My Honest Opinion of Richard Dawkins - William Lane Craig

Watch the full conversation: • William Lane Craig Def...
Main channel: / @cosmicskeptic

[@chrisclark432]

David Lee Roth really switching up his career these days. Good on him!

[@grahamblack1961]

LMFAO, he's not running with the devil anymore

[@croutonicblast]

amazing, you beat me to this comment

[@movie-mandan]

I figured he would “jump” somewhere in “Panama.” 😂🤪🤪

[@jefframey9561]

My favorite comment, and the most informative.😄

[@theguitarzone767]

@@movie-mandan Jumping somewhere in Panama...UNCHAINED!

[@tamaking7104]

Richard says William Land Craig has a Pompous voice ? The pot calling the kettle black. !

[@joelancon7231]

I'm a Catholic Christian and just want to emphasize to some of Alex's commentors that William Lane Craig's belief in Divine Command Theory is not everyone's moral Ethic I would point to Gavin Ortlund's excellent videos treating these topics and in my estimation he does so much more sophisticatedly and sensitively than Dr. Craig did. I don't necessarily think Divine Command is a bad Theory, but I find Natural Law to be much more compelling, and Divine Command does come with some inconvenient things that you pretty much have to accept like "if God verifiably commanded the Holocaust, though he never would, we would be obliged to follow his command, as that is his right to do so." Nevertheless I would push back by saying that this is not a logical problem it is just a bit counterintuitive, and such counterintuition also does exist in Nihilist and other atheistic worldviews as well such as the counterintuitive claim that "the holocaust is not objectively evil, it is just against modern and pre modern social standards." No worldview is without claims that are problematic or counterintuitive, we all just need to bite the bullet on somethings, so I think a lot of Atheist would fair better if the had more modesty in how they objected to Christianity.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

if you're christian can you remind god he can't just go around killing people and burning them alive for eternity just because they disagree with him, we have rights. and while you're at it, cold fusion, if god isn't going to do anything about putin (heart attack or something that looks natural), if he's not going to stop the war, (when did he ever stop a war) then the least he can do is hint as to how to get cold fusion working - has he seen my electricity bills since the ukraine debacle started, there's a love eh. don't be pushy though, god has a short fuse. i'd say your morality is non existent mate, if you think it's okay for god to kill people just cos they disagree with him, no trial, no representation, one crime of "sin" which basically amounts to "things that annoy god" then you are sick. gavin ortland is a twit by the way. watch tom jump take his morality apart - basically cos you folks have no morality. has the pope stopped apologising for all the abuse yet?

[@paulsacramento5995]

I don't think the divine command theory is "whatever God' commands is right", I think it is that God can never command what is immoral so any command god gives must be just and it falls on us to understand why it is so. Of course some have issues with God commanding the death of a person or a group but then again these are the very same that blame God for evil and question why God doesn't punish evil more/faster or why God "allows" for bad things to happen.

[@bdnnijs192]

"tough he never would" Why not? It's not like a greater God can forbid Him. If God simply can't then morality cannot come from commands.

[@user-rv2zj8zu5b]

@@paulsacramento5995 Craig takes Divine Command Theory to its logical conclusion and basically states that in some cases genocide is good since God commanded it. So we then are left with always questioning our own sense of “good”. What to us then seems evil could actually be good. Craig explanation of this is really off putting and that is what offends Dawkins and even O’Conner who explores Craig’s thinking band deftly pokes holes in it. Even other theologians like Greg Boyd have trouble with OT violence and have posited other interpretations of the text.

[@paulsacramento5995]

@@bdnnijs192 If God is GOD then He can't do anything that is inconsistent with His nature or logic, like making a square circle. God can't command or do evil, if He did he wouldn't be God.

[@AussieCatholic]

I really like Alex O'Connor. I disagree with him, but I think I could easily be mates with him. Such a likeable guy.

[@bernmahan1162]

Me too. I reckon it would take a few pints to get a laugh out of him though.

[@RichieW90210]

Not according to Peter Hitchens

[@KK-lg8uz]

@@RichieW90210 Hitchens lost it in that interview. Was a poor showing from him. Alex handled it like a champ though

[@xravenx24fe]

​@KK-lg8uz Idk dude Alex is nice but idk why niceness is the standard of good. I kinda get why Hitchens bolted Alex was being unprofessional but nice so for some reason people think it was uncalled for

[@another1301]

​@@xravenx24fe you may have watched a different interview to the rest of us. Most thought he handled it perfectly considering, and that Hitchens was out of line.

[@longshotkdb]

lol I watched the original video, but this is so worth the Re-up'

[@ShaggNasty-yk1ie]

Dawkins has "no time for professional debaters". But obviously has plenty of time for Matt Dillahunty, a professional debater.

[@evenleven]

"no time for professional debaters on behalf of religion" dont forget the important bit.

[@user-py1xw4iy4m]

William Lane Craig reminds me of Kryten from red dwarf. Not only his face but his voice and way of speaking

[@JoeBuck-uc3bl]

Going back a bit, but he used to remind me of Steve from Married With Children.

[@chickenteeth87]

Why bother debating Dawkins at all? He’s overwhelmingly biased in his beliefs and isn’t interested in the pursuit of truth. He is an angry old man with a huge chip on his shoulder.

[@ztrinx1]

You need mirror, kid.

[@LM-jz9vh]

​@@ztrinx1 Exactly. The irony of that statement from religious people.

[@AndrewG-FW-TX]

@@LM-jz9vh it’s true. Dawkins is a whacko

[@djz1845]

@@LM-jz9vh i mean its easier for religious people to throw the religion out than lets say a person researching on science and all his research is said to be a waste and false.

[@MeisterBeefington]

Dawkins critiquing someone for a pompous voice😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@jeffmaehre7150]

Maybe he means pompous for an American.

[@stuckinlodi100]

Holy mackerel maybe Saul was right about St Paul..or vice versa.

[@ysgol3]

He's a gentleman, unlike you you prat 😂.

[@kofidan9128]

😂

[@notthere83]

This reminds me of some atheist event where Gervais, Dawkins and I believe Michael Pollan had a conversation. A bunch of it seemed pretty immature to me (although, as I recall, Gervais was pretty unwilling to just go along with some of the things and instead took a more agnostic stance). Things that I might've said when I was a teenager, maybe very young adult. But at some point, through studies and thought, you'd think that people would arrive at more nuanced perspectives. (I'm anti-religious myself but wouldn't want to be associated with atheists who make such odd claims and act obnoxiously superior.)

[@Theactivepsychos]

Like what? What did anyone say that you class as odd, obnoxious or unnuanced. As a lead into your answer Dawkins says he’s interested in what is true, he explains how he understands how religion evolved from the meme perspective and that rituals and superstition can be useful, bit his arguments have always been about 1, the truth claims of religions and 2, the harmful inspirations religions of night in people.

[@MrStaano]

The intellectually honoust and intelligent position is; humans obviously made up religions and gods. Thats one thing we know for certain.

[@dtgb7]

@@MrStaano humans "obviously made up gods", lol.. Is it more obvious than God creating humans? lol i think not...

[@ztrinx1]

Do you have any point here? You don't say anything specific.

[@MrStaano]

@@dtgb7 We know for a fact humans invented gods. Right?

[@radscorpion8]

Honestly I think its quite silly for people to continually put forward the idea that Dawkins is the "leader" of the atheist movement and it is incumbent on him to debate the forerunner of the Christian movement. He is a popularizer of atheism, he is not a seasoned and dedicated philosopher like Graham Oppy who would be a far more appropriate opponent for Dr. Craig. I know Dawkins makes bad arguments for atheism, and bad arguments against theism. I don't care and don't want to see him debate Craig because I know that Craig would probably completely destroy him. By the same token I also wouldn't want Dr. Craig to debate random high school students on the topic either. I would want someone with real expertise, not just a popular figure who sold a lot of books. Its just such a shallow and wrong-headed way of evaluating who should be debating who, or frankly who should be leading this movement. If one person clearly has no expertise on the subject, then they shouldn't be involved in debates, it is as simple as that. And frankly this includes Hitchens and Sam Harris who are also unfamiliar with the kinds of philosophical arguments Dr. Craig presents. There is one level of debate for which those two are appropriate, and that is regarding most popular defenses of Christianity made by small time preachers who believe you should believe in Christianity solely based on faith. They are not equipped to argue against Alvin Plantinga's version of the ontological argument or any other modern variations

[@bisbeekid]

Horse manure.

[@hablabamosa]

Not a Craig fan but I agree. Dawkins regularly makes fun of philosophy and he is a very naive idea of how human beings work and what they need, aside from the hardcore biological side of things. Even Sam Harris knows the importance of spirituality which is why he's been meditating for over 30 years.

[@cjbungis]

Sam Harris would not call that spirituality, and certainly not in the same sense as Craig. Experiencing unexplainable feelings is not the same thing as making claims about magical creatures in your dreams and visions and things like that.

[@Metroid-rg9pn]

I really respect that Alex wasn't afraid to say he didn't have a problem with WLC, even though I know he really disagrees with him.

[@truthseeker-nv6ny]

You're not the only one even WLC knows that Alex is literally the cosmic skeptic

[@arjannijk7647]

I think it is a little disingenuous, to be honest. Alex must have seen Craig's debates and be familiar with his absurdly sophistic style of argument. I do respect him for engaging with Craig, but pretending he has no idea why someone would feel this way about him seems strange to me.

[@SeanathanCreek]

@@arjannijk7647 His arguments have set the philosophical world on fire because they defeat utterly what the enlightenment-rooted mainstream have been getting away with for the last 100 years. When an author like David Baddiel (I select him as I recently skimmed his book ) whose writing reaches masses in the UK , presents his arguments for why he doesn't believe in God and it turns out the argument is paper thin , I thank Dr Craig for the philosophical bulwark he has constructed against this outdated reasoning. Dawkins emanates with fear at the notion of how a debate with Dr. Craig would go. He was beaten with a PR stunt at Oxford, let alone a substantitive debate.

[@alfarouqaminufor3892]

@@arjannijk7647atheists don’t like WLC because he’s a formidable foe not because of his debate style. He’s intelligent, articulate, very well informed on multiple fronts. He can refute and rebuttal all of the atheist talking points on the spot. Hence why atheists go after the alternative for example someone who is more of a political figure not an apologist.

[@Krispio666]

@@alfarouqaminufor3892 Atheists dislike WLC because he is a very skilled apologist. That is, he's good at convincing people as long as they're already on his side (so that they don't think too hard about it). He knows the rhetoric and knows how to sound smart. But his arguments are terrible. As are his motivations. He has admitted himself that even if there were no good reason to believe, he would still be an apologist. I think the jury is a bit rigged, then. Go watch him debate Bart Ehrman or Sean Carroll if you want to see him picked apart in a debate. In those instances, he confronted experts on their own fields. If you want to see him win, watch him debate somebody who is not an expert in whatever they're debating. Why does he win? Because he is an expert debater. And that's it really.

[@ethanf.237]

Alex: Posts a heartening and encouraging video about a cordial and respectful interaction between two people who have deep disagreements Comment section: Dr. CrAiG iS sO dUmB bEcAuSe *insert hot philosophy take the person is likely not qualified to make*..... God, tribalism will be the downfall of this generation

[@HangrySaturn]

Indeed.

[@ryanwilkinson1513]

Dr. Craig is so dumb. Politely advocating for a homophobic, transphobic, gross, bigoted, backward little worldview is neither "cordial" nor "respectful". It speaks volumes to your own intelligence that someone can dress up such hateful rhetoric in moderately polite language and you immediately fall for it

[@Theactivepsychos]

Which generation? Aren’t there 5 generations currently interacting with KZbin?

[@ethanf.237]

@@Theactivepsychos Whichever spends the most time on Reddit (clearly the demographic that most commonly lurks here)

[@HarryNicNicholas]

anyone who says "it's okay for the babies to be drowned cos they were naughty" and then contradicts his own religion by saying "and it's all okay cos they go to be with god" is indeed an idiot, and condones genocide, i have rights and god does not, he is an alien and a threat to humanity, if you don't see that then i pity you and everyone around you. and my qualification is i am part of the human race - and god is not.

[@Charlies_stuff]

I'm more a Sammy Hager fan... Come on. No one's made a Dave Lee Roth lookalike comment? Bloody kids A really interesting chat :)

[@reinotsurugi]

I agree. Should definitely have Hagar on to keep balance. Also, Hagar is fun and interesting.

[@TimothyNyota]

Dawkins is a cultural Christian😅😅😅😅😅😂😂😂

[@ramigilneas9274]

Most Christians in the west are cultural Christians.😉

[@drachireidnoc6659]

What’s funny about that?

[@evanleesmith385]

I second Dr Craig's sentiments for Alex's approach to interviews. Ever since I first discovered Alex's channel a few years ago, I have been so impressed with his ability to dialogue and debate with honesty and good faith. Keep up the great work, Mr O'Connor!

[@maddi62]

Alex eviscerated Dawkins? Really? Certainly pushed back a little

[@notthere83]

I was also wondering about that. Maybe Craig saw the whole thing and was referring to a different part? (I watched it but don't remember the whole thing)

[@maddi62]

@@notthere83 just wishful thinking, I think

[@FaviusArthum]

@@maddi62 seems to be a running theme amonsgt theists (although I don't know that guy, maybe he's a deist, correct me if i'm wrong)

[@CSUnger]

The reactions of the audiences in Dawkins's debates suggest that they have already made up their minds and are simply looking for someone more educated than themselves to confirm their biases, rather than genuinely exploring both sides of the argument.

[@bjarczyk]

You can say that just as much about many Christians. We live in an anti-intellectual society with increasingly short attention spans. The conversation with Craig and O'Connor is the model for the way forward.

[@ramigilneas9274]

I would call that projection…

[@BrianPaul1984]

We exist in a universe with these specific cosmological constants because a universe with these specific constants will allow for us to be able to exist here in the first place. Can’t believe someone like Craig either doesn’t know or blatantly ignores the anthropic principle. There could be MANY other universes which DON’T have these “fine tuned” constants, but we would never know because we obviously couldn’t evolve or exist in them. 🙄

[@mentalwarfare2038]

That’s assuming… 1. That the multiverse hypothesis is true 2. That the mechanism which creates multiple universes is also not finely tuned

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@mentalwarfare2038 God would have to be the most finely tuned thing with the most complex design in existence.

[@patrickwoods2213]

I don’t blame Dawkins one bit for avoiding Craig. Craig is one of the biggest liars in Christian apologetics. He proved it in a video interview with Micklos Jacko - trying to defend old testament genocide by straight up denying the facts and what’s in his own Bible. Reality is not on Craig’s side. He’s a nice guy, yes. But there are nice people who can be nefarious liars in a very narrow area in order to defend their bias- in politics or religion. And Craig is one of those people.

[@AndrewG-FW-TX]

And you of course did not mention any of his lies

[@venicelake]

William Craig has made a platform and profession for himself out of “belief” and feels he deserves a chair at the table of important discussions of our time, so what, it amounts to nothing but his ego gratification, he explains nothing, but somehow he keeps showing up, comic relief?

[@torreyintahoe]

My honest opinion of the man who obliterates my entire worldview: I think he's AMAZIN!

[@misterocain]

Re Dawkins, "the conclusion doesn't follow from the propositions". The words "pot", "kettle", "black" spring to mind.

[@zorionto]

Why do they spring to mind?

[@nigeltrigger4499]

@@zorionto You won't get a reply from @mistercain whose opinion probably told to them by someone else...

[@zorionto]

@@nigeltrigger4499 Perhaps not! Let's see.

[@misterocain]

@@zorionto I wish i knew. Maybe the addition of the odd definite article or verb may have made sense of the words. Strange, huh?

[@user-rv2zj8zu5b]

Having read Dawkins books he is a great scientist who n the field of genetics but his objections to the religion and the Bible specifically are logically very poorly laid out and supported by logical thought which is probably why he won’t debate Craig. As a scientist myself I appreciated his explanations on genetics and biology. The Selfish Gene is a great book. However when he strays into areas of which he knows very little such a physics and cosmology he makes unwarranted conclusions which Craig with a more disciplined logical approach dismantles quite easily.

[@Theactivepsychos]

But his critique of religion isn’t about the technicalities or the theological arguments it’s about the truth claims and the inspirations to do bad. Where is Dawkins weak when it comes to either of those topics?

[@mioszbies903]

@@Theactivepsychosthat is so broad question… the wisest is go to the books or lectures given by his critiques instead of trying to find out truth in YT comments.

[@Theactivepsychos]

@@mioszbies903 I’ve read Dawkins thoroughly and multiple times. I’ve also read people like Alister McGrath and find their critique of Dawkins the worst type of Strawmanning.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

There are no good reasons to believe Christianity is true. As a make-believe scientist you should know this

[@mioszbies903]

@@Theactivepsychos well, if you want to find out what is Craig’s critique then probably you should try reading his books. Also worth to know John Lennox and David Berlinski’s books. Berlinski is an atheist himself so it may seem interesting to you. Dawkins receives a lot of criticism from both sides because he actually is a poor philosopher and outside his realm his arguments are recognised by experts to be weak.

[@poerava]

WLC has one of the most fake smiles I’ve ever seen. You know those smiles that are really a ‘you’re going to hell’ disdain.

[@lonzo61]

Amen brother....er, yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I never could stand WLC.

[@mzbarsk]

lol, nothing of substance to say about him, so now it’s “his smile”😂. What’s next? He breathes loudly?

[@lonzo61]

@@mzbarsk Seems we have an adherent and disciple of WLC. Praise Jesus!

[@mzbarsk]

@@lonzo61 Seems like you when it comes to evidence or justifying your statements you have none? Anything else?

[@poerava]

@@mzbarsk Thanks for displaying to readers what the slippery slope fallacy is. I was very specific in what I said. See if you can address what I said. Do you think his smile is sincere? It’s a pretty simple observation. I’ve studied post grad psych and practiced as a clinical psych for 5 years. I can explain how to observe peoples eyes when they smile and how to observe a ‘performative smile’. As far as ‘nothing substantive’ I would have thought that Alex’s brilliant questioning has shown enough flaws and disturbing reasoning in WLC’s reasoning and that is that he is happy with babies being murdered if someone’s friend in the sky tells them that they have bad parents because…they go straight to heaven. If you missed that utterly shocking and disturbing reasoning, I’m not sure if me bringing it up again will help you.

[@jensswales]

my very first impression of alex was a snobby cocky brat but i completely changed my mind

[@johnpublica2809]

Alex O'Connor is open, reasonable, rational and fair-minded. Would love to have a pint with him some day. I am a Christian, BTW.

[@scottychen2397]

Alex: Pup, Youre just trying to figure it all out. That’s all.

[@fcampos10]

Just watch for yourself the diffence on how they both spoke about each other and you will know who you are dealing with.

[@James-iz9qb]

Regardless of one's metaphysical commitments this sort of thing shows why people like Dawkins especially should take the meaning of Christianity seriously. Having 'such contempt' for someone on such a shallow basis and freely throwing that view around publicly is exactly the same side of human nature that a serious engagement with Christ and Christianity addresses.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

dressing up voodoo with philosophy doesn't work, religions are still crap and the followers of religion are horrible people who condone gods killing folks on a whim.

[@shassett79]

Call me reductive, but if your belief system allows you to view the mass slaughter of children as a moral good, then you deserve my contempt.

[@nigeltrigger4499]

Why?

[@ga6589]

How is Dawkins "shallow"? Atheists simply reject non-evidentiary god-claims, that's it. On this basis alone, we have no good reason to take any religion seriously. Why would you find that contemptuous?

[@James-iz9qb]

@@ga6589 I mean that he jumped to contempt for someone on a shallow basis. A gracious person doesn't have such an extreme negative judgement of a person based on a feeling about small parts of that person's worldview.

[@notthere83]

While Dawkins' argument as presented here seems naive, I would think that if he really was that insufferable overall from the points of view of philosophers, Daniel Dennett probably wouldn't have hung out with him.

[@mikehutton3937]

Not to speak ill of the dead, but Daniel Dennett could be quite insufferable at times too.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

a pain in the arse but right in his thinking.

[@gregbatson8977]

I don't agree with everything Richard thinks but he's definitely smarter then William even when i agree with William on some small basics.

[@kinsumandal2467]

The people in the comments really need to see the Full conversation before commenting. Craig being intelligent is really funny after he tried to justify "Genocide is Fine as long God orders you to do it"

[@bernmahan1162]

Most committed atheists have little understanding of non fundamentalist theology. I think William was very polite about Dawkins! ps If I dare suggest a future guest I would recommend Anthony Bartlett, a deep thinking, open minded and eloquent Christian apologist.

[@RhetoricalMuse]

Matt Dillahunty has won every debate against Christian apologists. Also see Sean Carroll vs WLC.

[@xymos7807]

@@RhetoricalMuse Matt Dillahunty contradicts and talks himself into twisted pretzels. The man is so hyper skeptical is astonishing how he's able to commit to any set of beliefs.

[@bernmahan1162]

@@RhetoricalMuse I'm not sure you can "win" a debate like that but just the dialogue can be enlightening.

[@RhetoricalMuse]

@@xymos7807 *Matt Dillahunty contradicts and talks himself into twisted pretzels* He has yet to do this in debates with apologists, hence why he ius regarded as one of the best in the world. On the political front he is a bit 'woke'. However, that has no bearing on the religious debates, as he has demonstrated over years. *The man is so hyper skeptical is astonishing how he's able to commit to any set of beliefs* Again, we are talking about his debating against religious apologists and the success of it. let's not move the goalposts.

[@RhetoricalMuse]

@@bernmahan1162 One can absolutely 'win', the same way political debates can be 'won'. 'Won' is synonymous with 'whom was the most convincing' or 'whom has the better arguments'. With which he has always come up trumps.

[@tomgreene1843]

Alex is a great guy ..even though I don't agree with all his conclusions .

[@andrewbradley6941]

Dawkins lets himself down again and again by straw-manning people he debates with. I'm afraid he just comes across as a bit of a facile angry little man.

[@jewulo]

Pot calling kettle black. You just straw-manned Dawkins.

[@patrickwoods2213]

If you really look into the career of Craig you will see him as an overrated liar. He defends the god of genocide at every turn by nefariously reinterpreting and repackaging certain passages of scripture.

[@MS-fg8qo]

Talking behind one's back publicly. Interesting format.

[@kenkaplan3654]

To be an apologist at the level of Craig is disturbing, genial or not. There's a big screw loose.

[@jonrendell]

Why do old men like William Lane Craig look like they're transitioning?

[@OneTheBlue]

Lower testosterone maybe?

[@mentalwarfare2038]

… Therefore Christianity is false

[@jonrendell]

@@mentalwarfare2038 LOL, that and the plethora of other reasons too.

[@markwillies7666]

Coz life is fcuking cruel

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

@ op He looks like a normal old man? Seriously, what a weird comment to make.

[@movie-mandan]

Hitchens and Harris and Barker’s anti-God books received acclaim. Dawkins’ book was warm, at best. Same people are reading them, but Dawkins is said to be the worst.

[@greyone40]

I like William Craig, and he is right when he says that Alex is a good interviewer. It'll be great to have more conversations between these two in the future.

[@WarrenKirkpatrick]

⁠@@JD-wu5pfthen you need a wake up call bro… plenty of that shit happened in history and is currently happening now… so you’re either a kid or seriously immature.

[@nigeltrigger4499]

WCL is disingenuous.

[@ruleaus7664]

@@JD-wu5pf He was saying that it's god's prerogative to decide when to take away life.

[@ruleaus7664]

@@JD-wu5pf You don't even know what the KJV Bible says. If you did, you would talk about the Nephilim, who weren't even fully human. You atheists never talk about that, even though just about everyone has heard the story of David vs. Goliath.

[@ruleaus7664]

​@@JD-wu5pf I'm out here believing what the Bible and the ancients in general said themselves in addition to what we're seeing happen today. In the Book of Genesis, God told the serpent, Satan, that his seed would be at war with the seed of the woman. That's genetics. Later in Genesis 6:4, it says there was a fallen angelic, extraterrestrial visitation and subsequent unholy sexual union with human women that led to giant offspring often referred to as the Nephilim. Goliath was of the seed of these wicked, genetically corrupt hybrid beings. They were to be killed just as David killed Goliath. The only reason why you think that's all mythology is because you've been led to believe in slow-motion Pokémon and that humans made god instead of the other way around. Yet, the ancients from various cultures have not only predominantly believed in a god or gods, but have also told similar stories about global floods, visitations of extraterrestrials or what they may have called gods from the stars, hybrid or giant humanoid beings, and so forth. Ancient history isn't what you think, as if it's just been humans alone as the only intelligent beings possessing a higher order of consciousness that have been here on earth. Just as the Bible says, there were and still are interactions with angels, good or bad, and demons.

[@ebenlaubscher4153]

Every thought is subjective . Thus all religions are also . Thoughts that lead to tangible things are real . People are really good at storytelling,it doesn’t make it real tho

[@sittingonmysofa]

I don't see what others see in Dawkins. I find him lacking in creativity, humour or any real ability to weave stories or arguments in the way so many people give him credit for. He states his simple position and sticks to his guns. He's not in the same league as Harris, Petersen, Hitchens

[@patrickwoods2213]

He is a science educator- not a philosopher. His books are amazing, and he’s one of the finest science educators of his generation. You don’t need to be a philosopher to criticize religion. You just need common sense.

[@stoutgat7]

WLC has a real pastor's grin. Creepy.

[@boliusabol822]

He is way above you intellectually, , and you have difficulty reading people. He has many reasons to be grinning when asked that question, as he's had some funny interactions with him. And Americans love british accents.

[@ShowMeYoBoob]

@@boliusabol822 i bet u he has average iq at best

[@IoIocaust]

Because he has no soul

[@IoIocaust]

​@@boliusabol822intellectually? He's tapdancing his ass off to defend a talking bush, genocide, talking snake, women made from a mans rib... Like wut??

[@diosrelish6924]

​@@boliusabol822 shut up .... he lacks critical thinking he is just another apologist nothing more ... apologists are masters in misleading people

[@billowspillow]

The issue I continue to have with atheists citing the slaughter of the Canaanites as a bad thing is that I’m not entirely sure that if the Canaanites were around today doing the kinds of things they were doing then, that atheists wouldn’t cry out, “If God was real how would he allow this kind of stuff to happen?!”

[@ga6589]

Your god ordered the extermination of the Canaanites for their wicked ways, which included child sacrifice, but then turns around and kills the their innocent children and babies right along with them. Surely, an all-powerful and all-knowing god could have come up with a better plan than that.

[@-TheUnkownUser]

Because it’s inconvenient then it bothers you. Really talks about your levels of arguing lad.

[@tma2001]

they are around today and call themselves ISIS.

[@patrickwoods2213]

It doesn’t matter whether it happened then or happened now.

[@KK-lg8uz]

Am I wrong in thinking that Dawkins is mainly, or entirely (?), saying that the Judeo-Christian God, or any other God of any other religion, doesn't exist? I thought he was aiming his criticism at religion, not necessarily some form of creator that we can not necessarily define. Its a genuine question, I'm not well read on this. Maybe someone can clear that up for me.

[@bisbeekid]

Clear it up yourself, read books.

[@KK-lg8uz]

@@bisbeekid oh shut up

[@KK-lg8uz]

@@bisbeekid oh shut up

[@KK-lg8uz]

@@bisbeekid hush now

[@bisbeekid]

@@KK-lg8uz You do speak the truth, you are not well read. Period.

[@Funaru]

The big problem of modern philosophy is that it has to yield to hard science in most areas. Dawkins perhaps overestimates the explainational power of science at times but Craig is clearly guilty of the opposite. Craig believes that philosophy is still more qualified to talk about the origin of the cosmos and the development of life than science which is presumptious.

[@EdithBromfeld]

Nonsense. Philosophy is the core science and argues from science to a finite physical beginning. The cause of physical beginnings is not a question for physical science, but philosophy and reason. You invert the facts upside down.

[@EdithBromfeld]

@@JD-wu5pf Philosophy is the foundation of science. Science is a philosophical methodology (called Methodological Empiricism) created by those Christian church Philosophers BTW. Francis Bacon et al. Your education failed you.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@@EdithBromfeld😂😂😂 try again.

[@shassett79]

@@EdithBromfeld I mean... you either get to claim empiricism (and reject gods as unfalsifiable nonsense) or you get to be a theist. You don't get to do both.

[@bdnnijs192]

​@@EdithBromfeld If philosophy is the core od science then Dawkins is a qualified philosopher. The comment section disagrees with that assessment.

[@rg2884]

Craig critiques Dawkins for being philosophically naive. Unfortunately for Craig, only about 14% of philosophers are religious. It’s strange how he never mentioned this inconvenient stat.

[@stevenhartlaub4557]

Maybe the 14% see what most do not.

[@TinyFord1]

For me the problem with Alex is that I clicked on this video for WLC, so Christians are platforming this Alex kid

[@kunzieb615]

This is so laughable to be honest. I dont understand why so many people dont see the incoherence of RDs position. Making up a reason not to debate someone because of your contempt for the person? That when the other person has been everything but decent to you. Sounds like cowardice to me. And this contempt because of some moral disagreement about a historical event that RD does not even believe to be true, i.e. Canaanite genocide? So RD steps from his totally relative morality into a domain of objective morality, looks at a biblical event (which he does not believe to be true, but a fairy tale), then objects using his relative moral interpretation of what should be, rather than the objective moral domain he is in, and says Hey look, this is wrong, this is genocide. Therefore I cannot believe that God is good, moral, even if he existed. Such an intellectually dishonest approach. One would think WLC would not want to debate HIM! Yet, its the other way around.

[@IoIocaust]

Is this the banana guy?

[@Cdghjryhh]

No. That would be Ray Comfort

[@svdcleveland]

I hope we get to see Craig and Dawkins debate before both die. Because if we don't see it now then we'll never see it. Dawkins will be in hell and Craig will be in heaven. Even if Dawkins were to repent and convert and ended up in heaven with Craig, we wouldnt get to see a debate since they'd have nothing to argue about anymore. So it has to happen now.

[@bisbeekid]

Balderdash.

[@JeffRebornNow]

Craig said that Dawkins' "handling of the ontological argument was just terribly superficial; he didn't show he's aware of the best work on this argument..." Well, Professor Craig, why should he take seriously an argument that has been shown to be false for two centuries? Kant did away with it a long time ago. As Russell said in his debate with Coppelston, "an object named can never be said to exist, but only an object described, and existence is definitely not a predicate." Why take seriously that which does not deserve to be taken as such?

[@jefftravilla]

Meh, that Russell quote is just an obfuscation. He didn’t say anything at all other than identify that humans are capable of creating fiction and smuggles in idealism’s position of ultimate unknowability as a refutation of dualism. Nonsense. All he’s doing there is swapping out an axiom, not deducing anything. The ontological argument holds up just fine. It’s axiomatic, yes. All of these arguments are. That’s the whole point. The question is which axioms compel you when none are provable through logic or empiricism. Ultimately, we’re just talking about unknowable stuff with sophisticated language.

[@petemccutchen3266]

I never understood Kant, so maybe I'm just out of my depth. But the ontological argument never made any sense at all to me. It's just a word game, as if our use of language necessarily dictates the nature of reality. If I say "the world's most perfect unicorn," does it prove that unicorns exist?

[@JeffRebornNow]

@@petemccutchen3266 I think you do understand Kant. At least you understand that the word "necessary" can be applied only to analytic propositions, that is, only those propositions the denial of which is self-contradictory. For instance, "The existent round-square exists" looks like an analytic proposition but it's not; it's meaningless. If we say "God exists," we haven't added anything to the concept of God, and thus existence is not a predicate. Russell wants to say that "God exists" is as meaningless as "The existent round-square exists."

[@jefftravilla]

@@petemccutchen3266 I agree with you that it’s a word game, well… more like a logic game. It attempts to define an axiom in logical terms. That isn’t really how logic is supposed to operate, but it works for what it’s trying to do. I’m not saying it’s wholly convincing, but it’s essentially just an over-complication of a question that I think we’ve all had, “What was before the beginning?” I think there’s a simple human intuition that there must have been something, so the ontological argument tries to make a case for why there must have been something and in Craig’s version, attempts to deduce some of the characteristics of that something.

[@petemccutchen3266]

@@JeffRebornNow what I know is that reading Kant helped me make a choice - get a PhD in philosophy or go to law school. Now retired, but I think I made the right choice. What I remember about the ontological argument is that it struck me as obvious BS, but it was really hard to explain why it was BS without getting all tangled up in floating abstractions.

[@johnkalya8205]

Dawkins is naive about philosophy and theology, but I, on the other hand, am qualified to talk about physical sciences.

[@lonzo61]

WLC is more than an ignoramus. He's the kind of guy who scares the hell out of me for believing in utter nonsense. And beliefs do matter.

[@mzbarsk]

Proof?

[@rhaynes8955]

@@mzbarsk he believes that there were two magic trees in a pristine garden with a talking snake. That’s all the proof you need. He doesn’t believe any DNA evidence that there have never been fewer than 10,000 Homo sapiens. He’s a pompous ass and is impressed by his own command of a thesaurus.

[@commonwunder]

Richard Dawkins recently said he was a ''cultural Christian' because he prefers the quaint, relaxed, almost 'flaccid' version of Christianity that now prevails in the UK and possibly also in the US. It has been de-clawed. It's a ghost, that echos throughout society... but has no real influence or power. Just like the UK's monarchy. It is a reminder of the past... but more importantly, an outdated ''impotent' reminder, of where some Westerners ( who used religion as their power base ) once morally and ethically stood. A reminder never to visit a time, where religious leaders could wield 'life and death' power, through a fanciful children's story. Whereas the Muslim faith is a younger, more energetic and a rebellious religion. Its leaders want it to breath, want it to grow, want for it to conquer minds and the entire world. They want to wield power through a fairy story whilst personally empowering themselves. This 'project' is capable of being extremely dangerous and detrimental to a Western secular worldview. It isn't xenophobia or Islamophobia to know an archaic belief system is diametrically opposed to your way of life. At its heart, ( for the masses under its dictates ) all religion was a panacea from harsher times. When peoples lives were wretched and an appeal to an afterlife ...was a cure to their present suffering. Their 'sky-cult' father figure was in charge. Everything had a meaning and their life ultimately was 'only' a test.-run. This 'was' a useful and important psychological tool. Now this archaic mechanism (for Dawkins at least) is decidedly defunct. You don't need to be treated as if a child anymore. You don't need the puzzle of life to have a fairy story added to it, in order for everything to make sense to you - to manage your existential and societal anxiety. Religious humans, living in the knowledge that this life isn't real, that it is only an illusion... is beyond dangerous. Only their 'afterlife' having any real meaning is a poisonous view of what it means to be alive. It is outdated and obsolete. It dehumanises how you relate to others and their value. It devalues human life in the here and now. It says you don't need to built a better world, only a more religious one. Dawkins is aware...that if the leaders of the Muslim faith gained ultimate supreme power tomorrow. Everything the West has built, all of its art, literature and its culture would be immediately burnt or destroyed, as offensively sacrilegious. All secular freedoms and individual rights demolished overnight. If you accept the West's cultural history as a significant achievement. Then the Muslim faith is not benign, it is something you should be deeply wary of. It doesn't 'come in peace'. It comes to conquer. It comes to succeed and demolish everything its way. Never look to the followers of a cult, never the sheep... only at its leaders to see its true aims.

[@davidstork5604]

Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, to take just two "new" philosophically trained atheists, speak and reason rings around Craig again and again, where at times Craig is completely unable to respond (e.g., kzbin.info/www/bejne/rITHeKVqgJmkgsk) who simply cannot answer their clear objections. Craig often tries to respond to Dawkins' points by referring to "lived experience" and "scripture," and here it is the scientist who always has the upper hand.

[@William89809]

Giving people like Craig a stage is pointless. His mindless drivel doesnt do anything. Allowing people to continue to push their subjective opinions in debates takes away what the core of debates are supposed to be about. Religion can NOT even stand on it own premise and should be shelved in the same place as other mythology.

[@michaelvout7813]

While all these gentlemen are intelligent and articulate- the basic issue is not complicated - the arguments for god and Christianity come down to severely weak claims which time and again are shown to be untrue. The Christian position is not helped by the vast amount of blatant dishonesty (and dishonest tactics such as straw manning) used by Christians in support of their position ie. When people have to resort to deception and dishonesty to support their position, it strongly suggests that their position is false.

[@Longshore79]

David Lee Roth !

[@arjannijk7647]

I have to agree with Dawkins. When someone evokes an ad hoc 'divine command theory' to explain away a genocide, this disqualifies them as an honest debater. It is not just that the view is immoral, it is that it shows such an egregious degree of special pleading, and the fact that Craig is so intelligent makes that all the much worse. You don't debate people who allow themselves to make up moral theories on the fly and then criticize you for being philosophically unsophisticated.

[@cjbungis]

Nailed it

[@meyerius]

Dr Craig did not “make up” Divine Command Theory. It is a moral theory thousands of years old.

[@arjannijk7647]

@@meyerius thank you for the correction, as you notice I first use the term 'evoke'. What I meant to say is that this 'theory' has the character of a completely ad hoc principle that is impossible to engage with by means of rational argument.

[@szilveszterforgo8776]

That genocide is highly debated as a historical event (as far as I know), so most secular scholars would probably think there wasn't even such a genocide, which means Dawkins' objection degrades from "WLC defends an instance of genocide" to "WLC holds that if such a genocide caused by God had happened, then God had a good reason for it". This is a far less convincing objection even to WLC's moral character, not to mention the topic of discourse itself. If only the believers think this genocide had happened - who are the same people who think that everyone dead had been compensated by going into heaven or whatever -, then really the atheist (Dawkins) can't argue with "these people defend a genocide with no good moral reason". The argument at it's strongest could only be "these Christians believe in a non-historical event which they defend for themselves". Of course Dawkins tries to act as if his argument was as strong as in the 1st case, but it's really just as minor as it seems in the 2nd case.

[@markdavies8381]

How does it make Craig’s view immoral? You denying him the standard he wants to use means you are invoking another standard by which to judge. So what moral table are you using and then who is to say that your moral table is the one that all humanity should follow. Your statement “immoral” is only valid if there is a transcendent point of reference to which all agree. If there is not, you’re just stating your opinion on what you think genocide is. I may think the Nazis killing 6 million Jews as genocide and immoral, which I do by the way, but to the Nazis they were ridding the world of vermin. Therefore it begs the question who’s right? Me or the Nazis? Your very statement demands a transcendent moral standard otherwise everything is just opinion and standards are then decided upon who has the most votes or the most guns. Not what is truth independent of those leverages. Therefore your denial of a transcendent moral standard only means the affirming of another, in this case your own or that of Dawkins. And it is clear as well that you and Dawkins do not understand the Biblical doctrine of judgement and how it works.

[@Censeo]

I'm an atheist, but I have no problem calling consciousness a mystery, a miracle of sorts etcetera. The natural urge to understand what I believe we almost in principle can't understand fully makes it understandable that we have these kind of unifying theories of why we are here and what purpose we have being here. It is not from evolution that I don't believe in God, but from thinking of time less consciousness with nothing to be conscious of creating the universe and other problems in that kind of thought process. The history of religions and their origins also make it look like man made mythology. So the arguments Richard makes have no relevance to why I am not believing.

[@shassett79]

I find both of them to be deeply unpleasant, but at least Dawkins has meaningfully contributed to science.

[@MarkJones-fw3mo]

Question? Has WLC ever been honest in his life.

[@mzbarsk]

Yes, have you?

[@MarkJones-fw3mo]

@@mzbarsk do you know him? Are you a fan boy? Everyone lies . Low bar bill makes millions doing it. Hypocrite and liar.

[@robertgray323]

" I don't like Dawkins because he doesn't like killing babies"

[@ash8329]

i completely understand now why Dawkins called WLC pompous and it was the moment when he says Alex completely eviscerated Dawkins point, also other moments in the video where Craig is given a reason to criticize him he calls his arguments cringe and horrible. Its this superficial unnatural niceness that he portrays as if to moraly win against his oppnents, which is immiditely dropped down the moment he gets the chance to actually express what he thinks.

[@Pwnsweet]

How else could he say it?

[@ash8329]

@@Pwnsweet i think the best way to describe it is he acts as if he is morally superior by being nice, yet he want to be the one who is right all the same, so his initial niceness just comes off as pompous

[@skypilotace]

William Lane Craig reminds me of someone who grew up in Pleasantville, but is warn out from having to falsely act like he is humble.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

Yeah, he’s so loud and pompous. It’s just like him not to accept a debate on the basis of moral high ground. Oh wait

[@doctorlove3119]

Has Craig even read the God Delusion? On the Ontological argument Dawkins quotes a number of philosophers, including Betrand Russell. Craig is in a very small minority of philosophers and theologians that think the Ontological is valid. He also appears not to appreciate the fact that if it is valid then no other argument for the existence of God is required.

[@fernandolozano7981]

It seems plausible that he has read it since he cites it numerous times in his book Reasonable Faith. And Craig's view, which is put forth in numerous videos and books is that the arguments are cumulative, not like a metal chain but rather chainmail. So even if the ontological argument is valid it still relies on whether someone thinks that it is even possible that a maximally great being exists. With the help of the other arguments one might come to think that it is more plausible that it is indeed possible rather than its' negation.

[@doctorlove3119]

@@fernandolozano7981 I'm not sure if Craig would accept that the Ontological argument "relies on whether someone thinks that it is even possible that a maximally great being exists". I think Leibniz might have added a qualification to the argument along these lines before accepting it, but I think this is a subtlety that would be of no interest to Craig. It's as Dawkins says, he's a debater and any argument will do.

[@fernandolozano7981]

@@doctorlove3119 That is an incorrect analysis of his position. Premise one states: It is possible that a maximally great being exists. The argument itself, Craig believes, is sound. Now, for it to be sound, the argument must be valid and its' premises must be true. He leaves it to others to decide whether they believe the argument is sound. Namely, whether premise one is more plausiblly true than its negation.

[@doctorlove3119]

@@fernandolozano7981 You say "He leaves it to others to decide whether they believe the argument is sound". This is not an attitude I associate with Craig. I had no problem finding youtube videos where he states, without reservation, that the ontological is sound.

[@fernandolozano7981]

@@doctorlove3119 As I mentioned above, Craig thinks that the argument is sound. Particularly, that premise one is more plausiblly true than its' negation. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqOWZ3t_eZtlra8si=cGtajesuHGg-NKPN At the end of the video he leaves it to the listeners whether it is possible or not that a maximally great being exists. Perhaps you are misunderstanding soundness. I believe that the moral argument is sound, but I would imagine there are many that believe it is not. Especially concerning premise two.

[@ryand1404]

I have to say though that William Lane Craig is absolutely right about Dawkins not caring for philosophy or religion. Dawkins’ skills in philosophy are so poor, he doesn’t even realize that these “memes” he talks about obviously have underlying structure and hierarchy that separates the more meaningful ones and the less meaningful. That difference between the types of memes we see and their proclivities to either be popular and last a long time or unpopular and die quickly suggests that there is an inherent difference in the essence of the memes. That inherent difference between how memes propagate is exactly correlated to some measure of how useful and meaningful they are to people. And what do we call these “useful memes?”? They are called archetypes and they represent patterns of spiritual information that helps people understand the inner workings of their most common life experiences. Of course, Dawkins can’t know because he does not care about religion, spirituality or Jungian archetypes and rather than learning about what he doesn’t know, he assumes that everyone else must be stupid or delusional. Dawkins would be more helpful to everyone if he wasn’t such a close minded narcissist about his endeavors.

[@Funaru]

My question would be why this knowledge is supposed to be important.

[@ryand1404]

@@Funaru Well it was a type of knowledge that was enough to get people to remember that men and women exist. Apparently, religion is so crucial that without it people forget the simplest truths, like there being two sexes and that truth is objective.

[@Funaru]

@@ryand1404 This particular example can be derived from science as well, though. Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist is a staunch defender of the genetically determined sex binary. The woke cult deny (or in their words "deconstruct") both traditional axiomatic knowledge like archetypes and hard science like evolution of humanity.

[@ethanf.237]

​@@FunaruBecause he is pontificating on matters pertaining to those subjects... Like, come on folks. Are you people for real? If I started presenting arguments about the American Civil War, and someone pointed out that I knew very little about that subject, it would be ridiculous of me to retort by saying "well, why does that knowledge matter anyways".... But, I guess it's ok when your favorite atheistic thinker does it when he shares his thoughts on a decidedly philosophical issue like the existence of God....

[@wet-read]

That is all well and good, but what I really don't understand is the fetishization of stories. Why can't our own lives embody these archetypes and memes?

[@maartentn]

Dawkins just looks very dumb and pompous when he finds the balls to debate WLC

[@Ashishlahre]

These two are philosophers, not scientists, and they speak about science as if they know more about it than Richard Dawkins. Biology is a vast field, and Darwin's discoveries represent just one significant aspect of it. David Lee Roth's claim that Darwin provided the entire framework for biology is an overstatement.

[@burlatsdemontaigne6147]

Have you had Hovind?

[@HangrySaturn]

Why the **** would he have that guy?

[@xravenx24fe]

Dawkins is still seething against WLC my gosh lol

[@bisbeekid]

Ignorance (Craig's) is provocative.

[@ChristerAnd]

My honest opinion of Craig falls outside of KZbin's regulatory framework.

[@adnanraman4591]

Dorian’s is a lost and doesn’t have a clue

[@MrJesseBell]

Bad faith hot take

[@edmundcomet]

Looking forward to hearing his dishonest opinion

[@aboriginesdream]

pretty naive = insists on living in the real world of evidence rather than arguing about how may angels fit on the head of a pin.

[@jesan733]

Well, evolution from common origin basically disproves all the abrahamitic religions, as well as any religion that claims special creation of mankind. (I don't know of one that doesn't.) So regardless of whether we think the universe is fine-tuned or not, or whether the kalam carries any weight, we don't have a plausible religion. Science did that.

[@ethanf.237]

Do you mind elaborating/ substantiating that claim more? There are lots and lots of people (myself included) who fully accept biological evolution and believe in God. If there's an obvious contradiction between those two, I've obviously missed it. Perhaps you can help me identify it? (My two cents: I think the biggest problem evolution poses for theism is the fact that it is a process that involved/ involves an incalculable amount of suffering. Eons of time characterized by animals ripping each other to pieces (survival of the fittest). This is extremely surprising on a theistic worldview, which claims that an all loving being presides over the cosmos. Even then, I don't think evolution logically rules out the existence of God)

[@karawethan]

​@@ethanf.237 Evolution does not discount the possibility of a deistic sort of Creator, who "set the gears in motion" billions of years ago in such a way that life would eventually emerge. But evolutionarily, there's also no reason to think that we (meaning humans) are the main characters in this scenario. We just happened to evolve powerful enough brains to think about it. The idea of a God who created the world to support life in general -- not human life in particular -- is not contrary to all religious thought, but it is VERY contrary to Abrahamic religion.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

@@ethanf.237 Evolution doesn't need to rule out god(s), there are no good arguments for god's existence, so we can easily disregard it.

[@jesan733]

@@ethanf.237 well, as I said, there's the claims of special creation of humans in Abrahamitic religions at least. And that clearly did not happen, and thus in a sense those religions are debunked. Christians have an easier time of handling that, because the bible is rarely (at least nowadays) claimed to be the perfect word of god (unlike the quran). So they can just say the creation myths don't matter as they shouldn't be taken literally. But then, as others point out, it's hard to escape that most religions put humans at the centre of creation, but science indicates we're not, we're pretty much in the position we are by luck. So while there might be a god, the religions are false.

[@smackyay]

@@JD-wu5pf If all animals - flesh eating bacteria, parasites and viruses are important to evolution by natural selection especially macro-evolution, so on a large scale, they are not evil, and do belong in heaven next to the church fathers, yes. Joking aside. You said you don't know HOW anyone et cetera, which is perfectly fair point to make, but that doesn't mean people haven't believed evolution and say Christianity was perfectly compatible. In fact even in Darwin's time people believed it to be compatible..

[@ryleighloughty3307]

I fear that God has closed Dawkins's mind; hence, he will never understand God and Christianity. Factually, Protestant Christianity is much more believable than atheism.

[@Dare2Doubt]

I'm not quite sure what happened there so I won't comment 😐

[@bisbeekid]

"A god almost certainly does not exist." Yeah, that about says it all. Prof Dawkins does not have to be a great philosopher or grand theologian to make that assertion.

[@pragmainline]

At 1:00 he has nailed why he is ignorant about science, despite having been corrected multiple times in debates.

[@ethanf.237]

Do elaborate.... I'm really not seeing how Craig claiming that Dawkins isn't as familiar with Philosophy or Theology as he is with science amounts to Craig being ignorant of science .. (Btw, I'm pretty sure Alex agrees with Craig on this point) Interested to see what you say by way of clarification

[@farrex0]

@@ethanf.237 Because Craig puts way more weight on philosophy than hard sciences. While Richard Dawkins is extremely ignorant on philosophy, Craig is extremely ignorant on Hard Sciences. But the way Craig lays it out, it is as if for him, philosophy has more explanatory capability and weight than science itself. When Hard Sciences are the ones that has given us results, and philosophy in it of itself has not. That doesn't mean philosophy is useless, on the contrary. But Craig acts as if philosophy is a requirement, to understand reality, when science has been proven to be better in that regard. Craig is trying to use philosophy in a way that it can't be used. You can't really prove anything philosophically. And that is the conundrum with philosophy. Most philosophers have made peace with that, but not Craig. So that being said, what I think OC means, is that Craig has stayed ignorant of science, the same way Dawkins have stayed ignorant of philosophy. Because he is ultimately not really interested in it, he is way more interested in philosophy. So, all of those times he has been corrected, he doesn't care to make corrections or change his beliefs, because he has not been proven philosophically. That is why he always talks about how uneducated someone is philosophically, that is the only thing he seems to care about. The same way, Richard Dawkins, seem to care only about sciences. In short, they both have the very same shortcoming, they are just on the opposite side of the argument.

[@EdithBromfeld]

What specifically is Dr Craig wrong about? Try not to lie again.

[@ethanf.237]

@@farrex0 He puts more weight on philosophy when it comes to God yes, but that's because the existence of God is a philosophical issue. If we were talking about biological or celestial evolution, I think we would be right to put more weight on what the physical sciences have to say given that those are scientific issues. I

[@farrex0]

@@EdithBromfeld so, you ask and then call someone a liar in the same comment. Showing you are not really interested in discourse, because you have already made your mind. He has on multiple occasions, cited physicists to support the Kalam cosmological argument. Using the A theory of time, and causal principles... However, the very same scientists he cited, told him he misunderstood their papers. He debates one of them, cited him, ad the physicist told him he was wrong and why. He has debates other scientists and physicists and they all have pointed why his understanding of time and causal principles is wrong. Yet he has never, changed his views or the argument itself to account for them. And keeps making the same arguments, on scientific grounds when he has been told he is wrong by the very scientists he cites.

[@JazzyArtKL]

Craig is team Jesus, so not to be taken seriously.

[@JoYavin]

Another God of the gaps. He wants certainty from which science can never completely provide while not applying the same principle of certainty from his own side. The best answer is: there is probably no God.

[@Longshore79]

Exactly . Live it out . Doesn’t matter if somebody is Hitler or Mother Theresa . We all go to the same place . The fertilizer pit pushing up flowers . Sounds fun huh..

[@davidkea1607]

I find it very disingenuous of Dawkins to criticize Craig's explanation of Bible "violence" and use that as his reason for not debating him. Dawkins' position itself provides no grounds to justify his or any moral position on any ethical question. In fact, Dawkins has admitted as much tacitly in his books. I think he knows this and is appealing to the emotions of people to "justify" his lack of courage to debate Craig.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

Yep, Look at Alex's discussion with WLC about Biblical violence. All Alex had to do was sit back and watch Craig destroy himself by showing the absolute glee he felt at the thought of murdering babies.

[@MrThankeesai]

Richard Dawkins accusing someone else of having a Pompous Voice is hilarious

[@tanjavankessel9842]

To Dr Craig: arguments may be an interesting exercise for the brain, but they have to be substantiated with actual, verifiable evidence if you want to prove the existence of god

[@ethanf.237]

Are you asserting that nothing can be rationally proved if it isn't empirical?? If so, I truly hope you never wander into a deductive logic or higher level mathematics class.... Such a devastating dismantling of one's worldview tends to be painful and disorienting

[@tanjavankessel9842]

@@ethanf.237 i think it would be very strange to have a discussion about god between a philosopher and a biologist, because it’s like they’re speaking different languages. I know Craigs favourite argument is the ontological, which doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t agree with the premisse

[@roykeane1922]

@@tanjavankessel9842why do you need to argue with the aim to prove the existence of god, rather than suggest the existence of god You allow this the other way I’ve no doubt.

[@-TheUnkownUser]

@@ethanf.237 My lad. Logic and Mathematics don’t favor your point. It may seem like with a superficial understanding of those subjects. But, and this is really interesting, reasoning can be explained thru evolution. “Even the simplest mind has to respond to a minimal degree to reality, or it ceases to exist” It could even be applied to really simple systems. The point is that things like the V convention of Alfred Tarski or even the principle of charity are supported by logic because *we can know what reality is.* And that comes from an Evolutionary estable strategy which is cognition. It could be hard to accept it if you come from a Christian worldview, because of Plato (and a bit of Kant’s influence in philosophy) and its introduction to Christian theology by Augustine of Hippo and how reality is impossible to access directly.

[@ethanf.237]

@@-TheUnkownUser I'm not really seeing the relevancy of your comment. What does the evolutionary origin of reason have to do with whether or not something non empirical (non physical) can be proved? Let me provide a simple example to perhaps better articulate what I was saying. Through mathematics, we can prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Numbers are not empirical (not physical) entities. They cannot be touched, smelled, etc. Hence, mathematics demonstrates (all the time) that something non empirical can be proven.

[@rep3e4]

WLC is right

[@samuelburleigh1895]

Philosophy of theology some kind of oxymoron.

[@mzbarsk]

Why?

[@mfjflower]

Dawkins put his finger on this pretentious fraud

[@GhostBearCommander]

With respect where it’s due, Richard Dawkins is both highly overrated, and his highest achievement is giving us the word “meme.” Otherwise, let’s be honest: 90% of his supposed credibility comes from folks hearing his South African accent and thinking it makes him sound smart.

[@nigeltrigger4499]

Dawkins is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was Professor for Public Understanding of Science. He has proven is intellectual capability. On the other hand, you are a muppet!

[@GhostBearCommander]

@@nigeltrigger4499 Sooo… what did he do to deserve that exactly. Having an esteemed position isn’t the same as being good at it. For example, both Biden and Trump have been President. Yet both are idiots. Position doesn’t equal skill.

[@nigeltrigger4499]

@@GhostBearCommander Let's start with his PhD The term PhD or Doctorate of Philosophy is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase 'philosophiae doctor'. A PhD degree typically involves students independently conducting original and significant research in a specific field or subject, before producing a publication-worthy thesis. He has added to our world knowledge!

[@GhostBearCommander]

@@nigeltrigger4499 I’ve worked with many a PhD owning man or woman in my life (I’m a Medical Lab Technician). Having one can just as easily mean that your parents just had a lot of money to put you through college, and it can also mean that you’re smart at one specific field, but room-temperature intelligence at everything else. These days, a PhD doesn’t mean much (just ask Dr. Fauci). I could tell you horror stories about stupid PhD’s who have ended up hurting patients. I’ve seen it more than I care to tell.

[@oscargr_]

I am going to assume you didn't read any of his work, and you probably didn't even read his Wikipedia page. In that case, yeah, 90% of his supposed credibility is from his South African accent.

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

Now comment section Alex said he had a good time with William Lane Craig so you can't paint him out to be the Devil himself that you don't believe in.

[@abduazirhi2678]

Thanks for sharing this great video! Dawkins's arguments are not only naive but scientifically untenable.

[@TheSport78]

William Lane Craig is a waste of oxygen.

[@garyzimmerman6316]

What is your evidence for this statement?

[@ztrinx1]

​@@garyzimmerman6316This video.

[@garyzimmerman6316]

@@ztrinx1 Please be more specific. I want to know exactly why you think that.

[@mzbarsk]

So are you. Or do you have evidence?

[@mikechristian-vn1le]

Dawkins is a liar. For example, he knows that no serious historian doubts Jesus' historicity, Dawkins lied in his GOD DELUSION that some historians do doubt it. He admitted that he lied.

[@tma2001]

Biblical scholars are not serious historians until they deconvert and admit yeah, we were talking nonsense. The fairest judgement I've come across on this point is that IF there was a historical figure (or figures) behind the legend, any facts about their life cannot be reconstructed with any certainty from the Bible stories. They are essentially lost to the mists of time.

[@budd2nd]

Oh dear William Lane Craig, you are obviously unaware that physicists have long since discounted the fine tuning of the universe argument. It is as vacuous as you assert Prof Dawkins points are. Even Douglas Adams writing in 2001 shows the weakness of this argument.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

The well known physicist, Douglas Adams... Which physicists have discounted fine tuning? Is it consensus?

[@EdithBromfeld]

You are lying. Physicists are flummoxed. Not a single rational explanation.

[@wakkablockablaw6025]

Since when? Even Dawkins thinks it's a decent argument.

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

You know we don't even have a working theory on the chemical level on why the universe seems Fine-tuned much less the physical level.

[@nickelchlorine2753]

Finetuning is a misconception. No serious scientist believes that these values could have actually been otherwise. It is simply the case that certain parameters come out as ratios, for example, of other parameters whose values are, as of now, only determined via experiment. When going to the mathematical framework wherein the physical models are described, you can have a feel for what these parameters physically mean. They often are akin to the decay of the strength of some interaction given a certain number of degrees of freedom. All they practically do is signaling to theorists how to constrain their models. Nothing more.

[@Demonizer5134]

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with William Lane Craig about Richard Dawkins' argument. I believe that the conclusion clearly and obviously follows from the premises. Dawkins successfully obliterated the only and last bastion of a sensible argument from the theist side, and thus, the very obvious conclusion follows that God almost certainly does not exist. How does WLC not see the inference? I think he is just not very open-minded and thus cannot see what is clear to any rational person IMO.

[@nivi3418]

Richard Dawkins has no good arguments against theism other than "I don't believe but I love living in a Theist society rather than an Islamic/non-theist one".

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@@nivi3418Theism has no arguments for itself.

[@autisiens]

It's fun to hear two theological narcissists going at it.

[@LittleFishes674]

Is Lane Craig capable of being honest about anything? I find his moral views disgusting.

[@ruleaus7664]

Many would find yours disgusting as well.