William Lane Craig: Can we be good without God? SOAS, London, October 2011 

Make no mistake, I respect you as any other person who has a right to have their beliefs, convictions, truths. It's your own responsibility to look for answers, especially before naming certain human beings as "against nature, against God". Nonetheless, thank you your time, I think it was a pleasant, civil debate. Appreciate it.

Good talk by Craig, especially in a rather not welcoming university environment. Did I hear sheep or goats in the background? The UK has a whole different thing going on in their schools. That's pretty cool. :0)

He does defend the claim that morality is objective. He does so by pointing to the universality of certain value judgements. His opponent always agrees that some things are wrong, like torturing children for fun. He points to that kind of consensus every time he gives the argument.

God is Good.....الله هو البر الرحيم

Which explains why you have one christian scholar here for example thinking and reflecting on his theism for over 1 hour.

The problem is that your intolerance wont let you behave like a civilized human being without having to be disrespectful. Work your personal issues before engaging in a discussion.

32:20 morality is just a hallow abstraction

I completely agree with you about their superficial hypocrisy I just think debating can sometimes lead to intellectual stimulation and broaden your mind. Of course that's not what atheists like Momo is after.

I get my morals from Leviticus chapter 14

You have misunderstood what I said. I wasn't talking about reasoning. I was talking about objective moral judgement and decision-making. If Parfit's argument fails, and God does not exist, then morality is truly subjective and relative. Things which horrify us, such as raping little children, might be horrifying, but there would be no normative basis to condemn such behaviour as objectively wrong (i.e. morally reprehensible even if nobody believes it to be; morally wrong always and everywhere)

I agree. The theistic view of ultimate justice has implications such as: if one kills another one, the only thing to worry about is the punishment since victims will be fully compensated. If at the end everything will be as it should be then no action makes any difference other then what kind of relationship the one will have with God. But ultimately value of human life is highly questionable since it's nothing compared to eternal existence with full compensation system. Just one thought of mine

Craig poses an interesting challenge. The problem, of course, is that he always assumes in his talks that the naturalistic, reductionist view of morality (that is, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology) is the only alternative to theistic morality. What about Kantian deontology, contractualism, and consequentialism? These moral philosophical viewpoints also attempt to arrive at a conception of objective moral values and duties. Derek Parfit's two-volume book, "On What Matters," is an

So if you weren't exercising judgement, how did you end up making a judgemental comment? By sheer arbitrariness? Is your own "reasoning" an illusion that we therefore ought not follow?

Like what claims?

So you weren't exercising any king of judgement or decision-making while typing that comment? I hope you'll excuse us, therefore, if we ignore it. :)

We have some amazing warriors on our side. Happy St George's day everyone.

[At least with alternate physics we still address possible PHYSICAL solutions] Remember what you said about preferred favorite conclusions? Wanted positions? Yeah, it comes across very clear between the lines of your silly writings. You want a PHYSICAL solution, it sounds good in your ears. What sounds good in your ears, sounds like crap to somebody else who tries to maintain objectivity. A physical cause of all things physical is a logical contradiction, anyway.

effort to find the common ground in these theories and thereby establish a coherent account of objective moral values and duties. I've only just begun reading it, but if it turns out that Parfit's argument is untenable, then it would indeed be difficult to see what, apart from belief in a transcendent moral lawgiver, can provide a foundation for normative truths. For, as even Dawkins admits, the sociobiological account furnishes no such foundation. And all pretensions to objective moral

The biggest problems with morality being commanded by a deity is that 1) they become illusory, we have no connection to them and they simply are rules based on dominance 2) there isn't a connection to them like there is in humanistic philosophies, which place responsibility upon the people not an abstract idea 3) The Christian god acts contrary to these commands and gets a license to do so making them meaningless 4) Craig is being ethnocentric, ignoring that Christianity is cultural also

Responding to your latest comment you actually withheld saying that "the moment one rejects the Bible as God's word they can justify anything they want". I say the exact opposite - once one accepts it no one can persuade them otherwise because their belief is unquestionable = fundamentalism. How do you know you are truly open minded? If you are, you realize you can be wrong. Please tell me why should I accept the Bible as God's word when I do not see any good reason to do so? Give me your best

The part of the video I've been referring to was most certainly a case by Craig for objective morality. And "a witness" is not evidence for anything objective, nor can it be. The act of witnessing is fundamentally a subjective experience itself. Try again.

Sounds like you haven't understood that the Kalam cosmological argument is presented to make the claim God exists. Why wouldn't the Big Bang be the beginning when spacetime started with it? Causality is based on laws of logic. Call that intellectual laziness if you will. It's like calling a scientist ignorant and a creationist educated. When Craig presents deductive logic based on cosmological science it's suppose to constitute good evidence.

[simply ignore the counter-arguments, and then claim they have never been presented] Momo your comments consist of declarative statements, not arguments. People can read. [Craig clearly states that he finds his faith more important than evidence] What Craig states is that the Holy Spirit comes first, faith second. Other people can read. You apperantly can't, you see what you want to see in it.

So it is true what they say about RU-vid atheists. I finally confirm it.

Apologize for butting in, nonetheless, I had always a deep interest in this topic. Saying that everyone no matter what has a God-given conscience that tell them when they do wrong is simply not true. If that was true we wouldn't have discussions about abortions, euthanasia, gay rights, women rights, minority rights. MP of Uganda David Bahati introduced in 2009 anti gay bill which implied criminalization of homosexuality, punishable by life imprisonment, even by death. So here you have it....

[who refuses to even LOOK at the counter-arguments] The counter-arguments first have to be delivered so I can look at them. It's not my fault that you decide to repeat "Craig is wrong and have shown to be in some mysterious past that I won't tell you". [conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith] A conflict between the Holy Spirit and the truth of christian faith? He says the Holy Spirit is more important than faith.

Dr Craig hinges his entire argumentation on that it's "obvious" that objective moral values exist. What if it's not obvious to someone? Then it's a wasted 1:07:20.

No, I wasn't exercising any "king of judgement" whilst typing that comment. Sorry to disappoint you and, yes, you are welcome to ignore any king of judgement ... except God :)

A witness is evidence. Everyone who is not psychopathic witnessing the exact same thing is also evidence. I know this is not a debate. The argument you alluded to is one he often makes in debates. I assumed you knew that. By the way, this is not supposed to be a case for objective morality. Look at the title.

[the falsifiability of a claim is the best indication that it is sound] Then you wouldn't have a problem with for example the Kalam Cosmological argument because its falsifier is a universe being eternal. I'm saying it isn't my job to prove the universe is eternal, that would be yours. Your best effort is saying "imagine another space-time". How is that different from saying "imagine a god"? [We don't know what exists "behind" the Big Bang] We don't even know surely IF something COULD exist.

[supernatural, which is unfalsifiable] The supernatural is that which transcends nature. Your alternate universe would be a supernatural universe that we can't falsify because it's hopeless to gain scientific evidence of it from this universe using the laws only from this universe. Can't you THINK before you write or do you HAVE to throw out assumptions you putter together at whim to survive for the moment?

judgement and decision-making is purely illusory.

Since we're having a debate, please, always be concrete. What test of time are you talking about, how exactly has been the Bible proven? If you studied evolution and found out it's fairy tale, I kindly ask you, I beg you to tell me: Why are you hiding such information from the rest of the world? If I could disprove evolution I would gladly do it, it would earn me respect among scientists. If you are so smart then please why are you keeping it for yourself? Please explain

I'm done trying to reason with you. It just sounds to me like you need to read one of Craig's books or something to understand what he argues. You say you don't care for philosophy yet you're here on these videos watching philosophical debates. You decide that logic can't be evidence, and that the premises aren't right. You just dismiss these things with no effort in understanding what you're dealing with. It makes you look ignorant, not clever.

Let me summarize it for you: . >>> There's no reason to believe in objective morality in God's absence. >>>So, if you believe in objective morality, you must acknowledge God's existence >>>Now, I think there are good reasons to believe in objective morality. >>>One of these reasons is our direct experience. We just know there is a strong duty imposed on ourselves that we ought to obey. . the point: --->> "YOU CAN'T BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD" read the title. . You should be able to understand now :D

#3 However you're no better than Craig making assumptions. The difference between you is that Craig is a professor in philosophy and theology, have studied these things for 30 years and have lectures to crowds and writes books motivating his arguments, while as you are a youtube repeating the claim "Craig is wrong". Once again, don't insult my intelligence just because your own is troubled. [swallowing baseless assumptions] I haven't swallowed any of the assumptions you made.

Universality of certain judgments is not evidence for objectivity, and only a very naive philosopher would think so. It's trivial to conceive of universally-held positions that are not objective. Also this was supposed to be a case for objective morality that Craig was presenting. Obviously if he had an opponent who held common ground regarding objective morality, he wouldn't need to defend his position...however, no such common ground was meant to be granted here.

Hey look, I get it. You were too lazy to watch the actual video so you missed the part at 30:00 and onward where Craig attempts to make his case for objective moral values, regardless of whether or not atheism entails subjective morality. Maybe next time before embarrassing yourself you take a minute to actually educate yourself? Hmm?

First, maybe Gandhi accepted Jesus in his heart as christians use to say even though he never stated Jesus was the lord? I agree that fallacious arguments aren't evidence for immaterial objects, but Craig doesn't present any fallacious arguments so you don't have to worry. A person doesn't physically demonstrate an immaterial object. And if you think Craig assumes things, well I dare you to read one of his books and then tell me all his books contain "assumptions" and nothing more.

What is required to accept Jesus as your savior? Uttering it with words to other human beings, or that you do his will and follow him in the end? It's better if you leave christianity to christians to interpret and handle. [Anyone trying to show that the source of reality is a disembodied mind outside time and space is assuming the existence of the very thing he wants to prove] How is anyone assuming that? Don't just claim stuff, motivate what you're saying.

It depends on what you consider as natural. In my understanding, anything that occurs in nature is by definition natural. Homosexual behavior is widely documented in animal kingdom. This is different from what you seem to suggest - not able to naturally procreate = not natural. But again all evidence to contrary - there are plenty reasons which can prevent natural procreation from happening including naturally occurring homosexuality. Please explain what you mean by natural?

And most people come to videos like these to hear of your unmotivated opinion and not Craig sharing his research.

"Not only that, but scientists cannot get to the origin of life." Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. Additionally, because science may not have the answer to something, doesn't mean the default position is your particular mythology. You would still have to prove that. More importantly however, please go and research all the science done in the field of abiogenesis. We know of a number of ways that life can begin. Now, please tell me how the Bible has been proven to be true?

I'm not your enemy, I'm not fooling you. In one comment you stated that most atheists you met are unable to have intelligent debate. Yet even after I showed you that homosexuality is naturally occurring phenomena, you still say it's not natural. I told you that there are plenty reasons for not being able to produce life like infertility, sexual orientation etc. but they commonly occur in nature, you still say "not natural".You were right when you said that nothing I say will change your mind.

I actually watched the whole video, twice. The MAIN point of the speech is NOT the objectivity of Morality; the title reads: "Can we be good without God?" >>> he is arguing that since God is necessary for Goodness to exist, then, it is not possible to be good without God. Simple. Now, OFF COURSE he has to give reasons for believing in objective moral values since that is his position, what were you expecting?!!. BUT that is not the issue in question, dummy.

I'm trying to figure out what's your reasoning here. "Against nature" - as far as I know individuals (born with homosexual orientation) and individuals (born infertile) ARE products of nature. (nature against nature?) But let's quit the semantics here - they can not have babies, and for the sake of the discussion, let's call it "against nature" - So what? What are you trying to say that they do not have rights? I don't get where you are going with this.

"Can we be good with God?". There are just countless examples when people do immoral things precisely because they are under impression that that's what God want them to do. I would like to have morality which is based on evidence, which is discussed, argued, reasoned, sort of intelligently designed by open-minded, understanding, educated people. Not based on "here is what I believe & that's it" kind of thinking. God is of no help when it comes deciding what to do, unless you can ask him.

I guess you just skipped over 35:00 and onwards? Is this some new form of failed apologetics? Play stupid and hope others don't notice?

[offering the possibility to disprove your arguments is THE best way to make sure your argumentation is sound] It's just something you say because your own brain is too incompetent having to deal with constructing reasonable lines of thought yourself to make points. And I even said that an eternal universe proven by science would falsify the KCA, paying attention is something you fail at aswell. [Baseless assumption.] Nope, it's dependant on causality in physics.

The problem with your statement is that the same can be said about you. Have you studied Koran, Torah, Hinduism, Buddhism? Have you studied science with open mind? Why are you concealing your very good reason for believing the Bible as God's word? I can be wrong about the Bible as God's word, for all I know but in that case I want have nothing to do with that God because he is immoral. Have you studied evolution with open mind? If you did you would see how many things the Bible is wrong about.

[make your claims falsifiable] LOL the desperation. You're not suppose to beg us theists to disprove our own arguments. It's YOUR task as an atheist to falsify the arguments by showing flaws in them if you want to prove your position is more rational. Your fancy statements doesn't work no matter how many times they're repeated. "We don't need magic" can be easily repelled with "we don't need atheism either".

You should probably not take the words of people who know nothing about evolution as the authority, there are many sites dedicated to explaining how evolution works and why it is both a fact and a theory. Its fine to be skeptical but your creationist preconceived notions are more than likely a flawed view of what evolution actually says. If you can afford it, take a class on evolution, go to a natural history museum, and study its mechanisms, ask a biological scientist and take notes.

I didn't start? How much have you been pwned already, only to come back asking for scientific evidence for immaterial objects? It's pointless. You first have to be able to pay attention. Then you got to develop understanding of the subject. After that, it's better that you read Craig's work than asking me to write a copy of his books here on youtube. And I never gave real arguments, I just responded to your hollow declarative garbage. My hero Craig? My comment you first replied to was criticism.

To be sincere, morality is important subject and God will not help you unless he can come down to us & explain what to do. I would love that - just does not happen. Bible is full of atrocities - not good example for our morality. Slavery is wrong because there are good objective reasons we understand & recognize regardless of how many holly books say otherwise. Why don't you study the reasons why homosexuality is accepted as not sexual deviation. Find out, feel free to criticize but study.

That's more like it - thanks. But again you say macro evolution has no evidence. You can not have micro without macro. Evolution makes scientifically TESTABLE predictions. So if we did evolve from ancestors then we should find evidence for it (since evolution needs thousands, millions years for dramatic changes we can not see it). The evidence is strikingly overwhelming from fossil record to modern genetics. So where exactly is the smoke here? What's wrong other then you just don't believe it?

Basically you have nothing against evolution, only plain empty objections. Saying there is no evidence means absolutely nothing without specifying what exactly is missing and how it effects scientific theory of evolution. "no evidence, it doesn't make sense, lies, flawed logic" that can say just about anybody even 4 year old child able of speaking. Relativity doesn't make sense to many people but GPS is based on it. If you want to be taken seriously, please specify why is evolution wrong?

That's right but from what I remember by you, you're not doing any thinking when it came to theism.

Of course we can be good without God, but we can't really be good without morality. A person without any morality is considered insane in any society. Take a look at China or Russia, can we say that we are more good than they are ? Of course not ! Actually there are a lot of very good people in China and Russia. Goodness depends a lot on how we were raised, our genes and our inherent morality, culture plays a lesser role. Was I a bad person before I became a Christian ? Let's see now, prior to becoming a born-agan Christian I didn't kill or rape anybody, avoided conflicts, went to school, then went to college, payed my taxes, avoided jail-time, paid my traffic tickets on time, payed my bills, obeyed my parents, went to church occasionally, walked the little old lady accross the street, donated to various causes etc. etc. It wasn't until I was in the precence of God that I realized what a Dirty Rag I really was. I was pretty good when it came to society, but failing in the sight of God. After that experience, I began paying much more attention to the Bible and religious subjects and also began noticing acutely not only faults in myself, but in my fellow man. It was a painful experience to say the least, and I rebelled for a while, but finally came to my senses. I thanked God that he cared enough about me to show me what I was doing wrong. God didn't judge me at all, or did he strike me with any lightning bolts. Maybe he knew that these things can sometimes take time ? You just don't become "good" in the sight of God all of a sudden unless you were like that in the first place, which few of us are. The bottom line is, we are not really "good", more exactly "truly good" until God says we are. Following all the rules of society to the 'T' will not make you a good person in the eyes of God(IMHO). On the other hand, we can be really BAD, even after being born again. Yes it's true, many people fall by the wayside and become even worse than they were before. Some think the Blood of Jeus Christ gives them a license to do what they want. Others become more interested in wordly pleasures and acquisitions. While others drag a big bag of bad-habits and negative sentiments all the way to their grave. Pride and the unwillingness to change is usually the culprit, but discouragements can also play a part.

chinese christians at 100million?

So you consider that he makes "a case" for objective Morality in this video, wow. Objective Morality is not only non-central in this this video, it is IRRELEVANT . He just briefly mentions the seemingly objective true of Morality by our experience and you called Craig a "clown" because you think he is making "a case". You are making an emotional intolerant disrespectful kid of yourself. :(

lol

In plain English: Your idea that everything in nature is going towards reproduction is not true since there are many naturally occurring factors (like homosexuality) which are not desirable for reproduction. HENCE you can repeat all day long that homosexual couples do not procreate BUT that does not make it unnatural because I repeat again, there are countless naturally occurring factors not desirable for reproduction. Failing to reproduce is not unnatural, it's quite common in nature.

"this is not supposed to be a case for objective morality" . He seems unable to understand that, I've tried, I've tried.

[I don't have high regards of theology, since that one is a pure waste of time.] Well good day hypocrisy. I see you have no shame at all to accuse me of not paying attention to counter-arguments and in the next breath call the opposite side of your atheism "a waste of time". Are you trying to make me laugh? [Craig is also a shoddy philosopher] Here's an idea: drop the declarative statements and the rhethorical slander. Arguments are required to convince people.

Fallacious arguments are not evidence for immaterial objects, much less for immaterial minds floating outside brains, space and time with the power to instantiate matter. If you can do anything else than assume the existence of the very thing you want to demonstrate, feel free to do it, because Craig can't. Help the the poor Doctor. He is hopelessly lost in his own mental confusion.

I encourage you to go to Google Scholar and search for the science that you think exists and search for the science that you think doesn't exist. This is where you search for peer-reviewed, published scientific articles. Check the facts and the other scientific papers that reference them. It's going to take you a few days and you're going to be disappointed, but at least you won't be running around presenting yourself as a moronic child any longer.

"There is no evidence for macro evolution" This is nothing but a display of your ignorance. There is no such thing as "macro evolution" unless you are talking to a creationist. Macro evolution is only micro evolution with more time. If you believe that something can get longer, or taller, or darker, etc. as you do with micro evolution, than give it more time and it will be something else entirely. This is simply an argument from incredulity for a complete lack of trying to think about it.

[Does Craig actually argue like that?] Extensively. His career is founded under such line of reasoning. There's no "conceptual analysis" that can show that an disembodied mind is most probably the source of the Universe than not. We don't even know if disembodied minds are possible, therefore such thing is not even allowed in the list of possible causes.

[jumps over our lack of knowledge merely to arrive at a favored position] What's sad is that you don't realize yourself you just called deductive logic "jumping". As if to declare yourself ignorant of what's going on when an argument is given to you. [typical Craigbot] Oh no don't call me names, it might cause me to completely abandon all rational thinking and join your emotional hypocrisy in to wanting and feeling things and then declare myself intellectual.

It is really strange to see a christian telling others that his worldview is a source of moral accountability. No such thing exists in Christianity, it is merely a system of moral bribery. A serial killer that accepts Christ will go to Heaven. Gandhi is now in Hell, since he never did. What a sound foundation for justice objective moral values!

[it's not much of a stretch to think another version exists] Once again you embarass yourself, you sit and talk about alternate physics and universes as if it were small potatoe not realizing the scientific consequences are as extreme as Craig's. And Craig doesn't even argue against science. If you want to paint yourself as a somebody who knows something, don't shit out complete ignorance when you are needy and expect people to swallow it. It backfires. What you're doing is called IMAGINE.

Your negative emotional attitude won't let you grasp the simple point he is making and is making you look like an angry clown,ironically. Craig is not trying to prove the objectivity of moral values. He is in fact questioning that supposed objectivity in the light of Atheism. Notice the excessive use of the conditional "IF". He's basically saying: you can't believe in an objective morality excluding God's existence. The same with Determinism, you can't have both: Determinism & Responsibility

No need to convince you,I was sincerely interested in your arguments and found out you have none to offer. In that case convincing you would be pointless exercise. On judgment day God may very well ask you "How come you've mistaken me for immoral God of the Bible written by humans, I gave you most precious gifts as brain, ability to think for yourself, to learn, to question. How come you failed to see the overwhelming evidence, beauty of looking for answers based on reason...". Just sad, petty..

[that doesn't mean that the thirst thing that pops in your head will do the trick] People don't construct theistic arguments and tour with them in their professional 30 year old career and expand on them in several books like Craig have been doing because it "popped up in their head". The only loser improvising is you. Sad that you insist on projecting your broken mindset on theists, isn't it? [NOT with an eternal god] A god is not restriced by physical laws.

[What is required to accept Jesus as your savior?] Evidence that there's a god and Jesus is his son. There's none. Craig claims that the source of the Universe is a disembodied mind. You need evidence that there's disembodied minds first in order to postulate such thing as the cause of the Universe. Craig has none, therefore he assumes what he wants to prove.

I hope he never loses his faith. If he does .. well. he sees no reason not to murder, rape, etc., without God .. yikes.

The argument posed around the 35:00 mark is one of the worst I've heard. What does Craig do to prove the objectivity of his value judgments? Absolutely nothing. He just asserts it, attempts to justify his assertion by quoting another philosophy whose assertion is equally baseless, and then moves on. This is not unique to this speech. Craig has never been able to justify that morality is objective other than merely asserting that he has strong feelings that he's right. What a clown.

I'm afraid that's not possible since you take evolution as conspiracy of scientists&atheists&Christians. What can be done is to take your doubts further by looking at what talkorigins say and investigate. But you have to drop the prejudice and set aside your belief in what Bible says and look for evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can all disagree but science demonstrably works. But somehow when something contradicts Bible, for some people Bible takes precedence.