The clip of George Carlin and "the invisible man" is what caused me to doubt my faith when I was 15 and eventually become an atheist. Then again I did not know a lot about Christianity, I was just raised a Christian, so I had no good intellectual or spiritual defense. I was a very cynical atheist until my 20s, when I first listened to Jordan Peterson's biblical series and lectures, which caused me to open up to the idea of religious wisdom and transcendent truth, and eventually, through watching people like Dr. Craig, having some personal experiences, reading the New Testament, and watching movies like the Passion of The Christ, I returned to my Orthodox faith. I am very glad to see Dr. Craig dismatling these arguments in a single compact video, as they are the ones that make most people doubt and even hate Christianity.
Go back to where you were before! You may NEED a William Lane Craig explicable world but it ain't the one we live in! It's such an obvious sham once you step far enough away to get a clear view.
Great news George.. My journey is now teaching me that it is actually totally irrational to think that there is no creator of all matter. The house we live in shows us there is a builder. We’ve never met him, but we know there is one. Likewise we have the universe. We have something therefore there must be a creator outside of space time and matter of all information; The Laws of Logic, Mathematics, and Laws of Physics do not and can not evolve. They are immutable. They take intelligence. People who claim they are atheist, are placing themselves above ALL intellect, and knowledge outside of space time and matter to say ‘There is no Creator’.. 😄 The watch telling the Watchmaker how things ought to be..🤭
I recommend checking out Gary Habermas in youtube. His video on “the ressurection argument that changed a generation of scholars” is really good. He examins the reliability of the Books of the bible (for people that doubt it) and helped me with my faith because we aren’t believing in some mere philosophy of religion, we believe in the historical Jesus. It helped me. He also has something called the “minimal facts argument” which is also very good.
Silly arguments by all of them. They're all divine hacks. They would embarrass their creator if ever there was one. Guys, it's just plain not true. None of the arguments matter. They're empty. And I suspect most people have that niggling suspicion but can't let go of it for fear or even their biology. So no judgement. If you stop trying to fortify your beliefs and just start trying to understand the world around you it all crashes down so gently that you'll be so mad at yourself for not trying sooner.
I'm really glad that you're getting Dr. Craig to address things that have such a tremendous cultural impact. I think those kinds of videos often get overlooked and ignored by Christian scholars who are doing serious work while many unschooled Christians hear those sorts of remarks and are often troubled by them.
@@michael7144 Ouch! Got me like a stigmata... the way you just took one of my words and made a whole new sentence out of it that just said the exact opposite of what I said! I think you captured that genuine essence of the ol' playground "No, you are!" right there!😍 Genius... pure genius. I just don't think I'll ever recover... 😘 (Oh, genius...? Almost forgot... if WHAT is my idea of reason? I haven't expressed my idea of reason here, so WHAT are you reacting to exactly? WHAT do you think your comment means??? You have to be careful with those ol' playground turnabouts...sometimes they make NO SENSE and you just end up looking like a jackass...still, handy lesson for next time, huh?) 😘
I wouldn't say there are better arguments for atheism, but rather rebuttals against theism. No argument exists for atheism, but rather an argument to disprove Christian theism or theism altogether.
@@jackplumbridge2704 I guess what I meant is that atheism usually tries to undermine theistic arguments, but it doesn't necessarily create an argument in support for atheism. In other words, there is no logical conclusion that proves atheism, but rather conclusions that undermine theistic argumentation.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Its true that most atheist arguments are attacks against theistic arguments, but there are arguments for atheism that don't do that, for example, the problem of evil/suffering, or the hiddeness problem.
So I don't know how you two apologists have gone your entire lives without hearing about christian parents who tell their young children gay people go to hell, and I'm probably only one of thousands of people who will enlighten you after this trainwreck of a video, but I was the child of those such parents and went to a few different churches whose pastors, like my parents, believed and taught me that gay people go to hell.
Well I grew up going to church and have attended a number of different churches as an adult but none of the pastors or other church goers has ever taught gay people go to hell, either. So in spite of your experiences, that is probably not the norm. However it is taught that acting on gay inclinations is a sin. But all people sin. Jesus' grace is not just for straight people though - you can be gay and seek Christ and be saved.
@@AliceinJapanaland So because your anecdotal experience is different from mine and many others you think yours is the norm? That's not very convincing, we would need some statistics to know which one of our experiences is the norm. Imagine if being heterosexual was ok by god, but loving someone of the opposite sex was a sin. Christianity's bigoted position on love has contributed to countless gay people feeling the need to hide or lead loveless lives to avoid whatever version of hell they believe in. Nobody sins, and nobody needs saving because there's nothing to be saved from.
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy if people told you that, and it bothered you, but you didn't investigate for yourself... doesn't that mean it's kind of your fault for blindly believing them?
“I don’t know of any Christian parent who says to his child that if you’re gay then you’re going to burn in hell” ...oh really talk to any gay person that was kicked out of their home
Egan Ezra Vorster They don’t kick 5 year olds out as at that age you can’t really ‘be gay’ in any real sense, there are countless stories of older children and young adults being disowned by their family though...
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🤖 *Introduction and Overview of Atheist Arguments* - Dr. William Lane Craig reviews a video featuring supposed "best atheist arguments." - The atheist arguments presented are deemed superficial and lack substance. - Atheist strategies, including ridicule rather than reasoned debate, are discussed. 02:59 🛡️ *Analyzing Christopher Hitchens' Argument on Miracles* - Craig responds to Christopher Hitchens' argument on the probability of miracles. - Importance of considering evidence and the existence of God in assessing miracle probability. - Critique of David Hume's outdated argument against the probability of miracles. 06:28 💼 *Ricky Gervais on Religious Tolerance and Reasoning for Disbelief* - Examination of Ricky Gervais' perspective on religious beliefs and tolerance. - The importance of engaging with serious atheist thinkers rather than comedians. - Highlighting the fallacy in assuming all religious beliefs lack evidence. 10:08 🤔 *Neil deGrasse Tyson on Debunking Myths and Demon Possession* - Analyzing Neil deGrasse Tyson's approach to debunking myths. - Skepticism about Tyson's claim regarding the impossibility of demon possession. - The need for humility and openness in discussing supernatural phenomena. 12:46 🎭 *Sam Harris' Mockery of Religious Concepts* - Examining Sam Harris' comedic approach to criticizing religious beliefs. - Clarification on the nature of God in Christian theism. - Emphasizing the importance of understanding theological concepts for meaningful critique. 16:12 👾 *Sam Harris' Distorted View on the Purpose of the Universe* - Correcting Sam Harris' misrepresentation of the Christian view on the purpose of the universe. - Expanding the perspective to include the possibility of intelligent life beyond Earth. - Highlighting the superficiality of Harris' comedic critique. 20:16 🏳️🌈 *Sam Harris on Homosexuality as a Choice* - Analyzing Sam Harris' assertion that being gay is not a choice. - Craig's counterargument regarding the ethical implications of non-choice. - Observing the lack of substantive arguments for atheism in Harris' statement. 22:48 🌌 *Neil deGrasse Tyson's Skepticism on Faith and Reason* - Tyson's dismissal of the compatibility of faith and reason. - Critique of Tyson's generalization without clear definitions of faith and reason. - Suggesting Tyson's lack of familiarity with literature discussing faith and reason conflicts. 24:24 🌌 *Reconciliation of Faith and Science* - The idea that the universe had a beginning aligns with both Genesis and modern cosmology. - Fine-tuning of the universe supports the biblical notion of God as the ultimate creator. - The Genesis account is not intended as a naturalistic explanation but as a theological statement. 26:40 🔄 *Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism* - Alvin Plantinga's argument: If naturalism is true, cognitive faculties are selected for survival, not truth. - Lack of confidence in cognitive faculties under naturalism undermines confidence in naturalism. - Plantinga's argument explores self-referential incoherence in a naturalistic worldview. 29:38 📚 *Apologetics Courses & Moral Lessons* - Information about ongoing apologetics courses for beginners. - Reference to stories like the Three Little Pigs as alternatives for moral lessons. - Emphasis on going to the Bible not just for moral principles but because it's considered true. 36:11 🌍 *Misinterpretation of Genesis* - Neil deGrasse Tyson's confusion between Genesis 1 and Revelation. - Genesis 1's purpose is theological, not a detailed scientific account. - Indications within the text suggest non-literal interpretation of the six days. 43:05 🙏 *Purpose and Impact of Prayer* - The comedian's critique of prayer and changing God's divine plan. - Molinist perspective: Prayer doesn't change God's plan but influences it. - Different types of prayers beyond petitions, highlighting their diversity and significance. 45:50 😱 *Sam Harris on Religion and Morality* - Sam Harris's argument about religious beliefs justifying harmful actions. - Craig's response questioning the objective basis for Harris's morality. - The contrast between faith-based claims in religious and atheistic moral frameworks. 48:57 🤔 *Objections to Divine Command Theory* - Discussion on the Euthyphro Dilemma and its implications for divine command theory. - Matt Flanagan's points in the debate highlighted, recommending further exploration of the dialogue. 51:02 🧐 *Harris's Characterization of Theistic View as Faith-Based* - Harris characterizes the theistic view as faith-based, implying a lack of evidence. - The importance of evidence in countering Harris's argument discussed, emphasizing theistic evidence for God and moral values. 51:55 🤷 *Dawkins on Pascal's Wager and Cultural Relativity* - Dawkins responds to Pascal's Wager and delves into cultural relativity as a counterargument. - Evaluation of Dawkins's shift to religious pluralism and critique of cultural relativity. - The discussion on the risks involved for atheists and theists in being wrong, including the concept of Pascal's Wager.
Some of your headings are incorrect. George Carlin is the comedian. He is used a few time, the first I think Sam Harris was written. Thank you for the breakdown.
@@edeledeledel5490to some of us there are plenty. You are might not understand that realizing in the vastness of universe, and how small/insignificant you are, there is a god who might actually care for you. 🙏
@@edeledeledel5490 a person rises from dead. A small grp of people survived for 5000 years. What kind of evidence that you need? You have to look evidence of deity in the anomaly, not in the normal. Say a Moses burning bush (bush burning, but not consumed). If it happen all the time, you would just say it is normal, no evidence of God. But because it is not normal, Moses checked on it. Also, when you see a solar system, you see "normal". Been there billion of years. When Isaac Newton found how it work neatly with certain path. And it all because of precise gravity 9.8 kg/s2 (more everything collapsing, less everything fall apart). He saw a finger of God in arranging those things. Similar thing, when I read how Christian survived in the first 3 centuries against all odds, you might say this is coincidence. A history fluke. I saw a finger of God in helping those people survived. It is a matter of perception. You are free to choose what you believe though. 🙏 🙏
This seems to be set up as a one sided exercise in picking low hanging fruit and preaching to a choir. So first up, who claimed these were the 'best' arguments? I don't think any modern day scientists or philosophers would think of Ricky Gervais when considering their existence and spirituality. **edit: I missed that even Cameron and Dr Craig note that these are not the best arguments..** Dr Craig's response to that clip was terrible. Gervais was making a point about Christians being offended by homosexuality and claiming it's a choice. Dr Craig then says that supporting homosexuality is “extraordinarily superficial and even dangerous”….then he equates it with supporting pedophilia… No, that response is “extraordinarily superficial and even dangerous” What 2 consenting adults do is quite different to pedophilia and it’s a worry that Christians can’t see this. Dr Craig is a very smart guy who I actually respect but that was not a good response. Then you both smugly claim that you haven’t heard arguments for atheism yet. No that clip wasn’t an argument for atheism at all... In fact these seem to be clips that point out the many problems with religion... they don't actually make arguments for atheism. Atheism is just the position of not believing in any gods... so even saying "whether atheism is true" as Dr Craig likes to, doesn't quite work. It's not a positive claim. It's not an argument. This video is something of a set up for an audience that will enthusiastically applaud no matter how cheap (and weak) the shots are.
"Not believing in any Gods" is just your psychological state. That doesnt tell us anything about whether its true or not. If i lack a belief in materialism that doesnt mean it's false. Thats just my psychological state. Atheism is the positive belief that there is no God which is based on faith. Atheism has no good arguments. It is a worldview that makes claims just like the others. Atheist must believe in spontaneous generation, that there was no life then all of a sudden it came to be. Something we have never seen. Also, must believe in macro-evolution, that all life came from a single organism. Another thing there is no evidence for and we have never seen. And that the universe caused itself or is eternal. Which cannot be true.
@@LahSouljacutzup _"That doesnt tell us anything about whether its true or not."_ Yes. Atheism is not a presentation of claims of evidence for you to review. It's merely the position of not believing in any gods. _"If i lack a belief in materialism that doesnt mean it's false."_ Yes. _"Thats just my psychological state"_ Yep. _" Atheism is the positive belief that there is no God which is based on faith"_ No. Atheism is the position of not believing in any gods. _"Atheist must believe in spontaneous generation"_ No. spontaneous **Edit - I swear part of my response disappeared here? I had more than just "spontaneous" _" that there was no life then all of a sudden it came to be."_ That's theistic creationism....not atheism. _" Something we have never seen"_ ..ssooo therefore theistic creationism is less likely? _" Also must believe in macro-evolution"_ Actually no.. atheists don't need to believe in it... but people who are interested in science and evidence generally do. _"Another thing there is no evidence for "_ We didn't necessarily come from the same organism as you claim... DNA evidence supports that life on the planet has common ancestry. Humans share dna with monkeys....even bananas.....who would have thought.
@@markh1011 Well if you're an atheist who does not believe in macro-evolution or spontaneous generation you dont have an explanation. You're psychological state does nothing to explain the evidence of what we have. If we see something appear to be designed, the principle of uniformity and everyday experience tells us there must be a designer. But the atheist rejects this and offers no explanation instead. Theres too much to talk about and im at work right now. Im gone.
LahSouljacutzup apologies but the points you have presented still do not constitute a reason to believe in god. There are a few things which you have incorrectly stated about atheism. First of which is that atheism is a positive belief that there are no gods. This is a common misconception that Christians put to atheism, while in reality atheism is simply making no claim to a God because sufficient evidence has not been presented. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim. We do not claim to know how everything works we just follow the evidence where it leads us. There are plenty of arguments for atheism, none of which are accurately portrayed in this video. Please if you really want to explore the positions atheist take, do a simple Google search for the questions that you see. Don’t look to me or don’t look to a book by one person, look to the general knowledge available and make a decision for yourself. I know that that is not the Christian way but just try it in this one instance.
@@thetp816 I have looked at plenty of evidence. No what I've said does not constitute the right to believe in God probably because i haven't given any arguments. There are solid arguments for a creator. The Cosmological argument is one that makes more sense than the atheistic view. Every worldview makes truth claims. You're making a truth claim that there is no God, unless you dont believe that is a truth claim which would mean what you're saying is false. It's a self contradictory statement. Saying that you lack a belief does nothing to explain reality. One argument for God would be the Cosmological argument. 1.)Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.)Premise: The universe began to exist. 3.) Conclusion: The universe had a cause. This is a deductive argument, the conclusion follows logically. Whether you like it or not. In order to avoid the conclusion you would have to find fault in premise 1 or 2.
I stopped watching at 4:15 when Mr. Craig started with the life of Jesus as a foundations for his argument that a miracle is more probable than that you've make a mistake (after FF to 3:00.)
Atheism is worldview. By leaving God, you are implying that world can be explained by other means. So you can argue for atheism in this sense. Grow up and stop using lack of belief nonsense.
The historical and philosophical definition for atheism is a belief that the statement “god doesn’t exist”is true. You can’t just change the definition to fit your narrative!
@@owenwilliams105 That seems ironic coming from somebody traipsing around the comment section offering insubstantiated ad hominoms against someone who opened up by referring to the fact that there were far more reasonable arguments against his own position. But you do you I guess.
“I don’t see any reason to think that demon possession is impossible and never takes place, so I’m rather skeptical of that sweeping claim on his part” - William Lane Craig as a Christian Apologist “I don’t see any reason to think that Zeus casting lightning bolts is impossible and never takes place, so I’m rather skeptical of that sweeping claim on his part” - William Lane Craig as a Greek Myth Apologist We are supposed expend as many hypotheses as possible to explain the available evidence and then choose the simplest explanations of that evidence. It’s silly to hold out hope that our favorite, though wildly complicated, farfetched, more importantly falsifiable, theory is just possibly true...
Well Zeus, which is a finite deity who lives in a physical location called "Mt. Olympus" is pretty easy to debunk. Comparing Zeus and God are not in the same boat. I understand your analogy but there is a lot more evidence of demonic/supernatural possession/forces compared to beings of Greek Mythology
@@RevBillRobinson Let's start with WLC's flag ship: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HDr3EnciHjw.html There's also the long long version if you feel like it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZD92WaNjJF8.html Btw, you might wanna reassess your heroes: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-penmOfuxzs0.html
True...yes ive listerned to him often and hes great debater. Alot if times he would agree to some of thee atheists arguments and also would have a great angle of argument to show otherwise. We need to have a scientific view of the Word of God because these 2 cannot be separated
@@giladpachter4546Why? Because "science" is supreme? Noone opposes "science"? Well, Craig doesn't seem adequately informed that "science" itself is a form of philosophy.. But, that isn't a big problem for him. More for sci materialists.
Simply fantastic, I thoroughly appreciate these interviews and the way you focus on such a broad range of topics is wonderful. Bless you are yours, much love =)
There's a reason why WLC likes Graham Oppy so much. While the man is a brilliant philosopher, he's a philosopher to a fault. Every topic he touches, he must (as a matter of OCD) explore it from every possible angle he'd ever experienced or thought of. This means that by the time he'd made his case, it's next to impossible to follow his trail of thought.
I really appreciate this video because most of the people I meet will use these low level arguments to criticize Christianity. Sometimes I’ll get stuck on them because I am not the most educated man around. I truly appreciate the work you two do, it has encouraged me to start understanding my beliefs in a much deeper level.
As a christian, I believe diving into philosophy is pretty important. Lovers of wisdom is the literal translation of the word. PHILO love sophia wisdom Often times, atheists make poor philosophers as they borrow the power that the knowledge of science confers.
It's so EASY to "have a go" at Christianity because there are so many holes in it's story; indeed a person would have to have some sort of mental deficiency to look at the evidence ( and then apply logic and some common sense) and not realise that Christianity is a load of made up nonsense.
@youknowitstrue3826 oh you sure got me.... "Christians have no wisdom or understanding" Right cause universities appeared out of thin air..... Oh wait.... No they emerged from the monasteries and the scientific method was derived from "natural philosophy" which was considered the study of God's works based on the idea that God is logical therefore all of nature can also understood logically. But hey....there's that atheist smugness and charm.
@@youknowitstrue3826some of the world's great inventors and geniuses were Christian and actually attributed their genius inventions and discoveries to divine dreams and god. I want you to sincerely Ask god to show you a sign of his existence. When god does, i want you to study astronomy and biology. Understanding these two subjects will dramatically change your perspective and give you a new found respect for jesus and the bible.
Just a note, Craig's responses here are not full fledged dissertations on the each subject, but short, to the point commentary on that clip. So expecting him to expand on each point he makes is missing the point of the video, which is a reaction video to another video claiming to have good atheist arguments. If you want to here Craig's point on a subject, and then judge it as such, google William Craig "Insert Subject Here"
Most christian parents I know expressly told their children at one point that having non-hetero sexuality will lead to eternal hellfire. I don't know what bubble you live in, but I and many peers of mine have had that told to us.
Hello, James, I've read your commentary here and I would like to make some observations. First or all I don't know if you are christian or not, but what I will write here independently of that, ok? You mentioned some christian parents teaching this concept to their children. It's sad for me to say it, but where I live few teach this to their kids. I can only think of one family and was not mine. One point that I think it's really important is that parents (and to be honest any christian) do that because they love Jesus, therefore God. Jesus said that who loves Him keeps His commandments, thus acting like Him. Note that we should imitate Christ in all situations. If we say we are christians then we say we believe, love and trust Jesus, but if we don't do anything He say then we are actually lying about our faith, right? I hope this parents you mentioned are talking not only about homosexuality, but also against all kinds of sinful sexual behavior since this is a important issue to youg people. Did you noticed how much our culture is pornographic? As followers of Jesus of Nazareth we fight against sex between a woman and man too, if it's done in a sinful way. Think about that, what is worse, today's heterosexuality or homosexuality? For sure the first one is more theatning than the second.
@@wilsonbarbosa8210 I appreciate the honest reply. Its interesting to me how most people who do attack people for their inherent sexuality tend to also believe they are being christlike. It can be difficult non believers to speculate about who is right with so many viewpoints
@@jameshagerty1295 Thank you for your response. I'm only comfortable talking about Christianity, therefore I don't know what kinds of other view points exists with precision. I would say some agree with Jesus and others don't. Could you tell me some of those? Did someone taught you differently?
@jameshagerty The point is not that 1 particular kind of action makes a person guilty of eternal separation from God. The God who gave us our sexuality, also gave the "owners manual" namely, the normal, natural, and pure use of the body. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a person goes to a place of punishment called hell. WLC states clearly that the Creator God, as the fully justifiable Judge for these and any sinful actions, offers a substitute through the gift of eternal pardon and life. If that person refuses God´s means to heaven, then He will not obligate that person to go there. The other option is simply to face eternity without God´s sustaining and presence. That will be hell. And that is what any individual will receive by their OWN CHOICE. Please listen again to the answer from WLC.
@@wilsonbarbosa8210 it's 2021 and u still living in a bubble ? grow up and have original thoughts. Also, sex out of wedlock is sinful ? where you get that idea from ? Why is there no reason written in a holy book for such bs claims ?
@@owenwilliams105 How many people have you debated in college venues all over the world? And not 2nd or 3rd tier atheists but WLC debated the preeminent ones. So 'coward' is just an ad hominem attack, not based on reality.
I have watched a few debates on this channel and enjoyed them. Unfortunately, you lost my respect in attacking outside debate and take clips out of context (I saw each of the debates used for your clips). The fact that the clips were previewed prior to the episode is also a display of the intellectual dishonesty on display. You lost a subscriber.
Capturing Christianity didn't take these clips out of context. The clips were already sourced into a semi viral video made by an atheist. The whole point of this episode was to critique the atheist's already curated video of sound bites. There is nothing dishonest going on here.
@@HG-jy3bl Bull. Let's take the very first clip. Ricky Gervais was saying that lack of sufficient evidence to warrant belief is why he lacks belief in the Christian deity. Same as Christians do regarding say, Hinduism. Craig dishonesty used Islam (who adherents believe in the same god as Christians). Making it not a contrast and therefore a Strawman Fallacy (creating a false caricature of your opponent's arguments so as to tear down the position you've constructed that is easier than their actual views) on his part. Then he (Craig) completely glosses over that Gervais had been completely tolerant. Even going as far as to say that he has no problem with people being religious. Just that he simply doesn't share their acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. If these 2 had to begin the video on a lie they should understand why so many of us don't side with them.
i agree strongly....i am an atheist but love to saturate myself with the oppositions ideas ..this time however i was displeased as WLC missed the point of their arguments time and time again ...oh well we will just conclude that this was not his best day....
@Streetsdisciple001 I think he is a supremely good person in terms of character, but in terms of off the cuff theological and philosophical polemics he isn't in his element.
This channel is basically an echo chamber for irrational arguments and hearing what you want to hear. Christian or not you won't grow in such an environment, get your ideas out there and challenge yourself.
As an atheist I actually appreciate the premise of this video, but was quite disappointed to find that both Cameron and Dr. Craig have tended towards an uncharitable interpretation of the comments made by the thinkers under review. I second the request for Craig to steelman atheist points rather than attack the worst interpretations of what they could mean.
You are assuming this video is meant to convince atheists, It is not. Video's like this (or apoligetics in general) is for christians who need to reaffirm their believes or want to bask in glory of feeling right. Steelmanning or some kind of counterweight is unproductive for that goal. So all you get is an echo-chamber 1h christian jerk-off session full of logical fallacies and strawmans that go uncontested. Atheists should do this too and just as bad (sometimes worse). I do not blame the content creators. Most of the audience is from their own worldview. It would be weird if they would not cater to that demographic.
@@aidanya1336 I agree. I don't want religious apologists to _lie_ about atheist points (that's very common, unfortunately), but I don't need a religious apologist to speak for _me._ I'd rather speak for myself. Then again, I don't even want another _atheist_ to speak for me, necessarily. Heh, heh. I mean, the only thing we really have in common is that we don't believe in a god or gods. That's pretty narrow! I'm always happy to have a conversation with a theist, though. And you're right about the purpose of this video, too. If Christians or Muslims want to hear what atheists think, they should talk to atheists. They shouldn't get it from religious apologists who, even if they're _honest,_ aren't likely to get the point. I mean, would they go to an atheist to find out what _Christians_ think?
@@Bill_Garthright if I may ask, what specifically would cause you to become a Christian and what would you be willing to do to obtain that specific thing?
@@Bi0Dr01d i will answer this if you would take it. 1) Evidence in the natural world that would show god is real. I will clarify what i mean with evidence since you can mean it in different ways. Evidence through an experiment that is repeatable and makes testable verifiable predictions. The reason i put natural world is not because i am a materialist but it is because it would need it to be able to show that god is reality and not imagination. The only way i know how that can be done is through evidence in the natural world. Another way to make this distinction should suffice but i am not aware of one. Personally i don't put much stock in logical arguments. This is purely because i am very bad at this. I can see something that looks good to me but is completely logically fallacious. Knowing that i automatically doubt logical arguments assuming there is a flaw i am missing (and most of the time this is the case). Simply put i don't accept arguments from an angle i am ignorant on. As for your 2nd question what would i be willing to do to obtain that thing? Bluntly put: Nothing, I am not of the opinion that becoming a christian would make my life any better way shape or form. Therefor i do not have the need to try and find it. How far do you go to become a Muslim? Before you bring up heaven, i do not believe there is such a thing. Therefor this does not effect my life in any way. It would be like asking why are you not searching for this pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Sure would make my life a lot better with a pot of gold. Yet this does not make us chase after rainbows. Because we are not convinced there is any truth to that claim.
Arrogance and laziness are truly a deadly combination. So many people are only too eager to swallow a seemingly clever sound bite, imagining no one in 2000 years has ever considered such an idea before or could not possibly have come up with a reasonable response to it.
Yes, but this goes both ways. We are on opposite sides here in terms of beliefs and we both think we are correct, even though the argument we have had have been discussed for thousands of years already
A transcript would be an incredibly useful study tool which I utilized frequently before channels recently stopped offering them. 99% of them needed extensive editing, but when you edit one you actually learn more than if you just listen to it. In order to punctuate a transcript of somebody's thoughts, you have to understand those thoughts to some degree. Often you have to ponder the ideas for several minutes before you can decide how to punctuate them. You can ponder ideas for as long as it takes before moving on to the next ones. The result is a better grasp and firmer memory of the concepts than you get by hearing the words as they pass by.
I used to be an atheist but when I've experienced the supernatural a number of times, this lead me to doubt my beliefs thinking that there is more to this natural world that we can't comprehend. I've learned the concept of the “third eye” (the sixth sense per se) wherein some people are actually more sensitive to seeing or experiencing the spiritual realm. Our comprehension/observation of the world is limited only to the 5 physical senses. Perhaps by opening the heart and mind to the unknown, people can enter a higher state of being and experience a world beyond our physical limits.
@@joeyn985 Claim: "The God of the Bible" Evidence: The Bible saying "trust me", therefore, it must be true 🤣 (The same Bible that assumes it's moral to buy slaves, enslave children, pass slaves on as inheritance & beat the slaves as long as they don't die.) 🤣🤣
@@joeyn985 Simple question: Animals want to live their lives just like u do. U thank God for giving life to u & also for giving life to animals for u to take their lives & eat them. Don't u see how they've tricked you to believe in an imaginary God by fooling u to arrogantly ignoring your hypocrisy & narcissism?
@@AtamMardesYou’re appealing to your own subjective view of morality, and presuming that it’s the axiomatic truth. If you weren’t created with a mind designed to comprehend truth, then you’re just an evolutionary accident. You behave and speak only as the laws of physics and chemistry allow. You have nothing worthy to say, since you’re the same purposeless, directionless mass of molecules as the rest of us. Atheists lecturing anyone about morality is the height of all arrogance.
I have three stories I like to tell about my relationship with God. 1. When I was sixteen, I was driving my brother's car, a 1958 Thunderbird, home from school to get the x-rays I had borrowed and forgotten for my biology fair project. The accelerator pedal came off, and rather than stopping the car to fix it, I reached down while still driving to put it back. It was a spring day, the car did not have air-conditioning (or it did not work?), and the windows were down. While I had my head under the dashboard, someone yelled: "Robert, stop!" I pushed the brake pedal with my hand, held it while I used the other hand to push the gear lever into park. Then I raised up and looked around. I saw no one. I almost started on, but something felt wrong. I hadn't felt a bump, but had I hit someone? I got out of the car and looked. The bridge in front of me had a big hole in the middle and I was too close to the hole to see it from the driver's seat. Had I driven onto the bridge, it might have (likely would have?) collapsed, and I might have been killed. Who warned me? 2. A year later, driving the new Mustang my brother traded the Thunderbird for, I was on the highway on the way to visit a friend in a nearby town. Caught behind a long string of campers, RVs and travel trailers, I pulled out to pass on a long straight in a river bottom. By the time I caught the lead camper, I was running as fast as that Mustang could go. As I signaled and changed lanes, I had the sudden sense that I was "in the wrong place", and I drove onto the shoulder before I had even lifted my foot off the accelerator pedal. The vehicle behind me thought I must have seen something in the road and followed me onto the shoulder, as did the caravan behind. I had barely cleared the lane when we met two semi-trucks, one passing the other on a hill around a blind turn. No one was hurt. 3. I was carrying mail on a foot route in a small Texas town; it was a sunny day, and I left my rain suit in a relay box near the post office. While I was delivering my last stop, an apartment complex indoor mailroom. it started to rain. I was two miles from my rain suit and three miles from the post office. When I had finished with the mail, I made a frivolous prayer that the rain would stop until I got back to the post office. It was a warm summer day, and I had been rained on many times, so it wasn't really a big deal. I laughed at myself, and I stepped out into the rain. When I did, the rain stopped (I don't know that I even got hit by drops dripping of the roof). I walked to the relay box and retrieved my rain suit, then I walked on to the post office. When I stepped onto the back dock and under cover, the rain fell again. I believe God exists, and I think He has a sense of humor.
Yeah I'm an atheist and I've seen these videos. They are really just a compilation of clips with a click bait title. Nothing to be proud of in "debunking" these
@Outcast American So both men stated early on that these aren't good arguments. So they rather wasted their time, by their own admission. And btw-- "there are none"? WLC seems to disagree with you.... but anyway, what is there for an atheist to refute? The belief that some people profess. How could that be refuted?
@@drumrnva Not wasting their time if bad arguments are believed in at a popular level. It does mean I'm personally less interested in watching it (maybe I'll work out to it).
@Outcast American Just curious: if he (or anyone) denounces Christ as Lord, what difference would it make? And I mean actual difference that could be observed, other than the fact that someone had expressed an opinion contrary to your own.
Unfortunately maybe 'real' Christian parents don't say weird cruel things to their kids but some claiming Christianity do, and these are the ones who get the most popular attention. I'd love CC to tackle these kinds of discrepancies!
Very good point. I'd not thought about it in these terms until I saw you're comment, but I suspect that Christians and/or non-Christians (who identify as Christian), who do not have a transformative relationship with the God they claim to serve, cause WAY more people to turn away from the faith than do any of these arguments. That's a tough notion, but something I'd love to hear addressed by Craig.
Dealing with the "faith and reason" bit. In addition to what Dr. Craig points out, John Lennox has a wonderful book called "Seven Days that Divide the World" where he explores what the book of Genius does and does not say regarding creation. He points out that the first day is someone after God created the universe rather than being the same day, that there are, I believe, 4 different uses of the word day, and so on, to give help give us a better understanding of what arguments you can and can't use that portion of scripture to make. Part of that, like Dr. Craig has pointed out, is the context in which Genesis is written, which is to the ancient Hebrews, and what it would have told them, such as the fact that celestial bodies aren't gods, which is s point in favor of the Bible as the ancient Hebrews would be possibly the only group of people at the time to not believe such things, which is part of why Judaism and Christianity can't be treated as believing in a god of the gaps.
The look on Cameron's face when he realizes that one of the most influential living philosophers is about to explain why a fictional, anthropomorphic egg couldn't be put back together again.
Protip Cameron: when making this drivel, put the screen you're using to interview near your filming camera. You're staring down in this entire video. Not engaging for your viewers
This is my first time finding Cameron and his channel. I really loved what he had to say on prayer around the 45-minute mark. I've never given much thought to the different types of prayer, and when he was about to explain them, I was listening intently. I was amazed that I literally do all of these but had no clue there were " different types of prayer! " For context I will add that I am recently saved!
23:57 Cameron is shifting the burden of proof : he says that there were no argument "for" atheism. There need not be any argument "for" atheism in the same way that there need not be any argument "for" the absence of belief in a tea pot orbiting the sun.
@Big Time nope. Gnosis in greek means knowledge, Agnosis means the absence of knowledge. So when you say that you are agnostic, you're basically saying "i don't know". Theism is the doctrine based on the theistic axiom. Atheism is the rejection of that axiom. Or the non-inclusion of that axiom if you prefer. Atheists assert nothing. to assert that there is no creator would be anti-theism, or counter-theism... that would be an assertion, and would warrant a burden of proof.
@Big Time Another strawman fallacy. You don't get to decide what words mean. They have definitions. The assertion is that God made the universe. Burden of proof is on the theist. An atheist merely rejects your assertion based on a lack of evidence. That's all. Unicorns live in my shoes. Prove they don't.
@@MrGustavier Ok then. Well, here is Craig's response in the burden of proof discussion: "Among contemporary, popular level atheists, there is a great deal of confusion about the so called burden of proof. The claim by these popular level atheists is that theism is a positive claim, there is a God, and that therefore the theist uniquely bears the burden of proof in demonstrating that. The atheist, by contrast, they claim has nothing to prove, because he makes no claim, and therefore has no burden of proof at all. Well this unfortunately is just a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism most certainly does make a claim. Atheism is the claim there is no God, and that is just as much a claim to knowledge as the claim there is a God. And therefore if one is to be justified in holding to that belief, one must have some sort of reasons or evidence in support of that, and if the atheist has none to offer, then he's taking it by faith, which is what he blames the theist for. It turns out it's really the atheists that is taking his position by faith. So both of these are claims to knowledge, and therefore require justification and argument and evidence to support them. Now, some atheists try to get around this by redefining what atheism means. They would say atheism is not the claim there is no God, rather they would say that the word atheist should be interpreted in the way say the word amoral is. That doesn't mean immoral. It just means not moral. So they would say I'm an a-theist. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm just not a theist. I'm an a-theist. Unfortunately this claim, besides being idiosyncratic, trivializes atheism, because in that case atheism isn't a view, it's just a description of the psychological state of the person you're talking with. He lacks a belief in God. And the triviality of that can be seen by the fact that babies on this account then are a-theists since presumably they don't have a belief in God. In fact our cat Angel is an a-theist it turns out; that the Craigs have two a-theists living with them in their house, because neither of our cats have the belief in God. So this is really to trivialize atheism. Even if we give to the atheist his idiosyncratic definition, then we'll just say well let that be atheism then schmatheism is the view that there is no God. So what I want to know is is there any justification for schmatheism in that case? And then the whole debate just starts all over again. So in making a claim to knowledge, in making a claim to know something, whether it be that there is a God or that there is no God, a person needs to have justification and that will involve giving evidence and argument." EDIT: Source: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RUkboVaQ41I.html
@Mike .. no good arguements for atheism... errrrrr because there are no claims to argue for. Atheism is just a non acceptence of a claim that god or gods exist.
@@itsasnowflakeworld7725 You do not have a definitive logical conclusion that can be deduced that God does not exist. There ARE definitive logical conclusions that prove that God DOES exist, such as the problem of dependence, explained elsewhere on this channel. This is why atheists are so incompetent, and why I respect agnostics much more than I do atheists, since their actual claim cannot be proven to be true.
@@AdamRice9740 sure they could and maybe they will. However, that doesn’t change my point that it’s easy to debate when you’re not being challenged. For example, the introductory statements claimed that there are better, smarter, representatives of atheism than the comedians and popular figures in the clips as if that implies the clips arguments fail on that claim alone. That’s a logical fallacy and what I refer to as BS. Made me wonder why they bothered with this video instead of trying to refute the better, smarter atheists. Then the very first clip is an abridged version of a Christopher Hitchens responding to a point regarding miracles where WLC claims he has arguments and evidence to refute Hitch and support his position but never shares what they are. You can go through every clip and see much of the same thing. Honestly, I really don’t care. I’ve seen WLC get his ass handed to him so many times I thought it was funny that that he would debate this way. My favorite was watching him try to argue his point from physics with Roger Penrose. Might as well argue the nature of gravity with Einstein.
This isn't a debate? It's just a video addressing claims. WLC has always been willing to debate people, and I believe he has debated several of the people in this video.
@@joeyn985 He debated all of them. You can search them and watch them on youtube. What he’s doing here, I call a debate. He’s extending the debates he’s had by framing the points of his adversaries and then arguing against them. I find that laughable. Having watched all of these debates I think this format is the only chance he has of winning a debate. He can frame and spin his adversaries points, then refute them as if his rebuttals are irrefutable, and then make his own unchallenged points. It’s WLC’s best, maybe only, chance of winning.
@@GlennFamilyChannel *yawn* ok. And every single one of those atheists also does their own videos talking to their own audience, or doing interviews etc unopposed. Literally some of these video clips are from atheists talking to atheist audiences laughing at them mocking Christians. It's the same thing. Stop crying about Christians making content for Christians. Criticizing Dr Craig for not debating is stupid when he's one of the most prominent Christian debaters.
@Miguel Cisneros Interesting comment, but atheism is a proven phenomenon. Some people do not believe in a God, - fact. That's what WLC can't understand. Needs no argument.
its funny that WLC tries to sneak pedo arguement to oppose gay people... its as if he looks at a relationship to be something between a man and its sex object rather than a loving bond between two consenting adults.
Well pedophilia might look bad to you now, but already sympathy is growing for it. Bill SB 145 literally just passed effectively reducing the penalty for sex between 14-17 yo boys and men up to ages 24-27. This is the price of the moral relativism of atheism/naturalism. So don't be too quick to judge Craig for comparing the two soon atheism might not be able to tell the difference either.
@@japanbeta honey... Christianity is the epitome of relativistic moral landscape... During civil war, slavers & abolishanists both cited the Bible.. it doesn't take much to morph religion
@@sulas548 I think this is not a strange thing, saying something good and pray for someone, I appreciate Cameron and DR. Lane, nothing wrong with that And my comment didn't attack or hurt someone Did you hurt bcoz of my comment?? If YES ,....I'm so sorry for that
@@princessrainbow4448 No need to apologise, I was not hurt. I was just curious as to why you you would find such a dishonest video 'good'. Craig has been shown very clearly, time and time again, that his position has no substance but he ignores it because he is more interested in money than he is in the truth.
@@princessrainbow4448 That's very nice thank you. Opinions and perspectives are not generally good pathways to discovering if something that you believe to be true is actually factually true. Is it important to you that the things that you believe to be true are actually objectively true? Or are you happy just believing in things that are in fact not true because it makes you feel good?
One important piece he left out of his analogy about a president pardoning a death row inmate: What if you were born on death row? And the president put you there when you were born? Is he still a great guy for pardoning you? Also, he only pardons you if you accept it, but 8 different guards have come into your cell asking you to sign the pardon form, but they are all presenting you with a fake except one, and you only get pardoned if you happen to sign the right one. Does any of that seem like a nice system to you?
It can be a mistake to go overboard with an analogy. You may not have done that, but I will ask you to return this, and not say my deconstruction of your analogy is wrong or a strawman is someway, without good reason. Many outside Christendom seem to be unaware, that not all believe in original sin, thoguh we are still sinful. That, or many use it as a get out of jail free card from Christianity. It is for our own sins we are on death row for. So because it is our own we are being held accountable to, yes it would be very, perfectly, loving and good to not only pardon us, but pay the price we owed, so that justice would still be fulfilled. Ask for the seven false pardons, they are just that, false and fake, and with careful examination, for something your life depends on, I would expect all to search it carefully, the true one can be found. God does not just leave us to find the truth on our own either He guides us to it, and thereby Himself. Below are verses to support all this. Deuteronomy 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."- a possible defeater for original sin. Something God promises repeatability, is that if you search for Him, He will reveal Himself. www.biblestudytools.com/passage/?q=deuteronomy+4:29;+proverbs+8:17;+jeremiah+29:13;+matthew+7:7;+luke+11:9;+acts+17:24-28
@Tuukka show me where it says original sin is in the bible then, you claimed it says so. We are God's hands and feet, we carry His message into the world and He works in people's hearts. God also speaks through His Word. You will hear Him too, if you search earnestly. As in any good conversation too you have to give Him a chance to speak, you must be open to it, even ask Him to.
No the two do not compare. The idea is that adam and eve were ignorant of the evils of the world. They were made to be content to live of the fruits from which God gave them i.e also his salvation. They partook of forbidden knowledge therefore not only changed themselves but since we are all offspring of them changed the very nature of man.. so its not a sense of them passing on their sin, however humanity are no longer ignorant to the evils of the world.. we become subjected to sin because of desire of the wicked things in this life. Therefore we are all sinners.. in order to go to the heaven's we need to be clean from sin.. because God's kingdom is holy and cannot have sin in his kingdom. The atonement for sin is repentance and blood as God is just and sin has to be punished.. what sacrifice could possibly be sufficient from this world?? None. So Christ our Lord paid the price.. we have to repent... truly repent and turn from that sin in order to be in God's kingdom
@Tuukka go back and read the prior lines of that psalm, david is speaking of his own sins, he may even be writing for his son, who was born out of adultry, lies, and murder. We also know little of Davids childhood or mother. Either way though he knows God will forgive him if you then read on.
Always awesome to see Dr. Craig! thank you for putting out such quality content Cameron, Capturing Christianity is one of my favorite apologetic resources!
This was an appalling video with a bunch of dishonesty and strawmen. Just watch the first three minutes ridiculing actual scientists and great thinkers. Stay skeptical, mate.
@@TheSpider-hs4jo just stay skeptical, you can't trust anything man. I mean who's to say that my "laptop" is not just a bowl of soup? You know what i'm saying?
This is disgusting. Comparing homosexuality with someone who is a pedo. Being a pedo is not a sexuality, it is taking advantage of scarring a young child for life. While someone who is gay simply wants to live their life with someone they love as 2 consenting adults. You have absolutely no right to decide who someone else wants to be with. It isn’t morally reprehensible to be gay. And a person’s sexuality is their own. It says enough over what you really feel by giving this answer
I have enjoyed watching many videos of yours and Dr. Craig's. My faith has been strengthened by the work done by both of you. Although the following does not concern apologetics, I would like to share the plan of salvation: Hear (Rom.10:17); Believe (Jn. 3:16); Repent (Acts 3:19); Confess Jesus' name (Rom.10:10); Be baptized (Mk. 16:16); Live faithfully (Rev.2:10)
@@HarryNicNicholas All souls are immortal, as every soul moves onto an afterlife. Bodies, however, are mortal and Jesus had a body while he was on Earth. There's some really deep thoughts and teachings on this concerning Christ's humanity and divinity, so I recommend checking those out.
@@HarryNicNicholas Easy. He's almost certainly a fictional character. Fictional characters can do ANYTHING...(though it does tend to make them less believable).
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn I doubt it...studied Biblical Studies at university mate...heck of a lot of Christians on Wikipedia... doesn't make something fact. Problem with modern Christians is they only study the 4 Gospels canonized in the 3rd to 5th Century in Rome. They ignore the teachings relating to the him that don't make him the direct offspring of God. They disregard any teaching that doesn't "fit" the decided model. Even so, the four they whittle it down to are utterly contradictory. HOWEVER, I'll grant you this. Whilst the Jesus we now see in the New Testament is almost certainly fabricated, and the most extreme version of the myth that grew, the sheer volume of works relating to his life, which DO start within only a handful of decades of his alleged death, has always suggested to me that he may well be based on some real figure, or at least the idea of one created to serve a noble purpose...and I wouldn't have said that a month ago. Now if you'll meet me half way, as it were... I'd be more than wiling to concede there is some truth to the myth that grew around the man, that he may well have been (actually almost certainly) divinely inspired and was certainly very wise indeed...and no, I wouldn't have said that a month ago either... Finally, and most importantly, I would be willing to meet you all the way on the notion of a loving God existing. Yes. Absolutely. 100%...and I would have given you EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE answer a month ago... (and NO, I'm not taking the piss...a month ago I was as profound an atheist as you might care to encounter... but I wouldn't DARE deny "his" existence now. "He" does exist. And "he" isn't scary at all. "He's" just so loving and beautiful I couldn't, wouldn't hurt, sadden or disappoint "him" by continuing to deny "his" existence as I have so often in the past...) 💖👍
@@beans8804 There are NO deep thoughts on this anywhere ATM. Teachings yes, but that's just dogma... consider what you actually said. EVERY soul moves on to the afterlife (granted. I truly BELIEVE that). Bodies, however, are mortal and Jesus had a body while he was on earth... OK, so just like everyone else then? An immortal soul in a mortal body... just like every other one of God's children? What you've just described is a mortal man. Very wise, almost certainly divinely inspired, but mortal like the rest of us. Ever wondered what happens if you are wrong? About Jesus I mean? The second commandment is quite specific about false idols. Doesn't mean he wasn't very special, very wise, divinely inspired... doesn't mean he wasn't all of that... but if just a man, as the Jewish tradition expected and many early Christians believed, based on the rejected Gospels that didn't "make the cut" so to speak (many of which are earlier than the four canonized stories, or come from closer to the region where Jesus lived) then "worshipping" Jesus directly would fall under the category of a false idol, for all that he was chosen by God to carry his message.. I'm not saying that's correct. I'm just asking have you considered it?
The point Craig makes about the flood waters receding needing 150 days ignores the fact the author had no problem describing a period of time explicitly in Genesis 8.
@@marvelator8303Moses was updating ancient writings. He was with God and the angels while writing. He was the only person who knew the height of the floodwaters. Even Noah could not know that, locked inside the Ark
@Miguel Cisneros well pretty much this whole video. However, you need not go further than Cameron's claim regarding gay children and evangelical parents. How on earth can he be ignorant of the colossal misery caused by some Christian parents towards their gay children? Clearly he knows fine well this can be a nightmare experience for the child in question. However, you will notice that not only did he dismiss this out of hand he face never even changed. That is how often he lies for god.. never even batted an eye lid as his made this grotesque claim
@Miguel Cisneros Secular Russia?? LMAO. Have you ever been to Russia? I personally know of a guy who's serving 4 years for playing PokemonGo in church, and other guy has 4 years for posting blasphemous memes on social media.
Stuart B No, what they really say is unrepentant sinners will burn in hell. They also teach that being gya is a snn. Im sure they say what you’re saying too but Lets not sugarcoat things here
Stuart B you have terrible reading comprehension skills. I never suggested that being gay is a choice. My original comment is a QUOTE. I quoted WLC word for word and then put “LMAO” after the quote because its such a ridiculous thing to say. The fact this went past you kind of blows my mind. And as someone who grew up in a moderately religious family and in a moderately religious part of the country, you are 1000% wrong. Sin is absolutely NOT an antiquated term. It is still a very real part of the christian vernacular. I don’t know what country you’re from but in the united states theres an area of the country so heavily populated with religious people that its called “the bible belt,” almost 40% of Americans don’t believe in evolution, and you think the word “sin” is gone from popular usage? Go attend a church service, or maybe go watch one of those television church services that steal from poor people, or maybe even watch a bit of this video
Lol that Cameron says that Hitchens argument at 4:30 sounds like David Hume. In that debate which was with Frank Turek, Hitchens was directly referencing/paraphrasing Hume and gave Hume the credit.
@@rickb.4168 Richard Barrow 1 day ago *"Dave they’re set to “fact cancellation” mode."* Ironic that you post such a comment on a video highlighting the dumbest of atheist arguments. But that goes right past you I presume.
Actually, no. There is a decline of religiosity in America and Europe. But there is growth in religiosity elsewhere. And, in particular, great strides in the growth of Christianity in the majority world.
@@hxrx9670 However, regardless how much WLC dismantles the arguments of comedians the "quality" is judged by the world around and they are judging those arguments wanting and voting with their feet.
magicker A decline in religiosity is not the same as an increase in atheism. For example, the percentage by which religiosity has decreased in America over the past few decades is lower than the percentage by which belief in God has decreased in the same interval. So it would appear most Americans who are less religious than earlier generations still maintain a belief in God.
1 minute 10 seconds in and utterly fails to understand atheism: "There isn't a single argument that is given that shows atheism is true." How many times do we have to say that atheism is not a truth claim? Because by your statement, one minute in, you clearly have no understanding that atheism is not a truth claim. No statement in favour of atheism and can be true, because atheism is not a claim! Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods. THAT'S IT! Atheism can neither be true or false! It is literally neutral and therefore one minute in and we determine that the remainder of the video is a strawman.
Oh... Here we go with Salin. Do we want to revisit every Christian king that led war in the name of religion for millennia, dating back to Rome? Yeah... Let's focus on Stalin and not the entire history of crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts... Cuz Stalin....
One point of agreement: think now deeply about this.... Followed by the unsubstantiated claim "christianity is true". Ummm is that was the case you wouldn't need to continue using fallacious reasoning nor attempt to demonstrate that a null position is false rather than proving your claim is actually true.
So by your own statements and standards you believe in something you can't prove, for no good reason, but think you're somehow rational? I suppose you're also Scientifically Illiterate and thus think Science has a mechanism to prove things, and would try to denounce Feynman straightening you out in having the fundamentals completely backwards. If you legitimately wanted Mathematical Proofs for God they exist. Of course you'll effectively cite the Godel's Incompleteness Theorems to acknowledge even Mathematical Proofs are subject to the "you can't know what you don't know" problem, while not recognizing that destroys your premise for acting like a recalcitrant 3 year old arguing with a parent about their bed time.
@@jebe4563 no, again saying "I don't believe your claim" does NOT mean "I believe your claim is wrong". I withhold beliefs until such time as there is sufficient reason to accept a claim. It's like having a bottle full of gumballs. Person A - who has never seen the bottle before - claims the number of balls is even. Person A believes that there are even gumballs. Person B says "I don't accept your claim." Person B believes the number is either even or odd but is withholding belief until there is evidence. By saying "I don't accept your even claim" Person B is NOT expressing a belief that the number is not even! So please correct your assertion that I am holding a belief in relation to a god.
@Miguel Cisneros Yup. The little atheist army is pointing out the glaring ignorance and shameless lying of all the Christians in the comments....once again. And the Christians run and hide when confronted by REAL arguments.
Miguel Cisneros Ever heard of irony? Zeus is just one of the thousands, along with your god, whichever one you worship, that no evidence for existence has ever been put forth.
Thank u so much for these videos. God bless u. And your work 😄 I know I'm good at debating and I want to use this to help ppl come to God and give their life to Him. I've been praying for ways to do it right❤
I was surprised in the intro that you didn't mention Christopher Hitchens, and then happy to see him as the first clip. Here is a Hitchens question worth thinking about; If humanity has existed in its current form for 300,000 years raping, pillaging, human sacrifice, why did heaven look down only in the last 2,000 and think, "Hmmm, maybe we should do something about that?" 🤔
Exactly. That's why "humanity existing in its current form for 300,000 years" is an illogical theory from Hitchens. Instead we should rely on Bible, which tells us mankind has existed only 6000 years. Man brought sin and death to the world, not God. There's hardly any human fossils. When we count back in time from the current number of human beings (eight billion) using the average reproduction rate, we get six people. The same amount as Noah's three sons with their wives.
300000 years a go there was no civilisations to fix, there were no morality systems in place that needed fixing, no culture to follow - humans have not existed for 300000 years in its current form, not even close (humans in our current form have only existed for about 7000 years - due to developing writing). There were not even simple tribes of people that long a go, let alone culture or morality. I would also question why Christopher Hitchens thinks that humans that long a go were just running around raping, pillaging (pillaging what???) and making human sacrifices? Where's the evidence for any of that?
Hey Cameron, do you have a video on your favorite book recommendations for reading? Would really like to know the books that you think are mandatory reading.
Robert Beaulieu I don’t think like anybody. I gather as much information as I can and formulate my own opinions. I ask his recommendations because he already has a background knowledge in the subject. Individual thinking is the only way, I say no to all collectivist group think.
Regarding demon possession: the problem with his argument is that while it's certainly true that epileptic seizures produce symptoms that have been attributed to demonic possession, you cannot turn that around and say that all instances of those symptoms are necessarily epileptic seizures, which means you can't rule out demon possession as a potential cause of those symptoms. There are many illnesses and injuries and so on that have the same or similar symptoms, and in part because of this, there are plenty of cases where puerile have been misdiagnosed. This can be expressed logically as "A therefore B but not B therefore A"
In order to make any diagnosis, there ought to be sufficient evidence backing up the diagnosis being made. Therefore if you want to put forth demonic possession as the clinical diagnosis for a patient it requires evidence. Stating that you can't rule out there being demonic possession with absolute certainty is comparable to saying you can't rule out that there's an elephant in orbit around a distant planet with 100% certainty; there's absolutely no evidence for it so there is no basis for the claim.
Also - just because we can derive some medical biological explanation for why someone has an epileptic fit.....why wouldn't it make sense that a demonic possession would manifest that way? Just because we medically diagnose it as "epilepsy", doesn't mean we actually know what's causing it. Is it genetic? Sometimes. But not always. Sometimes there's no genetic marker of it, and they don't actually know why someone has it. Just because we assign medical labels and categories to it doesn't make it NOT potentially demonic.
Its a shame that people still insist on pretending that "Christians don't say that" when we all know people that do. Even if they aren't in the majority in many cases they are often a significant and vocal group.
It is a shame people don't realize Athiest had murder in their name, more than any other in the 20th century. Stalin, Mao, Po Pot all know, and practicing Athiest.
@Miguel Cisneros What do you mean "arguments for atheism"? If there is not sufficient evidence that a god exists, atheism is the default position, so it's the job of the _theist_ to provide arguments.
Miguel Cisneros Besides the fact that there has never been any evidence presented that any god, of any religion exists. Which is the actual premise of atheism. Atheism has nothing to “prove”. It is the absence of proof that makes people atheists.
Part 1! 6:10 I don’t see how updating our priors with respect to granting that there is a God who can perform miracles, however, those numbers get crunched, is really going to move things very far in the direction of rationally accepting miracles on the basis of testimony. The priors for genuine miracles happening are still very low and the priors of miracle claims being the product of lies, mistakes, superstition, miscommunication, or made under suspicious circumstances are still very high. I think you would need to add an additional assumption that God is the sort of being who would want to perform miracles or interact in the affairs of creation, and that’s not a conclusion supported by the Kalam or any of these arguments for God. 8:05 Gervais didn’t say choosing one religion over another is arbitrary. I guess it’s not entirely clear what he meant, but I don’t think Dr. Craig was being very charitable. When you ask the average Christian, people who never heard of Dr. Craig or the Kalam, why they don’t believe in some other God or some other religion, you’ll regularly find they produce reasons that could easily be turned against them by the atheist: those religions don’t make sense, those religions don’t have an all-loving God, there are apparent contradictions, how could anyone take the Quran seriously, etc. I attended a private Protestant high-school and these were exactly the sort of things that were said about other religions and non-Protestant varieties of Christianity during the comparative religion portion of our mandatory theology curriculum. So it’s not like these are only things uneducated Christians on the street say either. It’s more of an issue of consistency than arbitrariness. Even Dr. Craig may not be immune. Y’all know Pinecreek can have a field day with this. 9:30 Many Christians don’t believe gay people go to hell and Gervais made it clear he has no problem with those Christians. But there are definitely Christians who believe homosexuals go to hell. By extension, a number of Christians will tell homosexuals they will go to hell. And it’s not hard to find sad anecdotes of the sort Gervais was alluding. These things do happen, even if they aren’t a good representation of many modern Christian perspectives (and Gervais never said they were). It must be made clear however that these expressions aren’t totally disconnected from things taught in Christianity. There are Bible verses that support the ideas that hell is real, that some people will go there, and that those engaged in the lifestyle of a sexual libertine are candidates for it. At the very least, the Bible doesn’t offer a particularly nice view of homosexuality, so it’s hardly unexpected that Christians will say not so nice things to gay people who are ostensibly friends and family. Even if it goes unsaid, it’s still uncomfortably in the background and erects a real barrier between people. I know this is just a small thing Gervais said, Dr. Craig is a busy guy, and Cameron needs to get on with the show, but it exemplifies just how unsuccessful apologetics are. Christian views on homosexuality are a big reason why many people leave Christianity. I doubt any gay Christian who is struggling with their faith, for this reason, would watch this video and be persuaded by what was said. They probably would be turned away by Dr. Craig’s dismissal of their experiences and concerns. Apologists should understand that sometimes having an answer is way less important than reflection. The core of the issue was not reflected here. 12:03 “Occult practices seem to be very real.” 🔮 🤨 14:16 This analogy probably won’t resonate so well with those who question the moral legitimacy of capital punishment. It also won’t work on those who feel like the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. 16:33 Dr. Craig entertains the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life, but it’s not clear from this conversation what exactly he is open to. Intelligent like an octopus? Or intelligence on par with humanity such that they will join us in the hereafter? What exact degree or kind of intelligence meets that threshold? Do they have their own rules about what they can and can’t do with their alien bodies while naked? Would those aliens know of Jesus and the Gospel? Or are those funny-looking guys on the so-called “History” Channel correct when they say Jesus is an interstellar traveler? I’m won’t say there aren’t answers to these questions or Christianity is incompatible with intelligent extraterrestrial life, but… man, it’s easy being an atheist. 16:49 Of course Dr. Harris is concerned about sexual ethics. The point he was making, with a dose of humor, is that it seems weird and implausible that the creator of the universe is so concerned about human affairs in particular when our place in the entire history of the cosmos is, as a matter of scale, completely insignificant. This isn’t a logical argument against the existence of God or Christianity. Most of what the atheists say in this video isn’t. It’s a polemic. It’s _supposed_ to be rehearsed. It shows just how absurd some of these beliefs are. Dr. Craig himself unironically says some pretty silly stuff in the video.
Part 2! 20:36 Dr. Craig is overthinking it. “Being gay is a choice” is something some people who disapprove of homosexuality say to, I guess, saddle homosexuals with moral responsibility and to avoid feeling any compassion or sympathy for their situation. Denying people that is built into prejudices like homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. It allows for the continuation of feeling disgust. Dr. Craig brings up pedophilia, but it is the same deal for that as well. Set aside the ethics of it for a moment. Pedophilia isn’t a choice. Acknowledging that helps us to better understand and humanize the problem. Just like homosexuality, you can’t talk someone out of being a pedophile, you can’t pray it away, you can’t psychologically torture them to change their preferences, and you can’t ethically lock them up if they haven’t harmed anyone. 22:40 Maybe it would have been better if Cameron had selected the clips himself, cause some of these aren’t very good. Both the question and Dr. Tyson’s answers are far too vague to be meaningfully commented on. Likewise, Dr. Craig’s response is basically just an allusion to his entire career as an apologist, so I don’t think your casual doubting Christian will get much out of this part. 31:38 Obviously it’s not an argument for atheism, nor was it meant to be. None of these clips are arguments. They are all just out of context things that have to do with religion, spirituality, and _occasionally_ atheism. I will say that Dr. Craig does use the “I have never met anyone who…” line a lot. I find that weird. It’s trivially easy to find people who have difficulty wrapping their heads around ceasing to exist, even though it very much is conceivable. Maybe this is an advantage atheists like myself have. We probably talk and listen to the average Christian more than someone like Craig does. 33:10 Interesting! I didn’t expect Dr. Craig to be as cautious about NDEs, although a few seconds later it seems like he says he buys into Christian mortalism i.e. “soul sleep,” so maybe he is only skeptical because of his view of what scripture says. 34:35 Cameron is trying to make something out of these clips, but he is leading Craig on too much. 37:16-42:39 Skip! 43:46 I know Molinism is one of Craig’s things, but it still doesn’t help the doubting Christian make sense of what the expectations are for praying vs. not praying. It just isn’t open to the kind of counterfactual thinking we use to make reasonable decisions and learn from the past. 46:51 Dr. Craig sets up his usual red herring. He can’t just point out that we might all be in the same boat. He needs a life jacket. And when he says “the Muslim is worshiping a God who doesn’t exist,” he totally makes Dr. Harris’s argument for him! What’s right and what’s wrong is apparently contingent on whose God actually exists. That’s not a satisfying answer. He also misconstrues Harris’s moral proposition about flourishing which is not “faith-based,” but described as being the only reasonable option. Agree or disagree with Harris, it’s as rational of a defense of ethics as any, and it certainly seems to more directly capture our intuitions about what is good and what is bad. 53:26 Isn’t religious pluralism a common way to diffuse Pascal’s wager though? It’s the plurality of faiths and the virtual infinitude of conceptual possibilities e.g. Russell's teapot that renders the objection moot. How do you calculate the risks in light of that? I have no idea how to weigh those things up. 54:36 Again, Dr. Craig is overthinking it. He is correct to recognize a belief isn’t true or false based on who believes it or what culture they were raised in. That’s an obvious non-sequitur. But Craig is stuck in the mindset of deductive thinking. Charitably speaking, the kind of point Dr. Dawkins is raising is more of an abductive one: what best explains pluralism? Doesn’t it seem fishy that religious demographics are so constrained by nationality, geography, time, language, culture, etc if only one of them is correct? Doesn’t it make more sense if they are all just contingent products of history and culture? Maybe Craig has a good answer to those questions, but he didn’t make the effort because he is only ever looking out for logical absurdities when evaluating a point that isn’t explicitly posed as a formal argument. That seems like the worst way to address “New Atheist” types because their content is largely polemic rather than formal argumentation.
Thank you both for this super cool video. I appreciate Craig a great deal. He joyfully and thoroughly debunks atheist arguments with little effort, and seems to use the "I'm rubber, you're glue" refutation often, but also very effectively. He's certainly not wrong about pointing out the fact that chaotic random happenings are far less likely to develop an ordered moral system to which all of humanity agrees due to human flourishing, which is evidentially wrong already, because we don't (including the decidedly un-flourishing choice of abortion, a widespread horror), than the most likely moral structure that was given by an orderly Law Giver, which is the only system that could be objectively True, and has evidence to back it up, simply because there is order instead of chaos (in most circumstances. Human attitudes might be a different conversation). Also, I grew up in a hippie commune, where the only belief system not believed or tolerated was Christianity, yet me and my siblings who also were raised there all became believers eventually. I know my story isn't that unusual. How d'ya like them apples, Dawkins? :0) #ReinstatePluto #TysonthePlutophobe 😊
I came here from Rationality Rules critique. Dr. Craig's responses to Ricky Gervais have to be the worst I've seen from him (not that I've seen much). The most egregious being the pedophilia analogy. I mean seriously?!
I find it interesting that Rationality Rules wasn't afraid to include links to the original source, but Capturing Christianity did not give their viewers the same convenience.
Well pedophilia might look bad to you now, but already sympathy is growing for it. Bill SB 145 literally just passed effectively reducing the penalty for sex between 14-17 yo boys and men up to ages 24-27. This is the price of the moral relativism of atheism/naturalism. So don't be too quick to judge Craig for comparing the two. Soon atheism might not be able to tell the difference either.
@@ananon5771 yes, but consent is just a subjective legal construct. The age of consent is different in different countries. It could change tomorrow. It's not objective.
Atheists: “Don’t group me in with people like Stalin because Atheists are not a group.” Also Atheists: Have conventions, channels, groups, books, etc dedicated to spreading atheism and discussing atheism. Yup, not a group at all.
To be fair to Gervais, here in the South there are many, many, many Baptist and Pentecostal parents that tell their children that if they are gay they are doomed to Hell.
The problem is that it's entirely irrelevant to the argument of existence of God. Whether or not some humans do bad things is irrelevant. Some Christians do bad things, some atheists do bad things, it doesn't prove or disprove either view. It's an entirely bad faith argument and a red herring that a lot of atheists resort to
Every once in a while, RU-vid suggests that I check in on dishonest apologetics coming from one of the many flavors of Christian. And every time I view them my bar for "least intellectually honest discussion" has to drop even lower. Christianity is not substantially more likely than any other religion. If he can prove it, or even show truly significant increased likelihood based on objective evidence, I look forward to hearing about his Nobel Prize.
Christianity is truth because it is unique among all religions in that it provides the solution for sin and suffering. Every other religion is concerned with following a set of rules and practices and hoping you're good enough to deserve a supernatural reward. Christianity is about God providing the solution for our sins.
@@joeyn985 reread what you wrote. Sin is an inherited disease invented by the religion, alongside a cure that amounts to a set of beliefs and practices you follow to cure the disease. Depending on your denomination, the need for the cure is backed by punishment and/or reward. A lot of the "sins" are innocuous behaviors that cause no harm but create easy in-grouping and out-grouping, and others are behaviors almost everybody finds morally repugnant anyway. And some horrible behaviors aren't addressed directly as sins anyway. That's not unique in anything but presentation. Humans are inferior to some higher being and must prostrate themselves for reasons not in evidence.
I just love that the title is “rebuts” instead of “destroys” or “demolishes” or “embarrasses”. I get tired of being let down by clickbait titles lol. The title is often an indication of how trustworthy the people talking are.
You must first prove that he exists before you can attest to his accomplishments. The reason that science can't prove that God exists is that he only exists in the minds of man and not in the material world.
All his arguments have one simple but very important flaw: You can not take for granted the existence of God when trying to prove the existence of God. Thats simply not how it works. What is even more fascinating to me though is the fact that I can see it in his eyes that he truly believes what he says. He's most probably wrong in everything he says but he is not trying to deceive anyone. Good for you Dr. Craig. You're an honest man and definitely one of the good ones.
Scientific Philosophy doesn't enable you to prove anything, it only allows things to be disproven leaving theories with known flaws ala Newtonian Mechanics, or ones whose flaws aren't known yet. Indeed one can and should argue that's an intrinsic limitation of philosophy and logic associated with the you can't know what you don't know problem. So unless you can propose a robust experiment you could use to disprove the existence of God, that's not even a legitimate avenue of discussion. You literally are so mixed up you have the fundamentals backward.
@@jebe4563 I didn't want to be disrespectful to Dr. Craig because as i said he looks like a nice guy despite his beliefs and all that and I also don't want to be disrespectful to you even though i don't know you, nevertheless, all his arguments were really shitty and in some cases he didn't even address what the clip said anyway but he just talked about something else. Furthermore, I really dont understand the reason why you would take time out of your day to be rude to me simply for having an opinion but whatever blows your sails. Have a nice day stranger and may you have a nice life.
But he's not trying to prove the existence of God. He's only responding to some atheist objections to God. The questions he answers are all laid out, and none of them are: "Why should we believe in God?" From this standpoint, all of his answers are valid.
@ChrundletheGreat Certainly, but if your next step though is the equivalent of: "Well you if can't provide me a picture of a Graviton, Gravity doesn't exist! I'm going to do throw myself off a building and fly." I hope you don't think you're doing anything intellectually sane. Along those lines the Phlogiston is an example of something that has been established to not exist, and yet Thermodynamics still largely operates under the equation work based on assuming it did.
@@davidliu4134 On his first answer to the first clip he says that the probability of a miracle happening is much higher if we take into account that "THERE IS A GOD WHO'S CAPABLE OF INTERVENING IN THE UNIVERSE AND SUSPENDING ITS LAWS". But the miracle is on the foundation of Christianity and its God, so in order to prove that the miracle exists, we have to take for granted the existence of God in the first place. So we get into a loop and this is not how scientific facts and logic and rationality works. I really didn't want to get into these discussions but I'm truly amazed how anyone who is not mentally disabled can see as valid any of his answers. I don't know you so please don't take any of this personally.
As an atheist I don’t need an argument for not believing in a God. In the same way I don’t need an argument as to why the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot don’t exist either...
I did find it strange that in the opening he said "these are weak arguments to say if atheism is true." A-theism and Theism only address a belief in a God or Gods. And the atheism side is just not accepting that belief - not the affirmative that a particular one doesn't exist
Justin Hall Exactly, how can he talk about atheism if he doesn’t even know what it is? Although to be honest I think he does know, but it’s easier to argue against his version of what it means.
@@deanlowdon8381 You need an argument for everything you believe and lack thereof imo. So, what you are doing is the equivalent of what the religious do, have a view or not with no evidence to support it.
The Manhunter No, it’s called the burden of proof. Theists are claiming that a God exists, as an atheist I’m simply saying I don’t believe that claim as there is insufficient evidence to support it.
@@deanlowdon8381 For you to accept or deny something to be true, saying that you don't need evidence to do so is intellectually dishonest. The burden of proof is upon anyone confirming or denying something.
There is nothing to assert. Your sex determines your gender, end of story. A 20 year old deciding to become a woman is still perverse, but to inflict it on children is downright psychotic.
When you don't understand the arguments, it's normal to find them bizarre, comedic, ridicule. Problem is, you didn't even make an effort to understand and spout some absurd counter arguments in return. And that's why in the end, you are the ones who look bizarre, comedic and ridicule.
And by the way, your counter against Dawkins, Pascal's wager, got debunked (for the millionth time) by Stephen Woodford : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZAxKkqoCt6U.html . Might want to check it if you want to understand why your counter is off.
@The Flex please I beg name one I'm waiting I'm pretty sure uve never read anything from Michael ruse, nietzche,etc. Ull probably just regurgitate atheist pop culture arguments. Please I can't wait to show how pathetic ur worldview is reply if u have any dignity
"It's not true that Christian don't say that Homosexuals are going to hell" (around minute 11 of this video( As an ex-Catholic and Bi-Sexual, I find astonishing that Cameron and Dr. William Craig don't concede into that. One of the main reasons I abandoned believe is that, the said belief didn't acommodate into my own personal self. So, no, it's untrue that Christianity doesn't state that Homosexuality is not a sin that gets you in to hell, a little reading in the Bible is enough to argue this.
@PuraguCryostato yep, read 1 Corithians 6: 9... I recommend you to stop denying what is clear for everyone. Btw, I said this, because I suffered a lot of discrimination inside church (and yes, I tried evalengical church too, and it was the same).
@PuraguCryostato yeah, that doesn't solve the fact that the majority of christians hold the belief that being a Homosexual is a bad thing. And the other thing, if I am a Homosexual its absurd that God expects me not to act on my sexual orientation.
@PuraguCryostato you haven't read your Bible have you? A man who feels sexual attraction to a woman who's not his wife has committed a sin....it's one of the 10 commandments!
No one said it wasn't a sin, they said it doesn't automatically get you into hell.that was never how Christianity viewed great sins, if it was then we'd say no one is ever getting into heaven. Hell, you can look up father seriphem, he's a gay orthodox monk. The orthodox church is literally one of the most conservative major Christian groups in the world, yet father seriphem is viewed as one of the most authoritative speakers on orthodoxy worldwide.
@Andrei Macarie morality is subjective, to normal people homosexuality isn't immoral, but to people who get their morals from the Bible it is. As for "sin"...well that only exists if you're religious.
When they say “gay isn’t a choice so it’s moral to engage in”, it is as stupid as claiming that since greed or rage or bitterness or pedophilia can be an inherent desire, it’s ok to engage in fulfilling that desire.
@@exaucemayunga22that opens up a big can of worms, but isn't really relevant to the point. Something being a "natural" human proclivity doesn't make it good. Grape, murder, incest, theft, etc. are all natural human impulses.
Can someone please answer me this? Why does WLC always begin proceedings by saying "there are no sound arguments for atheism"? I understand he is quite a titan of the theist world and I have enjoyed much of his work but is he really not understanding a simple burden of proof question? If he's correct and im wrong pls explain. (BTW Craig do be flexing on em w the airpods)
There’s no such thing as a “burden of proof”. The existence of a certain truth does not depend on affirmative claims made on a truth, or claims against a truth. The “burden” finger-pointing was simply the inability of certain atheists in truly understanding arguments made for theism (Hitchens, a stellar example). You do not simply dismiss any proposition thrown by someone (even in science, otherwise we may not have had Newtonian mechanics or anything for that matter besides what could be observed with our crudest senses) and say “I’ll need proof to accept that”. You jump in and try to figure out why the claim was made, try to piece out evidence or counter-evidence for it etc. Shrugging it off is just sleazy arrogance on part of atheists who are inadvertently dismissing the single most objectively relevant question that has ever plagued existence.
@@ApozVideoz ok so Im assuming you don't study philosophy so I'll give you a free pass here. Yes, there is such a thing as the burden of proof as shown by Bertrand Russel's teapot, this is something agreed upon by both Theist and Atheist scholars alike - it's inescapable and not something you can just dismiss as "sleazy arrogance" of atheists. And, your example of the scientific method makes no sense in the context. In fact, it only serves to help me explain that the burden of proof is indeed a valid principle. If a scientist makes a claim e.g "there is a teapot somewhere floating between jupiter and saturn" it would be stupid for the people listening to have to search the whole solar system for a teapot, rather, the scientist should be able to show proof of the teapot's location - therefore fulfilling his/her burden of proof. If burden of proof didnt exist, i could say "some God I just had a vision of exists irl" and when you say, "no he doesn't" i could just say ok - prove it and you wouldn't be able to, despite him not existing. I hope you now understand how the burden of proof works and maybe can answer/ find someone who can answer my Q (This has been a TED Talk presentation from Joe James)
Well, I don't think (and I imagine Dr. Craig would agree) that the "burden of proof" question is the foregone conclusion you seem to think it is. In fact, claims to burden of proof are rarely self-evident --- even in its normal place in courts of law, those expectations often differ by society and system, and there is rarely a set answer as to where the burden of proof objectively lies. And if it is not obvious even in clearer circumstances, we should not be quick to assume it is obvious here. To my understanding, the intuition involved is that, since theism posits an entity that atheism does not, then the burden of proof falls on the theist to prove their entity. But this is far from the end of the conversation. For example, if I were to interact with someone who contended that physical reality did not in fact exist, and that only my mind existed, then I would be positing a great number of entities (viz. the particles, fields, etc. constructing the physical universe) that they do not. Does the burden of proof then fall on me to demonstrate the existence of physical reality? It doesn't seem so, and on the contrary most people would agree that the burden of proof falls on the other person to demonstrate that our basic intuitions of existence are unreliable. And this is where we locate the difference: physical reality does posit many particulars, but we have strong evidence for them through our sensory experience. In such circumstances, it falls on the other side to either present strong arguments against, or to demonstrate the insufficiency of the arguments for. This would be something like Dr. Craig's position wrt theism: whether you agree or not, the idea would be that there exist strong reasons to believe in God, and that belief is justified insofar as atheism cannot be successfully argued and/or the arguments for theism cannot be sufficiently disconfirmed. Now, you are free to argue that there are not strong reasons for theism, but I can't imagine any version of that process that does not involve the aforementioned steps (successfully arguing atheism, or objecting to arguments for theism). The burden of proof does not a priori single out the theist for an unusual obligation of apodicticity. I apologize if you were asking only rhetorically for an explanation, I sometimes have a hard time interpreting that over text. But I hope this was helpful!
@@brandonwhitaker8468 Great answer, I see what you mean in that many sub-issues don't have a clear place for the burden of proof to sit. However, I'm not so certain about the nature of how many entities an atheist may posit w the inclusion on matter and particles means that WLC has the right to shift the burden of proof given that he doesn't know an atheist take on views such as the "only i exist" one. The only definite active claim that exists at this point in a conversation with ALL atheists is the one made by Craig in asserting God's existence. Do you agree or have I misunderstood? (I am tired)
@Jonah Wesley I've never heard that definition when studying philosophy, the word atheism literally means "a theism" or without God(s) which makes no assertion whatsoever, unless the atheist is a gnostic one (meaing they are positive in the ideas that no gods exists), most atheists are agnostic (meaning they do not know whether or not a God exist and so sit in the passive position of not believing in any God). We aren't born believing in God so how can it be accurate to describe someone who's pov hasn't changed since birth as making an active claim that there are no Gods.
roisin gaffney Even though I was well-schooled in apologetics (did all of WLC’s Defenders podcast series, for example) I realized that my beliefs boiled down to faith not good evidence, once I was willing to listen to basic refutations of these apologetic arguments. Then I realized people believe wrong things based on faith all the time, so I wanted to know if I was one of those. At that point I was able to take a very objective look at my beliefs, and concluded I didn’t have good reasons for believing. This was a 10 year process after being an evangelical Christian for 25 years.
@@ancestralflyingman7079 I sincerely hope that you studied some of the church fathers, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, and his five proofs for God. Faith is an all important virtue, but tou must understand the basis for believe. Please reconsider, using other teachers. You are made in the image of God, and you are wired for God. Pax Christi. ☘☘☘
roisin gaffney I believe those “proofs” have been defeated multiple times over. If you are a truth seeker, don’t be afraid to research counter arguments. But regardless, Aquinas arguments don’t get you to Jesus, just some prime mover.
@@timothyrday1390 who's strawmanning who? the child MIGHT understand that sort of thing?? really? Or maybe just gobble it up as being impressed by the adult speaking and making whatever sense out of it as their little minds can?
@@KajMenePitas Yes, Many times. You could have taken that for granted and go straight to the point if you have one. Why even wait for such a trivial acknowledgement? Please state what kind of stuff you think they are able to. I bet it will 'soud' profound abut be devoid of sense. all being confounded in a sense of religiosity and decorum. as is fro all religious things. without true substance nor evidence. Only based on faith of scriptures.
@18:03 The frequency of sexual prohibition as a percentage may be small, but the UNIQUENESS of sexual sin is strongly referred to by the Apostle Paul. “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.” - 1 Corinthians 6:18
@@lilbinded2901 As an agnostic myself, all your rude comments do is show how unhinged, emotionally and logically, atheists are and in turn draw fence sitters and agnostics into the embrace of Christians, who typically show much less of the rudeness, craziness and arrogance of New Atheists such as yourself. Sure, there are reasonable atheists and rude as hell Christians, but the ratio seems to be 3 to 1. Just shows it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does a theist. Talking and respectfully, if passionately, debating people is how you persuade others, not berating and ridiculing them, which just turns opponents and fence sitters alike against you. Being an atheist i figured you'd be smart enough to understand that. So much for you being logical and rational.
27:55 Why would survival and the truth have to be mutually exclusive? Couldn't they be the same thing? For example, If our cognitive ability didn't point us to the truth, could we have come up with a bow and arrow that worked and improved upon them?
I wouldn’t admit that if I were you. If you have a doctorate that leads you to sit around pondering the likelihood of demonic possessions you’ve wasted a lot of time and money
Wait. So WLC believes in miracles for many well thought-out reasons but then laughs at the idea of 6 literal day creation? He laughs at the idea of trees sprouting as if in a timelapse. What’s worse, he says Genesis itself gives “indications” of a longer creation such as vegetation coming “from the earth.” I say “worse” because he neglects the clear words of Genesis itself, more than “indications” mind you, of “evening and morning” and the listing of them as a “day.” Are these not superior “indications?” Side note: he references the ancient Israelites as of course understanding the life cycle of a tree as being longer than a day… but fails to acknowledge the ancient Israelites faithful remembrance of Sabbath, a literal day. Which comes from where else except Creation? Where else do we get the modern week, and weekend on Sunday Saturday for that matter? I respect WLC a lot but that whole part was way beneath him.
He dodges almost every question and just repeats "moral values" over and over. Most answers are as vague as they can get. I feel like Cameron would present way better arguments.
He take every point as face value. He doesn’t acknowledge the deep substance that the atheists offer wether it be a joke or not. Gay shaming at youth? Yes this has happened. Fire and brimstone? Yes very real teachings. Other Gods are valued as a Christian God?
Thank you for doing this show it was great, I like Dr Craig. I am a christian and all I can say is wow. I have these kinds of conversations with my son-in-law, and he is not claiming to be intellectual nor educated he simply expresses his disbelief in the God of heaven and Jesus Christ. All I saw was ignorance, and had a lot of misrepresentation, they didn't even have the right information about the bible and the scriptures. They just gave us their feelings and opinion, as usual with atheist you see anger and hate come out. All they were doing was taking pot shots at christians. I didn't here anything worth considering. It should be titled the greatest jokes of atheist. I always say to people don't take my word for it research the evidence for yourself there is real evidence for what we believe, evidence you will not find in any other religion out here. Dawkins was the cherry on top, flying elephants really? He continues to show his baligerence, disrespect, hate and anger towards God and Christians. Anyone can give an opinion, but an opinion with evidence and proof to back it up well now your talking, that's worth listening to it's called truth.
"as usual with atheist you see anger and hate come out" No, it's far more likely that you've just read anger and hate into their opposition, and/or more strongly remembered the more passionate points because they're more attention-grabbing. If anger and hate is your issue, I assure you that there are far more evils done in the name of religion than there ever will be in the name of atheism. "All they were doing was taking pot shots at christians" Likely because, most of the time, Christians and Muslims and many other religious people cannot focus and follow a whole point through. As evidenced by the amount of times the religious misunderstand what atheism is. Just like how, in the video, they went to point at Stalin as an example. "real evidence for what we believe, evidence you will not find in any other religion out here" That is completely true, and no serious person is refuting that. We do, however, refute that you have sufficent evidence. Your position is simply the less likely to be correct, so most sensible people don't take that side. There's also evidence that literally all other religions are true, but again, not sufficiently. "He continues to show his baligerence, disrespect, hate and anger towards God and Christians" Not God, the idea of your capricious god. He doesn't believe that your god exists, and therefor cannot hate her. Not to claim to speak for him, but he seems to take great disgust with the effects of the belief of your god and religion has. Just like the rampant beligerence, disrespect, hate and anger towards completely innocent people, like the LGBT, that your scripture promotes at the threat of eternal pain. "but an opinion with evidence and proof to back it up well now your talking, that's worth listening to it's called truth." Aetheists don't need evidence or proof, they don't make a claim outside of "I don't believe that you're correct", and since that's a claim based on them, only they can say whether they believe or not. When you actually look at the evidence we have to explain what we see, none of it is pointing to god. The only evidence that is would be personal accounts, and that just isn't as strong as the explanations we have, especially when so much of the Bible is plainly factually incorrect.
It's really easy to spout such nonsense when there is no one to debate with. I would really like to see Dr Craig try this with Stephen Woodford from Rationality Rules for example.
Dr craig has debated just about everyone and he’s held up just fine. So it’s not like some random guy spouting on the internet similar to what you’re doing actually.
Really?!?! Christian parents don't tell their kids they are going to hell if they are gay? There are countless videos on RU-vid, the exact platform you are using, of this happening.
