William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens (HQ)

[@boyarvalishin9565]

All y'all are here being salty to each other while i'm glad two dudes can talk about a sensitive subject with sophistication.

[@acarouselofantics]

+John B I agree with you! They are way more respectable in their debate than people commenting on the debate in this comment section.

[@TonyEnglandUK]

Well said, Rafie. Allow knowledge to overturn fanaticism.

[@reasonrules4165]

Nothing that Craig says is sophisticated, it’s a load of crap.

[@justaguywithaturban6773]

@Reason Rules same could be said about hitchens, one believes in paradise the other believes in nothingness, consciousness is fundamental

[@ihrv23]

@@justaguywithaturban6773 from a flawed perspective you could say this, with a rational one you can only support one of these views

[@encapologeticsgroup1290]

This debate is a classic. Hitchens & Craig are brilliant here. Cordial discussion(s) of this sort we haven't really seen as of late & what a shame.

[@encapologeticsgroup1290]

....Guess that settles it then doesn't it.

[@jonnawyatt]

Except that WLC argument is nonsense.

[@richardwhite6062]

Except hitchens got buried

[@TheFrodoBaggins33]

Laughing at all the people who dismiss Craig's arguments using Ad Hominem and Non Sequiter. You claim Christians dismiss all other worldviews immediately, but what are you all doing right now?

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Because Craig never backs up anything he says with evidence he just makes claims, so it's not the same thing.

[@TheFrodoBaggins33]

Lucifer Almighty He's backing up his arguments with reason and logical argumentation. Scientific evidence is not necessary for a good argument. You're judging Craig's arguments from a positivist standpoint, but it's a faulty standpoint to do so from.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Evidence is necessary otherwise it's just assumption, Craig can't make 1 single logical argument nor base it on any justifiable reasoning.

[@TheFrodoBaggins33]

Lucifer Almighty Ok, so what kind of evidence are you talking about? 'Cause that'll make the difference.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

First he must prove that the bible is anything but fiction. Presuppositions are weak and don't belong in a logical argument

[@TommyGlint]

I’ve seen more than a few comments about Hitchens being flustered, or even scared. I’ve seen just about everything on YT with Hitchens, including obscure C-Span programs on now forgotten topics - he looks normal in this debate, no different than usual.

[@scottblack7182]

People loved to try to troll his popularity with disinformation. You know how dishonest the alt right are lol. Funny thing is even in death Hitchens is still making people leave religion and craig and all his lackeys have all been completely disgraced. Oh sweet poetic justice.

[@1517the_year]

Just looks a little warm.

[@RippedLifting]

I love how buttheart athiests can get. WLC is not an idiot. All of his opponents greatly respect his intellect and his ability to make valid arguments. Disagree with him all you want, don't call him an idiot because that just simply is not true. Anyone with a brain or who isn't too butthurt about there being a smart christian in the world can see that.

[@gregorysteve326]

He is an idiot though. He uses language that makes him seem profound, when really he has no f*cking IDEA what he's talking about. Trying to scientifically validate the existence of a god is a stupid waste of time because it can't be done. Trying to say that religious faith is based on nothing more than blind wishful thinking is idiotic.

[@Random_Number]

Philosophically, I'm more in line with Craig than Hitchens, but I do miss Hitch, and I almost cried at 3:50 when he said (regarding death), "...the party will go on -- and we'll have left and we're not coming back." While I often disagreed with Hitch, I always enjoyed listening to him. RIP Christopher Hitchens.

[@cristovive8398]

RandomNumber Hitchens is not...RIP. There is NO peace in HELL. All mockers and unbelievers are going to spend eternity in hell.

[@jasonkeith9317]

I feel similarly so much hate in this man so much anger his heart was hardened kinda sad.

[@rokanza2293]

Jason Keith when you feel instead of thinking, that's when the problems start to come up on the surface

[@eternalbyzantium262]

@@cristovive8398 However controversial, this is true.

[@eternalbyzantium262]

@Ave Maria Hail Christ Ave Maria, gratia plena, dominus tecum.

[@Nope_Datt]

Both debaters were well represented.

[@rockhound570theist5]

Craig: cool, rational, logical, seeking proper premises for his arguments. Hitchens: emotional, resentful, polemical, ad hominem, kicker of straw men. ANYBODY with logical capability can see something in this debate. Not whether Craig or Hitchens is correct, but that Craig is grounded in logic and Hitchens in emotion. Seems to be the forever more paradigm between the New Atheist and the Sensible Christian. Thanks, but I'll take the beauty and love of God any day over the self deceit and hollow rhetoric of the atheist.

[@calyxwakefield3523]

+rockhound570 theist logical,rational really? How about harry potter exists and we all go to hogwarts?

[@disrupt94]

+rockhound570 theist rational? Not a single one of Craigs premises are rational

[@davidkane4426]

+Emoshy88 so God exists, but he's a cunt?

[@jamesjefferson9228]

Well said. Agreed.

[@IdkIdk-pv1mx]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, OP

[@FlashVirus]

Thought this was the weakest point for Craig during this debate. But Hitchens got slaughtered through the rest of it. But that is likely seeing as how Craig is a respected philosopher and Hitchens was out of his league. But it was entertaining nonetheless.

[@76spinoza]

When the guy you're rooting for uses logical fallacies, and you also have to you logical fallacies to defend him, perhaps your position is not as strong as you originally thought.

[@Raphinater]

just because you "sound" like youre losing an argument, doesn't necessarily mean its the case. Consider how your inability to understand basic logic plays into your interpretation of the debate ;)

[@IdkIdk-pv1mx]

I watched the full thing. U wrong m8. Of course we're all biased. Ask yourself, which side r u on? If you agree with either, your vote is disqualified

[@g4l4h4d1]

Christopher held his ground for the whole thing though

[@andrewchurney8864]

@@IdkIdk-pv1mx , interesting position you take. You are saying that to have searched out the subject to intellectual satisfaction is to automatically disqualify one fro havin a valid opinion? Sorry that is an argument for Nihilism or chaos, neither of which produces any good for humanity, and therefore disqualifies in a greater way

[@kawasakiwhiptwo5821]

The meaning of life is to live YOURS as happily and as healthily as you desire. all the while,not doing any harm to another while attempting to do so. then if you so desire,you can help others to do the same.

[@FStan-co8vv]

According to what standard?

[@kawasakiwhiptwo5821]

@@FStan-co8vv mine.

[@Romailjohn]

@@kawasakiwhiptwo5821 why

[@Romailjohn]

if I were atheist God forbid and there was a large group of atheist (half of the earth or more)I will never do that and u will not as well I will never be nice to anybody I will live for my life or my family

[@Romailjohn]

As humans have become due to fall

[@seanspade]

Two brilliant minds. Love Hitchens in my Atheist days, now that I'm more Gnostic I definitely appreciate WLC's input and ontology

[@wunash2219]

Jesus loves you

[@alvinromo]

@@wunash2219 Jesus loves you so I don't have to.

[@pultulf2462]

The fact that you use the term "ontology" should conclude, that you know, that you cannot really be gnostic about anything. Also should you recognize the logical fallacies Craig makes in his argument.

[@gowdsake7103]

you are kidding !

[@kingsman428]

"...atheist days..." Sounds just like a flat earther when they say "...I started by trying prove the Earth was a globe but found I couldn't..."

[@picarochi]

R.I.P. Hitchens, you will remembered through your deeds and your struggle for truth.

[@badasscheater]

nah. He'll be remembered as the dumb guy who tried to sound smart because he was British.

[@pepsimax6671]

yea he knows there is a god now

[@ayekaye8055]

picarochi which deeds?

[@miklo6907]

Jesus has been remembered for over 2000 years

[@igotstoknow2]

He will be remembered as the wise atheist who lived to ensure his trashed eternity with the help of toxic yeast sewage juice (alcohol) with his cancer treatments and for forcing concentrated air pollution into his body.

[@tonybanks1035]

Is that the great Christopher Hitchens? Kinda disapointed.

[@Vic2point0]

Yeah, he's never had anything but empty rhetoric on offer anyway. All Craig did was expose him for it.

[@belaireguy4117]

tony One video and that is your conclusion? Typical Christian. Have watched hours and hours of Craig, I submit him to be the worst apologist ever and the irony is, he is the best you got.

[@Vic2point0]

You're lying your ass off. Everyone knows Craig is one of the best Christian apologists, and that Hitchens never had anything stronger to provide, than what he brought to this debate.

[@tonybanks1035]

belaireguy411 one video? I watched more of the Hitchens garbage than you watched Craig. The man's incapable of saying anything remotely relevant. He was a competent blaber though. He put up the style pretty well. Debated lots of morons. That helps build one's reputation. I dare you to give me ONE Hitchens argument that I wouldn't destroy on the spot. That's how deep of a thinker he was. Leave this bag of dirt where he is will you.

[@belaireguy4117]

Vic > Craig is the most repetitive apologists I have ever had to endure listening to retelling verbatim the same arguments over and over again. You have heard all it all I am sure but the burden of proof is not with the unbeliever whether believers like it or not. And if you can accept that a "theocracy" has ever been a beautiful thing for any society or culture, that would align with having a religious belief in general. > What has determined the God you believe in is very simple, it was wholly based on when and where you were born. And of course the God waiting for you by birth has to be the only true and right one. We all are born innocent with no knowledge only to be exposed to apocalyptic religions that demand continual death and destruction. But many will only desire the "good" and simply gloss over the many very "bad," sordid, and nightmarish stories and events written in the Bible and toss those out of their belief. To be fair, the Quran is pretty much a carbon copy. The only difference is that some Muslims are actually doing what their texts tell them to do. > To your point of providing stronger arguments, I agree, many like Hitchens do not refer to what the scriptures actually say near enough. For example, God demanded that unbelievers, the religious diverse, gays, adulterers, fornicators, and for many others for what are considered minor infractions today to be put to death. Did the Biblical God somehow change his mind when the Bible also says he is incapable of change? I don't need evolution or science or how life began, what these religious texts offer is all I need to discard them. "You're lying your ass off." > Sorry my friend, it is actually the opposite, just trying to be as honest as my being possibly can be. If you asked me as an atheist, "what is the purpose of your life or life in general," that would be my answer. > All the best of course and have a great week!

[@imagoportraits562]

Why does anyone debate a man who has clearly admitted that no evidence could change his opinion and that absolute morality is self evident. Your lack of any intellectual argument is the only thing that is self evident and your complete dishonesty.

[@Vic2point0]

It seems perfectly rational to me, that if Craig really had one of these alleged "experiences" that convinced him god is real (what he calls the "inner witness"), then evidence would only alter miscellaneous doctrines; he'd have no reason to drop theism altogether.

[@therealistOba]

Robin Edwards to show the world that he's a fool lol so they debate him to make a fool out of him self

[@lettersquash]

Yeah, it actually might be better if all the atheists said meh and didn't debate him. If pressed as to why, they could say, "we'd rather not give you reason to talk more than you otherwise will". Maybe he'd switch career, start a football club. He'd win games the same way he wins arguments, by moving the goal posts. I understand Dawkins refuses to be on the same stage as him (although he accidentally found it happen once), but on the grounds that he detests the man so much for his immorality, having argued that it was alright for God to wage genocide in the OT. Craig is such a master of casuistry that he can twist his way out of anything. If he doesn't like football he could offer to join Trump's PR team.

[@Supershoutmon]

lettersquash Nice sounding argument at the end now wheres your moral ground to call gods acts evil ?

[@lettersquash]

Supershoutmon, thanks. Good question. My moral ground is my personal morality, largely in line with other people's. That's not absolute, of course. Some people imagine that's a problem. Maybe it is - maybe it would be better if we had absolute moral rules somehow - but we don't AFAIK. We are left with the task of working out morality, which is almost exactly the same problem as working out legal codes, amongst us. Some people not only imagine the lack of absolute morality in a naturalist view is a practical problem, they imagine, or pretend, that this is some kind of evidence for God, i.e. that it refutes the naturalist view. That might be true if there were actually moral codes we could point to as certain, as absolutely true. If you think there are such things, you're welcome to tell me what they are. So, having realised that morality is a relative thing - relative to chosen outcomes - one rule that most of us agree on is that genocide is "evil", or very deeply immoral. Most of us think the Holocaust was a terrible attrocity, for example. If we were Hitler, or other anti-Semites, it would be a great idea. Hence morals are relative. God is described in the Bible as equipping certain tribes to wipe out their enemies, including innocent children. (He himself wipes out most of humanity and other land animals in the Flood, too.) They're just myths, of course, but I think WLC defended God's actions as described, and it was partly this that led Dawkins to say he'd refuse to be on stage with him. At least that's what I remember hearing somewhere.

[@deadmanssuit]

I like how Hitchens uses facts and observable evidence to back up his points, while Craig uses myth and pseudo-philosophy.

[@hohum2722]

Why should we have a purpose for existence?

[@zachhunt123]

Ho Hum Any living organism's main purpose is to reproduce, because without reproduction there's no more existence. It's pretty simple, but for some reason people can't be happy with reality, so they make things up to get rid of the fear of no longer existing. Yeah, it sucks that we have to die someday, that's why I want to live my life to the fullest. People who say there's no reason for life without a god are truly sad people, because they have traded true happiness and acceptance of reality for absolute bullshit. Desperation at its finest.

[@Leitilumo]

That's the better question, rather than asking what (if any) meaning exists.

[@Leitilumo]

zachhunt123 The biological reason for homosexuality is debated, but it's been pinned down to... 1. The complexity of the genome and the illusion of gender. Promiscuous Mother Hypothesis: 2. That half of a male's Dna can be said to come from the mother. If they happen to be given a gene which promotes the love of shapes associated with masculinity then the male will tend to be homosexual. Uncle Hypothesis: 3. That it may have evolved in the same way that soldiers do in a hierarchal animal system like bees, ants, and other such insects, in order to have a branch of males that is not preoccupied with copulating with females.

[@zachhunt123]

Leitilumo Thanks for that info. Very interesting indeed.

[@zachhunt123]

***** Answer me this question, Mr. Logic. If every human quit reproducing today, in 150 years how many humans do you think would exist? Since you're obviously being dishonest with me and yourself, I'll answer the question for you, there'd be NO ONE. You know why? Because without reproduction, there is no life, and that applies to (as far as I know) every living thing on this planet. We humans have just so happened to develop better brains throughout our evolution that give us the ability to make our own purpose rather than "just reproducing".

[@Angelsofournature907]

@belleveuace6 I grew up in a Christian church but once I become a teen I felt that God is God and the religion doesn't matter. I've checked out the Koran and Buddhism a little and have friends who have travelled and practiced spiritual healing and stuff like that. After partying super hard and commercial fishing in Alaska, I realized there must be something more in life and some incredible things happened that lead me to believe God was calling me. So I truly became a Christian.

[@louisjwiese5515]

First time I hear about this William guy. He seems very respectful, and yet also incredibly intelligent and logical in thinking. Really impressed by the guy. A bit disappointed that Hitchens and Dawkins etc tend to move more towards contempt and arrogance. Sarcasm is not a logical argument in and of itself.

[@louisjwiese5515]

Tim H nice disregard of "logical typing" there.

[@MR-intel]

There is nothing more arrogant than people claiming they possess absolute truth. Only religious people ever do that.

[@louisjwiese5515]

@@MR-intel yeah, he seems like a very arrogant type, doesn't he?

[@MR-intel]

@@louisjwiese5515 I made a genersl statement. Do I need to explain? 😊

[@louisjwiese5515]

@@MR-intel wow, look at that nice and humble reply.

[@scottblack7182]

Boy this comment section has not aged well 😂. Craig has completely destroyed his credibility up to this point and im loving how everybody here is praising him for being "sophisticated" 😂😭😂...find and watch the whole debate . Craig gets triggered and destroyed painfully so ❤.

[@podawe8051]

What debate did you watch? I felt it was quite the opposite

[@jacekmarczyk4436]

5:40, what resurrection?????? Show it to me!

[@RATIONALMIND001]

I am a non believer and I find meaning in my fellow human beings. I believe that life is about opportunity, sensible verifiable education, discovery, fulfillment, dreams, improving the length and quality of life for yourself and others. It is about caring for the world on which we live and the development of ones empathy. It certainly should not about the deferral of this life in favor of a life hereafter or the relinquishing of ones critical thinking in favor of a conceptual entity, the existence of which we cannot validate.

[@sanf7191]

But again, that is subjective, that is YOUR view as an atheist. Another atheist may DECIDE (since there is no objective meaning of life) to live an hedonistic lifestyle, destroying others lives, and you could not, as an atheist, prove them wrong, simply because in an atheistic world view there is no moral law. P.S.: atheism is irracional. Believing that there is the cosmos exists because of a chain of coincidences is not only irrational but also stupid.

[@afonsoferreira5171]

San F Two things: 1-Please tell me were atheism is irracional? What part of living by evidence and facts is irracional? Please explain. 2-If you really think that religion prevents people from doing bad things please remember that the most horrible crimes were commited either by religious people or in name of religion.

[@drrickmarshall1191]

@@sanf7191 Yes, the foundations for all Atheists morality is just as subjective as those of a deitys. Difference being, my subjective foundations, haven't led me to genocide, infanticide, to legislate slavery or command the death penalty for picking up sticks...

[@rudy12327]

Hitchens and Craig are both cool as fuck.

[@LJY08]

I really do hate it when religious people start quoting the bible as evidence. My fury factor goes up to about 11 when that happens. I don't want quotes from the bible, I want evidence...stop appealing to emotion by quoting the bible and just give me your arguments.

[@TracyOlivares]

LJY08 the bible is quoted to show an example to gods objective moral values. it is not to harm but to better the life of his children. and rue by words of not stealing killing and other laws created by God for us to follow.

[@kuniewerty]

TracyOlivares Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. This is one of the objective moral values of an ever loving God.

[@davidwild66]

Instead of calling it the bible, try calling it "God's dirty little book of stone age ideas". I generally call it that and you get lots of funny replies from people you would rather not normally associate with!

[@HarleyDrummer1]

No matter how the pious paint the picture of the validity of god and the bible - whether sincerely and intellectually or whether with intolerance and ignorance - it all comes down to what Craig said, "If god exists...". So for example, "if I pretend god exists and if I pretend there was a resurrection and if I pretend there was a virgin birth and if I pretend that I will go to heaven if I'm good and if I pretend there is hell that I will go to if I bad and I if pretend to know there is a soul, then I can pretend to know that I have god on my side while I legally impose my wish-driven delusions on the rights of women, because if I succeed I will be closer to god when I die." He can go fuck himself. It's best that we think for ourselves.

[@StraightAhead135]

I think that they're both debating on this specific topic on the basis of that " if the bible was correct, then what's more meaningful: Atheism or Christianity ", or something like that. So they both debating not on whether the bible is right, but what gives the better meaning. I don't follow the bible, I'm a Muslim, but we intersect in some points.

[@ZombieProdigyUS]

Why would you want a being telling you what to do??? You get purpose from passions, family, friends, etc.

[@nickmichailidis9059]

You were created by God for God's glory Yes friends and family do play a part but ultimately it's all about God and His kingdom

[@Athingamabob]

Well friends, family, passion, etc rule over you.

[@olbear303]

Look at all the papers Craig has scattered about! He knew to bring his "A Game" going up against a vernacular fortifier like Hitch. Awesome debate. I highly suggest watching all 2 hours of it.

[@husseintoney]

Man, WLC smashed Chris Hitchenes nonsense. Bravo WLC.

[@peytonsingh1038]

Benjamin Park He shut down his entire argument. Hitchens tried to ask a question about if there is eternal life why do things matter now when that is exactly what applies to an atheist world view. Did you watch the video? lol

[@peytonsingh1038]

The point is he was twisting words and completely giving a false view of what a Christian world view is. William corrected him. It's pretty obvious by how much you commented on this video and what I've read that you have a bias.

[@geraldbrienza4474]

Hardly.........

[@AtheistExpert]

the argument went like this... " why care about legislation for abortion if they all goto heaven anyway? "... and the response was " because we care about human life " typical cop-out. just like, "what created god"... the ultimate question dodger.

[@Harpazo_to_Yeshua]

And Chris was atheists' "messiah" too. That's how pathetic atheists' stance is in this. Atheists have such an illogical, pointless viewpoint, they might as well not waste their time trying to argue origins. Just go party their "life" away and have fun. Let those with actual reasonable viewpoints debate our origin, since something from nothing is extremely laughable and pathetic of a stance to hold. Yet the delusional atheist has the gall to act like *they're* the rational thinker. :P

[@caljames7971]

must there be a purpose to life

[@danger2709]

+Callum Boast You've just summed up religion - the desperate hope that arises from the fear of death. It's been a great tool that has been used effectively to control the uneducated masses for centuries. Thankfully, the information age is quickly eroding that power

[@johnlewisbrooks]

+danger2709 Big problem. Very few people who believe in God are afraid of death at all. I'm a prime example. I am FAR more afraid of living than dying.

[@danger2709]

johnlewisbrooks not sure you've understand my point. It is the natural fear of death which drives people to religion, on the promise that there is something after death. ie. many religious people no longer fear death, as they have the false promise of an afterlife. btw - that's a really sad statement to say that you are afraid of life. Just another example of how immoral religion is

[@johnlewisbrooks]

danger2709 An example of how immoral religion is? Not really. For me, when I say that, it means that all pain and suffering is experienced in the here and now, not the later. And I have no false promise of an afterlife, I know there's one because I have seen it. Go ahead and call me a crazy loon.

[@danger2709]

johnlewisbrooks you've seen it? Why only you? Surely a kind and just god would reveal that to everyone! If it was only revealed selectively, that would be highly immoral behaviour by such an ominscient being!! Can you please provide evidence?

[@Sempi10]

What premises?? Why are you treating KZbin like an actual debate?

[@matreyia]

So Mr. Craig's position is that human life with no objective purpose is a "bad" thing. It would follow that he must then define what he means by "objective". Glorifying God is does not fit in the "objective" parameter. It is a choice (subjective) which brings the voluntary worshiper peace of mind and joy in most cases. The word PURPOSE must be split into two aspects - one having to do with personal objective, and the other with non-personal objectivity - that would be FUNCTION. I submit that the PURPOSE of life is to find peace, joy, stability, happiness. And the FUNCTION of life (and existence of all things in general), is to convert matter to energy and energy to matter. The evidence for this is undeniable in the world and throughout the universe. What evidence? 1. Purpose of life - to find happiness, stability, peace, safety, comfort: seen in every living thing down to the cellar level - no living organism puts itself in harm's way for unnecessary reasons. Living things act in order to be at a safer more comfortable place in the world and to survive and keep their progeny alive and healthy. 2. FUNCTION of life (existence in general) - convert matter to energy back and forth. Nothing conceivable is exempt from this statement. Even your thoughts are energy made possible by ingesting matter and converting its constitution to energy to sustain or produce thought. I welcome anyone here who takes issue with this and wishes to educate me on the errors of my views in regards to this subject.

[@matreyia]

mrmemanme Thank you for your sincere response. Though they were well thought out, I disagree on all of them in some form or another. -------- “I don't think he thinks life with no objective purpose is a bad thing it is just ultimately meaningless,” >>One finds meaning in life in one’s own way. Each life is unique and though the base functions and purpose in life itself is identical, the meaning one derives or makes of her life is unique to every life experience. Furthermore, “objective purpose” as it relates to living persons is subject to that person’s wishes. A person may have the objective purpose of becoming an actor, a criminal etc… and no one could say he has no “objective purpose”, surely he does, though you and I may disagree with his own objective purpose in life. This shows that the term “objective purpose” itself is nonsense if each person’s “objective purpose” is subject to her unique desires. -------- “Furthermore with no objectivity good and bad are all relative.” >>What might you say is “objectively good”? I submit to you that this term is also nonsense since one person or nation’s idea of what is “objectively good” may be another nation or person’s idea of what is “objectively bad” due to cultural differences. In short there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” and those things are indeed relative to the persons and cultures that define them. However, one thing that does exist and is not subjective is the concept of “suffering”. Suffering exists truly and does not depend on cultural differences. This is because the hallmarks of suffering is the recoiling of an organism from harm, discomfort, physical or emotional pain caused by loss, impermanence, being with something that the organism does not want to be with, being away from something that the organism wishes to be with. Note that the key idea here is: “recoiling, rejection of such things”. Therefore, it is possible for some organisms to experience pain because of attraction to it, but not suffer from it - such as S&M fetish lovers etc. Since in this particular case, the person likes the pain, it does not cause them to suffer. Indeed, if the person wishes to be with the pain and it is taken away from him, then he will suffer because of his desire to be with the pain. The causes of suffering are myriad and varied, but suffering itself is just suffering. Do not confuse the cause with the result. -------- “If there are no objective stances on purpose and morality then you cant claim that this is "objectively" bad.” >>I do not recall ever claiming anything as being objectively bad. I can only have the right to say something is bad according to my definition of “bad”. Your definition might be completely different. Imagine a world with no humans or sentient life. There would be no such thing as good or bad even in the subjective sense…and certainly not in any “objective” sense either. Things would just behave as the laws of the cosmos require them to behave. Now come back to this world we live wherein consciousness exists. The very same thing situation is still present. There is no such thing as “good or bad”, rather, there are only particles and energies which configure brains and now there is an additional mind element which is able to conceive of the concepts of “good and bad”. But the mind itself is still just another element or result of the cosmos and is subject to the same laws of the cosmos. As stars are born and die, planets do the same, so too will minds be born and die. And it is not good, nor bad. It just IS. Our ignorance projects special illusions of self grandeur due to consciousness’s existence. But the only values in the Universe, exists only in our consciousness’…outside of that, it has absolutely no meaning to the laws of the cosmos that create wondrously powerful forces like novas and black holes on a daily basis. -------- “Second point is that I think you are confusing free will with objectivity.” >>There is no such thing as objectivity when talking about beliefs. It is all relative to the person or group’s upbringing. If you say Jesus was the Son of God and think it objectively good to believe so, an Muslim will use that belief as the reason to execute you because in Islam that idea is blasphemy since they are taught Allah has no equal, no wife, no son…there is only Allah. -------- “You are right in saying that we choose to worship god but that does not make it subjective, I choose not to murder because I believe it is objectively bad, but the fact that it is objectively bad has not forced me to not commit murder.” >>How do you know murder is “objectively bad”? Because you are taught this. The only thing that murder objectively entails is the death of another organism. If a man murders another person for homosexual acts or not believing, this may be seen as “good” by fundamental religious zealots. Now, you just wrote: " I choose not to murder because I BELIEVE it is objectively bad"...then right after this, you contradicted yourself in saying: "the FACT that it is objectively bad has not forced me to not commit murder.” Here, you are claiming that your BELIEF that murder is bad makes it a FACT that murder is bad. This is a nonsensical statement. Furthermore, “murder” itself is defined differently by different groups. Some only include killing humans in their definition. Some include other life forms such as lower animals. Since this is the situation, it makes the whole idea of “murder is objectively bad” - even more difficult to prove. Because there are people who go sport hunting and murder deer, bears, all manner of animals for fun and they think it is a good thing while others think it is bad. I tell you the only thing objective with Murder is the ending of a life form. Now, if the death of that life form creates suffering for his loved ones, then in their minds, that murder is bad. However, if the death of that life form is seen by his mortal enemies, then they would celebrate his killing as a joyous event. -------- “the fact that it is objectively bad has not forced me to not commit murder.” >>No, the fact that you “believe” it's bad stops you from committing murder. If you were someone in WW2 in Germany desperately hunting to kill Hitler and you found him, you would kill him on the spot and think it were a good thing because of the situation. It depends on the context in all cases. -------- “..."no living organism put themselves in harms way for unnecessary reasons". I disagree, take people like Schindler, risking everything to save the lives of countless others who were not of his tribe or kin.” >>Here friend, “unnecessary reasons” is being interpreted by your own personal definition. You have a right to that definition. This term should be understood as according to the organism in question. This too is a personal choice unique to every human being. Schindler put himself in harms way because it is apparent that HE believed it was necessary, not because YOU did not share the same definition of “necessary/unnecessary” reasons. I hope this clears up my position and that I correctly understood your comments. Feel free to correct any misunderstandings on my part.

[@kidkath975]

So every thing you have said is objectively meaningless...

[@Y2KNW]

The only thing objectively meaningless in this video is everything WLC says.

[@marcoestiercol6112]

William Lane Crane is like one of those unethical lawyers that travel from town to town, defending guilty rapists, burglars and murderers, presenting his weak, fallacious and circular arguments over and over against tons and tons of evidence against his position. But this intellectually dishonest man is lucky, because there's never a final verdict on the subject, so this sociopath goes to collect his filthy check... and to another city, dresses up, put on some cologne on, comb his hair, look himself in the mirror with intellectual shame, until he reminds himself of that juicy check waiting for him backstage, take a deep breathe and enters the stage trying to look respectable, credible and noble, talks his bullshit for an hour or so and collect his dishonest check once again... and so on. May be writes a book, without ever dealing with the evidence against his position of course, and sell it to thousands of insecure, ignorant weak people. People unable to deal with they own mortality.

[@noeternaluniverse2930]

Y2KNW Care to back up your assertion?

[@Y2KNW]

The moment someone like WLC starts talking about objectivity you can stop listening because, in his mind, the subjective whims of the one deity he believes exists magically turn into objective qualities to the rest of us, based on nothing other than his own opinion. What makes it objectively meaningless is that, if you presented this argument (and any other argument WLC makes) as a reason to worship *any other god* mankind has invented, he will refuse to accept it, again based on his own opinion. Everything he says boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong, neener neener neener,", which is about as meaningless as you can get in a debate without being the kind of person who just flips the table the moment it becomes apparent you're gonna lose.

[@peterdeusterman7210]

Y2KNW I often see this argument against WLC when he argues for the existence of *a* God, but you're either ignorant of or willingly ignoring his arguments for the uniqueness and truthfulness of Christianity among other religions based on several things, but most notably the evidence of the literal bodily resurrection of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The argument for theism is one argument. The argument for Christianity standing alone in the truth of theism is a different argument. Critics' response to the first is often "but why YOUR God, you reject all of the rest" and their argument to the latter is "you're assuming God exists when there is no evidence". Each criticism are answered by the other argument. For a good resource on why Jesus is unique among the other major gods, I recommend Ravi Zacharias' book "Jesus among other gods"

[@Y2KNW]

Peter Deusterman The only difference between Jesus (and by extention, Yawheh & Allah, who are the same concept) and the 3000+ other gods mankind has invented is that no one is vehemently arguing the existence of the other 3000+ on the internet

[@heatrayzvideo3007]

Alan Moore coined it well when he said (I paraphrase) 'The only place god exists is in the human imagination and there he exists in all his grandeur, glory and terror'

[@emailpobox666]

Waiting on any logical fallacies or perhaps you dispute one one the premises. if so please enlighten me

[@JonKrueger]

"Thats a very good question" Thank you for your kind words. It seems to occur too frequently that somebody calls a question stupid rather than answer it or admit that it is a good question (or a thought provoking question or a question that is not so easily answered). I am willing to admit this for some of life's biggest questions: there is not always an answer I consider good or an answer that I like. Can God be proven or disproven? One possible answer: it might not be possible.

[@reasonrules4165]

There is no proof, period.

[@genesis204]

@@reasonrules4165 whats your acceptable level of evidence?

[@timthorson52]

If it's not possible, then why would people live there life with the assumption god exists?

[@timthorson52]

@@genesis204 I suspect it's a bit more than a books from over a thousand years ago written from by people at least several decades after the events they describe by different people than those that would have witnessed the events. Whether or not someone else believed or believes something is true does not mean it is true, you could find proof that some historical person was real and believed(perhaps even a person referenced in the bible), but that would not be sufficient evidence to warrant it being true. People believe things all the time and sometimes even attest to miracles which could easily be the work of a skilled "magician". We have more evidence of emperor vespasian's healing of a blind man than of Jesus's healing a blind man, and people now dont think vespasian really had healing powers. What level off evidence is needed? Ulimately I dont know, but at this point the evidence generally comes across as poor. I certainly dont want to die and cease to exist, but I have no good reason to believe that is not the case.

[@genesis204]

@@timthorson52Why demand evidence if you can’t even define what would be acceptable level of evidence?

[@clif26]

my motivation for living life is the fact that I'm alive. how hard is that to figure out ?

[@moregasmthepowerful2959]

Hitchens, your meaning was fulfilled. You opened my eyes to the doctrinal dogma of religion and allowed for reasoned argument and an escape from this arrogant totalitarian belief. Thank you.

[@ourclarioncall]

I’m reminded of Genesis 3

[@emailpobox666]

Do you dispute any of the premises?

[@jondobbie]

When the truth is presented all other reasoning fails. God delivers every time

[@g4l4h4d1]

Zumoto 7 he does delivery now?

[@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543]

@Winston Kent we are the ppl, the means are failing in sin, judeo banks stealing money and promoting atheists to morally divde us and aid divide and conquer, look how judeo marxism sweeps right through atheist china!

[@ericday4505]

WLC never loses, simply put.

[@ScinLaeca358]

Sure he does. Actually no theist can ever win an intellectual argument.

[@ericday4505]

I am just stating that WLC argues from the correct position, and he just about says the same things and he still makes to me the very best points.

[@ericday4505]

dudurune They were not children, and God gives life he can take life. And he didnt send anything they were there and he used them. Those were young adults.

[@ericday4505]

poopmannelson1​ Dude they are full of contradictions. They appeal to the intellect, then pop into existing, there is no God but they just cant stand what he does. They are rather silly. All the while as you said , they have no objective morality, so how the heck are they judging. And why does it matter. They are comedic.

[@ericday4505]

dudurune God can take life he is author of life, he is sovereign.

[@andrewpaul1644]

Our purpose is for the satisfaction of desire. To gain in ourselves the strength to overcome any obstical and to do so in a way that benifits all those who would do the same. Our driving force for this motivation is that we as a people have an oblegation to live life to its fullest for to do otherwise would be an insult to ourselves as living beings.

[@kennethrinicker3200]

Your post verifies objective morality.

[@0VistaDelMar0]

I don't want to go into great specifics just to say that Craig's argument is equivocative and red herring. Because objectively entropy will erase everything has nothing to do with objective morals. Ergo, moral values of atheists or anyone have nothing to do with entropy of the universe.

[@gevomaterina1019]

Terncote i am sorry, but this universe is dead when we die

[@crowrebirth]

Terncote that’s ironic, you’ve obviously not read the Bible. We get new bodies in heaven and our following of Christ’s example is conditioning our spirit to be able to exist as purely good. Our impurities and sinful impulses will be stripped from us when our current bodies are and we will live as pure perfect beings in heaven with the God. That is our will, not having our will stripped from us. We make God’s will our own will.

[@MyCr0w]

Well answered Mr. Craig!

[@icanfartloud]

***** No dumbass , the pinnacle of wishful thinking is you considering someone who gives themselves purpose based on their right to chose whatever avenue they wish is delusional. Simply means you're wishfully hoping no one knows the definition of delusional, so you can get away with misapplying it accurately. You can respond, but I don't converse with idiots who type "meh".

[@malignor9035]

***** Actually, "doing what you want", even though you didn't present it as an argument, is perfectly viable. The thing is, what you "want" is heavily restricted (if not completely dictated) by biology and circumstance. A Human can only be a Human, and think like a Human, and be compelled and motivated like a Human. We are not monsters able to follow the whimsy of madness just because we feel like it, we are sophisticated social animals with minds specialized for communication and acknowledging agency. We are prone to care for each other, to value ourselves based on how others value us. Morality comes from this, and it's in our biology. Human value, ego and morality are closely connected - we exist for one another... but alone we go insane and die as worthless primates. Look at solitary confinement as an example. Even most murderers and torturers are living in a (albeit twisted) value system centered around people as having value. Even revenge is about seeking acknowledgment for your pain and shoving empathy down the throat of your target. We don't need some god for "purpose", we need each other.

[@ricardoveromariguez7318]

malignor

[@rarestiby]

Its funny how he twists words and sais people do it cuz of love instead of saying that they do it because they don't want to go to hell

[@MrUrech]

yeah exactly. as if atheists are destroying innocent people by saying you don't have to join organised systems of believe to be a beautiful human being. last I checked, its organised systems of belief that do all the destroying. Fear. that's all religion is. fear. except Buddhism, but that's not a religion.

[@zanzivar5892]

The book in itself is just A CLAIM, EVIDENCE is faaaar from it.

[@dtgb7]

There are allot of claims made by science that we cant prove yet some scientists teach them as truth, so your point is?

[@coldramen1449]

The Bible has claims and evidence

[@zanzivar5892]

@@coldramen1449 You may pretend to have EVIDENCE but, the book itself has NO ORIGINALS. IT was written years after the supposedly "happenings"; in scrolls in UNCIALS OR CURSIVES. If you want to shape your spiritual life based on a book that Constantine decided which ones where included or excluded, so be it. Me, no thanks. ACCURACY is way far from it, especially when what you got is a TRANSLATION from Hebrew or Greek, not even ARAMAIC STRANGUELO which is supposed to be the DIALECT that Jesus spoke. There were so many godspells, that to pick up four is ridiculous. To many holes in the book to be trusted.

[@coldramen1449]

@@zanzivar5892 "You may pretend to have EVIDENCE " I am not pretending, I do have evidence. "but, the book itself has NO ORIGINALS. IT was written years after the supposedly "happenings";" This is because of what it meant to write back then and oral tradition. This video will explain: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHTTXpSvdtVqnKc Actually, the whole series will explain. "in scrolls in UNCIALS OR CURSIVES. If you want to shape your spiritual life based on a book that Constantine decided which ones where included or excluded, so be it. Me, no thanks. " And just what evidence do you have that the Bible was written by COnstantine? " ACCURACY is way far from it, especially when what you got is a TRANSLATION from Hebrew or Greek, not even ARAMAIC STRANGUELO which is supposed to be the DIALECT that Jesus spoke." Not ture, the Gospels are some of the most accurate documents of the ANcient World. This is explained in the video series. " There were so many godspells, that to pick up four is ridiculous." Why are they ridiculous? They were determined to be authored by the people who they are named after. "To many holes in the book to be trusted." Based off of what?

[@zanzivar5892]

@@coldramen1449 I could disclose the book but, your mind is made up, as I can tell. Keep it to yourself, I am not to convince anybody who already made up his mind on whatever. I spent thirty years as a Christian, so I am fed up with it.

[@maniadoc1]

Paul himself admitted he made-up lies, then contradicted too - ROM 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? - PHIL 1:18:But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives (pretence) or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice - Gal:1:20: I (Paul) assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie - Gal:1:11: the gospel I preached is not of human origin

[@gcat1113]

Hitchins ‘ character could be an argument against atheism . He wondered WHY Christians champion life, yikes , scary 😰

[@Sempi10]

Preach it brother man! You finally understand what worship means! Amen!

[@scottblack7182]

No 😂

[@ChannelMath]

Atheism does not claim the heat death of the universe, that's called science. WLC does not believe in science. (actually, I think he's just being dishonest here). I also notice that, while Craig says he doesn't believe this admits a purpose, and he believes in purpose, he never says what he believes the truth to be instead. Presumably some sort of rapture/heaven stuff, yet he NEVER defends his actual Christian beliefs (in any video I've seen), or even expresses them! he only attacks alternatives (even though we all know that without the rapture/heaven stuff, there wouldn't even BE people like him). Smart apologist!

[@Christian-moviesCoUk]

WLC very much believes in science, he is not what you might suppose in that respect. You might be interested to read his essays and articles on his website 'reasonable faith'.

[@truerealrationalist]

"...he never says what he believes the truth to be instead. Presumably some some sort of rapture/heaven stuff, he he NEVER defends his actual Christian beliefs (in any video I'vee seen), or even expresses them... Smart apologist!" So...he's an apologist who, according to you, never actually engages in Apologetics? I mean, because Apologetics literally is the defense of doctrine through systematic argumentation, which is something you say, you have _never witnessed_ Dr. Craig _do._

[@unggrabb]

What is it with Craighs claw hands? Creepy

[@errant3]

hitchens: cool guy looking for truth craig: a guy scared of death with an immaginary friend

[@anthonytoscano5632]

Believing in something that is unseen and I must obey this unseen rules. accept a delusion on faith and for eternity honor something that's hasn't proven to be real, is so ridiculous. After reading the bible some years ago, is how Atheism became more sensible, in my life. I've never felt so free from B S once I realized it was us and nothing else, many self imprisonments went away. To center your life on a myth, or fairy tale to me is the high point of ignorance. Miserable people looking for eternal life, just doesn't make sense

[@john84753]

I've never seen Hitchens this nervous and flustered. This Craig character is pretty awesome...not that I believe a word he says.

[@gerryfromthevoid8986]

He's literally no different or flustered than with any of his other debate partners.

[@GreyException]

I like how Billy Craig can't accept the fact that our subjective meaning is worth something. Always has to put "illusion" after his speech. There is no illusion to our subjective meaning when we acknowledge that in true technicality, there is no given purpose. That is why we make the best, or worst, or whatever of life we can. This is no illusion. This is reality.

[@williamfitzpatrick6369]

Craig is just another basket case.

[@Harborx]

Not an argument.

[@z06dave]

Regardless of where we came from or what end we will meet I prefer to spend my time on earth soaking information and becoming a more enriched human being, my eyes are wide open. Basically, I agree with Chris. Don't live a lie, you'll never know true freedom until you remove the religious braces that keep you from having free will and free thinking. I make my own decisions for my own purpose and my own gain, not for a sky wizard. Religion brings comfort to those who need it, personally I accept life for what it is, a short time spent in existence to witness the miracle of life. Morality is hard coded into us, animals have morality, and what are we if not animals? I don't need to follow an instruction manual on how to lead a good life. If you are a good person you'll figure it out on your own.

[@danielsatterfield733]

+Dave Checkley But, doesn't keeping an open mind mean you should be open to the thought or belief in God? Just saying.

[@z06dave]

Daniel Satterfield Well no, because to believe in a God, whichever one it may be (there are over 4000) then you are basically saying, "I don't believe in common logic or scientific findings, I dismiss the work of the smartest minds in existence and turn my nose up at anyone who says otherwise" this is the true voice of ignorance and the opposite of being open minded. You are living by a code, a book, that was written by mortal men at some point in time. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, not even a crumb, that supports the belief of Adam and Eve. However all over the globe there and hundreds of thousands of Museums which display fossils clearly predating the bible. What about dinosaurs? The old testament believed the earth was 10000 years old. That is just laughable. That would mean that everything that's evolved and adapted on this planet has done so more or less instantly. Anyway I'm not contesting your belief system, I have nothing against Christians in particular just all religions. It poisons the mind of the young and the weak and makes many do unthinkable things. The human race will not survive if religion does.

[@PikUpYourPantsPatrol]

And what do you base "being a good person" off of? Could it be faith?

[@jasonkeith9317]

@@z06dave Christ Himself was also very anti-religious that is why the religious leaders had him killed. Religion cannot save u only a personal relationship with the God of this universe through His only Son can save u!!!

[@edshepherd3291]

True Freedom to think freely .......please explain that before you were not free thinking or you were just ?

[@emailpobox666]

I gave you several valid objections to the arguments . What do you dispute and why

[@johnlewisbrooks]

Watching Hitchens squirm and sweat and twiddle. His body language gives it all away. He has been whipped by Craig and he knows it. All Hitchens was, was an emotional hothead, a real hot-house lily who wilts under the pressure.His entire career was SCREAMING AT GAWD!

[@TootieBuns]

+johnlewisbrooks He was trying to hold himself back from telling everyone that the meaning of life is Jack Daniels.

[@johnlewisbrooks]

Mrs. Pleepers Yep. An alcoholic loser with a British accent. Nothing more.

[@RoseNoho]

+johnlewisbrooks You have it wrong. Craig was Hitch slapped.

[@johnlewisbrooks]

Rose NoHo Whatever. All Hitchens had going for him was a loud mouth who knew how to blow up at things. There was nothing remarkable about him. Now if someone like Neil Degrassi Tyson were to take up arms against William Craig or Lennox it would be a fair fight.

[@RoseNoho]

johnlewisbrooks Nah, Hitchens knew how to form a good argument, and point out the absurdity of many religious beliefs.

[@DM-wm9rb]

Hitchen always wins.

[@saoirseirisbolton2684]

I love how much Hitchens would fidget and sweat when he knew he was losing the debate. Smart man but let his emotions get in the way of logical reasoning. Well done, Mr. Craig. Jesus always wins in the end.

[@rslider00]

Odd interpretation since if you watch the full debate, minus the gish gallop, Hitchens eviscerated Craig, to the point where myself as a Craig fan had to pause the video and watch another time.

[@jellydee123]

2:36 I think the answer to thst is time cannot be experienced when one is unconscious, like when you hsve anesthesia, you wake up immediately although you've been under for 9 hours

[@pepsimax6671]

your conscience is unaware but your sub conscience is still active , just like when you sleep you only remember the dreams happening as you wake up , your average dream is 5-15 seconds long .

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Craig always pretends to use logic and reason to reach his position, but what is logical with a resurrection?

[@beasty108]

If God exist then it isn't illogical. You are viewing things by your world view dude... You people don't know how to debate. Take some tips from the atheist who actually know somethings.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

beasty108 What does resurrection of someone has to do with any Gods? Do you mean that everyone that has been said to have been resurrected is automatically the son of God?

[@beasty108]

Niklas Wikstrom The argument is that if God exist people can come back from the dead, split a sea open, etc... Jesus is the Son of God because He was God in the flesh... He was the messiah as prophesied. The way Jesus would be born all the way to the way Jesus would die was prophesied decades before He was even born.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

beasty108 Oh ok, so this is your argument: "A book says that the early part of the book is a prophecy of what is described in the later part of the book = God exists and magicked everything". Great argument, it really is

[@beasty108]

Niklas Wikstrom Look the Bible isn't just one book. It contains 66 BOOKS written by different authors. So no. My argument is that many different authors who, did not even know each other, made prophecies of a Man(Jesus) DECADES BEFORE HE EVEN EXISTED and every prophecy came to past. The fact that He was resurrected and everything else proved that the Christian God exist. Before the proper question would have been which god exist.

[@ivansanabria8928]

It's hard to have a sane person like Hitchens, try to reason with a condescending nut like Craig.

[@pepsimax6671]

until you can explain how you get something from nothing , you have no arguement what so every , I think believing you can get something from nothing is the crazy person.

[@jacobrobbins3147]

I know this has nothing to do with whose viewpoint is correct, but it's clear from the video that Craig is much less condescending (and rude) than Hitchens.

[@walrusnose]

Wow, I wonder if this Craig guy actually believes what he is saying. Why would Hitchens even bother attempting to debate with this baseless Zealot.

[@pepsimax6671]

HAHA aww truth hurts dont it .

[@ayekaye8055]

Walrusnose watch the whole debate if you haven’t already.

[@Dyzlak75]

No, I didn't raise a question. I suggested you consider Richard Lenski's work with bacteria, feel free to refute it if you can.

[@0000thommes]

Preachers shouldn't debate-- every statement sounds like it comes from a pulpit and falls hollow on ears not attuned to blindly following while sitting in a church pew.

[@beasty108]

WLC isn't a preacher dude... You simply don't know what you are talking about...

[@davidwild66]

tom clark Well said.

[@davidwild66]

beasty108 If he's not a preacher he should be a used car salesman. The man could talk under water with a mouthful of ice.

[@beasty108]

David Wild what relevance does that have with this video?

[@HaroldTheDog24]

David Wild If all you have to attack him on is how he presents his arguments, then he's clearly got the advantage in the argument.

[@callactm14]

hitchens was a lame joke of life.

[@bellevueace6]

Out of curiosity, which religions did you systematically discount (and how) before you chose christianity? I ask because in my experience most religious people tend to follow whichever faith is around them. India = Hindu, Thailand = Buddhist, N.America = christian and........so on.

[@Sempi10]

Did you just reply to me...or did someone force you? That's what I thought.

[@mrluke13]

one year before this debate Hitch slammed Jerry Fawell after he passed away, and a year later ... diagnosed with cancer and croaked....hmmm

[@Gweilo28]

But is that the same for all or most atheists? Likewise, in response to your previous comment, is that the same for all religious people?

[@Sempi10]

Yes, but non of that removes the 'freedom' of your will does it? Even if your subconsciousness has a millisecond lead, it doesn't change the fact that you still made that choice. You will is always free, there's absolutely no question about it. None.

[@GaudioWind]

I don't think I understood your question. But you could start by trying to explain what glorifying God means. When you go to heaven and start doing this activity of glorifying God, what is it going to be?

[@Vic2point0]

+Storm Hawk "which is just that , an argument this Kalam cosmological theory." Well it's a *deductive* argument, meaning that if the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion follows inescapably whether you like it or not. "The burden of proof is on the claimant not the one who doesn’t believe. As Hitchens rightly puts," Both people made a statement on god's existence. Hitchens admitted he would go as far as to say there is no god in the cross-examination period. Moreover, he lived his life *opposing* theism, for which he would need justification. It's either that theism in and of itself is harmful or that it's false, and no one's ever been able to support either claim. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But in reality, this is just a way of rejecting any and all evidence that's provided, because the anti-theist can keep saying "Nope! That's not extraordinary enough for me!" Besides which, Craig's arguments conclude with very extraordinary evidences (e.g. a cause of space and time, a designer of the fine-tuning of the universe, a miraculous resurrection). Again, they're deductive arguments. You can't just fold your arms and shake your head and expect that to refute them. "Zero physical evidence at all." There is no such thing as purely physical evidence; there will always be evidence for particular premises and then logic and philosophy take over from there. For example, even a video of one man shooting another has to be coupled with assumptions such as "The video was not doctored", "This is not a prank", etc. before a jury can rule that man is guilty. And yes, William Lane Craig is a respected philosopher. The irony of your comment is that it was *Hitchens* who was underqualified to speak on metaphysical considerations (such as theism), being a popularizer and a journalist and not much else. "Watch him against Sean Carroll, an actual qualified scientist" Craig *gets* his material from "actual, qualified scientists". And I've watched the debate three times, and given an analysis explaining how Craig won that debate also. And again, there's irony here. Carroll is qualified to speak on natural science. That's it. He utterly failed at his attempts to do philosophy in their debate, and this topic has at least as much to do with that as it does science.

[@Vic2point0]

+Storm Hawk "Yes but there’s still plenty of Christians who believe the world is only 6000 years old." Ah, but your task is to justify anti-theism; that means you need to show that theism in and of itself (or even Christianity in and of itself) causes that belief. You can't do that, however, because even you admit that a lot of Christians don't have that belief. "Name me single non-believer who thinks that nonsense is true." Just because this particular false belief is an interpretation specifically of Christian texts, doesn't mean that being a Christian leads to this or any other false belief. "You couldn’t refute WLC would have been an Hindu had he’d been born in India or a Muslim had he’d been born in the Middle East, that’s he’s purely a Christian because through pure random chance he was born in America," Craig himself refuted that, when he identified it as the genetic fallacy. Even if it were proven that the only reason Craig believes in the Christian god is that he was born in the U.S., it wouldn't show the belief to be false. Which means it falls short of justifying anti-theism, once more. "St Augustine? This the same saint who said that all unbaptised children shall go to limbo right? Don’t know if it’s caught your attention but the Vatican now say limbo no longer exists." I'm not interested in your red herring soup. The only point was that Christians were denying Young Earth Creationism long before Darwin came upon the scene. "don’t try to take Darwin’s credit away and give it him, won’t work." I didn't. I just pointed out the fact that rejection of YEC is not a purely scientific or anti-theistic accomplishment. "Every Christian ever up to the 19th century totally believed in creationism and the young earth theory," My mention of St. Augustine has already shown otherwise. And please don't equivocate on terms now. Young Earth Creationism and creationism are two different things. ME: “As for those who lived before Jesus , Christians typically believed that god’s message reached them as well “ YOU: "not a single shred of evidence to support that theory" If you mean to dispute that Christians *believe* god's message reached those who lived before Jesus, consider 1 Pet. 3:18-20... "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also *He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison"* "You couldn’t refute the 99.9% of all extinctions this planet as had too." I directly refuted it by pointing out that "waste" and "efficiency" are human concepts. And generally, logically speaking, no finite amount of suffering can be emphasized over an eternal bliss such as how Christians conceive of heaven. So it seems to me that Craig's arguments stand (especially in regards to what you and Hitchens have to offer in response to them, which is nothing), and that Hitchens' arguments fail to support anti-theism or strong atheism.

[@Sempi10]

You see, you've already negated your argument by saying there is no God, thus removing any argument for free will., because if we DON'T have a free will, then who is controlling it? And if god knows all possible outcomes, then of course, you can make any decision you choose. Your 'will' is 'free'.

[@John_May.]

Definition of Glorify by Merriam-Webster: to make glorious by bestowing honor, praise, or admiration. Also, to give glory to (as in worship). It's a distinction without (much) of a difference from what Craig said was NOT our purpose, it seems to me. Finally, how does the questioner not know whether God's purpose for him was to ask that question? It could have a purpose known only to God thereby fulfilling the questioner's unspoken point; that we all have a purpose.

[@jouc12]

Make up your mind before you post. You keep sending messages and then delete them.

[@shanemartin3450]

Fair enough sir, thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

[@emailpobox666]

Let me know if you wish an explanation of the problems of the other arguments

[@mannie7028]

At what point in our evolution did god decide to intervene?

[@emailpobox666]

The problems with the Kalam are 1composition fallacy 2equivocation of "begins to exist"3special pleading and 4argument from ignorance 5A-temporal causality, b-theory of time ,and last but not least an effectless effect

[@aescoto1523]

According to the his biographer, Hitchens spent his last days reading GK Chesterton's "Everlasting Man" the book CS Lewis credited with his conversion. His own biographer noted it was odd, how much he read it.

[@RedBenjamin]

Really?

[@stevenhartlaub4557]

I’m not surprised. Atheists are very nearly believers. Lewis was an atheist first. Even Sartre made comments about turning toward God when he was near death, much to the chagrin of Simone de Beauvoir.

[@kyussbrooker1774]

I think the question should be why is it important to have objective moral values. What destinction does it make between the subjective world view.

[@citizenghosttown]

Agreed. The real dilemma regarding moral values is not whether they are are "objective" but whether or not they are "universal." If moral values are "objective" then they exist independent of the existence of human beings on the planet. Which is absurd.

[@Sempi10]

Prove you wrong in what regard?? That you have a free will? YES, you have a free will, we all do. What do I need to prove?

[@pdoylemi]

Part 2 - As for evolution in engineering see /watch?v=pcL7J8XIyiw for an old 1980's piece on this. There is much more, but I cropped it to the most critical part to keep the length down. It discusses how engineers discovered the use of natural selection in computer models to optimize designs. Things that "random chance" would take forever to reach are easily accessible through natural selection.

[@kylebergthold8473]

There are no objective moral values period. All morality is subjective. Why has no one ever pointed this out to William Lane Craig?

[@ralphmunn1685]

I find every word that drips and dribbles out of Craig's mouth to be disgusting in its subservience to a Bronze-age totalitarianism, his artifice in celebrating this celestial subjugation notwithstanding.

[@Mojojojo335]

Remove hate from your heart

[@bazpearce9993]

@@Mojojojo335 Hearts pump blood. Nothing else. If you have evidence to support your claim, present it. Otherwise, SHUT UP!

[@emailpobox666]

Still waiting on any logical fallacy or you disputing any of the premises

[@shanemartin3450]

Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion sir. I wish you well with it.

[@jouc12]

And before you come up with sublimation, I should add that if that's the case then you need to answer how and why there is still ice around.

[@Sempi10]

Why don't you just watch the videos for objective moral arguments. And what does that have to do with free will?

[@leftwingersareweak]

You might want to check who started the "ad homenin" (sic) attacks.

[@Vic2point0]

+dudurune "Inevitable suffering has nothing to do with ending the life of innocent beings." Nor did anyone *mention* inevitable suffering. I mentioned how parents *cause* suffering (because they just plain want a kid) and yet are universally considered loving despite this, precisely because they try their best to make up for it. And also keep in mind that "ending the life of" someone does not mean the same thing on Christian theism. If there is an afterlife, murder (OMGSHOCKHORROR!!) is a mere relocation. And so this further makes the point that the significance of the suffering *we* cause (as human parents) far outweighs whatever temporary suffering the Christian god might cause (assuming for the sake of your argument that he exists). "There's no paternal lesson to be learnt from that passage" And how in the world would you know, what purpose might have been served by the "atrocities" committed by god in the bible? "I do not believe in your story of eternal happiness," I'm not a Christian. But now you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible story we're to grant for the sake of argument. You can't do that; it reveals quite the bias on your part.

[@Vic2point0]

"That's inevitable suffering. It's unavoidable." Wrong. As I've told you twice now, the prospective parent can simply choose not to bring someone into this world to begin with. It is *perfectly* analogous to the Christian god, except that the Christian god is better equipped to actually make *sure* our suffering is worth it, whereas all the human parent can do is try their best. ME: "And also keep in mind that "ending the life of" someone does not mean the same thing on Christian theism. If there is an afterlife, murder (OMGSHOCKHORROR!!) is a mere relocation." YOU: "So you call the slaughter of 42 children for calling someone bald a mere relocation?" Of course! Logically speaking, that's what it entails, unless you pick and choose which parts of the bible story we're going to grant for the sake of argument (which, again, reveals a glaring bias on your part). "Shows how you Christians really do value lives on the material world." I'm not a Christian, but this angle won't work for you either. Christians are told plainly not to murder, and believe in things like the sanctity of life. ME: "And how in the world would you know, what purpose might have been served by the "atrocities" committed by god in the bible?" YOU: "I suppose that's true." You *know* it's true. ME: "I'm not a Christian. But now you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible story we're to grant for the sake of argument. You can't do that; it reveals quite the bias on your part." YOU: "I wouldn't be able to tell. All theists are equally irrational," So your response to this refutation is name-calling? "I'm picking ONE of many verses that contain indefensible injustice-" You mean, you're *asserting* that many verses contain indefensible injustice, and then picking a verse at random. "It's not bias, it's a fact" Wrong. If you're going to say "God is evil because he killed lots of people; it's written in the bible!", you absolutely *must* also grant the reality of the afterlife and factor that into your analysis. Otherwise, you are operating on a bias, in that you will allow the "bad" parts of the story to be granted but then completely reject the good.

[@emailpobox666]

How bout the Objective moral argument for starters

[@meu02136]

It always baffles me why someone would knowingly pick a side in an argument where they are scientifically proven to have no basis in truth, since arguments all need some sort of basis in logic.

[@lederereddy]

I don't understand how people ignore the fact that the universe demands a huge explanation for how and why it exists. Thinking there's not much or somehow insufficient evidence for believers to base their belief about their creator, to me, is like saying "What universe?" - "Because I don't see anything that represents what a creator would do!" And I've even heard people say there's "no" evidence for a Creator God! Perspective is everything! Start out wrong? End up wrong, every time!

[@CoDRagna]

check and mate? did you even hear the refutation?

[@siriusfun]

And yet, as a former evangelical christian, I find my capacity to love, accept and empathize with my fellow human beings has been greatly increased since I rejected christ and the church once and for all back in the mid 90s. Funny, that?

[@Romailjohn]

Is it necessary to be good with human beings why is it bad to do harm to them

[@sanf7191]

Do you consider a moral obligation do love your enemies, to desire well to those who do you harm?

[@emailpobox666]

oscillatory universe The singularity is Part of the "beginning" of the universe which you use to say the universe had a beginning. The mater in you has always existed just not in the form of you just like the universe.

[@bumper212]

Even Christopher Hitchens has great respect for William Lane Craig. Why can't you? Are you now basing arguments and debates on how you judge someones personality instead of applauding or at least respecting the validity of his arguments? Such a typical response, if you can't beat the person, make fun of them. Shame on you.

[@evanrmick280687]

Prof. N.T Wright would respond with greater theological context to Hitchens question, on why would Christians care for creation now. Craig should have responded in light of the 'New creation' , which was inaugurated by, and at the resurrection of, Jesus. This would have given Hitchens more clarity as to a Christians understanding of his or relation to creation now (or purpose) and, at the same time revealed to him that his knowledge of the Gospel leaves much to be desired.

[@andreaskarlsson5251]

A question for anyone that think God is their friend, are you equal to god? Do you think he sees you as his equal?

[@Uromastyxfanatics]

The vast majority of athiests fail to understand that evolution can serve to prove the basis of creationism rather than the latter. Attempting to discredit evolutionism regardless of personal belief would be ridiculously unwarranted. Evolution is and always has been essential for the maintenance of life. The difference, however, lies within the belief of macro evolution opposed to the much more prevalent accounts of micro evolution. Theism and science can work together.