Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD] 

These guys clearly don’t know how to argue their points so I have come to the comment section to hear from the experts.

Man, the guy that I like DESTROYED the guy that I don't like

IDK if someone already said this and it got buried, but the debate starts 13:00

Hitchens calling the Putin regime a dictatorship in 2009....Who is watching this in 2024?

I've had the pleasure in my life to have attended debates that featured Christopher Hitchens. As a theist I found him to be abrasive and often angering, but that speaks more to his brilliance because he forced me to think. We don't have to agree on anything to be kind to one another. If you are making disgusting comments about him, it is my contention that it speaks more about you than about the late Mr Hitchens.

It's almost impossible to win an argument with a genius. It's even harder to win an arguement with an idiot.

Man, i have never missed a man never knew so much. Rest in peace Hitchens.

I have seen no proof tonight that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

"Threatening an atheist with hell is like threatening to punch them in the aura." that's hilarious

I’m proud to be an ex-Muslim although nobody around me knows and I’ve hidden it as to not get punished of course, I’m glad I could watch this debate, there have been others like Christoper hitches that have helped me realize what it means to think freely without the thought of receiving divine punishment for thinking this way, my mind and thoughts have become more well receiving of new ideas and logical thinking, it really does feel weird in a good way and I’m truly thankful. 😊😊

Atheism doesn't fall into true or false. It just says that there's no proof for god

the actual debate doesn't start until 0:13:45

"I never tire of debating religious people, because you never know what they´re gonna say next" -Christopher Hitchens

Most atheists are content to say “I don’t know,” regarding the origin of the universe. Religious apologetics seem determined to say they know.

Thoroughly enjoyed watching and listening to this discourse. Rest in Peace Mr Christopher Hitchens.

Ahhh yess... The perfect recommendation at 2 am Finally I'll be able to fall asleep questioning my logic and beliefs

Respect to Biola for actually platforming the opposition and providing a debate that students can derive their own conclusions from. Amazing how only about 6 years after this, the new norm is anything but hearing both sides

Christopher Hitchens was a debate titan no one leaves a glove on him. I miss him dearly

Craig was hung up on the idea that the burden of proof lies with atheists while it is the opposite. He started of very well and I was almost inclined to understand him but with every minute after his first speech his whole argument crumbled under Hitchens and funnily enough, under himself as the amount of mental gymnastics he performed left one too many holes in his argument.

Dr. Craig just won't let go of the argument that "Christopher has not presented any arguments that atheism is true." Hitchens addressed this directly multiple times....... In one ear and out the other..... and rather quickly

“If we can’t go with a real theory, we go for a conspiracy theory.”

I was laughing at William Lane the whole time. How could Christopher Hitchens take this debate serious when the other guy is talking such nonsense?

I Have to admit I watch and listen to the whole thing ! First it was nice to see and see two very intelligent guys laughing joking enjoying and sharing their thoughts and beliefs with no name calling arguing anger disrespecting anyone ect.

Theism: "God exists." Atheism: "I don't believe you." Very simple concept.

"Of course you have free will, the boss insists upon it!" Hilarious

Prove Atheism? What does that even mean? Atheism is just you saying there is a god, me saying prove it, you saying I cant,, then me saying then I don't believe you. Thats it.

I imagine Mr. Craig's wife in the audience, lip-syncing along to his prepared speech. 🤣

Big thumbs up to BiolaUniversity for being welcoming to opposing views, hosting the debate AND allowing comments. Appreciate it.

That's the good thing about science, it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Craig wouldn't recognise a sound argument if it slapped him round the platform, as he ably demonstrated.

I don't think Craig understands the fact that just because we don't have an explanation right now, doesn't mean there isn't one

Hitchens explained to him like 10 times in different ways, why he doesn’t have to prove a non-existence, that the burden of proof is on the person who’s making the claim. Then every single time he went and repeated the same thing “We haven’t heard any good arguments of why Atheism is real!” It’s like what this person wrote in his book “Whenever you are presented with the contradictory evidence you should always choose your faith over that” is actually true. No matter what anyone says or what evidence you are presented with, all you gotta do is repeat the same nonsense as you always have...

The idiotic statement of 'there's no good argument that atheist is true' shuts my ears to his words

I wish William Lane Craig wouldn’t quote others so much. It’s like you’re throwing people under the bus by using them and to make incomplete points.

Why don’t our political debates happen this respectful, calm and rationally.

Pft, amateurs! I came to hear from the real expert theologians and scientists and unprecedented philosophy prodigies in the comment section.

The burden of proof is on the believer. Some Christians just don’t seem to get that. Atheism isn’t a stance that needs to be proven. It’s a bit like saying “Prove to me that leprachauns don’t exist. You can’t? Therefore they must exist.” Don’t get me wrong. I actually do believe in God, but there weren’t many decent arguments made in this video to support faith or support the existence of God. That is because it is a point of faith by definition. If it could be logically proven then no faith would be required at all and it would be scientific fact.

Nice one C!

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎵 Welcome to Biola University, hosting a debate on God's existence. 01:15 👋 Distinguished guests, students initiated the debate with acclaimed leaders William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens. 03:34 🎓 Biola's Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics is highlighted as a degree program. 06:04 📚 Featured books by Hitchens and Craig are available for signing; DVDs and CDs of debates and lectures are also promoted. 08:35 🏀 Theists and atheists gather for a debate moderated by Hugh Hewitt. 13:19 🎙️ William Lane Craig begins with arguments for theism, starting with the cosmological argument. 19:05 🌌 Craig presents the teleological argument, highlighting the fine-tuning of the universe. 25:24 🧐 Craig introduces the moral argument, asserting the connection between God's existence and objective moral values. 26:20 🤨 Objective morality debate: Craig argues that atheistic view lacks objective moral values; Hitchens contends moral values are innate and evolved. 27:48 🙌 Resurrection of Jesus: Craig presents historical case for Jesus' resurrection; Hitchens challenges need for divine explanation. 31:08 🤔 Immediate experience of God: Craig argues for direct experience of God as a basis for belief; Hitchens emphasizes skepticism and doubt. 35:48 🧐 Presuppositionalism vs. evidentialism: Hitchens critiques the distinction between presuppositionalists and evidentialists; questions the evidentiary basis of religious claims. 46:13 😇 Faith over evidence: Craig asserts primacy of faith over evidence based on the Holy Spirit's witness; Hitchens challenges this prioritization. 50:19 🌌 Physicists are uncertain about the origins of the universe, viewing it from an unimaginable distance in both space and time. 51:16 🌀 Challenges to the assumption of a designing god include the question of pre-existing material, infinite regress, and the existence of destruction and nothingness in the universe. 54:32 🤝 The existence of atheism isn't strongly disputed; Hitchens emphasizes the lack of need for special terms for disbelief in other mythical beings. 57:54 🕊️ The naturalist's adherence to evolution might be dogmatic due to the absence of intelligent design in their worldview. 01:00:15 🪄 Theism and deism are distinct; Dr. Craig's arguments build a cumulative case for Christian theism based on deductive reasoning. 01:04:56 🌍 Atheism's central assertion is that no evidence supports a supernatural realm; Hitchens criticizes the inconsistency of creation timing and widespread suffering. 01:06:25 🧬 The debate revolves around the question of whether belief in God is warranted based on evidence, immediate experience, or psychological grounds. 01:13:42 🧐 Christopher Hitchens challenges believers to name an ethical action/statement they could make that he couldn't. He points out that no advantage arises from divine sanction in morality. 01:14:41 😬 Hitchens highlights the negative aspects of religion, referencing genital mutilation, suicide bombings, genocidal injunctions in the Old Testament, and asserts that morality can't be derived from the supernatural. 01:15:08 🤝 Hitchens discusses the Golden Rule's limitations due to subjective interpretation, and emphasizes that morality arises from shared human empathy and societal evolution rather than religious origins. 01:16:36 💭 Hitchens debates free will and its connection to religion, discussing different perspectives, including Calvinism and Islam, and asserts that the wish for unfreedom is inherent in religion. 01:19:16 🤔 Craig questions Hitchens about his atheistic beliefs, distinguishing different forms of non-theism and asking whether he affirms God's non-existence or simply withholds belief. 01:20:44 🧐 Hitchens clarifies his view on atheism and discusses his preference for non-belief, expressing agnosticism as evasive and stating that he finds arguments for God unconvincing. 01:24:11 🤯 Craig discusses the concept of miracles and exorcisms attributed to Jesus, illustrating divine authority and pointing out the radical nature of Jesus' claims. 01:27:42 😇 Hitchens questions Craig about the legitimacy of miracles and resurrection, and the evidence required for claims of extraordinary events in religious narratives. 01:30:38 🙌 Craig acknowledges the possibility of false religious preaching, Hitchens highlights the potential for wickedness associated with preaching false religions, and the debate shifts towards denominational differences within Christianity. 01:32:55 🕊️ Craig concludes that there have been no compelling reasons presented to affirm atheism and asserts that positive atheism lacks evidence. 01:33:26 😇 William Lane Craig discusses how God prepared humanity for the advent of Christ, and how those who lived before Christ were covered by his atoning sacrifice, judged based on their response to general revelation. 01:35:20 🌌 Craig presents the cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence, emphasizing that these arguments provide grounds to believe in a personal creator and intelligent designer of the universe. 01:35:48 🧩 The moral argument is discussed, with Craig asserting that atheism lacks a foundation for objective moral values, while theism provides a transcendent basis for such values. 01:38:41 🙏 Craig explains N.T. Wright's argument about the resurrection of Jesus, highlighting that the origin of the disciples' belief in a risen Messiah demands explanation, and the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances of Jesus provide a compelling case for the resurrection. 01:40:11 🤔 Christopher Hitchens counters by suggesting that religious beliefs are man-made and contradictory, referencing instances where religion supported harmful ideologies, and emphasizing the need for secular ethics and critical thinking. 01:43:17 🕊️ Hitchens challenges the assertion that unbelief leads to wickedness and that moral values come solely from religion, arguing that moral values can be understood without religious doctrine. 01:48:49 💡 Craig concludes by summarizing his arguments, asserting that atheism is a worldview that lacks evidential support, while theism offers explanations for cosmology, morality, and the resurrection of Jesus, inviting Hitchens and the audience to consider Christianity. 01:56:30 😄 Dr. Craig discusses the positive impact of religious guidelines on sexual expression, stating that religious people have more satisfying sexual lives. 01:56:59 🤔 Hitchens challenges religious beliefs about homosexuality and questions the contradiction between claiming homosexuality is against God's law while some are born homosexual. 01:58:00 ⚖️ A student questions Hitchens about blaming religion for violence when the creation of nuclear bombs by physicists caused massive destruction, leading to a discussion on the difference between physics and ideology. 01:59:11 😈 Hitchens argues that specific religious injunctions, like circumcision, are harmful, while Dr. Craig suggests that such practices might not accurately reflect the essence of faith. 02:00:41 🌍 A debate on whether atheists or religious individuals, like Marxists or Christians, have caused more harm in history, with Dr. Craig emphasizing the focus on the truth of worldviews rather than their societal impact. 02:02:08 🧐 Hitchens challenges the legitimacy of biblical commandments and actions, criticizing harmful religious behaviors that stem from perceived divine instructions. 02:03:35 🌟 A student raises the question of life's purpose for atheists and theists, leading to discussions about meaningful living, humanism, and the role of religious beliefs. 02:06:36 🔑 Dr. Craig asserts that without God, life lacks objective meaning, while Hitchens argues that humanism can provide meaningful purpose and positive motives. 02:08:06 💔 A debate about the existence of God's intervention in suffering and the problem of evil, where Dr. Craig defends the compatibility of God's existence with suffering. 02:18:03 😢 Dr. Craig acknowledges that the emotional problem of evil often stems from an aversion to a God who permits suffering. 02:18:32 🙏 The suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross provides a perspective on human suffering and evil, offering courage and strength to endure it. 02:19:25 🤔 Christian theism can provide understanding of suffering and evil in the world, giving purpose and hope through Christ's sacrifice. 02:20:23 ❓ Addressing theodicy, the challenge of suffering, Hitchens questions the validity of believing in a deity amidst intense human suffering. 02:21:56 🌍 Debates like this arise due to the rise of theocratic challenges and the need to counter the spread of harmful religious ideologies. 02:22:57 💡 The emergence of debates reflects a challenge to the modernity's secular worldview, questioning its consequences and seeking a renaissance of Christian thinking. 02:25:38 ✅ Good societies allow debates; confident faith welcomes them; accomplished scholars make them engaging and productive. 02:26:18 📚 Christopher Hitchens recommends N.T. Wright's books; book signing follows the event. 02:27:26 👋 The event concludes with acknowledgments and thanks to the participants and the university.

Craig: "If humans can't prove it, it is more likely to be God than anything else." This logic simply does not compute.

"Infinity is just an idea in your mind, that doesn't exist in reality" says Dr Craig....Yet he doesn't see the obvious parallels

Dr. Craig can easily turn anyone into an atheist with proving that God exists.

"infinity isn't possible so therefore there is an infinite God!" *WHAT?!*

back when people weren't terrified of opposing views

Religion is death, Atheism is life.

Did Dr Craig just sit doodling waiting for his turn to speak? His words indicate he listened to absolutely nothing.

Atheism is a single answer to a single question. Does God exist? There is no evidence to support that he does. You can't prove a negative and the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that he does.

religious debates: organised by christians, super popular with atheists :p

Craig's presentation was an excellent example of the benefits of rehearsing the speech out loud and then adding in hand and head gestures to accent each point.

Everytime they cut to Hitchens during Craig's opening statement it was like watching Mike Tyson in the locker room before his ring walk 😂

Nine years after… and still great to watch!

Hats off to the audience, organizers and participants of debate! They differ in their opinions wildly but they were so nice in presenting their differences... hope that could be the case for the rest of the world one day!

He lost when he started with 'there is no good argument that atheism is true.'

Craig just waffles a load of gibberish

A rich man asked Jesus. How can I get into heaven to which Jesus said give all your worldly wealth to the poor. Why doesn’t the church do that .

An atheist can have charisma but since they are not selling snake oil, it is not a requirement. I still miss Mr Hitchens he was a great writer and thinker

Christians say that Jesus Christ saved them, Christopher Hitchens saved me from religion. I wish I gotten the chance to personally thank him.

William Craig has an identical twin brother. His name is David Lee Roth.

How often, these days, would a college crowd allow to speak guests who differ from them? And how often, these days, would speakers who differ from each other treat each other with respect and courtesy? How horribly things have changed over the past decade.

If only our presidential debates could be like this. Super organized, well planned, mutual respect to both sides and both sides bringing excellent points to the audience for them to make their own decisions. Very well done.

Somebody tell Craig that atheists simple say there is no evidence that any god exists therefore they don’t believe. If it helps most atheists don’t believe in Santa clause or the Easter bunny for the same reason.

When you believe thousands of years ago, a guy expelled literal demons out of a person, cast them on to pigs, then the pigs drowned themselves in the sea.

i went to sleep with my auto play on and woke up to this

Why even watch the debate when the random people in the comment section are far more intelligent

William Lane do not know theoretical physics. He should not have used this in cosmological argument

Remember when universities actually held (at the time) controversial debates without entitled children shouting down a speaker?

"It seam to me you redefine Atheism to mean a sort of A-theism" Hitchens - "That's what it means"

The honest case for Christian theism is this: "It may not be rational, but I believe it anyway because it gives me hope and makes my life better". If a Christian apologist made THAT case, I could at least respect the honesty -- as opposed to Craig's sophistry and sleazy salesmanship.

The only one who spoke anything worth listening to was mr Hitchens

I didn’t come for the two very well educated men that engaged in a debate. I came for the REAL educated experts in this comment section. Edit: Y’allwent crazy on my comment LOL. I can spot the “educated experts” that have no idea what they’re talking about (Looking at you Atheist)! Though some of you atheists bring up good points consistent with other educated atheist, a lot of you are kinda failing lol. Keep going y’all, it’s fun to watch and get a fricking email every time someone comments :/

Obedience is not morality. Choosing "good" behavior is morality.

When I was 4 years old and heard about a talking snake I knew it was a scam.

Lack of belief does not have a burden of proof. It is the person making the claim that has the burden. Rebuttals to the cosmological and teleological arguments can be found in any elementary Philosophical text.

I can’t quantify how much I miss Christopher these days. :)

I think these two men genuinely respected each other; something many people commenting, might consider.

Oh dear! Bless you Mr Hitchens! Bless you. I can see what has brought onto you the cancer that took away from us such an ingenious man. I cannot imagine how you could sit there and take these hocus pocus crap from people who are carrying prof and Dr next to their names. You are now gone but THANK YOU for blessing us with your wisdom and knowledge and more importantly patience to argue against these sob’s brainwashing humanity with their absurd religions

Why would god, who is omnipotent, need to tune anything ? Dogma claims god creates from nothing, (ex nihilo)… No process required ! Why would god therefore require a process after creation? According to dogma god’s being and therefore his will is non-contingent on any cause, thus the premise of fine tuning contradicts theological truth.

Regardless of the content of this video, I think we should all salute the quality of the debate !! It was so highly civilized, respectful and organized that I "a third language English speaker" could fully understand and keep up with the argumentation and the logic followed by each of the debaters. I'm from Tunisia, an Arabic country in north Africa, where this kind of debates might never take place, and if it ever does, there won't be that many of an audience to attend it, as the population doesn't really seek to prove or to disprove their belief, and they are just ok with keeping their faith as it is without shaking it with doubt even if that would actually strengthen their religious view. I felt so badly urged to comment on this video, for its value and importance for the freedom of speech, of questioning, criticizing and arguing what is sacred or taboo to others. Thank you BiolaUniversity for publishing this online, so could I and many others around the world benefit of this high quality debate, that we can't host in our countries depriving its people of their right to discuss the matters that society forbids.

In Craig’s opening remarks, he starts out saying that the debate is about the existence of god, not about the social impact of religion. Then he goes on to talk about the impact of religion on the morality for society. Not a great start when you begin by contradicting your own argument…

I've been depressed all my life until I started watching Hitchens. He had a realistic point of view to me. Same with George Carlin

Mr. Craig claiming a fictional book written, and rewritten numerous times, as a fact. But it is ONLY beliefs, not facts.

Things in this video, not possible to see in 2023: 1 - Everyone respect eachothers ideas without need to bully one another 2 - Get straight answers like yes or no 3 - putting some jokes on serious conversations actual releaf tension 4 - The audience are in fact listning two diferents ideas and reflecting on them, no matter wish side they are from 5 - The audience also respect silence 6 - conversations with more then 20 words and without "like", hum"or "so" put after every 2 or 3 words

Everything that he's saying that's out of the Bible doesn't mean anything when the Bible cannot be proven to be true.

No cosmological would say the universe comes from "nothing" because nobody knows what was there "before " the big bang. All we know is that approx 13.7 billion years ago the universe was super hot and super dense and this was followed by a rapid expansion which we refer to as the big bang. Theists love the whole "something from nothing" card, but the philosopher's "nothing " is not the same as the cosmological nothing.

The salient point here is that David Lee Roth doesn't understand the Big Bang theory.

It feels almost surreal watching this in 2020; seeing a massive crowd like this where nobody is wearing a face mask.

Debate like this in university now is so rare.

William Lane Craig is an absolute master at just asserting a bad argument is perfect and then quickly moving on. Like with the problem of Evil he just says that Atheists have never been able to come up with an objection to how an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god could allow evil as long as you assume that god has a morally justifiable reason to do so; it's in the question dude, he's omnipotent. If God can do anything, then he doesn't need to give kids AIDS, that's literally the end of the argument. You don't need to add a layer of "well it's okay for him to give kids AIDS if he has a reason for doing so" when you've already agreed with the original premise that he is all-powerful, which means he doesn't need to do it. You're basically making a giant roundabout that evil things aren't really evil. God giving innocent Africans AIDS isn't God's bad thing because he's God, so he gets to decide what good and bad really is. It's such a morally sickening thing and people like Craig act like these are good arguments without even opening up to the possibility that a well schooled 5-year old could refute them.

If your suffering from delusion anything can exist even god

I can feel my IQ rising with each word that The Hitchmeister speaks.

There was and is no man like Hitchens.

Who here just skipped to the hitchens portion?

It´s so weird that there still are people who believe in gods. It´s just so weird.

This is how debate should be done.

Craig completely fumbled the suffering in Africa question. My goodness...

Craig devotes a bizarre amount of time to the "ah-theism" question in cross-examination. Hitchens has no more 'evidence' for the non-existence of god than he has 'evidence' for the non-existence of invisible pink elephants dancing across the stage behind them. Hitchens is simply right that it's incumbent upon Craig to justify the claim and provide evidence, not incumbent upon Hitchens to do so. Craig's fumbling of this topic is foundational. Whether Craig does in fact provide evidence, I leave to you to decide.

Hitchens argued that reality to the rational scientific observer is a random evolutionary process. According to dogma God creates by force of will not by a process contingent on initial conditions. Hitchens clearly pointed out the absurdity and superstitious ignorance of theistic dogma therefore »» Science and Naturalism is clearly closer to objective truth and Hitchens is easily the winner of the debate.

55:28 Geez, I'm watching this on a mobile in vertical mode, and just realized that the podium nicely lines up with the time slider and makes it look like there's a thousand of ads on the video

Rest in peace Christopher Hitchens.