Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg

Captured February 1, 2013 at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN.
Resources for further study: apps.biola.edu/...
Apologetics Events Around the World: www.apologetics...
Get Your M.A. in Christian Apologetics: www.biola.edu/a...

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌟 Dr. Craig introduces the debate on the reasonability of faith in God, highlighting the significance of the question and the engagement of viewers worldwide. 01:21 🎓 Dr. Craig presents the debaters: Dr. Alex Rosenberg arguing against faith's reasonability and Dr. William Lane Craig arguing for it, both distinguished philosophers with extensive contributions to their fields. 05:11 🎙️ Mr. Miller sets the stage for the debate, addressing the themes of faith, reason, and life. The symposium aims to explore these topics through discussions, lectures, and debates. 08:02 🤝 Distinguished judges from various fields are introduced, adding credibility and expertise to the evaluation of the debate's arguments. 10:58 🤔 Mr. Miller contrasts views on faith: Mark Twain's skeptical humor and historical philosophers' perspectives on faith as either irrational or a virtue. 13:49 🙌 Dr. William Lane Craig's opening statement focuses on arguments supporting the reasonability of faith in God, including the explanation of existence, the origin of the universe, mathematical applicability, and fine-tuning for intelligent life. 28:05 🌌 Fine-tuning argument: World ensemble hypothesis disconfirmed, design is best explanation for universe's fine-tuning. 28:59 🧠 Intentional states: Materialist view lacks intentionality, theism accommodates finite minds and intentional states. 30:51 🤔 Objective moral values: Atheism lacks objective moral values, theism grounds them in God and commands. 32:21 ⚡ Historical facts: Jesus' divine authority, resurrection, and disciples' beliefs evidence for God's existence. 38:22 🗣️ Debate approach: Critique of Dr. Craig's debating style, focus on victory vs. truth-seeking. 45:52 🌌 Fine-tuning counter: Critique of fine-tuning argument, multiple universes, string theory possibilities. 48:45 📜 Objective values: Critique of divine command theory, challenges to normative underpinnings of ethics. 56:25 🤷 Argument from evil: Argument against God's existence based on omnipotence and benevolence amid suffering. 56:54 🧐 Dr. Rosenberg argues the problem of evil: If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why is there suffering? This either questions God's power, goodness, or existence. 58:19 🗣️ Dr. Rosenberg presents the logical argument from evil, asserting that the presence of suffering contradicts the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God. 59:46 🙌 Dr. Craig argues that the logical problem of evil's premises are disputed and asserts that evil doesn't disprove theism without proving the impossibility of morally sufficient reasons for suffering. 01:00:42 🤯 Dr. Craig challenges Dr. Rosenberg's scientism, asserting that epistemological naturalism (science as sole knowledge source) doesn't entail metaphysical naturalism (only physical existence). 01:03:30 🤔 Dr. Craig argues that his theistic arguments can be accepted by epistemological naturalists, demonstrating compatibility between science and theism. 01:04:28 🤷 Dr. Craig contends that metaphysical naturalism's implications, as argued by Dr. Rosenberg, are absurd and contradictory to reason and experience. 01:08:19 🤨 Dr. Craig rebuts Dr. Rosenberg's criticisms of his arguments for God's existence, particularly the fine-tuning argument and historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. 01:12:55 📚 Dr. Rosenberg emphasizes that his book's arguments regarding intentionality and other philosophical concepts are distinct from the question of the reasonableness of belief in God. 01:20:37 😰 Dr. Rosenberg challenges the logical compatibility of a benevolent, omnipotent God with the existence of suffering and seeks a coherent explanation for the suffering in the world. 01:23:37 🧐 Dr. Craig emphasizes that logical arguments from evil are largely abandoned in philosophical discourse, as even agnostic philosophers recognize the complexity of the issue and the limitations of human knowledge. 01:28:13 🌌 Dr. Craig argues that the universe's fine-tuning for life, the applicability of mathematics, and the existence of objective moral values are better explained by theism rather than atheism. 01:34:51 😨 Dr. Rosenberg contends that the problem of evil remains a challenge for theism, suggesting that the free will defense isn't sufficient to reconcile the existence of God with the presence of suffering. 01:37:14 🤔 Dr. Rosenberg questions why a world with free will and no suffering wasn't chosen by God, proposing that a better arrangement could have been possible. 01:46:06 🙏 Dr. Craig shares a personal transformational experience, encouraging others to explore their own beliefs, and argues that God's existence is a more reasonable explanation for the world than atheism. 01:49:06 🤖 Dr. Rosenberg criticizes the use of mathematical objects as arguments for God's existence, suggesting that if God were as relevant as mathematical concepts, scientists would be more receptive to God's existence. 01:49:37 🛡️ Dr. Rosenberg advises believers not to demand that their faith be reasonable and warns against making oneself vulnerable to reason and evidence. 01:50:09 💼 Dr. Rosenberg proposes that believing in the absurd, even without reasonable grounds, can be a stronger psychological basis for faith. 01:50:36 🙏 Dr. Rosenberg acknowledges that faith, not reason, is often the firmer basis for commitment to Jesus, as experienced by many devout Christians. 01:52:11 🎙️ The debate concludes, leading to the Q&A session where the audience can ask questions to both debaters. 01:55:25 🤔 A question challenges Dr. Craig's stance on faith conflicting with evidence and reason, and the possibility of descending into radical skepticism. 01:57:10 🧠 Dr. Craig responds, distinguishing between propositional belief and trust, asserting that belief in God's existence can be grounded in personal experience. 01:59:54 🧪 Dr. Rosenberg explains the violation of causality in the decay of Uranium 238 due to quantum mechanics and argues for an event without a cause. 02:02:30 🤝 Dr. Rosenberg questions the effectiveness of debates as venues for genuine philosophical inquiry and suggests that they often lead to increased controversy and arrogance. 02:04:14 🤝 Dr. Craig emphasizes the importance of conducting debates with civility, charity, and honesty, even while presenting passionate arguments. 02:10:34 🌌 Dr. Craig clarifies his fine-tuning argument, which focuses on the narrow range of fundamental constants necessary for life, and emphasizes the argument's compatibility with various interpretations of quantum mechanics. 02:12:30 🌍 Dr. Rosenberg explains the emergence of universal moral norms through evolutionary selection, particularly cooperation, fairness, and equality, which facilitated human survival and progress. 02:16:27 🕊️ A question inquires about reconciling Christian faith's transcendent nature with the pursuit of reason. Dr. Craig responds, asserting that although God is beyond full comprehension, humans can still gain knowledge and understanding about God. 02:18:54 🛑 Dr. Craig argues that moral values and duties are rooted in God's character. He rejects the idea that God merely commands things arbitrarily; instead, God's commandments reflect his own goodness. 02:23:33 🎤 Dr. Miller prepares to share the conclusions of the audience's voting regarding the debate's arguments and perspectives. 02:24:57 📚 Dr. Craig counters Dr. Rosenberg's claim that science can operate without needing to account for God. He argues that while predictability is one criterion, other factors like simplicity and explanatory power are also important in scientific evaluation. 02:26:42 🤷‍♂️ Dr. Rosenberg highlights that he's more interested in exploring science's consequences for philosophical questions than directly proving atheism. He asserts that the further implications of science are not material in this particular debate. 02:27:42 📜 Dr. Craig counters Dr. Rosenberg's narrow scientism, asserting that science is not the only source of knowledge. He argues that fields like history, ethics, and aesthetics also provide valuable insights about the world. 02:32:16 😂 Dr. Rosenberg humorously reflects on the motivation behind writing his book and exploring the implications of science for philosophical questions that trouble humanity. 02:35:24 🤔 Dr. Craig responds to the question about why Jesus doesn't continue to physically reveal Himself. He emphasizes that God seeks a loving relationship rather than mere belief, and trusts in God's wisdom for providing evidence for His existence. 02:41:31 📖 Dr. Rosenberg clarifies that his book's seemingly paradoxical stance on sentences and meaning is intended to convey that his work is about rearranging neural circuits to correct misconceptions, rather than conveying traditional semantic statements. 02:43:58 🧠 Dr. Rosenberg refers to his book's explanation for making sense despite neuroscience challenging intentionality, and mentions a paper to elaborate on the topic. 02:44:26 🏆 Formal judging panel declares Dr. Craig as the winner in a 4-2 decision. Local Purdue audience votes: Dr. Rosenberg - 303, Dr. Craig - 1,390. Online vote: Dr. Craig - 734, Dr. Rosenberg - 59. 02:46:34 ⚰️ Dr. Miller humorously shares an epitaph and invites reflection, ending the event with a call to consider the discussions and upcoming talks.

[@786humaira1]

Thank you . I loved this debate . Of the intellectuals .

[@sambutler9927]

Debate starts at 17:15

[@TonyTooTuff]

Thank you Sam.

[@HunterW1409]

Thank you

[@HunterW1409]

Thank you

[@kensey007]

Most useful comment in the history of KZbin. You did it.

[@andreaskarlsson5251]

17 minute introduction for a friggin debate. Yikes!

[@firecloud77]

17:13 You're Welcome

[@Jesse_Scoccimarra]

Thank you!👍

[@terrygodgirl4430]

Loool, thank you!!

[@땅콩-t2i]

Thanks

[@zappafan3473]

seriously. seventeen minutes of my life i reasonably believe now exist

[@lancevoorheestapestrichann9740]

Around 44:12, Alex Rosenberg poo poos that something needs to have a cause to be created. He points to certain Uranium-238 atoms that produce "alpha particles" with no creator needed. I guess he should bone up on his physics because supernova explosions explosions create them. "Where do supernovas come from? one might ask. It's when immense gravitation cause two neutron stars to merge - "have intercourse," so to speak. And where do those randy neutron stars come from? When a massive star runs out of fuel, it reaches the end of its life, creating a supernova, and its core collapses under immense gravitational pressure, crushing protons and electrons together to form neutrons." And where does that massive star come from? They begin with extreme gravity acting on dense, collapsing clouds of gas and dust called "molecular clound." Does this mean God is gravity? Nope, it's the curvature of spacetime caused by MASS. And MASS was created by the MASSTER, who's son Jesus came to earth to set us free from our selfish selves.

[@johnganze6044]

If I had a dollar for every time Rosenberg says "uh"

[@victoriagolmehdi8506]

He has a stutter.

[@Miskeen-33]

If you had a IQ point for every time he says uh you might just become omniscient

[@pepper419]

Now say something useful.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

"I'm ruled by reason and evidence so I will start my opening debate with insults." - Atheist Debater

[@silverbackhayabusa]

Spam accounts spamming. LMAO

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Nice characterization!

[@johnnylamaa2569]

Where did he ever insult anybody? I don't see it anywhere. He just said that all of wlc's material can be easily found online and that he hoped nobody paid money to hear what he's already publicly said.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

​@@johnnylamaa2569 I decided to play the debate in the background just to see how easy it would be to point out what is so plainly there. "Is Dr. Craig infallible, or does he just not listen. Probably the latter." Best compliment I've ever heard. Not even remotely an insult. That's one minute in. And it continues to go downhill. Of course, you can't be bothered to be objective. You can't admit the atheist, instead of making a reasoned, fact-based argument, must rely on personal attacks and condescension. I'm sure that kind of argumentation sounds like science to you but they just merely makes it clear that you neither know what science is nor what makes for a reasoned argument. But hey, to be fair, one should listen to his arguments. He is obviously a man of reason and fact. "During the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, Rosenberg was one of the so-called Group of 88 professors who, shortly after members of the university's lacrosse team were accused of rape, signed a controversial letter attacking the players and thanking protesters for "making a collective noise" on "what happened to this young woman."" Yeah, so grounded in fact, this man would destroy young college men based on the false claims of a prostitute (and later, murderer). Glad to see that he never jumps to conclusions and relies purely on fact. Great champion for atheism you've allied with.

[@johnnylamaa2569]

@@silverbackhayabusa ""Is Dr. Craig infallible, or does he just not listen. Probably the latter." Best compliment I've ever heard. Not even remotely an insult." I mean sure, you can call it passive aggressive. I could agree with you on that. But there is an underlying point to it all - which is the fact that wlc's arguments have remained unchanged despite having dozens of debates with philosophers and scientists telling him what's wrong with his statements. It just points out the fact that he's obviously not listening to them, since clearly nobody can be this infallible. An off-handed, passive-aggressive comment? Sure. Attacking him with the purpose of trying to personally offend him? Not really. Again, it's just an observation. Why you are bringing up the whole thing about the university makes no sense. Ironically, the accusation of personal attacks that, in your words, "have nothing to do with the argument" are being used via bringing up this situation. Rosenberg can be a child rapist for all I care - if his arguments against theism are correct, that means his arguments against theism are correct. I fail to see the relevance here.

[@ProjectMysticApostolate]

Am I having a stroke or is there an issue with a mic? The audio keeps cutting for Dr. Rosenberg, I hear "uh" 99/sec.

[@jcrosby4804]

It’s a speech impediment. Very annoying all the same.

[@jaixzz]

Goodness knows Christians need Apologetics.

[@antoniojohnson4767]

That was brutal to listen to. Rosenberg needs serious help with his debating techniques.

[@logan77777771]

I do wish that there was a cross examination. They are the best parts of the debates I think. With that being said I was surprised that Doctor Rosenberg brought up a different argument in his closing statement. It seemed to be an attempt to leave the audience with such a thought in their heads without giving Doctor Craig a chance to try and refute it.

[@justreadjohn6_40]

I'm coming for your croissants carl

[@Mr.Goodkat]

It wasn't even an argument it was just we developed a process a couple of hundred years ago which I say God doesn't fit into or has a part in and I'd personally be more open to his existence if he did, it's like ok?? and your point was?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@justreadjohn6_40 how were they

[@bradramsey683]

If Rosenberg says “uh” one more time I’m going to scream

[@jesserichards729]

I'm wondering if he struggled with a stutter early in life. Those weren't simply bad "uh's" from someone that is uncomfortable public speaking. Those seemed like uncontrollable tics

[@peterogheneochuko6183]

He is confused

[@peterogheneochuko6183]

William Craig is a wonderful and insightful speaker

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

@@jesserichards729 I doubt it has anything to do with a stutter. He came across as someone very unsure of what he wanted to say. A lot of scientistic types wade into these debates unprepared, confident that because *they* are convinced Christianity (or theism more broadly) is a load of baloney, they'll easily be able to demonstrate it in debate, but then are quickly knocked off kilter when the debate begins. What's surprising about this debate is that Rosenberg claims to have debated WLC before, or at least that he's familiar with the kind of arguments WLC makes, yet he still managed to come across as uncertain and unprepared.

[@stephensherburne831]

@@danieltemelkovski9828 uhh... As stated in his book, he absolutely did (does) struggle with a stutter.

[@brianmabasa5251]

Why are Atheist always angry and always throwing insults instead on focusing on their arguments? I did not hear any reason or argument from Rosenberg that tells why is it a good reason to be an Atheist rather than an Theist. Not one. He kept on attacking Dr. Craig himself rather than doing a rebuttals and never really puts up anything attractive about the Atheisms belief.

[@elijahjohnson5282]

Amen bro

[@etherealblacketernal2889]

The same reason Theist do it. Because they're humans and humans can be idiots sometimes.

[@Elsupermayan8870]

This is nothing, checkout the debate between Jeff Durbin and "Dr." Clarke.

[@justin10292000]

I have been watching and/or listening to Christian-atheist debates for over a quarter of a century, and have NEVER heard an atheist claim that stands up under scrutiny. atheism is silly, toddler-tantrumish nonsense 🙄

[@Alexleight]

Dr. Rosenberg thinks we shouldn't accept Christian scholars who write about Christian documents and Christian doctrine. Should we then accept atheist scholars writing on atheistic philosophy?

[@optimisticdork8380]

Shannen T The universe coming into being is frankly magic if you ask me and all the other departments of astrophysics ._.

[@optimisticdork8380]

Shannen T the Christian God is the creator of everything. So, if everything was always there, then the Christian God wouldn’t exist. But that’s not the case.

[@optimisticdork8380]

Shannen T I don’t see what else to work on. We already know the universe had a beginning, and everything before that lacked everything. And nothing can generate something, so when we’re talking about the universe coming into being, we have to consider it a supernatural event - governed by a supernatural entity.

[@franciscocepeda8416]

N o please no

[@optimisticdork8380]

Shannen T you don’t understand the implications of creating a universe - you have to be (1) Eternal (2) omniscient (3) omnipotent. What that means is God can’t be created because he was always there - supernaturally. The idea of a bunch of universes existing doesn’t exclude God at all. The idea of the death of a universe leading to another new universe and then that universe’s death leading to another universe’s birth on repeat forever is a perfect example of an infinite series of events - which can’t exist.

[@KissMyBlade]

The biggest issue ALL atheists make when engaging in such debates is that they debate against religion, not against the concept of God or christianity as it's supposed to be. Religion is man made The core essence of Christianity isn't. Not trying to sound aggressive, but at least know the difference before starting to bash the wrong thing publicly. Just cuz the catholic church is the public view of christianity, doesn't mean that THAT's what christianity is about. (And there's lots....and lots...and LOTS of people who are faithful that will gladly tell you they're not religious but they are christian)

[@whulfz0r81]

Well said friend! I enjoyed that and can't agree more.

[@DeusEmDebate]

Notranzfat That's why they don't appeal to real pilgrims.

[@xJupy]

+Notranzfat Who created Christianity then?

[@christophergeer9669]

+xJupy Christ.

[@xJupy]

lmaoooo

[@harrisonhightower8255]

The only logically consistent argument from atheism is that there are no morals, no good or bad, no thoughts, no souls, and no minds. Dr. Craig won this debate by a mile. Praise God!

[@jkm9332]

And no free will! According to naturalistic materialism, atheists don’t even choose to be atheists; their brains make them believe atheism is true.

[@rhoff7272]

To paraphrase Hitchens when asked if he believed in free will, "i have no choice"

[@johnnylamaa2569]

I find it so funny how you could both watch the same debate, with the exact same things being said, in the exact manner they were executed, and reach that conclusion. Comedy gold.

[@madelynHernandez5577]

pretty much atheists don't exist then, neither does anyone based on their claims. Perhaps we are robots, but I am sure they would find a way to attack that too.

[@almcclain1061]

Joseph Campbell said that God is a metaphor for all the energy in the universe

[@Вал-ц6н]

William Lane Craig usually debates very strong opponents, but this debate is definitely an exception. Alex Rosenberg completely ignores a lot of Craig's points and warrants for belief in God. There ARE strong responses to theistic proofs, but apparently Rosenberg chooses to not use them. Craig destroyed him.

[@Вал-ц6н]

For example, resorting to Euthyphro's dilemma? That was explained literally over a thousand years ago. Here's Craig's detailed response: www.reasonablefaith.org/euthyphro-dilemma Moreover, he is talking past Craig's point: without a transcendent God, there is no justification for morality. I appreciate that intellectually honest atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins admit that under an atheistic world view, morality has no justification.

[@moriyarose3587]

There aren't really any strong atheists to debate. They don't -- and never will -- have a leg to stand on. People like Hitchens and Dillahunty seem a lot stronger than this guy, but it simply because they are better speakers. They can talk in circles a little more sneakily, but once you sift through all their excess words, their actual talking points are no more valid than this other dude. WLC is a beast, and can tear down the argument of any atheist...because he has truth on his side. Atheists have their imagination and a whole ton of rage towards God. That's it. No matter how fancy their words are or how many circles they talk in, that is all they'll ever have.

[@billbaggins1688]

What a joke!

[@jefferystanley9466]

I don't see how graig can even remember that many words, God choose the right man in William lane graig. He is brilliant

[@skewCZ]

Furthermore, as far as the final ratings go, I would have appreciated if they did what they do at Intelligence Squared debates - make the audience vote about their answer to the proposition, prior and after the debate. Rather than naively assume that people judge objectively.

[@Pudekz51790]

But if we are just product of naturalism, then there is no objective truth. So what’s the point of voting lmao! Atheist way of thinking is all self-defeating. Your comment is the proof that objective morality exist which defeat naturalism.🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@skewCZ]

@@Pudekz51790 *But if we are just product of naturalism, then there is no objective truth* I don't get why that should be the case. *Your comment is the proof that objective morality exist* How is it a proof of that?

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

The Intelligence Squared vote format is better, but that system can be gamed by partisans too.

[@katiebarber407]

​@@Pudekz51790how arrogant too assume your subjective human brain is capable off even accessing the objective truth of "God" or anything else

[@mmiller4600]

So Mr. R says we can't accept Christians writing about Christianity. I think this is wrong. First I would say the bible is Jews writing about Jewish history. Jesus is a part of Jewish history wether He is the Son of God or not and that's from the NT. We accept Romans writing about Roman history and Greeks writing about Greek history. Why would we not accept Jews writing about Jewish history? It comes down to textual criticism and the bible passes that test.

[@mmiller4600]

Well you've made a compelling argument so you must be right. Let me ask you this. Is Jesus a historical figure?

[@NyxSilver8]

Matthew Miller What can we say to people who deny the veracity of their own soul?

[@mmiller4600]

You respond to that but not my question. So you admit that even though I never called the bible a history book (its much more than just that) it certainly contains accurate history within it. Thanks I just wanted to make sure my claim remains in tact.

[@leddyederer818]

And if you're still skeptical about whether NT Christianity is historically authentic. Like was there Christians in the 1st century, did anything the new testament claims happened in Jerusalem (under Roman rule) actually happen? Try reading 1st century Roman history, where it is taken for granted that Christ and Christianity are very real. Hope you didn't mind me piggy baking off your post Matthew! God bless, brother!

[@mmiller4600]

Not at all

[@gege8747]

1:38:29 Dr. Rosenberg wants us to be created by God that we can exercise free will and will never chose evil

[@danielbridges8705]

lol, that last question seriously ticked off Dr. Rosenberg. 'I'm not stupid enough to contradict myself in the puerile way that you suggest.' No, you're smart enough to contradict yourself in a more sophisticated way ...

[@superapex2128]

EXACTLY! I was about to say that. Furthermore, his futile attempt at 'rewiring' our brains by dropping his book at the end as if he had said something of substance failed miserably: intelligent people can see through obvious contradictions and are not especially responsive to blatant behavior modification techniques.

[@cms123tube]

It sure did ! and he didn't think he came to the debate intentionally ?!?!?! "If you don't think what you say is true, why should we ?" ...LOL !!!!!

[@MeganDelacroix]

@@cms123tube His wiki page is an extraordinary read. He (somehow) opposes narrative form itself and then proceeds to write novels; the man is just a self-contradictory mess. I suppose that's all right by him though because if he really thinks all his actions, words, and thoughts have a null content value, 0 can't disprove 0.

[@cms123tube]

@@MeganDelacroix I haven’t been to his page. Never say never (and mean it). I salute your moxie. These self-destructing, self-conflicting types need prayers of deliverance. Blessings!

[@plasticvision6355]

Interesting. What I don’t see here is anyone who has engaged with Rosenbergs actual arguments. But I do see plenty of black and white thinking, and what’s there is faulty. It’s so sad, but also sadly so predictable, to see such profound intellectual dishonesty. The problem of evil is on Craig’s own argument a serious problem for theists and how this conflicts with the key tenets of Craig’s moral argument, but of course theists are blind to how this is so, which shows a striking degree of cognitive bias in perception and how strongly false beliefs can be held. And theism does not explain anything. It’s using a name (god) as a place holder for ignorance about the actual process, which is actually what an explanation is supposed to do. Pitiful

[@blaxtaboy7793]

Craig is an atheist-killing machine...

[@INFINITEMODIFICATIONS]

lol no he's an athiest-making machine

[@Star-system]

@@INFINITEMODIFICATIONS I am halfway through debate but you sound true as I have seen so far.

[@Sgman1991]

And Rosenberg starts it off with a good ol' ad hominem! Keep it real Mr. Rosenberg.

[@slinkyphil]

Sgman1991 I don't know anything about falacies. Can you please explain it in relation to Rosenberg's remarks?

[@Sgman1991]

Sure, an ad hominem fallacy is attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument, itself, as a way of discrediting them. Rosenberg starts right off by insulting Dr. Craig instead of actually trying to defeat his arguments.

[@Sgman1991]

Oners82 It's ad hominem because it's an attack on Craig and what he does instead of the argument themselves. If they are the same repeated arguments that have been refuted already, then Rosenburg should have had an extremely easy time of it. The reality is that Craig uses the same arguments because they are basically never even addressed in his debates. People don't actually respond to them, instead they attack strawmen of the arguments.

[@Sgman1991]

Oners82 It's a form of poisoning the well. He starts it by discrediting him as a thinker before talking about his arguments.

[@Sgman1991]

Oners82 Poisoning the well is a special form of ad hominem. Here, read up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[@smallsmalls3889]

He says the same thing all the time because the truth is the truth.

[@REDCAP32X]

Im a believer but i would become and atheist if it meant Rosenberg would never saying uh again

[@leddyederer818]

Let's start uhh collection to send him to uhh public speaking course..? ; )

[@AntiFlavour]

leddy ederele It's a pity WLC seems like he attended nothing but a public speaking course.

[@sinjinbritt3371]

I would have hoped it would be facts and logic that turns you from mythology.

[@REDCAP32X]

Uhh? @@sinjinbritt3371

[@thisisit9829]

"Antisemtism!"

[@seektruth8755]

At 40:18 Dr.Rosenburg says, "This is the wrong format for a profitable discussion of faith or God or science and reason." Well then - uhhh - ummm - uh - why did you agree to the debate since you clearly knew this is how Dr.Craig debates?

[@Vic2point0]

After watching the Lawrence Krauss debates, I know *exactly* what kind of format anti-theists think are "right for a profitable discussion". It's the kind of format whereby you can simply *interrupt and talk over* your opponent, and avoid his every refutation.

[@MidiwaveProductions]

Seek Truth. True. Dr. Rosenberg does not think Self, free will, value and intentionality exist. Knowing this his statement: "This is the wrong format for a profitable discussion of faith or God or science and reason." is hysterically funny to unpack ;)

[@m.m.1602]

His name is literally in the title. Come on.

[@Vic2point0]

@Ψ Fair enough that he isn't representative of anti-theists, but he's certainly celebrated by plenty of them.

[@Vic2point0]

@Ψ Yes, I granted you that point already. But as I think on it we've both sort of taken my comment out of context, which is in light of Rosenburg's complaint about the debate format. Neither really wanted to debate, it seems. Krauss was just more rude about conveying that.

[@bobingersoll7708]

Thus we can summarize our argument: 1) timeless, spacless, immaterial beings can not conclusively be demonstrated to exist. 2) but if God exists he must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being. 3) therefore… God can not be conclusively demonstrated to exist.

[@craigreeves5465]

So what?

[@NyxSilver8]

yarpen800 The Supreme Court opens their sessions in prayer to God. Who knows evidence better than they?

[@osmosis321]

NyxSilver8 are you serious..

[@NyxSilver8]

Osmosis Yep.

[@osmosis321]

NyxSilver8 fucked up.

[@M0SCON1Audi0]

If there was a flood, where are all the bones of humanity and Giants who died in the flood? Why would God test Adam and Eve if he knew that they were going to fall ?

[@Garrison169]

God created humans with flaws and then blames them for it.

[@TracyOlivares]

characteristics of debaters theist an atheist. theist orderly, controlled , poised articulate,respectful,detailed, methodical, reasonable. atheist. arrogant, rambling, abrasive, non explicative, all over the place, disruptive promotes avoidance aka can i get some water. this says something

[@mattmun12]

The confirmation bias is amazing here. Regardless: If you think that is arrogance from Rosenberg, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word. And no, it says nothing. Even if this were the case (which is not), all it 'says' is that Alex Rosenberg is everything you listed. Alex seems like a scatterbrain, I think this also comes more so from anxiety and timidness, not to mention how he says 'uhm' all the time. All it took was one comment from Craig to get him defensive about one part of the book, and go on a massive tangent, which is what happens when you go up against someone as a huge dishonest quote miner as WLC. And just because WLC is dishonest, doesn't 'say' anything about other theists either.

[@zaaz8656]

mattmun12 great effort on this post. I appreciate thoughtful cometary.

[@nottykanyanga1372]

Don't debate William Lane Craig if you are not a good debater because he will humiliate you in public. I'm a Christian but its very sad that Rosenberg was destroyed in such way...

[@joelweiner4798]

Rabbi Tovia Singer would destroy Billy Craig regarding Christology.

[@elijahjohnson5282]

Yes sir.

[@jeanramirez6441]

The problem is that William Craig failed to prove god

[@gregdiprinzio9280]

@@jeanramirez6441 Proving God? The debate was the reasonableness of faith in God, not proving God. Jughead

[@plasticvision6355]

Craig destroyed nothing. Rosenberg made several points that the majority of academic philosophers raise as defensible and well documented objections that Craig has not refuted in the a academic literature, which is where it actually counts. (The moral argument is awful in this respect). Granted Craig is gifted in casuistry, but he demonstrates precisely nothing. What you are seeing is a man clever at projecting his wishful thinking in a way that appeals to the already converted. Rosenberg is absolutely right about Craig being more interested in winning than honestly evaluating the truth of the claims he makes. The scientism objection he raises is absurd and moreover he knows it. He raises this objection when it suits the particular argument he is presenting. Do you see him disputing the validity of the science re the Big Bang? Of course not. It’s incredibly intellectually dishonest and reveals that his use of evidence is no more than a rhetorical convenience. The problem is that many believers do not think critically and do do not register the baiting and switching he blatantly engages in. And misrepresenting Rosenberg’s arguments is not only profoundly dishonest, but would be wholly unacceptable in an academic setting. And this is exactly what Rosenberg what means when he claims Craig is about winning not about honesty. And Craig misrepresenting cosmology is simply awful ‘being from non being’. He knows full well that scientists never claim this: this is a theistic assertion and nothing at all to do with the real science. He also knows full well that your average theist will be unable or willing to fact check him easily. It’s wholly dishonest.

[@holytrashify]

theists usually seem to me more happier and well thought out than atheists....just an observation

[@michaelarojas]

They found peace through their belief in Christ.

[@HainishMentat]

I think it's pitiful how many people come to these comments sections and just blithely post that Craig's arguments have already been defeated. I keep looking for these supposed refutations, and all I find are amazingly weak attempts. I would love for someone to actually show me a flaw in the Kalam argument, or the teleological argument, or the moral argument, or the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. And I would pay good money to someone who could show me something wrong with the contingency argument. So far, nothing.

[@MartialNico]

Well, how much are you willing to pay and do they have to be answered in onrder? :)

[@HainishMentat]

MartialNico Pick one and try.

[@MartialNico]

I'd like to try the moral argument, but could you restate the argument, so we're on the same page? :)

[@HainishMentat]

MartialNico You picked my least favorite argument, but I still haven't seen any good rebuttals of it, so here it is: P1) If there are moral values and duties which are objectively and necessarily true, then they need to be grounded in the moral nature of a transcendant being who exists necessarily. P2) There are at least some moral values and duties which are objectively and necessarily true. C) Therefore a transcendant person exists necessarily and is the locus of moral values and the source of moral duties.

[@MartialNico]

I would object to the second premise: There are at least some moral values and duties which are objectively and necessarily true. Dr. Craig likes to point out how it's bad to burn babies or torture people, and that should be taken as proof of objective moral values. You could also argue that morality emerged from social interactions between individuals. It's easy to imagine how societies which uphold such behaviour are at a disadvantage to others. For instance, they are more internally fearful, since your neighbour could at any point torture you. People would become increasingly fearful and suspicious of others, and such societies appear self-destructive. Hence, there are evolutionary reasons why moral behaviour benefits the survivability to societies. Before I go on and make an excessively longthy post; would you agree to this point?

[@stingerbee8346]

What happened to our culture over the last 9 years? Regardless of the strong disagreement here, both of these men were friendliy and respectful. And they both came across as intellectually honest. Those things are almost not found today and we are the wrose for it.

[@TheHeartOfTheHour1]

True!

[@Mr.Goodkat]

Pretty much nobody is intellectually honest just varying degrees of dishonesty. Those things weren't found then either if you are right and they really were present here it's an utter anomaly, the Atheist/Christian debate was even more heated back then making those things less plausible.

[@dugonman8360]

Well, debate has less to do with intellectual inquiry or dialectics but moreso verbal pugilism. Its why theres so many different tactics and strategies in debates, which always hints that the person using such tactics is somewhat dubious in nature.

[@katiebarber407]

Christians are incapable of honestly these days

[@josonsop]

...and still the heavy debate champion of the world; Dr. William "make dudes look elementary" Lane Craig! Good Going.

[@PhantomRangerEarth1397]

I question your sanity

[@HainishMentat]

@@PhantomRangerEarth1397 Are you under the impression that Rosenberg actually did well in this debate? Or do you mean you question the sanity of calling Craig *generally* a "champion"?

[@David_Span]

Not sure if truth is dependent on debating skills

[@HainishMentat]

@@David_Span Who suggested otherwise?

[@David_Span]

@@HainishMentat Yeah, the implication isn't there...

[@neonoxy]

This Alex is weird! He arguments that knowledge is a way that leads out of faith, but the more I learn about our world and the more I understand science, the more my faith and my respect for the creator goes up. I've seen much more going through the same path, of course that doesn't mean we're right, but to argue that knowledge leads out of faith just because the medical board in the US is comprised of atheists is baloney.

[@StevenSvN7]

As much as I'm loving the debate. Listening to Alex Rosenberg is becoming irritating. Those constant short pauses and the UM UM UM.

[@klarkkent7838]

He isn't saying um he is saying aw because that's what he is experiencing. He is standing in aw of the craziness I'm sorry I meant to say scripture that Christians spout to defend their religion. I'm just a little curious. They do know that the bible was written by men over many generations. Not god. Right?

[@StevenSvN7]

Klark Kent Yes, of course they know that.

[@aobeckford]

StevioooSvN

[@winstonfrancis4699]

+Klark Kent you do realise that these men were according to Christians in the presence of God

[@nelsonbanuchi7070]

The question Rosenberg proposes is, essentially, why did not God create beings with the ability to always choose the good? My question: who said God didn't? Rosenberg asks, regarding NT documents, what should we take the word of Christian scholars on NT documents; it would belike taking the word of Islamists on the Quran? My question: why should we take the word of an atheist that God does not exist?

[@marcuspi999]

Because an atheist is searching for the truth that he hasn't found, while a Christian searches for nothing unless it reaffirms their unfounded certainty.

[@marcuspi999]

Atheists don't claim God doesn't exist. They truthfully admit they don't know.

[@Jesse_Scoccimarra]

This was a fun debate to watch ☺️

[@libsant9786]

Actually it was pretty painful for me

[@gigmix1958]

Very good but 17 minutes of introduction is too long 🙄

[@RyanMorsheadable]

Group consensus doesn't exactly make Craig right or wrong. you have to judge each argument individually and doing that in real time is often difficult.

[@daughterofgod3109]

Please seek a personal relationship our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

[@joelweiner4798]

the FALSE MESSIAH... Paul made up a religion that has zero basis in reality.. The churches have deceived you about JC.. Num 23:19 G-D cannot be a man...Check out Rabbi Tovia Singer and Rabbi Michael Skobac on youtube videos to learn why JC isn't Messiah.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

rgsand01 thanks for your foolishness.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Joel Weiner guess what? Dr. Michael Brown and others have done a good job vs. Tovia Singer. You want to be blind about this you will learn the truth in the end.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

"I'm ruled by reason and evidence so I will weigh in on objective morality even though I'm incapable of distinguishing between killing and murdering." - Atheist Debater

[@lilsweg9144]

Haha so true.

[@johnnylamaa2569]

Really? You don't think the fact that we can consciously think about our actions actually makes a difference between killing and murdering? It makes such little sense to me how we have to appeal to the supernatural when consciousness and intelligence are clearly the reasons why morality exists. If the universe had no consciousness, there wouldn't be morality. End of story.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

​@@johnnylamaa2569 "It makes such little sense to me how we have to appeal to the supernatural when consciousness and intelligence are clearly the reasons why morality exists." Clearly. LMAO. "If the universe had no consciousness, there wouldn't be morality. End of story." Correct. If the Creator did not create the creation with its accompanying morality, that morality would not exist. It's funny how you get it without getting it.

[@johnnylamaa2569]

@@silverbackhayabusa "Correct. If the Creator did not create the creation with its accompanying morality, that morality would not exist." You're assuming the conclusion before arriving at it. You're saying that a creator is a necessary and sufficient condition for morality, and then concluding from that that there needs to be a creator for morality to hold any sort of basis in the world. That will not convince someone who doesn't hold the same conclusion as you. And again, why doesn't the existence of conscious life that can contemplate and think about their actions not a sufficient condition for realizing ethical behavior? Dogs and chimps can be particularly cruel to each other, but we don't hold them responsible on the basis that they cannot think for themselves. Even humans that don't realize what they've done (in extreme cases of mental illness, for example) get a lighter criminal punishment on the basis that their self-reflection is almost non-existent. It is perfectly reasonable to infer that this condition is basically all we need in order to properly navigate the moral domain and hold people accountable for their actions.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

@@johnnylamaa2569 "You're saying that a creator is a necessary and sufficient condition for morality, and then concluding from that that there needs to be a creator for morality to hold any sort of basis in the world." I did no such thing. You should work on your reading comprehension. In fact, you are guilty of the very thing that you accuse me of. You actually laid out the reasoning for the position you asserted and in doing so you assumed the conclusion. I know projection and hypocrisy tend to be a tool of those who ignore what's plainly in front of their face but I'd warn that such absurd tactics are easily seen through. "That will not convince someone who doesn't hold the same conclusion as you." I'm not so foolish as to try to convince the terminally deluded. I do appreciate the ridiculous comparison of morality and law especially given both the current state of law and the historical application that any person with even an average IQ can see that it's often unjust and quite inconsistent. But please, stop wasting my time. You've deflected so far from my original argument it's ridiculous and I'm not really interested in all the stupid crap you can dream up.

[@akashicwalker]

nice thank you for this presentation ஐ

[@nelsonbanuchi7070]

I'm not sure I like the vote at the end re: who won the debate...

[@blb2121]

(cont) btw - just to be clear, my field is mathematics. You said initially that you're studying Economics. That's typically considered to be a social science, unless you're studying econometrics or some particular sub-field overlapping into pure or applied mathematics. Also, depending on whether you're studying at the undergrad or graduate level, you may also simply be what we call "a food taster".

[@libsant9786]

"I'm a holocaust survivor. All of my family except my parents have been killed by the nazis. I will not take kindly to the idea that my brothers suffered a horrible death and went to heaven compared to the SS officers that lived a very comfortable life"--Rosenberg This has no place in a debate. This is improper, this would have been disqualified, and it discredits every opinion, fact, and evidence you bring to the table because it is clear that you have a personal bias and hatred against God because of what he allowed to happen to your family. Now, I'm not undermining his pain, I could never imaging coming from a family where such an atrocity happened and I feel extremely sorry for him and hope that the mental weight of the anguish his parents feel will be treated with respect and consideration. But a debate floor and a desire to seek and explain reason and truth cannot be tinted by the shades of person bias, or it is no longer truth. You have not come to share your scientific findings on the concept of God being reasonable, you have come to pick a fight. This is NOT a debate. You do NOT use emotional arguments to reaffirm your statements or attempt to get the audience on your side (not that I'm saying he was doing the latter but that's a motive for other debaters and can be a result of bringing emotions into a debate that's why we don't do it)

[@karlazeen]

Any valid criticism of this god concept is automatically considered hatred to you? Seriously? If god had good reasons for something like what rosenberg is describing then why doesn't he come out and tell them to us as transparently and rationally as possible? This wouldn't violate free will in any way in fact it gives more free will now that everyone has an informed decision to follow this god or not. I always say it and I will say it again, if there is a god all responsibility falls on him and if there isn't then it all falls on us and only us.

[@libsant9786]

@@karlazeen Sorry, maybe 'hatred' was a strong word ^^; I wasn't going against the idea criticism itself regarding God, it's just clear from his statement that he's bringing biased feelings into a debate which is a bit improper. Anybody can doubt and dislike the idea of God all they want, I'm just saying in the context of something like a debate personal feelings have to be dropped before you speak your piece it's more about looking for truth and giving validity to your findings and being openly angry about the topic just makes your research less credible compared to your opponent.

[@oldscorp]

@@karlazeen God can come to you and say absolutely nothing and it will rob you of your free will. Can you imagine seeing Him and insisting He doesn't exist? Wether you want Him in your life or not, He is there, right in front of your eyes. You don't have many choices after such an encounter. And if you read the Bible and open your mind and your heart, you will see He HAS EXPLAINED very rationally what is going on with the world and men.

[@josephrohland5604]

I survived the Holocaust too. Pheww...

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Excellent point. Except that it´s not actually "what God allowed," but because of R´s interpreting it that way. Also, it´s not about "scientific findings," it´s about the philosophical logical coherence and correspondence to reality, meaning empiricism or the empirical method. Thus, also, R´s comment about "two identical atoms of U, and one shooting out an alpha particle, was a total interpretive fallacy. Basically a semantic error, maybe a kind of category error, in which "identical atoms" means, "having the same starting characteristics or initial descriptive informational conditions," not "two atoms perfectly synchronized by some magical fantasy synchronization technique. That is in fact the nature of subatomic Quantum behavior, it´s probabilistic. As far as the scenario is legitimate, it´s likely that the other U atom will emit an a particle at some point in that case. Craig was hit at a weak spot of his on that one.

[@onsenguy]

why would a Being with infinite power and knowledge require puny humans to praise and worship it? it strongly implies such a Being is insecure and has an uneasy vanity.

[@bluebubbletron]

Dr. William Lane Craig is like a soccer striker he will tell you where he is gonna kick the ball, but you won't be able to stop it.

[@majmage]

Well the logical failures of each of his arguments are well-known. So you're right -- it's a lot like the soccer striker saying that -- but turns out "where he'll kick the ball" was into the goalpost (where it bounced off harmlessly because the argument didn't even conclude with a god) or out of bounds (where it violated one or more logical fallacies).

[@harrycooper5231]

But then he misses, but dances around like the ball went in the net.

[@peterogheneochuko6183]

Very true...the man is sound

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@majmage “Logical failures of each of his arguments” “Logical failures” according to who? Or what absolute, universal, objective standard exactly? “Logical failure’s” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “logical failures” according to nothing more substantive than the delusions of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas? Or perhaps “logical failures” according to nothing more substantive than the accidental arrangement of pond slime evolved to an higher order with the illusion of stable patterns and regularities?? Or perhaps “logical failure’s” according to nothing more substantive than a ultimately meaningless and ultimately pointless determined machine, that is a biological and chemical robot with the illusion of freewill and choice, that is the illusion of rationality, logic and the moral high ground!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! “Logical failure’s” You don’t even know the implications of your own world view buddy!! At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist!! Because according to the greatest atheist thinkers with possibly the highest IQs of all the atheists that ever lived…. Logic is an illusion (Nietzsche) “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” - (Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense).

[@georgedoyle2487]

Continued….. Equally, Friedrich Nietzsche rightly pointed out that under this ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless, atheistic, fatalistic, nihilistic system… “Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?” - (Nietzsche). Ouch!! “Should I kill myself?” is the essential philosophical question.” (Albert Camus). Merry chap!! “Storytellers continue their narratives late into the night to forestall death and to delay the inevitable moment when everyone must fall silent.” (Foucault). Double Ouch!! Imagine telling all of these little stories to someone as a Christmas bed time story!! And they mock our beliefs!! And a very cheerful group of people I bet they were a blast at Christenings, birthday parties, weddings and especially at golden wedding anniversaries and funerals!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting…. I rest my case!!

[@joshuademi1364]

I think that the crippling problem with Rosenberg's presentation was his unwillingness to present any arguments in favor of any of the premises of the argument from evil, coupled with his deeply emotional, opposed to calm, rational, presentation thereof.

[@thomasdupont7186]

you believe in god don't you ?

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

i think they do@@thomasdupont7186

[@percyburkett1916]

Why does he need to bother as the argument has been known for decades? And are you referring to the evidential argument or the logical argument? You do know they are different, right? Craig is not unusual in comparison to many apologists, in that he has failed to provide a credible defeater for this argument for decades! Of course, believers think his arguments are defeaters, but that is not the consensus of the philosophical community.

[@pepperachu]

​@@thomasdupont7186why even ask the question?

[@thomasdupont7186]

@@pepperachu true. I think it was rhetorical..... I was saying something else you see ?

[@TheGridironkid]

It would soo hilarious if God was like "Okay I've had enough of people thinking I am fake" and then physically shows up. I think that would end the whole debate lol

[@paulpaluciano6162]

Actually, this event you suggest is even mentioned in the Scriptures. Although, most people, sadly, won't be in the mood for hilariousity on that day, I suspect...

[@Mornathel]

Are you sure you didn’t hallucinate God?

[@johnnylamaa2569]

Another strong reason to think that god doesn't exist. Or if he does, he's an evil god that's going to send us to hell because we didn't believe in him based on bad evidence.

[@Jacob-hz6jw]

@@johnnylamaa2569 imo all the evidence is there, he sent Jesus to die for us. We have the accounts from eye witnesses of that time. And if you don't believe that just look outside with how the world works and then look inside and realize about your consciousness. Also he is a just God, not evil. If you know of the gospel or see the wonders of the world and still live and reject him (choose to be separate from him) how is it evil for him to say you'll continue living separate from him after life?

[@johnnylamaa2569]

@@Jacob-hz6jw We don't have accounts from eyewitnesses. Not at all. We have stories that have been originally passed down through decades from people that weren't even there to see the events themselves, an incredible amount of discrepancies between gospels, obvious theological embellishments, complete mistakes about claims regarding how the natural world works, and so on. Am I to assume that the best explanation for what produced such things is divine intervention? Or was it just a bunch of ignorant people desperately appealing to their previous theological doctrines to try to deify the person they were following? You can believe that ad hoc idea if you want, I can't really stop you there. But it just doesn't make any sense to me.

[@maxxwellbeing9449]

We can’t comprehend the existence of God as a reality because it’s extremely difficult to comprehend with rational thought the existence of a fictional character.

[@go_to_explore]

Why Rosenberg speaks about multiple universes when there's no proof for such thing ??

[@Openyoureyesify]

What the hell is up with these comments? Are any reasonable ones deleted by the channel?

[@SaddenedOne]

+Openyoureyesify No. I'm assuming you are an atheist who thinks they know what they are talking about and assume that all atheist arguments in the comments deleted? Yeah, see, IF there were comments deleted, they would be comments made from atheists where the arguments made have already been addressed by Craig. Or they are here to troll with no real argument.

[@Openyoureyesify]

***** Well, most videos I've seen on creationist vs scientists debates has been filled with mostly reasonable comments. Which led me to believe that (even though - or maybe just because - this is a christian channel) that there was some foul play going on. Looking at Pantsaredown's comment he says "IF there were comments deleted, they would be comments made from atheists where arguments have already been addressed by Craig. Or they are here to troll with no real argument" This tells us alot. How they easily could have been able to justify to themselves the deleting of any comment threads with reasonable discussions that became too poplar when this video was posted, by invoking that Craig had already answered the arguments and/or they were trolling. This would make them able to justify deleting anything since Craig has shown over and over again that he has a tendency to answers questions/arguments so vaguely, that there's no real answer to the specific point of the argument. Then when those few who has seen this trick before, press on and demand a real answer (Laurence Krauss, Sam Harris) he can say that he answered, even though he danced around the subject. Or even call the question itself faulty because of the premise. Often he negates the premise with a "because God, therefore that question doesn't matter". While he himself can pose arguments that are based on circular reasoning, and be staunch about how reasonable that circular reasoning is. Like humans not being able to discern what's moral without a God existing. Even though most of our morals comes because of secular reasoning that are men and women are equal. What I'm trying to say is Craig doesn't play by the rules. He is intellectually dishonest. And since he is so smart, I have no doubt that he knows what he's doing when he plays with the words to dance around arguments or make ridicolous ones himself by distorting what the other person was saying.

[@kiroshakir7935]

​@@Openyoureyesifybut Craig Is an evolutionist Why assume he is a YEC

[@bakobalazs]

This Rosenberg is a rather poor debater...he kept bishing about Craig repeating himself, but it's not like Rosenberg himself made a case. (And this is independent from the validity of Craig's arguments, Rosenberg is still a poor debater. Seems he only came here to ridicule Craig. The topic was if faith is reasonable, Rosenberg didn't show it isn't.)

[@whittfamily1]

Faith is unreasonable by definition. If it were reasonable, it wouldn't be faith.

[@bakobalazs]

+Gary Whittenberger By whose definition? Also, if that's the definition, Rosenberg could have just pulled out a dictionary abd win this debate, yet he didn't do it.

[@msadoy]

Does the universe really require a "personal" cause, i.e. Creator? Why not a "non-personal" cause? Saying the universe must have PERSONAL cause is non-essential.

[@nelsonbanuchi7070]

It's disappointing that Rosenberg opens his presentation by insult; he starts with an ad hominem argument, instead of just presenting his argument for not believing in God's existence (whether or not he follows Craig's particular systematic approach).. FIRST, debate is like the situation in a court of law where one is trying to convince the jury, by the evidence presented, the validity of his defense as opposed to the prosecution's. If Rosenberg is afraid of losing, he ought not debate. Why debate? just to present argument? For what purpose? Just because...?? I agree, debate need not be, necessarily, for the purpose of winning the argument, but it is, as I see it, to (a) present new information to those who may not have it, (2) convince the audience that such evidence as presented is reasonable, and (3) that the opposing argument, if it's position is not wholly unreasonable, at the very least, it is in reasonable doubt. Truth is honestly sought when differing and contrary positions are put forth and, according to the evidence presented, propositions are either embraced or disregarded, held as, at least, reasonable or thrown out of court, so to speak, as proved unreasonable. So, seeking truth does consist of adversarial positions; and if one is not willing to look at the adversarial position, one is not really and honestly seeking truth. And if we disagree, we ought to do so as gentlemen; not as hostile contenders by personal insult or an immature child that whines at the rules already agreed upon. SECOND, Rosenberg seems to have differentiated between belief and faith and he seems to have changed the subject of the debate but not to belief in God's existence but to God's existence per se. I'm not sure his differentiating faith from belief is valid since faith is defined as "strong belief or trust in someone or something," and in this particular case, belief in the existence of God. That is what this debate is all about, not whether or not God exists (which Rosenberg seems to have turned to) but whether or not faith/belief in God is reasonable in particular, if it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God. Don't have the time to express my opinion on the rest of Rosenberg's argument, the nature of his arguing is pretty hostile. However, I must admit that the personal offense Rosenberg takes at what he claims are professor Craig's defense of God's existence in the face of evil is, if professor Craig made such statements as Rosenberg claims and as correctly understood it within it's context, is valid (irrespective of whether or not it is true).

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Rosenberg´s starting with insults is a reflection of his incoherence throughout, as contained in his books, and demonstrated crassly all the way until his last obnoxious reply. Rosenberg´s being "offended" isn´t by Craig, but his own distorted interpretation. "The Holocaust should never have happened! If God exists and is good, it should never have happened!" Total presuppositionalism. As Craig points out, if God is the focus, the question is "morally sufficient reasons." In fact, Craig´s argument accounts for different domains of knowledge, ie epistemology, that Rosenberg and atheists miss in their scientism. "Free will" then requires additional clarity. Rosenberg, and atheists, miss that basic issue. I think it gets clearer by empirical theism, that now can draw on Systems Theory and emergentism with greater clarity. For starters, that emphasizes the insight and context of Jesus´ Resurrection, which actually underlies Jesus´ own legacy. The very context of the debate is possible because modern philosophy, like "science" i.e. scientific philosophy, is a Christian development (out of ancient Greek and eclectic material). That´s a self-referential, contemplative, and introspective type of existential awareness. Cognitively, no less, the distinction between a transcendent personal mind that created the physical Universe actually involves noting their distinct natures. The physical world is developing according to physical laws. However, emergentism has been making clear that as physics became a new system in chemistry, which became a new system in biology, anthropology, psychology, and sociology, like history and philosophy and the rest of the social studies disciplines, actually represent emerging properties and levels. The human mind involves distinct Levels of symbolic and psychosocial phenomena to be recognized and analysis necessary to evaluate the phenomena and processes. So, human minds have been achieving awareness, and Jesus´ teachings historically appear as part of and an extension of shamanistic origins of human spirituality. Shamans were and are people with spiritual insight, and can be trained even more broadly today. Jesus´ teachings are supershamanic in some senses, and underdeveloped in others. Thus, the Holocaust, like all human moral evil, requires understanding human free will. It actually deserves specific comparative contexts to illustrate. Alexander the Great came to power in a vortex of assassination and execution of potential rival relatives. He conquered with some cruelty, and was assassinated at a young 32. Various Roman generals committed slaughters, from Scipio to Mummius to Sulla, for example, with varying nuances of moral concerns. No standard, however, of theirs compared with that represented by Jesus of Nazareth. All humans have moral capacities. Establishing an adequate source of moral orientation for any or all people has been a concern. The UN and human rights is a distinctly Christian intitiative, but was only achieved in founding the UN as a pluralist project with the non-binding UN UD of Human Rights. Covenants have been attempted, with lukewarm and revealing results.

[@karlazeen]

Aren't these "morally sufficient reasons" presuppositionalist of a good god to begin with? If you don't provide what good reasons there are for evil and suffering to exist in a world where a good god exists then why shouldn't I dismiss your model when it relies on appealing to mysterious ways?

[@Johanna040713]

You're doing great job for God, dr Craig! Greetings from Finland!

[@carsonalexander2459]

How might materialists respond to Craig’s 5th argument, that intentional states of consciousness are incompatible with naturalism/materialism.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

That´s a good question. I know that in my early interfaith seeking, I just paid attention to the psychobiology of symbolic behavior. It is a human behavior, and has Pavlovian conditioned origins, at a basic level. Freud and Piaget give understandings that could be taken as materialistic. "I want to eat fruit, no a sandwich." I´d say basic anthropology would be their safest kind of argument. "We´re all just elaborate hunter-gatherers." "I´m thinking about naturalism" could be taken as like symbolic levels of the brain are still just energetic. Yeah, that´s it. Thus, self-awareness is symbolic and energetic in nature, no big deal. It´s a form of wave mechanics. The Holographic Paradigm is out there. It´s worth it for us as theists to really study and learn this stuff. That´s where I came from and how I have come along. Knowledge leaves nothing to fear as long as we don´t close our eyes to the obvious, that even Rosenberg could acknowledge, about the social studies disciplines having their own distinction. The trick is that both "science" and theology are both social studies disciplines! Thus, even with the Holographic Paradigm of wave mechanics and information content, we have to deal with human personal and psychosocial and cultural reality that binds us to Jesus´ legacy of loving integrity historically also, limits "science," and involves the signficance of shamanic and spiritual practices and experience, not just traditional and passive Christian forms. Materialism needs to get extended, and traditional Christian theology even more reoriented beyond "science" to the truth of "science" as scientific philosophy and interrelated with the social studies disciplines. All together, that makes identifying Multidisciplinary Philosophy necessary, which is what I´m now doing.

[@jordanpennington2599]

I had higher hopes for this debate. As usual William Lane Craig D E S T R O Y E D the athiest. I was just in a bit of disbelief thay he wasn't able to grasp simple things Dr. Craig was saying. He also gave conclusions without explaining it or defending it. It just blows my mind that people can take away from this that the athiest made valid points.

[@karlschuch5684]

so Craig's argument for god's morality is that "god is good because god is good, because god is good, because god is good....." And he claims to have a PhD in philosophy? .... wow

[@karlschuch5684]

***** Yeah, this is one of those things that religious people try to make too much of in order to do a "God Of the Gaps" thing. There are objective truths about the world - for example: We know that it is objectively bad for our well being to shoot ourselves in the head with a shotgun. From that we can easily extrapolate that it is objectively bad for the well being of others to shoot them in the head with a shotgun. So in secular morality we can recognize that "good" is the flourishing of humans, and "bad" is the suffering of humans - and so we have a system of morality by which we can reason to determine the best moral action. The problem that religion has with morality is that there is no system at all - people are reduced to order takers incapable of reasoning about the best moral actions for themselves.

[@karlschuch5684]

***** if you don't understand my response I am glad to hear your objections, but just repeating "WHO" seems redundant. My point is that objective reality doesn't require a "who", objective facts exist independently of minds - having said that we can take those facts and independently reason for the best solutions to moral problems. In short WE reason about objective reality using facts about reality as a foundation, just like we do with any other subject.

[@karlschuch5684]

***** I'm trying to figure out if you really don't understand this or if you are trolling...? Are you not aware that our minds are made of matter? Are you not aware that out minds can do calculus, and physics, and cosmology, and chemistry, biology, psychology, geology, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and on and on ... but you think morality is just far too complex for us to grasp? Geez... well, you need to justify that claim. Now I have a question for you ( I hope you don't dodge it) : If your mind is incapable of independent moral evaluation, then how do you know that god is good? If you go by god's standards then you have thrown your hands in the air as obviously he will look good by his own standards - as Hitler would look good by Hitler's standards. How do you know god is good?

[@TofeldianSage]

TheChristianPothead is merely saying that if all that exists is matter and energy, then everything moral must also be situated somehow in time and space. In other words, everything must either be matter and/or energy, or it doesn't exist. So, this means that if you take something like human rights, for example, you must somehow situate human rights in matter and/or energy, or failing that you must deny their existence at all. So this is why scientists work so hard to discover the chemical make-up of human rights. They know that if they fail to do that they will have to admit that human rights do not exist at all, and that our broadly held belief in them is actually a marker of low intelligence. The very fact that we teach the concept of human rights to children is a form of child abuse, and nobody wants that. Now, I say chemical make-up, but of course many scientists are contributing to this great work, and in many of the fields you cite. There are many competing theories, and many great scientists working day and night to discover the so-called "human rights particle", and nobody knows which camp will get there first. But they're all working toward the same goal: proving that human rights exist in a world that consists only of atoms and energies.

[@karlschuch5684]

TofeldianSage well, there is no chemical make up of human rights, just as there is no chemical make up of mathematics - there is no "Math Particle" - and yet you have no disagreement that we can understand mathematics --- agreed? We don't " situate human rights in matter and/or energy, " any more than we "situate mathematics" in matter and/or energy".... Our brains are made of matter and utilize chemical energy to process information. Mathmatics is information processing, philosophy is information processing, doing science is information processing, and Morality is information processing. Religion only tries to pretend that morality is too complex for human brains to grapple with so that they can take an "Argument From Ignorance" approach - Which is to say that; "you can't explain it, therefore God did it". And that is a logical fallacy that they should be ashamed of, rather than proud of.

[@PsycheDismantled]

Craig starts with arguments and valid points, Alex starts with Ums and personal attacks 🤦

[@billbaggins1688]

WLC wouldn't know a valid point if it fell on him.

[@oldscorp]

@@billbaggins1688 Why are all atheist comments angry and from empty accounts? Because every 50 atheists in the comments are the same guy with 50 accounts and he can't possibly fill them all with enough content to make them look like they belong to actual persons.

[@aln5832]

Craig’s points: “I don’t know why this is the case, so therefore my beliefs are real.” 🤦‍♂️

[@aln5832]

@@oldscorpWhy are Christians so angry that they have no evidence of God?

[@reginafreeborn6035]

I can tell he was very nervous. It's hard to speak in front of people.

[@Pudekz51790]

Love how atheists complain about evil in the world but if there’s such thing as evil, then there such thing as good. If there is good, then there is a moral law. If there is moral law, there is a moral law giver which atheist trying to disprove. So the existence of evil is actually an evidence for a god. Evil is the absence of goodness.

[@libsant9786]

Frank Turek watcher? 030

[@Sebastian-hg3xc]

"It rained today. If there is rain there is a rain giver. Therefore gawd". Nice argument.

[@BeardslapRadio]

Evil is an adjective, not a noun.

[@billbaggins1688]

Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It is a great moral principle. There is no God in that ethical equation. You can know what is right and wrong without pretending to know the mind of God.

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

This guy is awful. Starts off the debate with ad hominem attacks and by attacking Dr. Craig's motive.

[@codythompson759]

The atheists always put up a good fight but if you work their arguments out Craig's makes way more sense with our reality and given the information that we do have. It makes perfect sense

[@Garrison169]

Craig's argument makes perfect sense if you have faith. But faith is the acceptance of something without facts. You have no facts; only wishful thinking.

[@randypacchioli2933]

Faith in God makes perfect sense.

[@randypacchioli2933]

Oners82 The great majority of the world population are theists.

[@randypacchioli2933]

Oners82 Many intellectuals believe God.

[@blb2121]

+fkalkjs +Oners82 Yup. There have been similar studies by others like Elaine Ecklund at Rice and SUNY Buffalo. And though there is a higher percentage of atheists among academic scientiss, science itself may have nothing to do with it (www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2007/06/8732.html). You may also want to check out AAAS DoSER (Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion).

[@blb2121]

***** Regardless that AAAS membership is open to others a) The AAAS survey was of professional post-doc non-educators, not students or educators. Also, if you took a few minutes you'll find there's a Pew study of the AAAS demographics by field. b) As for the RAAS study, it was among scientists at leading research centers, including universities, not the AAAS. And your claims about the NAS are pretty much bullshit if you took time to look at the criticisms of the survey you cited. $5 says you learned about it from an atheist, not a peer review. c) As for the NAS Study you cited claiming only 7% of the NAS believe in God, I'm presuming it's Larson and Witham's 1997 study based on Leuba's 1914 and 1933 Survey. You do realize it has been highly criticized in articles and peer reviews by atheists in the sciences and members of the NAS as being a piece of sh*t study right? Under that study you cite, the definition of theist was someone who has a 100% gnostic belief in a personal god with whom they communicate regularly with via prayer, and who interacts with the universe and demonstrates "intellectual and effective communication" with them regularly. All others fell into the "disbeliever" category. The survey excluded deists, pantheists, agnostic theists, a number of other theistic beliefs. Even agnostics were counted as "disbelievers". The survey you cited was so bad in fact that Eugenie Scott (atheist, former director of the NCSE and 2010 recipient of the NAS's Public Welfare Medal) wrote a detailed response on why, and noted a Gallup poll of the NAS where other questions by Larson / Whitham had shown that a large proportion (40%) of prominent scientists believe in a God that is sufficiently personal or interactive with humankind that human evolution is guided or planned. Meanwhile other surveys out of SUNY Buffalo and Rice have shown that there's no evidence indicating that science in any way leads to atheism. Studies concluded that most scientsts who are atheists were atheists before becoming scientists. It may be that they're attracted to science, or that there are other fields open those who are not atheists. In fact the efforts by Larson and others to pit science against religion led to the NAS responding with their formal position on science and religion... "...science and religion address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist." ~National Academy of Sciences Never the less, apparently the truth doesn't stop bigoted, evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Krauss and their followers from misrepresenting it. In fact several members of the NAS have demanded written apologies by Sam Harris for repeatedly publicly misrepresenting the study and claiming it showed 93% of the NAS were atheists.

[@blb2121]

Apparently someone doesn't know what the terms post-doc or professional and above mean in the sciences...

[@oneth789]

God, being all-knowing and almighty, has a perfect plan for everything. No amount of power from the devil, or from human free will, or from whatsoever could mess-up with his plans even a little. therefore, whatever is happening is in accordance to his will.

[@whittfamily1]

But because God does not exist, there can be no perfect plan. Humans make plans, but neither humans nor their plans are perfect.

[@oneth789]

agree. because if one insists that his god exists, according to their complicated attributes for him, it can be deduced that everything is fault by that god

[@petersteman6557]

I was able to stay abreast with your conversation with Graham Jeacocke as I have previously conversed with him on the same thread, so I was receiving notifications on new comments. He deleted our entire discussion eventually, but throughout our back and forth, he would delete my comments whenever he became stuck in a contradiction in an attempt to terminate the debate, while simultaneously denying that he was doing this. Graham does have an obsession, and several misconceptions about the biblical view of alcohol including: alcohol is man made, the use of alcohol is a sin, and the sale of alcohol is also a sin. Using the bible I was able to refute all his claims as it declares god gave alcohol to man as a gift like bread, god neither prohibits drinking nor the sale of alcohol rather encourages it during holidays, and of course Jesus drinks and turns water into wine and is called a drunk in one passage due to the amount of time he spends in taverns. He eventually conceded each point, and consequently lost when he declared although God allows people to sin through the excess use of alcohol and their freewill, he, Graham, won't allow people to sin and wants a ban on alcohol. When I pointed out that he had put himself above God and was devising his own secular prohibition laws to combat biblical leniency that was when he deleted the entire thread leaving only his original comment. When I read his claim in your conversation that you, representing mankind created alcohol, I was intrigued as he had already conceded to me as a believer he was incorrect in that line of thinking. Graham's profile says he suffers from Asperger's syndrome, and I am guessing this reflects somewhat on his approach to debate. I think he is only interested in the rhetoric rather than considered thought, so if you like me also contemplated during your discussion whether you were banging your head against a brick wall, I think we might be closer to an answer.

[@whittfamily1]

Thank you for those comments, Peter. It gives me more insight into what was going on. You said "He deleted our entire discussion eventually..." I didn't know that was possible. I thought only the operators or moderators of the website or forum could do that. Is he one of those?

[@petersteman6557]

Gary Whittenberger A few years ago KZbin gave to anyone who makes the original (initial) comment the option to mark undesirable replies as spam, and blocking the replier thus deleting the comments from public view. It's an attempt to avoid conflict, but some people exploit the feature to make it appear their comments have gone unchallenged.

[@truthisaquestion]

139:07 "It was written by people who are illiterate" ... That's a college Professor folks. Yup. There are parents paying this guy to teach their kids.

[@athelsteadproductions6931]

Bruh I’m loosing my mind, this is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard

[@laeequenadvi4746]

Can the scientists tell me that who can claim that the universe is expanding 1450 years ago that the universe is expanding Till 1930 Neuton had no idea of expanding universe. Edwin Hubble told in 1923 that the universe is expanding. In Holy Qur'an Almighty Allah says that : والسماء بنينها بأيد و إنا لموسعون o We have built the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof). ( Qur'an,51:47) Almighty Allah-- the only creator says that He originated the universe and He is the only creator.

[@gdub454]

This Rosenberg dude kind of had me bustin up w/all his..uh..umm..uh..uh.uhh.uuh..uum..its like he gets stuck..and then somethin smacks him in backa the head..and then he continues speaking...

[@whittfamily1]

He is not a fluent speaker but most of his arguments are sound.

[@WeanedByNineteen]

I remember watching this as an atheist and member of Dan Barker's group and then I thought Rosenberg was losing the debate though he sounded affirming to how I felt. Now as a theist I can see how well WLC did. This man is the equivalent of Eminem on a diss/rejoinder track

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

What made you start believing?

[@turbostar101]

So where is your belief now?

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

@sevensieteS Nice.

[@geki9063]

Craig cites N.T.Wright numerous times to support his arguments, as if Wright were an impartial historian. Wright is a Christian! A bishop! Can he possibly be impartial? And Craig talks about Bible stories, like those about Jesus, as if they were unquestionably true, even using them as foundations for his arguments, using Wright's beliefs as supposed proof of their truth. Ugggh! Craig's arguments are full of holes - so many that it's impossible to refute them all in a time-limited forum like this one. Example: One step in his pseudo-proof of his God's existence is this statement: "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent personal being.

[@geki9063]

@sevensieteS No, it's easy to disprove the existence of the Biblical god. He is claimed to be all good and all-powerful, yet he likes to watch as children are kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered while he does nothing to help them. He cannot be all-good if he's all-powerful and could save these children. Therefore the god described in the Bible cannot exist. But if you want to worship such a hideous fiction, be my guest.

[@newpegaso2003]

Brilliant presentation Dr. Craig. After watching this debate, God is real and I will follow him until the end!!

[@jholts6912]

Amazing!

[@stickyrubb]

I hope you got back on that and found reality as is

[@Vic2point0]

+sciencetrumpsfaith "Vic, have you ever visited someone in the hospital after they have had a severe stroke? They may no longer be able to speak or even recognize a spouse of 50 years. This clearly proves that memory is destroyed when the brain gets damaged." What if all that's happening is that that part of who they are has *left* their physical body? Your examples are not answering this sort of question. You're talking about the capabilities of the human body while a person is assigned to it, you're not speaking to the possibility of the body simply being a flawed and fallible construct which the soul attempts to *use.* And again, this doesn't address Craig's cosmological argument which, along with the analysis that follows it, is an *argument* for the existence of an unembodied mind. Left unrefuted (which it still is), it can be considered evidence for one.

[@cooliD97]

1. why do many miracles occur in the world, all miracles occur by saying in Jesus name. eg. the blind, death, excorism. 2. If only physical things exist why is it we can think, we have minds thats not physical, why? 3. Lastly, why is it we have a consience? Why do we feel bad when we do something wrong? Or have a hard time deciding for something? whats the point if God didnt exist? Explain this. Please.

[@tsuguruni]

1) miracles? where? 2) thats not true 3) emergent property of mind? just a cultural fact? survival fact created by evolution?? you know god its not the only option

[@SkyyVodkaa]

Favourite Moral Norm: Whoever has not sinned, cast the first stone.

[@cantforgetthis]

polling and votes depend largely on how well the target audience understands the debate and i daresay there are too many out there with insufficient understanding

[@cms123tube]

The last question asked by the guy in the audience was very valid ... basically Rosenberg from his book doesn't think his own words are true so why shouldn't anyone listening to the debate think his (Rosenberg) words are true ? Rosenberg seemed to get perturbed and gave nonsense for a reply. No wonder he lost the debate by such a large margin.

[@johncee77]

To me one of the best evidences that Atheism is false, is the character of those propagating it. Alternatively those who are proposing arguments for God, reflect His love in their delivery.

[@tonyisnotdead]

that's a pretty bad look for god if that's one of the best evidence

[@stalwartservant4063]

Thank you Dr Rosenberg thank you. Your argument just recon firmed my faith in God's existence. your carbon argument was epic, but not because of what you think. Moral arguments right is right because put his law in our hearts!

[@hesitatingdissension4682]

Your reasoning is flawed and weak; however, you have that right to let ignorance guide your life to oblivion. God's existence is unfalsifiable, and it is a worthless meme.

[@KamikazethecatII]

@@hesitatingdissension4682 the existence of God is not a scientific question to be falsified like this.

[@hesitatingdissension4682]

@@KamikazethecatII It cannot be falsified either way, that was my point. It is a worthless mental construct.

[@KamikazethecatII]

@@hesitatingdissension4682 you could show why arguments for God like the ones in this video are not sound. These kinds of things are established by arguments not by scientific observation.

[@mayelinbarretoolivera6345]

@@hesitatingdissension4682 The existence of God can be falsified. Through demonstrating an inconsistency or contradiction in the concept of God. As told before, the only way to falsify something is not through scientific methods. Philosophical theses such as: God exists can be dismissed as improbable if there is no evidence in their favor and there is instead a case for believing otherwise.

[@MagnusCattus]

I don't honestly remember, I watched this weeks ago. However I've watched someone who takes the cake over ANY of these people. Lawrence Krauss. In his recent 'debates' with William Craig, he interrupted around 70 times in each cross examination, and in one part he actually took out a toy buzzer and buzzed it loudly whenever he thought Will made some factual error.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Scientism ideologues are funny creatures, because they really are overspecialized and have narrow orientation. Craig´s own point about spiritual experience is actually even more elaborate than he makes out. He said it even more clearly tonight than other times, that religious epistemology is involved. That really gets to things like the anthropology of shamanism and transpersonal psychology, and comparative religious studies, in which spiritual practice is a basic issue. Buddhists have to meditate, for one related issue.

[@katiebarber407]

it's necessary. if you don't challenge their lies or errors, Christians would never stop telling them

[@scotthelwig9640]

"It's not always easy to determine what's right and wrong in certain situations" BUT "since there are clear cases of objective moral values" THUS they were derived from GOD = not reasonable. Craig is full of bunk, and he knows it.

[@justingroves6858]

Dr. Craig's 12 minute rebuttal is the death knell of metaphysical naturalism.

[@johnnylamaa2569]

It was honestly pretty laughable. All those arguments had premises that were all nothing but equivocations and word games. Here's some examples: 1) Argument from Intentionality: The premise that "I cannot think about anything" is falsely inferring that we don't have intentional states (on the fundamental level). We don't know the answer to this yet. Even if there is no metaphysical basis for them and they're an illusion, premise 2 just appeals to our "intuitive" brain to tell us that they really do exist. This is not an argument - this is just saying "deep down we all know it" which is pretty hilarious that Craig presents this in a distinguished university against another professor with a PhD. Also, we don't even have a complete neuroscience about this matter yet! This is just a god-of-the-gaps move. To suggest that woo is the only thing that can explain this is silly. At best, we are just left with the fact that this is an open question. 2) Argument from meaning: Commits the same mistake. Just because there is no meaning on the FUNDAMENTAL level of things, this does not mean we are committed to the idea that we are all brainless zombies. We can have a meaning constructed by our monkey brains that gives us direction and a way to navigate the world, but that doesn't necessitate that the fundamental nature of reality operates on the basis of our everyday intuitions. This is incredibly silly, and I'm honestly surprised that it's something that comes from a person with a PhD in philosophy. It is a quick one-liner type of thing that the naïve audience just eats up. 3) Argument from truth: Again, same thing. Yes, on the most fundamental level, we are all just particles obeying the laws of physics, and there is nothing within those laws that suggest that sentences intrinsically have meaning. They are human constructs. So to appeal to those human constructs to give weight to your argument is just absurd. 4) Argument from moral praise/blame: Mostly the same, except different assumptions. The *typical* way we hold someone morally responsible for things is because of the fact that they are conscious about their actions, and they knew what exactly they were doing. Craig assumes without justification that "there's nothing special about having consciousness", but what he doesn't realize is that we can ask these same questions about god. We could just as easily say, "What's so special about god commanding us to do X"? The moral argument from god is so stupid because it expects you to assume the conclusion before you get to it. 5) Argument from freedom: Premise 2 is ridiculous. If determinism is true, then of course I can't "freely" choose to agree/disagree with a premise (whatever the word "freely" means). Also, it makes much more sense for our beliefs to be CAUSED by what we believe to make sense to us - I can't "freely choose" to believe that a triangle has 3 sides. I just believe it because I can't conceive otherwise. To assume that our choices and beliefs are "free" (i.e. "not caused"), that necessarily implies that there is no orderly manner in which we think. No matter how logically sound an argument may be to you, you could "freely" choose to deny it on the basis of some unbounded way of thinking. How could we ever convince people of things if there isn't some underlying causation and deduction we could show them in their thinking to convince them otherwise? Determinism clearly makes more sense here.

[@markwildt5728]

@@johnnylamaa2569 thanks for that word salad. You could have summed up that entire ridiculous psychobabble in just two or three sentences. It would have been equally wrong and ridiculous, but it would have saved a lot of time.

[@johnnylamaa2569]

@@markwildt5728 It says much more about you that you couldn't derive any meaning from what I said. But I can already tell you're not open to being convinced in the first place, since in that case you would've just asked what I meant.

[@markwildt5728]

@@johnnylamaa2569 what gave your the idea I didn't derive meaning or understood what you said? I did understand it quite well, which is why I said you could have simply summed it up in 2 sentences...

[@johnnylamaa2569]

@@markwildt5728 So my thoughts were understandable to you, yet that constitutes word salad? The whole point of word salad is a stringing together of seemingly random words and phrases that mean nothing. Well done contradicting yourself.

[@kanteannightmare]

Rosenberg : "the is no God therefore no good it evil but suffering is evil. Other people think God doesn't exist so neither do I. I can't manipulate God to do stuff for me or to make predictions so he doesn't exist. If there is no prior mind to ours then there is no necessary precondition for thought without it none can do science. God is the starting point not the result.

[@kanteannightmare]

Oners82 without examining your presuppositions your logic is more likely to fail than not. Hope your smart enough to realize that.

[@kanteannightmare]

Presuppositions are axioms. Ever heard of synonyms before.

[@kanteannightmare]

You can say anything you want doesn't mean your right and p.s you knew it was a question that's why your going all grammar nazi on me. So your just being petty as well as delusional.

[@kanteannightmare]

Nice rabbit trail. You still haven't proved your not a nazi sympathiser. The fact you have to point it the difference means you knew what I meant and can't resist the urge to be a grammar nazi. I'll wait for you to catch up to the 21st century where people use autocorrect to your on their smart phones. Ur mind is hollow the more u respond the more it shows.

[@kanteannightmare]

And your still a grammar nazi who can't recognize his own world view is incoherent that he has to argue grammar and spelling in the age of internet linguistics.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

"I'm ruled by reason and evidence so let me make fallacious appeals to popularity and authority instead of debating the actual merits of the topic." - Atheist Debater

[@johnnylamaa2569]

Well, he appealed to the national academy of sciences to say that all the appeals Craig makes to them about physics are to people that have almost universally rejected theism. It's an observation, not an argument. And shortly afterwards, he actually does address the points Craig made, so I'm not entirely sure if you really listened to the debate properly.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

@@johnnylamaa2569 I'm glad you've decided to chase down all of my comments a year after they were made. I appreciate you wanting me to go back through an almost 3-hour long debate to point out all those things you've obviously ignored because you lack critical thinking and objectivity (based on your other comments made). Feel free to rewatch them yourself and actually pay attention. If you can't be bothered to rewatch the video to pick up on those things you obviously failed to observe, then I'm not sure what my motivation would be. You're the one seemingly wanting to chase down all my old comments so have at it.

[@johnnylamaa2569]

@@silverbackhayabusa Well, I didn't realize that lots of the comments were from the same person. I was just thinking out loud and responding to comments I thought I could give my take on, so make of that what you will.

[@silverbackhayabusa]

@@johnnylamaa2569 "Well, I didn't realize that lots of the comments were from the same person." Just as you were incapable of seeing all the insults and demeaning comments Dr. Alexander was making in the debate. It's rather apparent you're quite ready to make comments without putting in much effort into paying attention to what's actually being said or by whom. You may want to work on your communication skills.

[@johnnylamaa2569]

@@silverbackhayabusa "Just as you were incapable of seeing all the insults and demeaning comments Dr. Alexander was making in the debate." Again, you can say that they were passive aggressive. But his comments were immediately followed up by making an actual point about what wlc was saying/doing. Are you now suggesting that wlc's opponents have to be philosophical robots, incapable of pointing out observations and making comments about them? You make it out to be like Rosenberg's entire statements were nothing but empty insults that were devoid of any substance. That is a complete misrepresentation of what happened. "It's rather apparent you're quite ready to make comments without putting in much effort into paying attention to what's actually being said or by whom. " I have no qualms about what I'm saying right now, and I'm fully aware that this is public. And as for who I'm saying it to, I don't really care, to be honest. We're both nobodies, and I'm sure that people are not going to bother sifting through all the youtube comments we've made. These are my honest legitimate opinions, and I'm expressing them. If we happened to be in some atheist/theist convention or the reason rally and you said these same things in real life, this would be what I would say in person to you. That's why I don't hide behind a meaningless username - I sign my name to my opinions. And of course, I am open to having my mind changed (as much as you'd like to think otherwise).

[@peterwright5311]

What makes you think existence should have a reason? I realise it is human to ascribe reason and purpose to things but I do not see how it is philosophically necessary in this instance. The other questions do not strike me as being impacted by the statement I made any more than the three options you suggested. "You believe either - existence came from nothing (non-existence) - existence always existed (eternal) - it involved a supernatural (divine) act"

[@jaykayel384]

Alex Rosenberg reminds me of that dude on Django

[@nicepperson4917]

+JayKayeL Holy crap yes

[@piracy22]

Christop Waltz

[@VitoAsaro-ey6bv]

Oh dang. You're wrong 😂

[@airkami]

I think Alex made some strongly presented arguments that were good and healthy for any person of Christian faith to carefully consider. I think it added a very real perspective and thought it may not have been as direct as Craig's remarks at times that was a beneficial quality to the audience. If all he did was attack every point Craig put forth it would not have been nearly as exciting, and unlike a presidential debate, many points were quite direct and answers clearly aimed at the root of questions as opposed to mere deflections, at least within the benefit of the doubt.

[@david10101961]

Agree with you. I was also impressed by Prof Rosenberg's honesty and propriety. It appeared that both speakers had a genuine respect for one another.

[@EternalCitizen]

When it comes to emitting Alpha particles. How do you know there is no cause for that difference?

[@jordanpennington2599]

​@EternalCitizen Yes and also there already is material from which they come from......athiest believe that something came from nothing.....if that isnt absurd faith idk what it is.

[@SublimeSynth]

@@jordanpennington2599 did you even watch the debate?

[@jordanpennington2599]

@EcoCentrist Yes I did.....what from my statement would get you to ask that?

[@NuclearDetractor]

Let's clear this up. So William Lane Craig says that you can't just dismiss the resurrection of Jesus because of eye witnesses that testify that it happens. He then says that the book of mormon is wrong because it is probably lies even though it has 12 eye witnesses. He also says that the quran is wrong because it is probably a legend. It's pretty clear from his reasoning right there that he is not looking for the truth; he is trying to defend his christian faith. He wants to be a christian, he wants to believe in god, so he defends it no matter what and ignores the arguments against it.

[@drumrnva]

It does seem non-intuitive that Craig is apparently so engaged in debate, yet he has said numerous times (including this debate, I think) that his ultimate reason for Christian faith is not logical argument/evidence, but the "witness of the holy spirit in my heart". That's fine for him and for anyone else for whom such a thing is sufficient, but it isn't sufficient for everyone. Look at his website for "Witness of the Holy Spirit and Defeasibility of Christian Belief". I think his response there is a real distillation of what he believes. I can't share the belief, myself.

[@Asthmaticape]

That's Bible league shit right there

[@michaelhill3700]

I am a Christian and I can agree with you, Mr. Grape; I don't think his dismissal of Mormonism was adequate. Kinda dropped the ball on that one...

[@valeriaefimov]

If you knew anything about what the Mormons taught you would know it was all a lie. You would know there are degrees and a hierarchy that are identical to those found in the mystery religions. The Jesus Christ of the Mormons is a fallen angel and it's identical to the story of lucifer, but they just replace lucifer with Jesus. That being said, the founder Joseph Smith was a freemason. So that proves he had a secret religion and took oathes to other masters, like it's actual proof. And not only that, he wasn't a freemason (on record) before he created the church of mormon, but after he created the church he was granted the honorary 33rd degree. William Lane Craig wasn't going to get into all of that but he knows this stuff. Also the founder of Scientology was a freemason. Also head guys in the vatican are freemasons. Original follows of Muhammed were part of the Roshinya which were also sects of mystery religions and so on.

[@NuclearDetractor]

Valeria Efimov I'm just poking holes in his logic. He says that witnesses are good enough proof that Jesus existed. Why aren't witnesses good enough proof that the book of mormon was real or that the quran was real? What I'm pointing out is that he is choosing which witnesses to believe. It demonstrates his mind set. He is just going to accept any evidence that supports his belief and ignore evidence to the contrary.

[@necessaryevil6636]

Lot of hate on this comment section. I respect atheists, but going full-on ad-hominem on theists when you can't even provide arguments is actually really petty and ignorant. But still, even if you can provide arguments, the previous statement would still be deemed as true.

[@willzer808]

William Lane Craig is an incredibly silly man. He's great. Hours of priceless entertainment. What a superior clown he is.

[@ares4556]

You mad?

[@beto88keys]

willzer808 none of your atheist friends have been able to refute him. Who are the clowns?

[@willzer808]

beto88keys you are the clowns

[@beto88keys]

sure man...

[@willzer808]

beto88keys Socrates was put to death for admitting that there is so much he didn't know. So yeah, I'm the clown.

[@richardrisch]

I am an atheist the has to admit that craig is a debater of the first rank. his arguments are compelling. I have watched many debates over the years and have never seen him throw rocks, unlike my fellow atheists who throw rocks and given more credibility to his arguments. I am waiting for some one to step up and really challenge this guy- I have to admit- I have backgrounds in physics and medicine and does a good job for his side.

[@michaelhill3700]

I definitely agree with you about the rock throwing. I hate it when they aren't polite with each other. Actually, I think the worst in this one was the last question that rosenberg takes. He totally tries to humiliate that kid! And I think he blew off his reasonable question...

[@geki9063]

Craig cites N.T.Wright numerous times to support his arguments, as if Wright were an impartial historian. Wright is a Christian! A bishop! Can he possibly be impartial? And Craig talks about Bible stories, like those about Jesus, as if they were unquestionably true, even using them as foundations for his arguments, using Wright's beliefs as supposed proof of their truth. Ugggh! Craig's arguments are full of holes - so many that it's impossible to refute them all in a time-limited forum like this one. Example: One step in his pseudo-proof of his God's existence is this statement: "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent personal being.

[@robertoesquivel4447]

Sorry you're so angry Rosenberg, I know it's tough.. but "no one learns from someone they hate"

[@Detson404]

What a dodge. Theists don’t want to listen to atheist arguments so they create the strawman of the angry atheist they can dismiss out of hand.

[@quantumleap8824]

Actually it was the other way around, it was the Jews that created their God, a God that favored them and hence the nation of Israel was born! :)

[@jarskiXD]

I love how WLC got his notes with him 😁

[@moderncaleb3923]

39:30 "WLC doesn't listen to his opponents debate."

[@celestialknight2339]

Dr. Rosenberg came in so strong and confident, I thought he was really gonna put up a challenge for WLC. But he got destroyed lol.

[@blacksuburban2410]

Exactly!

[@RP-ch8yn]

He didn’t get destroyed. He correctly pointed out how WLC’s kalam -argument is entirely fallacious. Kalam goes, P1: Everything that begins to exist, has a cause P2: the universe began to exist C1: Therefore the universe has a cause The first premise is predicated upon an equivocation fallacy between creation ex materia and ex nihilo. Yes, instances of creation ex materia are almost always observed to be caused by something. But even that’s just a generalization and not a universal law of nature at all. As Rosenberg correctly pointed out, creation ex materia occurs in the universe sometimes without any apparent causes, as is observed with nuclear decay. Now, WLC ”rebutted” this by pointing out that virtual particles don’t come into existence ex nihilo, but from the quantum vacuum. He never addressed nucler decay, which is indeed an intrinsically stochastic process in the subatomic level, nor does nothing being created ex nihilo mean that the universe couldn’t have came into existence ex materia without a cause, because that’s not even far fetched in light of the manner in which nuclear decay happens, or how virtual particles come into existence ex materia. On the other hand, no instances of creation ex nihilo have ever been observed or verified, meaning that any universal law claiming that ”objects created ex nihilo have to have a cause” is completely unwarranted and thus a nonsensical claim, because there is literally no data on it. For all we know, our universe could’ve come to existence ex nihilo but there’s no way for us to know it, and thus no way to make any universalizations about things coming into existence ex nihilo. Now, the second fallacy WLC makes is assuming that his intuitions about the metaphysics of logic and causality apply to the big bang. Understand, that the features of the beginning of the universe, whose first 10^-43 seconds were governed by physics not yet understood, may not be amenable to any intuitions about the metaphysics of causality. If the big bang wasn’t governed by the same physics as today, how could one assume that it was still governed by the laws of logic that only apply to macroscopic phenomena of today? Again, both of the following claims are either false or epistemically unwarranted: -Anything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause. -Anything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause. WLC’s kalam argument fails.

[@malvokaquila6768]

Of course that was the outcome atheists usually do not make arguments for their world view, just beg the question. They also are masters of the straw man. Like rationality rules accusing WLC Kalam of equivocation. They know so little of the arguments they just make up issues that theists have dealt with decades ago.

[@terminat1]

That's because the atheist has hatred of God (especially the God of the Bible) and not much else to go on.

[@RP-ch8yn]

@@terminat1 There are no hard feelings towards god on my behalf. I have no feelings towards him whatsoever, as I’m just not convinced that he exists. Maybe you should read my message which analytically points out the fallacies in Craig’s kalam -argument, and you would understand that no philosophically honest person who values science, razors and epistemological evidentialism would claim god that a god exists.

[@DfiantWolfe]

You made a very valid point, but I disagree on the point that while he may have pointed out valid flaws in different views, he singled out views that are not widely accepted. And in the support of his own arguments for the rational justification for theistic beliefs his arguments began with highly contended P's (premises). His format of debate was very good, but when he goes from P1 + P2 + P3 = Rational foundation. What good is it, when no one agrees on P1, P2 and P3 ? It's founded on Big IF's

[@rudymurillo9334]

Uh Rosenberg should uh quit public speaking uh uh so annoying to uh listen uh to.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

I was surprised by all the stupid comments in the comments section, and then I realized the poster was Biola "university" (biblically centered education as opposed to evidence and logic centered education). The wealth of stupidity in the comments section makes sense now.

[@nelsonsoto741]

This guy taking the stage against Craig is like me going in the ring with Tyson

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

It was funny to hear him complain that he'd gone up against WLC before and that WLC had learned nothing from it. Umm, when you're getting wrecked as bad Rosenberg was here, it comes off as really weird to take such a smug attitude.

[@dodittecimatu8645]

So true!

[@danflaherty5218]

uh... why are all...uh... atheist debaters...uh... snarky and... uh... incomprehensible... uh...