is a possible cause. But some causes are more probable than others. No one simply dismisses God, but so far, everything we know about science shows that the god hypothesis isn't necessary to explain reality. Almost anything is possible, but we must be guided by logic and empirical evidence, never give up and say it was god or aliens or this or that....always seek to refine your knowledge, and be ready to throw out long held assumptions if the evidence makes them untenable.

Truthus Maximus Craig is wilfully ignorant and not open to changing his views at all. He actually said that even concrete evidence would not alter his opinions because he knows the truth of god and the scapegoat jesus. Atheists only get frustrated by stupidity so replying to you is causing me a shit load of frustration.

Dennett is a compatabilist. He thinks both free will and determinism are true. I believe his basic position is that higher-level organisms with consciousness (humans, monkeys, dolphins, etc.) have more "freedom" to choose different paths than a beetle, for example, because of their highly developed brains. At the same time, however, environmental factors will always influence which options are available, and often the brain will pick one at random _or_ the environment will force a decision. Either way, it's always the brain and its materialist functions that determine human behavior, _not_ anything spiritual or superstitious like a "soul." Because he thinks both are true to some extent, he is at odds with both Craig (who believes solely in free will) _and_ Harris (who is convinced that pure determinism is accurate).

exactly

I notice theists always start with the claim Never with the proof.....

+parodyisms "Wow, at around 2:30 mins I had to pause and address his obvious bait and switch, he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's and even admits that on the Quantum level, there is so much unknown that it is mind boggling, therefore all he did was spew out a huge line of pretentious talk to butter up a simple statement of "I don't know therefore WLC is wrong" " No. He made the point that WLC uses folk intuitions about reality that are predicated on our everyday experience to talk about creation, thereby extrapolating from extrapolations, themselves extrapolated from daily experience. Dennett then pointed to the fact that you don't get to QM by multiple abstractions on anecdotal evidence, but QM, what grasp we have on it, does explain our existence, and consistently makes accurate predictions about things, i.e. the quantum tunnelling that our computer chips rely on. That's not a bait and switch, that's pointing out that WLC uses comforting and tractable ideas from the everyday to support his conception of God, but our everyday doesn't involve interaction directly with quarks or neutrinos or spooky action, despite the fact that our world is described by exactly these things. What's ironic is that WLC's doing this merely supports the hypothesis that man created God in his own image to explain the universe in a manner that is tractable and familiar. How would you get to the idea of quantum tunnelling by abstracting from everyday ideas... unless you had the idea of quantum tunnelling first, and retrofitted a folksy "explanation" post hoc?

COEXISTential He bait and switched.

parodyisms Oh, I see! Yes, of course. How silly of me. No. He didn't, and I've explained why he didn't. Clearly you don't get it.

COEXISTential opinions opinions opinions, you hear what you want to hear and obviously do not know what a bait and switch is and exactly what he did.

parodyisms I do, but as you apparently don't (but think you do), here's a link to clarify... www.issuepedia.org/Semantic_bait-and-switch "...he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's..." WLC's "arguments" are themselves a bait and switch. It hinges on the use of words like universe or creation, in one sense it is the materialistic, natural universe, in the other it is the non-material, supernatural chimera of WLC's imagination (based in some part on Biblical cosmology). Dennett is not engaging in a bait and switch, he is attempting to undo WLC's by pointing out that you can't abstract and abstract and abstract from personal experience, and then somehow use the outcome to supersede quantum mechanics. The irony here being that it's WLC that tells us that abstract objects have no causal power.

Ha. You make it sound like I've got some hidden agenda, keeping you from hearing the indestructible arguments of William Lane Craig! Truth is, I would have posted the whole conference (it wasn't a debate, nor was Dennett's response planned, hence the use of the word 'impromptu' in the description) but for the 10 minute 59 second limit on non-partner videos back in the day. Besides, Dr. Craig didn't present anything different to the 1000 other times he has presented his arguments. You must be new to the God debate if you have to reserve judgment on what Dennett says here. But, for the pathologically suspicious, here is the link to the full video: Evidence For God's Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath)

I have watched WLC debate. Where I wouldn't say he WON, I'd say there was a tie, never a case where an atheist beat him. That's because (despite him coming with the same arguments time and time again), they usually only come prepared to refute one or two of his arguments and give rather weak counters (if any) for the rest. That would be fine, of course, if they didn't bring unfounded arguments of their own (Hitchens' and Carroll's non sequiturs on what one "would expect under theism", for example), or if they at least understood what Craig was saying before attempting to counter (his objective morality argument has been the embarrassment of practically every atheist he's debated, with them confusing it for moral absolutism or, like in Krauss' case, even going so far as to say that science can help establish moral values). Tell me this, at least. Tell me that Dennett understood the objective morality argument (assuming it was given).

Vic 2.0 The debates can be entertaining, and WLC is certainly skilled at it, but there is rarely the time to tease out all the issues, nor is the audience usually one that has the requisite background knowledge to understand them anyway, which is why it often appears to be a tie. That being said, I think Shelley Kagan soundly trounced him on the topic of morality. I think there are difficulties in discussing what one "would expect under theism", but it seems unavoidable to posit some expectations if one is to discuss the scientific and empirical evidence for a God. Often theists, Craig among them, use inference to the best explanation when presenting, say, the teleological argument, but move to skepticism about our ability to decide what one "would expect" when presented with the argument from evil. I can't say whether Dennett understood the moral argument. It wasn't presented, but even if it were, it was not addressed here. Do you really think the moral argument has much persuasive force to anyone who is not already a theist? It seems to me the opening move against it would be the Euthyphro dilemma, to which the response would be an identification of moral values with God's nature - God _is_ the moral standard. The Euthyphro can be reformulated to again present the theist with a dilemma. If God's nature were cruel, would cruelty be good? If yes, then it seems to be an arbitrary identification. If no, then God is not the standard. I think a stronger, though related, objection is that if God is the standard, and a person, to the degree that they resemble God in some respect - e.g. they are just, or loving or generous - is good, then the theist seems committed to saying that these attributes are good-making _only_ in virtue of them being attributes that God has. But this seems highly implausible. Would a person who has these attributes not be good if God did not exist? - especially since it looks like God doesn't have much of a role to play in this accounting, and justice, love and generosity seem to be doing all the lifting. So I think that the theist has some work to do for the moral argument to go through, even to convince an atheist who already accepts objective moral values exist - show first that God works as a foundation, and second that God is the only possible foundation. Nothing I've seen compels me to accept either.

riversonthemoon IIRC, Kagan also believes in objective morality and also didn't understand Craig's argument about how theism provides a better foundation (not PROOF, mind you) for that belief. It would fall upon the ATHEIST to present an alternative foundation, and no one that I know of (including Kagan) has done so. They always start with the assumption that human beings are morally significant. But since we (humans!) are the only ones saying that, by what logic do we conclude there is a definite right or wrong and it necessarily means we should flourish? Maybe we SHOULDN'T flourish. Maybe the insects, the germs, or the ozone layer are the real morally significant parts of this universe. If the only party saying otherwise, is the party that would benefit FROM saying otherwise, where does the objective part come in? Conversely, theism holds that there is a separate intelligent entity that not only AGREES we are morally valuable (because that could still be subjective), but KNOWS (because he is omniscient). If morality is a fact - that is, if it's an objective reality, god's saying we are morally significant would necessarily mean that we are (because he is all-knowing and doesn't lie, according to the Christian bible). The "problem of evil" argument is another one that SOUNDS strong but is actually weak. First, one must define "omnibenevolence" and understand that one definition is in the bible (as is therefore part of Christian doctrine) while the other is not. "Always kind/charitable" is not in the bible, whereas "always good" IS. But then, "good" is a subjective judgment call over which no objective arguments can be made. Further, some point to the verse that says "god is love" and try to build an argument from there. But the problem here is similar. One might reason that the meaning of "love" in biblical times wasn't as "soft" as our modern-day definition, but we can go ahead and use our modern-day definition anyway because if you look the word up, you find that "love" is primarily defined as a fondness/attraction and only a minority of the definitions entail the inclination to help or take care of something. But even if we nevermind all of THAT, there is one more obstacle to get through, and that's justifying the implied definition of "love" that is "preventing foreseeable suffering to the best of one's ability" in the context of debating with theists, when we don't REALLY believe that's the definition in OTHER situations. What do I mean by this. Consider the average parent. Do they not KNOW their child will suffer (and cause suffering to some degree) before creating them? Do they not have all the POWER they need to prevent this suffering (by simply not procreating)? Yes, and yes, but they create children anyway, mostly for selfish reasons. So how can we say any parent loves their child? Simple. The parent believes there is enough good in life to make the bad seem insignificant, sooner or later. The same goes for the Christian god, who if he were real would hold the tickets to eternal ecstasy and bliss. Admittedly, this argument would only help Christians who do not believe in Hell, which is unfortunately a minority. But they are out there, and I've read coherent and biblical arguments to say that Hell is not biblical after all. I chalk it up to the necessary evolution Christianity has undertaken, seeing as how their numbers grow smaller every year.

Vic 2.0 How does theism provide a better foundation? I presented reasons for why it doesn't in my last post. And I don't see how atheists being able to provide a foundation or not has anything to do with whether the theistic foundation works or not. You are doing the same thing that Craig often points out in his debate opponents of confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. How humans come to know moral values is another conversation. If we are objectively valuable, then that is the case (or not) whether we know of it or not. That's part of what it means to be objective. I think the same is true whether there is a God to know it or not, too. I can reformulate the Euthyphro to clarify. You said that if God says we are morally significant then it must be true because he knows everything and doesn't lie. Is it true because he says it is, or does he say it because it is true? You seem to be implying the latter. But then, it would still be true if God were not around to say it. Your criticism of the argument from evil is interesting. You are skeptical of our ability to know what 'good' means well enough to have the argument go through, which is essentially the skeptical theist position. God is 'good', though it may not seem so to us because we don't have the kind of handle on the words 'good' and 'love' that he does. This seems to undercut your reasoning about God not lying. For all we know, he might have good reasons for deceiving us, just as he has good reasons for allowing evil. And to go back to your doubt about atheists moral epistemology - if you are right about us not knowing what 'good' is, then we seem to be in far worse shape under theism. Maybe we should walk away when we see someone getting raped because for all we know that might be 'good'. Certainly, whatever justifies God not intervening would justify our inaction, too, though we may not appreciate what that justification is. You then move on to a theodicy about God allowing evil because, on balance, there is more good than evil in the end. You're right about those that believe in hell having a difficult time reconciling it with this idea of greater good. But ignoring that, I think it doesn't really explain _why_ we need evil in the first place. In fact, it calls its necessity even more into question. If heaven is a possible world, then why couldn't God have simply created _that_ world instead of this one? Why all the drama?

Do you know how philosophy works?

@@armandoc.3150 apparently not also idk what that guy is talking about but Craig is not just well articulate and extremely sharp, but his arguments are stronger than any of the atheists he has debated.

@@arandompanda1349 Christopher Hitchens mopped the floor with him.

@@grantfoster8833 okay so you surely did not watch the debate well. You probably were only listening to Hitchens arguments.

@@asdqwe4468 can maths help you prove the exostence of God? I dont think so. Just like physics and maths can not help you measure love. it is simply not important to talk about them when bringing up a subject like the existence of God or morality. About your argument that Craig never backs up his claim that morality is objective, next time try and actually listen to what he says. About your claim on the causation of everything, how else could you explain that time had a beginning but without a cause? Do you know of anything that has no cause? For there to be a cause to everything you simply have to have an uncaused timeless and immaterial outside factor to be able to cause time to start. Also by claiming "how do you know everything has a cause" you are implying that there exist something that has no cause so please back up your claim before speaking nonesense. Also you say that Craig has not improved our lives one bit, well can you walk me through how you improved our life one bit? Other than your own worthlessness, you are very wrong to say that Craig has not helped anyone. Preaching and spreading the truth of this word, the pathway to salvation and the path to heaven has and will help kany people. You see there is this personal experience to God and Jesus and the holy spirit, they bring peace to your life and actually help you. So I would say Craig has helped many people.

Its not hard to crush the truth with lies

LattiMonstaaa whaa??

You must be jesting. I think Craig's debate with Sam Harris is very telling, he basically picks him apart with pure logic. It's actually quite beautiful.

Hahahahaha. Craig can't stand on the same stage as Dennett.

devourerofbabies True, Craig has a rock solid foundation to stand on, Jesus Christ. Dennet has only sinking sand.

Why would that make you an atheist? Wouldn't God fit into that category of mind-boggling and counter intuitive? Ruling the idea completely out seems foolish in a sense, specially as a philosopher who's suppose to be open minded on all subject and even the reality itself at times.

@@StallionFernando God counterintuitive, you say? No, God is anything but counterintuitive. The notion of God, as developed by almost all mainstream monotheisms, is that he is all powerful, all knowing and all good. Far from being counterintuitive, these qualities, such as most Christians, Muslims and Jews ascribe to him, are starkly simplistic and childishly concrete - anything but subtle or ineffable.

@@laurameszaros9547 it's counterintuitive and mind boggling too think that such a being too exist, how could a being be so powerful, limitless, ageless, perfect, personal yet so distant and vague, All knowing and Omnipresent? It sounds illogical too think that such a being could exist. He's simple enough too know that even a child can, yet vague and complex enough too never be fully understood in our limited human mind. A paradox and an enigma.

"God does not exist because God is not counter intuitive enough" is pretty weak sauce

@@trevorandthegunrunners4166 Not nearly so weak a sauce as assuming that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent without a shred of evidence to that effect, as the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have imagined.

***** Very true. It's baffling how theists convinced themselves that faith without evidence is a good thing. But faith without evidence = *gullibility*. Otherwise, they should just send their money to those Nigerian princes with the emails... At least, they would be *consistent* with the whole not needing evidence thing... Gabor's first rule comes to mind: "Without evidence, a sack of claims is worth the sack." And that's all religions are...

Oh my gosh... You are saying Craig doesn't know what objective means!? He is a doctor of philosophy and doesn't know what objective means!? You learn that in intro to philosophy courses!!! Shut up!!!

***** Exactly! Apparently, Craig (and you) can not read the friggin' *dictionary*! From Merriam-Webster: *objective*, noun: *1)* based on *facts* rather than *feelings* or opinions : *not* influenced by feelings *2)* *philosophy* : existing *outside of the mind* : existing in the real world Morals are *feelings*. They are *software* running on computers, called *human brains*. Morals can *only* exist in minds. They can *not* exist *without* minds. *Objects*, like rocks *don't have morals*. Ever notice the *root* of the word "objective": *object*? Only *subjects* have morals, so *by definition*, morals are *subjective*. Ever notice the *root* of the word "subjective": *subject*? So, "objective morals" is an *oxymoron*! Look at *2*! The official definition in *philosophy*, *Craig's own field*, disagrees with him! And don't make me laugh! A "doctor of philosophy" is like a "doctor of religious studies". It's a useless, *bullshit degree*, with highly *subjective* standards. No wonder, Craig doesn't have a *real* job! On the other hand, look at the most vocal atheists: They are *scientists*. People who actually *know* what the hell they are talking about, regarding the universe and human minds / biology. Unlike philosoply, when you get a doctorate in science, you actually have to *prove* with *hard evidence* that your shit *works*. Einstein, Feynman, Weinberg: Nobel prize-winning physicists Harris: accomplished neuroscientist. Dawkins: accomplished biologist. Tyson: accomplished astrophysicist. Krauss: accomplished astrophysicist.

***** This is why philosophy is *obsolete*. A philosopher is just a scientist-wanna-be, without the *lab* and the *equipment*. He's trying to understand the universe from his arm-chair, using his *human* intuition. This kind of worked until about a 100 years ago, when we discovered quantum mechanics and the expanding universe. And we needed *instruments* do do it! They are both so unintuitive (especially QM), that they made us realize, we can *not* understand the universe, by *only* relying on our intuition. Our primitive intuition evolved in the African savannah, to avoid lions and to make babies. It's a nice side-effect that we can understand the universe, but *only* with strict, scientific standards and by carefully avoiding the limitations of the brain. This is why people who don't have such strict standards, believe in nonsense, like gods and unicorns.

***** I'm not lumping them all together. As you say, the kind of philosophy theists push, is pretty much complete BS, built on logical fallacies, double standards and *dishonesty*. The rest of philosophy, while mostly *honest*, has just become (mostly) obsolete because of the reasons I mentioned. Sure, it may be *interesting* to contemplate the universe from our arm chairs, but it's *not sufficient any more*. Human "common sense" and "intuition" alone, can *not* discover *new information* about the universe. You need (often expensive) equipment for that. If we could just intuit the nature of the universe, we wouldn't need to spend hundreds of billions on experiments, satellites with cutting-edge instruments and so forth. Philosophy can be useful for helping out science with posing the right questions, but even that requires knowledge of the latest observations (with the mentioned equipment), so it's not "pure" arm-chair philosophy any more...

Thank you!

Cause doesn't require agency to be a cause.

@@SC-zq6cu The example of triangulation that Mr. Dennett offers as an example of abstraction effect cause is deflective because he ignores in his own reference to the abstract principle of triangulation the workman who exploits the principle to cause his house to become stable. Cause does not always require agency. True. Sometimes cause is itself just a link in a chain of determinate events. Other times it be a statistical fluctuation. Either of these models is built upon abstract models, which may lead one to ask: Where do the abstractions come from? Why is there a Golden Ratio that is found in so many places? Why is the ratio of the circumference of circle to its diameter pi? Why does one plus one equal two? After all the only reason we say it does so is because it's always seen to be so... It is the agency behind abstraction in its formulation and application that is being posited here.

@Davidson 1 It's religion that paints God's mind as like our own; if God has no physical body nor a mind like ours, then in what way can a Christian claim we are made in God's image? The Bible describes God with emotions, making decisions, even examples (or at least one from memory) where a human changes God's mind through persistence. God seems to flip flop between deeply personal and wholly alien and unknowable whenever convenient.

@Davidson 1 that still doesnt change, that god changed his mind, according to Bible. If god is not bound by anything, then why is he described with emotions like anger, saddness, even with Jesus aside?

@Davidson 1 Can you explain in simpler words, professor?

Vic 2.0 Yet, to assert a scientifically unverifiable god is? Craig's explanation is more or less a sophisticated argument of the god of the gaps. While Dennett is conceding the possibility of WLC's assertion, he's not committing to it because he's not that arrogant. I would grant you that guys like John Lennox could raise some questions about the possibilities of a prime mover, but you still have the arduous task of connecting this god to a religion (in most cases Christianity, Muslims), which then leaves you with an even greater task of justifying the immoral actions of this god. FYI - divine command theory is not an acceptable response. If you impose regions laws on people, giving this deity of yours a pass in abiding these laws is morally dishonest and hypocritical. In short, it's far reaching, lacks critical thinking and a compromise to one's innate morals to reach that conclusion. But hey, if it brings you purpose and comfort, have at it. Just keep that to yourself and out of the schools and government.

Francis Dakis Actually, Craig's arguments follow what we *do* know and reasoning, to arrive at their conclusions. It's not "god of the gaps" at all. And I certainly never implied that because Dennett's arguments are weak, that that somehow proves theism! I'm an atheist myself. But that doesn't preclude me from admitting when a theist's arguments are better than an atheist's. "but you still have the arduous task of connecting this god to a religion (in most cases Christianity, Muslims)," Craig does attempt to do this, with his resurrection argument. "which then leaves you with an even greater task of justifying the immoral actions of this god." That's circular reasoning. If you start off with "The actions are immoral", then that means they *can't* be justified. However, if you state it more factually (e.g., "God decides not to value people's time on Earth", "God makes people suffer on Earth", etc.), then it's not very difficult to "justify" these things. One would simply point out that part of the story is the afterlife, and there's no logic in emphasizing a temporary phase over the eternal era. This, of course, does lead one immediately to challenging the hell doctrine. And they're right to do so; even about 25% of Christians reject it on moral, logical, and even biblical grounds. "If you impose regions laws on people, giving this deity of yours a pass in abiding these laws is morally dishonest and hypocritical." I don't see how it follows logically, to say that the embodiment of goodness/rightness can't do certain things to bring about eternal bliss for all in heaven, even if those things are things we ourselves cannot do (because we don't know what the end consequences will be). "In short, it's far reaching, lacks critical thinking and a compromise to one's innate morals to reach that conclusion." On the contrary, it's the appeal to our "innate morals" alone that lacks critical thinking, as do many of the responses I've gotten from other atheists on RU-vid already. "But hey, if it brings you purpose and comfort, have at it. Just keep that to yourself and out of the schools and government." I agree that religion shouldn't be promoted or taught in our government and public schools. But not that Christians should have to "keep it to themselves".

Vic 2.0 There's a lot to unpack here, many which I disagree, but I'll do my best to summarize my on views on the subject and keep this from being a too lengthy. - I reject supernatural claims, biblical or otherwise. - While thoughtful, sophisticated answers given by the apologists the likes of Craig, these claims/assertions are still missing the most critical component, which is evidence. Therein lies, "the god of the gaps" or what I like to call "connecting the dots to assert an unseen and unverifiable celestial deity". - Innate morals, in my view are more or less the human solidarity that exist in each human. Within this framework exists universally within our specie, the "golden rule". Moreover, the consensus with secularists/atheists is morality is subjective while believers use the bible as a source of ultimate/objective morality. - As a self-proclaimed atheists I'm a bit surprised at your undercurrent views in defense of WLC and theism. In the words of my intellectual hero and late great Christopher Hitchens: "We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."

Francis Dakis "I reject supernatural claims, biblical or otherwise." Understood. "While thoughtful, sophisticated answers given by the apologists the likes of Craig, these claims/assertions are still missing the most critical component, which is evidence." The claims and assertions are supported by *arguments* which, if true, just *are* the evidence. And so to show that there is no evidence, for example, for the claim/assertion "The universe plausibly had a cause", you would have to show either that the logic of the argument is invalid or that one (or both) of the premises is untrue. "Therein lies, "the god of the gaps" or what I like to call "connecting the dots to assert an unseen and unverifiable celestial deity"." Except that, again, the conclusions are arrived at via deductive arguments the premises are which are based on what we *do* know, or at least what can be reasoned without refutation. For example, if it's true that 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause and also that 2. The universe began to exist, it follows logically and inescapably that 3. The universe has a cause. "Innate morals, in my view are more or less the human solidarity that exist in each human. Within this framework exists universally within our specie, the "golden rule". Moreover, the consensus with secularists/atheists is morality is subjective" That's blatantly false. Craig himself has debated atheists who believe in objective morality (e.g. Louis Antony and Shelly Kagan). And I'm *also* an atheist who believes morality is objective. "while believers use the bible as a source of ultimate/objective morality." That's actually incoherent, when you understand what "objective" means here. It simply means that something can be morally right or wrong independent of human opinion. Craig's example of Nazi Germany is a good one: To say that the holocaust was objectively morally wrong, is to say that it was wrong and would still *be* wrong, even if the Nazis had succeeded in conquering the world and brainwashing or killing everyone who thought it was wrong, so that literally everyone thought it was *right.* It would still be wrong, because its wrongness/rightness is not dependent on any opinion. "As a self-proclaimed atheists I'm a bit surprised at your undercurrent views in defense of WLC and theism." Well my ultimate target is anti-theism. I have no issues with those who reject theism or even believe "There is no god". But I'm somewhat annoyed by people on both sides who claim to *know* the answer to the god question, and frankly intolerant of those who *oppose* atheism/theism. And I agree with that quote from Hitchens, but I don't think the New Atheists (anti-theists) practice what is preached there. I think *all* of the arguments against theism "outrage reason".

Vic 2.0 For the record, I'm enjoying this exchange. Too often there's hostility and outright insults when people have counterviews on the subject. In the same debate that you refer to, Harris has a 10 min segment where he discusses the WLC notion of "divine command theory", which by definition absolves god from acts that would be generally described as an immoral act. To quote Sam Harris: "There is absolutely nothing that Dr. Craig can say against their behavior, in moral terms, apart from his own faith-based claim that they’re praying to the wrong God. If they had the right God, what they were doing would be good, on Divine Command theory. “Now, I’m obviously not saying that all that Dr. Craig, or all religious people, are psychopaths and psychotics, but this to me is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own.” He also closes in the same speech: "On the other hand, on Dr. Craig’s account, your run-of-the-mill serial killer in America, who spent his life raping and torturing children, need only come to God, come to Jesus on death row, and after a final meal fried chicken, he's going to spend eternity in heaven after death. Ok-one thing should be crystal clear to you: this vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability. And please notice the double standard that people like Dr. Craig use to exonerate god from all this evil. We’re told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good." For the record, I think you have a slight misrepresentation of views of an atheist - the claim is NOT, "there is no god", rather "We have no reason to believe in one". I'm not an anti-theist (like Hitch). heck, I don't even like the "atheist" label because of the negative connotations attached to it. As I'm sure you've heard, there are no a-unicornist, a-bigfoot. More importantly, I DON'T KNOW how conscience comes to existence (it's one of the things that even Hitch admitted is fascinating to him), I don't know if there is an afterlife, I don't know if a god exists, BUT I do reject the version of man-made gods that have been created over thousands of years.

The older he gets, the more obvious it becomes

I was thinking Santa.

You're not a philosopher if you don't have a beard.

@@ConvictedFelon2024 that’s gay.

Hmmm. I wonder, then, why he is a well-known and beloved figure, and we have not heard of you.

@@phoebeflanders Because rhetoric, however empty, can make a person famous.

Thank you for subjecting us to that mindless babble; I needed a good refresher of what a pseudo-intellectual RU-vidr sounded like.

@@rslider00 So you didn't understand it. No problem, which part do you need explained?

I haven’t seen the full video so I don’t know if there’s relevant context to which you’re referring that I’m unaware of, but I see no reason to accept that abstract objects do not have causal power; and that only concrete objects do. Are you suggesting that thoughts don’t have causal power? How about intentions? You’re really saying that a person’s intentions have no causal power, even though if the intention was changed the behavior and outcomes in the world would be totally different? Or are you suggesting that intentions and other thoughts are “concrete objects”?

@Thymoteo Eevi You make a good point. As the world was created by a supernatural amenity, I guess everything is supernatural. Or not.

At the same time people often times do make things way more complicated then they need to be only causing themselves more confusion. Humans are fallible after all.

I thought that’s what dennet was doing with his whole triangle thing... I don’t think Christianity is that simple either.

+nas lost Dennett makes me think that they must hand out those Oxford philosophy degrees like Trick-Or-Treat candy.

+Terence Francis Oh that's so clever. Did you steal that line from a book?

It honestly should be very easy to answer, of course we're not alone, i mean have you seen the scale of how big it all is, too many possibilities. It's only a matter of when

So far, all the accusations of "fallacies" I've heard fail. But if you have an example you think works, by all means identify it.

Vic, If you don't recognize fallacies, I can't help you.

So you *can't* identify one for us...

Vic, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kalām_Cosmological_Argument 1) We can't know that everything had an ultimate beginning. 2) There is no reason we can't have an infinite past as WLC assumes his god has an infinite past. 3) You and WLC assume a super mind without a brain always existed then willed/thought material into existence despite the fact every mind you know has a brain. If god has existed eternally then existence would be eternal. 4) Nothing WLC demonstates his god did anything anymore than magical pixies did anything.

I won't go on a wild goose chase, especially after so many videos/articles have failed me. But I will respond to what you provide here... "1) We can't know that everything had an ultimate beginning." Nor does the argument *say* that. It says that everything that *does* begin to exist has a cause. "2) There is no reason we can't have an infinite past as WLC assumes his god has an infinite past." a. Craig gives arguments against the possibility of actual infinites. b. God is not understood to have existed for an infinite time, but rather as a timeless being "outside" of time. c. The philosophical arguments are not all. A lot of *physicists* are saying the universe (meaning all of contiguous spacetime, space and time itself) had a beginning. "3) ...despite the fact every mind you know has a brain." But that doesn't mean that minds require a brain for them to *exist.* It could just as easily be that minds exist and the brain is the medium through which they interact with the physical world. Besides which, the KCA is an argument *for* the existence of an unembodied mind. "4) Nothing WLC demonstates his god did anything anymore than magical pixies did anything." Well you would need to redefine "pixies", it seems, for them to be the cause of spacetime. To my understanding, they are physical (if magical) beings and have never been described as "timeless". Doing so for this argument's sake makes your hypothesis obviously more ad hoc than theism. Moreover, the KCA is part of a cumulative case, usually concluded with Craig's *resurrection* argument, which of course wouldn't support your pixie theory.

"For a guy who claims to be a Philosopher," > It's not a claim. He IS a philosopher like it or not. Daniel Dennet sure didn't have much to say in response to WLC. > So we've just been listening to almost 11 minutes of silence have we? I think not. It would be very interesting if you could supply an accurate synopsis of the main points Dennett has made here... or if you'd decline or simply provide a straw man instead. Feel free to surprise me because I'm expecting you to decline this request. - Am I wrong? If so let's hear it... He's trying to respond with bamboozlement, very artfully put. > Please explain how can a saying "I'm not convinced there's a god" or words to that effect be 'bamboozlement' when it's not even a claim? He appears to know nothing about either science OR philosophy. > But appearances can be deceptive. 'Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Albert Einstein

So En prove that assertion, I doubt you will be able to.

Simple, the answer is we didn't know. People who claim god is the cause are being disingenuous or ignorant of what we know of the universe.

"Colin"...I can't speak for all people who believe in god. I am saying it is the "best explanation" I have heard. I am waiting for a better explanation if you have one.

J Scott Upton *"I am saying it is the "best explanation" I have heard"* So you accept explanations that either have not or possibly cannot be confirmed to hold to reality?

"Colin"...by "accept explanations" I assume you mean the way that Newtonian physics was "accepted" until it was replaced by another explanation that fit the facts better? The idea of god is one explanation of some questions like "why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't hear any theoretical physicists advocating theories that even come close to answering that question in a "better" way than the god explanation. My favorite "non god" explanation amounted to "the universe created itself". Neat trick. But I am certainly open to new arguments.

J Scott Upton Two things: 1) Scientists are able to say and accept something that you seem unable to: "We don't know" 2) You never even attempted to answer the question and instead danced around it

Phelan No.

Being free from answering to a Holy God means you can do what you like but... there are always consequences to the decisions we make in life (good or bad). You may think you are getting away with denouncing God all of your life but in the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. If you insist on being separated from God your entire life on earth, He will certainly not force you to be joined with Him for all eternity. Remember...you alone chose this.

No, I believe Dennet is saying that Craig takes holes in scientific explanations, and claims that they are evidence of God.

+Jordan Bikes Isn't that part of the God of the gaps theory?

J A.K What Jordan said does sound like "God of the gaps." But I don't think that is what Dennet is claiming concerning Craig.

Timothy Fish Oh okay. I wasn't sure.

I don't think Craig is a joke. He's very good at his craft. He inevitably gets to some sort of jackoffery like, "You can't examine Jesus' resurrection by natural means because it was a supernatural occurrence." And presupposes "intelligence" in his Kalam argument. But overall, he is probably the best we have at justifying an unjustifiable position. But, yea, Lenox is joke. He defaults into a sermon in no time.

YukonBloamie For those of you have an interest in actual academic philosophy, Craig is actually not the most impressive Christian apologist alive ( eminent philosophers do not take Craig seriously), there is however a guy named "Alvin Plantinga" who did made significant contribution in many areas of analytic philosophy, who has a far more sophisticated and philosophically interesting argument for theism (though ultimately flawed), his work is widely acknowledged by philosophers.

hao zi Plantinga is pretty technical, and an effort to understand. He's kind of Kantish in that way. I suppose anything regarding epistemology is in that category of understanding. Craig is more for the church going evangelical type.

@@haozi2978 "ultimately flawed" how?

Congratulations, this does makes sense. I also do find WLC's arguments boil down to "the Bible says so". I'm astonished too that he didn't get floored until now.But also, I think Sean Caroll laid the ultimate smack down on WLC's ass. So, are you a philosopher,friend?

Great comment. Thank you.

No he is not sincere. He earns a wage pushing his bs. He will never let go of the Power, the Glory, the MONEY unto him.

@@honeysucklecat his only goal is to "win" whatever debate he is in, which is counter productive because it won't help actually prove his christianity. He will ignore a valid point because it's "not what this debate is about" how about these apologists debate they're actual views instead of these vague topics like is there evidence for god. Well regardless if you can show evidence for god in general how about proof that it is THE god from the bible you actually believe in and say is true

There are lots of crackpot theories about the Universe and everything but the theory that Jehovah did it is one of the craziest.

No, the reason you shouldn't call WLC o professor is because his 'degree' came from a completely unaccredited school. He's a phony whose degree came off a Xerox machine in a double wide trailer in some park. He Has No Real Education. Got It?

His credentials are non existent, and his argument are wrong on their face. But I guess 'critical thinking' is not on your resume?

I have a feeling he's getting mixed up with kent hovind

Hany Moussa Please bare in mind I don't like him myself. His arguments are flawed and he is intellectually dishonest and in some cases I've seen him say quite immoral stuff

To @mrthebillman you wrote: "Calling WLC a 'Professor' is like calling GODZILLA a Ballet Dancer" You mean getting Phd's from the University of Birmingham and the University of Munich in Philosophy and Theology respectively is not valid? Then daring to teach in those disciplines is clumsy and oafish?

[Citation Needed] Evidence?

It's called reading what he's written. Or you could listen to his nonsense at Sean Carroll's Moving Naturalism, as a philosopher Dennett is a pudding headed lightweight.

Anthony McCarthy So that's a 'no' on the evidence then? Thought so. You might know this phrase: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." C. Hitchens.

Atheists always demand "evidence" and no matter how much of it you present to them, they will insist it isn't enough. I've read Daniel Dennett, his supporters and his critics. The man is a philosophical lightweight, a man who has survived on the tenure track and the fact that he pushes the ideology of most of the bully boys of academia, atheism. If he ever went up against William Lane Craig he would be as reduced to blithering inanity as Richard Dawkins knew he would be. About the only atheist I've seen go up against him and just hold his own was Sean Carroll and Carroll couldn't do it. I don't agree with everything Craig says or thinks but he is a first rate philosopher and a good enough debater to master the arguments of his opponents and to have found their weakenesses and what arguments can defeat them. If he had to go up against Dennett on something he wrote about such as Dennett's extension of natural selection outside of biology, it would be child's play to tear him to shreds on the basis of his own words in his own books. H. Allen Orr, and such atheists as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewonton have done that. As I said, go read Dennett and those who have dealt with his writing critically, the man is a philosophical lightweight.

Anthony McCarthy Yes. There's a reason for that. Because the likes of you, have none. (evidence) Seriously, i ask for evidence of god, and they say 'creation exists. Proof of god.' how? Which god? They say fulfilled 'biblical prophecies' and ignore the total failure of them. they say 'jesus is a historical figure' yet there's no evidence that any cult leader called jesus was around at the time, let alone doing miracles. The reason you can't convince your typical atheist/skeptic, is that we know about standards of evidence. And the folks on your side either don't, or have a mental block stopping them from applying it to the 'evidence' for god. What standards of evidence would you accept from a hindu that wanted to convince you that Shiva was the lord of the universe? That's what we are looking for. Visions? They have them. Supposedly answered prayers? Miracles? Fulfilled prophecy? They all have them. So, present some evidence, and we'll go over it.

Because he was responding to someone who didn't say much.

We probably are not alone. We may never know. The likelihood is even if we found them or vice versa, since we can't fully communicate with any of the billions of species on our on planet, we will never understand them....and vice versa.

Why would you feel worse one way or the other? I understand thinking one is more likely than the other, but I personally wouldn't feel especially bad to find out we were alone, or not.

If it ain't debunked, don't fix it!

Kevin Craighead, if the opposing team knows exactly what play you are going to run and are never able to stop you then I think that is a good indicator of which team has the superior playbook.

+ Chris Gibbs Or perhaps that you don't have the ability to listen to counter arguments?

They always do. Naturalism of the gaps lol.

Yep!

Aren't the new atheists a reaction to the problems of the classical atheists?

No, its just a stupid name apologists invented.

I agree. But Dennet can't be as crude as he should. He does not want to resort to non-academic behavior.

InterestingName that's merely a result of your preconceived notion of who is correct, whom you agree with...

It wasn't terribly persuasive, but it did offer me some new insights. I also appreciated that his tone felt open, and thought-provoking, as opposed to antagonistic.

Ironically, your comment here seems to be just you babbling and rambling without giving a refutation of his arguments.

Vic 2.0 HAHAHAHAH

Meaningless assertions with conviction impress you? Certainly you must believe all religion's claims right, if given with conviction. Or is there a bias, something like mommy and daddy said so?

​@@chrisworthman3191The thing is, no one can "prove" God just like no one can "disprove" God. God is FAR above our finite brains and His Ways are higher than ours. We can't "figure out" God. All of our measly "logical thinking" and arguments can't even scratch the surface of God. God has provided more than enough evidence through His creation, through science, through history and through morality. It's just that some people are too stubborn to acknowledge it as God and are willfully ignorant. Atheists just don't like to accept the truth and don't like the idea of a holy and just God who will one day hold them accountable for their actions. Instead, they rely on science because thats the only option left. But unfortunately, science as awesome, powerful and useful as it is, cannot explain everything. It can't answer the main questions such as "Why do we exist?" What is the origin of life?" In biology, evolution may be able to explain what happens when you HAVE life, but it can't explain how life actually BEGAN in the first place. Scientists can't answer how the big bang happened in the first place. Being an Atheist DOES require faith. There are so many big questions left unanswered by science and it can't and never will be able to answer them. You're expecting God to reveal Himself to YOU? Not gonna happen. It doesn't work that way. You seek after HIM. That's how it works. God is not obligated to reveal Himself to anyone. But there is a promise. If you truly seek Him with a sincere, honest and pure heart, He WILL reveal Himself to you. See, true Christians aren't Christians because of blind faith or intellectual belief. True Christians are Christians because they sought after God with all of their heart. Wanting to love Him. To know Him. To serve Him. To submit everything to Him 100%. That's why we have a relationship with Him. Because He revealed Himself to us. I think the issue with most Atheists (not all but most) isn't a "lack of evidence" thing. I think the main issue is because they don't WANT God to exist. They simply don't WANT to submit to God if He is real. That would mean they would have to give up a lot of the things they are doing that is wrong. Let me ask you a question, if Christianity was true, would you be a Christian? If God were to appear to you in front of your face in a dramatic bolt of lighting and said "I'm God. I exist. Here I am." What would you do with that intellectual belief? (Assuming you wouldn't just brush it off as a hallucination) Would you sincerely be willing to give up your sins and your way of living for God's Ways? To serve Him and love Him for the rest of your life? Or would your attitude be like "Wow. I was wrong. You really do exist God." Then just go on with your life and operate as if He doesn't exist? If your response would be the second option, then by no means is God going to reveal Himself to you. He doesn't care about someone's intellectual belief. He wants your HEART. He wants a RELATIONSHIP.

​@@chrisworthman3191This is what C.S. Lewis observed during those years he was an atheist. Over time, he began to realize that his atheistic worldview did not seem to be in sync with the real world. He said, “My life is full of contradictions, and I was at this time living like so many atheists, in a world of contradictions.” For instance, Lewis realized that, as an atheist, he did not believe in a moral law. He could not believe in one because it did not exist. Yet he was appalled by what he saw in the world and what he saw in himself. He saw that the world seemed to be so cruel and unjust, yet he could not understand from where his idea of justice and injustice came. Norman Geisler relates a great story that illustrates the moral confusion in people’s lives today and how one’s life will, in fact, be full of contradictions when absent a moral standard by which to live. Geisler tells a story of a philosophy student in an upper-level philosophy course. The student writes a research paper arguing that there is no God and, consequently, goes on to argue there thus can be no objective or absolute moral principles. Judged by the paper’s research, scholarship, and argumentation, most would have agreed it was easily and A paper but the professor wrote these words on his paper, “F . . . I do not like blue folders.” The student stormed into the professor’s office waving his paper protesting, “This is not fair, this is totally unjust. Why should I be graded on the color of the folder? I should have been graded on the content of this paper, not the color of my folder.” Once the professor settled the student down, he asked quietly, “Was this the paper that argued that on the basis of the Godless universe in which we live, there are no objective moral principles such as fairness and justice? Did you not argue that everything is a matter of one’s subjective likes and dislikes?” The student finally acknowledged, “Well, yes.” The professor said, calmly and precisely, “I do not like blue folders. The grade shall remain an F.” He said at that moment, very abruptly, the face of that young man changed. It struck him that he really did believe in objective moral principles such as fairness, such as justice and injustice. Eventually the professor changed the grade and gave him an A, but, he said, the student left with a new understanding of the objective nature of morality. It’s easy to proclaim that there is no God, but it’s quite difficult to live consistently and honestly within the resulting moral framework. Now, hopefully, this makes some sense. We have to have a basis for morality. Our morals cannot be determined by feelings and opinions of a plurality of men. Otherwise, we’ll become neurotic and morally confused, and we’ll have a difficult time living with the worldview we profess to believe in. This is again why the Bible is so important. It gives to humanity a permanent absolute, transcendental law and since the Bible is considered to be the means by which God reveals himself to man, we can know what is truly right and wrong, what is good and evil, what is moral and immoral. And this is what gives moral meaning and dignity to our existence here in this life.

Marco Hooghuis You can label my points all you want - that's not arguing. I labeled his arguments then explained how the labels were appropriate. I guess you are going to tell me that something came from nothing? That is the height of irrationality. Apparently Lawrence Krauss thinks you need a Ph. D. in Theoretical Physics to understand what nothing is - you don't and philosophers since Plato and Aristotle have considered this notion thousands of years ago. I think my favorite moment in this latest quest against nothing to try and redefine words was Dawkins (on the Australian Q & A show) saying "nothing will probably be SOMETHING...(very simple etc bla bla) - good thing the crowd laughed at him - I almost felt bad for him to be someone of supposed intellectual stature who would utter such nonsense IN PUBLIC. AT NO POINT DID I EVER AFFIRM GOD'S EXISTENCE - fantastic job on refuting something never asserted and distracting attention from my ACTUAL points which were intended to refute DENNETT'S arguments. At what point did I say atheism was science - do you understand how argumentation works? He made a scientific POINT IN FAVOR OF atheism affirming that abstract things can cause physical things - quite contradictory and illogical because he affirms naturalism which affirms that everything is derived from the physical while abstract things are just IDEAS - what madness is this? Ideas only exist REGARDING REALITY - which is "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them" which presupposes material or "matter" already exists "from which a thing is or can be made" (Oxford Dictionary). But I think that's part of the Dawkins' and Krauss's arguments - THEY WANT TO RE-WRITE THE DICTIONARY (definitions of "nothing" or whatever else supports their argument). Do you even know what Dennett's psychological logic is that I'm speaking of? Look up his Dennettisms and realize that each notion can be applied to itself to refute it's own truthfulness as a delusion. By what authority does Dennett hold to that makes his pronunciations "more" in accordance with reality and than anyone else's? He makes his argument on which says your perception is wrong while not realizing that he himself is perceiving your perception. Maybe he has perfect perception? These are nothing more than techniques of avoiding arguments to dismiss points as "seemingly" convincing yet delusional. If they are delusional you must show them to be illogical in accordance with reality - but that's DEBATE ITSELF and precisely what Dennett is avoiding. If you can't disprove God then be an agnostic which would be rational. Note that while people stop believing in unicorns or Santa they DO NOT and HAVE NOT stopped believing in God - this speaks for itself to say that God is of more intellectually plausible in terms of its STRUCTURE (creator) and FUNCTION or purpose (afterlife, meaning for our lives). Santa or unicorns DO NOT have ANY intellectual value in either of those categories so their is NO REASON to even "spend time" believing IN them. People do and have believed in God not because you can't disprove it but because they feel there is a deeper existential meaning to God versus a unicorn or Santa. This does not mean it's true but it DOES mean the comparison between God and a unicorn is invalid because we have NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN UNICORNS ANYWAYS and they would SOLVE NOTHING. Anyone who believes in God anyways has REASON to do so because they think they have EVIDENCE in their lives and consider the philosophical notions fulfilled by God as evidence itself - thus it is not an argument from ignorance but rather that God would "shed" ignorance on philosophical questions (these are why ancient people would believe in God). Thus, we see an argument from ignorance streak in Dennett's points by which atheism affirms that we don't have evidence for God (absence of evidence is evidence for absence - not) so God doesn't exist and we don't have evidence that abstract things can't cause things to exist, therefore I will believe abstract things can cause things to exist (although I DID provide reasoning why abstract things can't CAUSE anything that doesn't already exist - abstract things would also be something anyways and not nothing). Imagine if courts closed a case which found someone "not guilty" but when more evidence came in they said "nope, we already decided and closed the case" - if not then the case is not "closed" but rather there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude guilt - if atheists admit more evidence could come in then they are NOT atheists but agnostics. They seem to want to be structural atheists while functional agnostics - irrational because both notions are structural not one functional and the other structural. Finally, you're not going to find "evidence" per-say that abstract things cannot cause things - it will be reasoning and logic which I and a host of other philosophers throughout history to thousands of years ago have provided against it. What IS evidence anyways - it won't be material because that's not abstract and we cannot observe the abstract so there won't be any "observable" evidence of abstract things causing anything - only reasoning. NOTE: I will say it again, I AM NOT and DID NOT provide evidence for God's existence - only refuted Dennett's points.

Marco Hooghuis Thank you. And you as well. I never said Krauss claimed that it was "an" answer - well done on refuting another point NEVER asserted. I refuted the point that Strauss even CONSIDERS IT an answer - it is not due to its illogicality (quantum anyTHING is not NO thing). It's why Dawkins looked a fool when he began to assert Krauss's claims. His book is not taken seriously in the academic arena for these reasons - only by lone ranger bloggers or internet enthusiasts (whom anyone should rarely ever lend an ear to). No one is perfect - except for that statement - which means someone MAY be perfect. Thus is refuted because we don't know what IS perfect in terms of truth so he has no right to say ANY THING is imperfect or perfect. This issue of perception within the theistic framework is not an "issue" but I will not explain that. And his sneaky way of saying "be careful" is actually a way of saying "well don't totally believe WLC that God exists but kind of regard it but just take it with a grain of salt" - what? He means to cause doubt without directing us TO THE DOUBT because he is as I said, TRYING TO AVOID JUST DOING THAT (debate). You seem to have also have your own criteria for evidence. The "deep questions" of life do not provide evidence for something natural but for something beyond nature and are thus evidence. They're not proving something physical. It is unobservable evidence for the unobservable. Logical thoughts for the logical abstract. Math is based on the physical. Philosophy for the metaphysical - this is why Dawkins and them have denied philosophy. I wonder what atheistic philosophers think of that. You should also know GOD is a philosophical subject so that when atheists deny God they are making philosophical claims while denying philosophy. And the answer must be infinite (which I forgot to refute). Good grief. Both nothing and something can exist infinitely and one or the other MUST. There is no alternative. Also know that "exist" means being truth and nothing as well as something can be truth. Your last point about unobservable evidence is precisely how the multiverse theory is complete irrationality because those have NO observable evidence to support them - pure mathematics (there must be physical evidence for the physical). Just remember that although we aren't taking about it. Know that I wrote that "book" to actually provide reasoning rather than assert conclusions which you have done. It's takes longer to say HOW one is wrong than to simply say "you're wrong."

Well said my friend!

brett manning Thanks friend. On top of what he said, Triangulation doesn't cause something - it DESCRIBES a mathematical ORDER of our universe - in fact it is just another example of design demonstrated by the consistent intelligibility of our physical universe which shouldn't be there by the rules of probability.