William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]

For more resources visit: www.reasonablef...
On April 4, 2009, William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens met at Biola University to debate the question of God’s existence. Craig is one of the world’s foremost Christian apologists. Hitchens, is a leading spokesman for the “new atheism” movement.
In front of an overflow crowd and a global internet audience, they debated the origin and design of the universe, the implications of human morality, the deity of Jesus, and the validity of Christ’s resurrection. It was a compelling clash of worldviews and an examination of the major arguments for and against Christianity and atheism.
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg

[@YatnielVega]

Debate starts at 12:55. You’re welcome

[@skeebo6885]

Oh...uhhh.....thanks.

[@kal-elofkrypton8584]

Much love brother

[@bm359]

TYFYS

[@YatnielVega]

@@bm359 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@FourDeuce01]

What debate?😈

[@christophertolone7944]

I would rather have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned.

[@samdg1234]

So, how much are you able to question your skepticism? Are you free to be skeptical of skepticism?

[@ale6o]

damn bro, you really owned him. "You aren't skeptical about your desire to be skeptical"

[@thaDjMauz]

I don't want to sound like an apologist, I'm an atheist and just expressing something that is a current thing in my life. I just want to point out that this domain of unquestionable answers is not limited to the religious. In the secular corner, you could define stigmatized as exactly that. Things about which you are not supposed to be curious, or expressing skepticism will alienate you. This, I think, is a problem on both sides of such questions and I don't have such a good answer for how to better tackle it besides better more open conversation, compassion and some awareness of one's bias. Now the real meat of what I've been thinking about recently is the issue that within groups, people will often agree on things like "be skeptical, have open conversations, talk with those you disagree with" and kind of romanticize it. The reality, however, means kind of shitty things. You surely don't want to waste your time listening to a flat-earther or a fascist. You don't want to contradict your friends on what your groups perspective is on covid regulations, or be the one to really dive into the numbers behind drug addiction to contradict society's made up mind.

[@samdg1234]

@@thaDjMauz The opening comment is nothing more than a slogan. And although there is nothing in the comment to tell what side he takes, the theist or the atheist, I'd certainly guess the latter. It is so typical of the smug atheist and the comment could likely be applied more to the followers of atheism than theism. In a representative clip, "Isn't God no Better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? or a 'Special Computer'?" where Dr. Craig debates the late Lewis Wolpert, Wolpert accepts all of Craig's assertions of the characteristics of God, but can't bring himself to use the word God. For him, it is nothing but reasonable to accept the characteristics of God but to use that title is beyond the pale. Talk about an answer that can't be questioned. Wolpert just won't allow himself (nor will his community) to name what he intellectually has no response to. A similar thing happened with the late Sir Fred Hoyle. He just couldn't bring himself to acknowledge the Big Bang happened.

[@jellyphase]

You just watched an hours long debate where answers were questioned and your response is that lazy slogan? Wow, lmao.

[@soldierbrutis95]

Wow, I can't believe this December it will be 10 years since Hitchens died. How time flies. May he rest in peace.

[@StallionFernando]

So 10 years ago he finally discovered if God exist or Not. 100% proof too.

[@MrGreensweightHist]

@@StallionFernando He already knew before that. God is a fictional character, based on earlier fictional characters.

[@7ruijorge]

Without faith in Christ for forgiveness of sins he wont be resting in peace. Read PERSON OF INTEREST by J Warner Wallace......

[@MrGreensweightHist]

@@7ruijorge Wrong, and J Warner Wallace is not a credible source.

[@7ruijorge]

@@MrGreensweightHist anyone filled with the Holy Spirit is a credible source. Go read the book.....pride will stop you.....but persist past it.

[@USAShooting27]

This was a well structured and respectful debate, and hardly any question dodging. Very enjoyable to watch.

[@Shalim_Kamran]

Christopher did dodge a lot of questions

[@CharlieQuartz]

@@Shalim_Kamran A question poorly made has no obligation to be answered. Every question Hitchens didn't answer outright, he had reasons for criticizing in their premise. It wouldn't do him any good to answer a question he doesn't think has the basis to be asked.

[@metanoia29]

@@Shalim_Kamran Most of Craig's questions were not asked in good faith, as a way to provoke discussion. Most were "the god I believe in says so because that's how I personally interpret the writings of various, sometimes unknown, men from multiple millennia ago, so you can't disprove my beliefs." Hitchens addresses this during his time speaking.

[@Shalim_Kamran]

@@CharlieQuartz If they were poorly made, then you could possibly answer them right? I humbly request of you to answer at least 2 questions.

[@Shalim_Kamran]

@@metanoia29 Hitchens doesn't believe in God, therefore has no reason to judge anyone with the morality that Christianity brings up, but he continues to say that God is not a good God, for the following reasons. 1. He's not a good father because he doesn't respect our privacy, (he compares God with humans while he did that, and he can't do that because God and man are clearly different. Of course he has to watch his Creation 24/7 because how else will he know if humans are sinning or not?) 2. He doesn't care if his Creation dies brutality or not. (Which is absolute BS because he won't bring animals back to life simply because they were meant to be alive. God will not break his own rules even though he can, and also animals are not the magnum opus of God, so it won't matter if they die or not, after all humans now have the ability to bring some of the extinct animals back to life, so God's not worried for it because humans can bring them.) 3. He didn't care about early homo sapiens because they don't know what was going on in the world. (That's how humans would've learned and evolved into what we are today.) Now he also goes on to judge the Old Testament, and says that God was exceptionally cruel during that time period. My answer to that is that God, as well as being impassioned, is also the Bringer of justice. Also the question to whether God exists or not, is also easy to answer. If there is a possibility that God exists, then He probably does exist. It's called the ontological explanation of whether God exists or not, I suggest you research into this. Another argument of his, is that "If God already made humans imperfect, how can they reach perfection?" The truth is, that God did not make humans imperfect, and he made them perfect in every way. What kind of an artist intentionally makes his masterpiece imperfect? It was Adam's sin that made humans imperfect, and I reckon you already know why, you already know how the downfall of Humanity happened. I've already made this comment very long, so I'll end it here. May God help you understand that He loves you, and wants to save you and many others.

[@synergygaming604]

Kudos to Craig for keeping the comment section open. Most apologists shut it down.

[@enterpassword3313]

He knows there are enough gullible and naive people to accept his excuses and contradictions, and enough who wont understand hitchens reasoning

[@markk1021]

@@enterpassword3313 as the scarlet witch says “what reasoning?”

[@m7m746]

@@enterpassword3313 glad he used hundreds of actual references from scholars, scientists, physicists to back up his claims to shut all these dumb non belief claims up. So simple but who is too high on KZbin🤣

[@enterpassword3313]

@@markk1021 its pretty simple, which part did you not understand?

[@enterpassword3313]

@@m7m746 um... what? You think wlc has actual evidence to back up his belief?

[@Hugoknots]

This is a good one. QA section is good. Part where they go back and forth in free form is great. The occasional comedic comments are great. Nice listen

[@onionman_]

I think the back and forth section was wonderful. I think it should have lasted longer.

[@rashidxd]

Craig believes in the witnesses (a few women ) that Jesus was not in the grave and presents that as evidence, but when Christopher asked about the verse that claims every grave in Jerusalem was opened during the resurrection, he throws that out of the window, despite the fact that no witness could ever confirm that.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

He doesn't throw it out the window. He just doesn't find it to be relevant to the actual argument he's putting forward. The argument starts with facts which have strong support from historiographical methodology. It then offers the resurrection as the best explanation of the facts. The empty tomb is one of the most well-established facts following the death of Jesus, so then one needs to explain why the tomb was empty, not merely dismiss it because other details in the story might be less historically supported. - RF Admin

[@manishnamdeo5087]

​@@ReasonableFaithOrg Stupid admin.. biased as hell... There is no god .. what is god .. your weakness?

[@kawibomber6098]

He doesn’t find it relative to the argument, but it is.

[@kal22222]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg " The empty tomb is one of the most well established facts..." Really" I wonder why people are still debating this " well established fact" thousands of years later

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@kal22222 People also debate whether the earth is flat. Whether or not something is debated "thousands of years later" doesn't imply anything about the strength of the evidence. - RF Admin

[@zapkvr0101]

Hitchens makes a great and prescient point about the rise of russian nationalism and the rebirth of the Russian Orthodox church.

[@Rivershield]

So? That's very good for Russia.

[@UnbiasOP]

Hitchens: "the genital mutilation club is exclusively religious" Well that didn't age well

[@supersubes]

Its kind of a cult isn’t it?

[@beezzarro]

Depends how you stretch the definition

[@CrashCrispyKoot]

😭😭😭😭

[@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime]

I’m circumcised, and not because I’m Jewish. It’s not a big deal.

[@supersubes]

@@Mostopinionatedmanofalltime Its a useless and barbaric procedure, and you didnt have a say in the matter.

[@leafgreensniper13]

It was nice to see two people with very different views have a cordial debate. Whatever side you are on, formats like this are a good thing for humanity. Being able to work together in a positive way despite differences is pretty cool.

[@living_the_mac_and_cheese_life]

I watched Craig debate a oneness Christian named Dale Tuggy who was very condescending and arrogant. I agree with you. We can debate without being jerks.

[@malonesinclaire9201]

This was one of the most insufferable debates l have watch. I struggled to watch to the end…and most often fast for award when Craig was speaking. I could not listened to his nonsense and felt really sad that so many minds were being destroyed by this Fundamentalist religion. I feel sadden about the future of America.

[@living_the_mac_and_cheese_life]

@@malonesinclaire9201 I feel sad for those who only listen to those who they agree with. Being in an echo chamber is what has America where it is now. You can't fast forward life and only have the desired results that satisfy you.

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

What are you on about.. Hitch destroyed Craig..

[@living_the_mac_and_cheese_life]

@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 nah. Atheists and evolutionists don't have a real leg to stand on. They borrow from a Christian world view and have to bend it to fit their narrative and usually just come off as arrogant and pompous jerks. At least this one was tolerable.

[@MG-jk8bj]

Brilliant debater, RIP Christopher, you will never be forgotten.🌷🌹

[@wallstreet_au]

forgot him already. dont worry, Im sure he's enjoying hell.

[@TheMissiIe]

​@jpgrygus you do realise you've heard descriptions of Hell from the opposing faction right? What if Hell is actually a great place, and your God is set on making up stories about Hell to dissuade people from wanting to go there. I'm sure North Korea makes America out to be a hellish country, but in reality it's not that bad of a place. So how do we know that isn't happening to Hell? Logical inconsistency at it's finest

[@GuillermoCampos-jw1zj]

How can he rest in peace. If by his own beliefs an afterlife does not exist than he has cease to exist for ever he’s gone his memory and conscious

[@wallstreet_au]

@@GuillermoCampos-jw1zj hes not resting in peace. whether he belives in the afterlife or not doesn't matter one bit....its still there. if I don't believe in gravity could I jump off a skyscraper and survive? chances are Hitchens ended up somewhere very very hot.

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

​@@wallstreet_auu are a delusional lunatic

[@mdav30]

Just seems like a better time where two people could have a polite debate without someone getting cancelled one way or another.

[@Beyond_trade]

Its because religion is not in power

[@DaveS859]

@@Beyond_tradeThat’s a dumb comment , even by internet standards

[@Beyond_trade]

@@DaveS859 believe me you're not living in a religious society thats hell on earth

[@Beyond_trade]

@@DaveS859 because you can't defy "god" or his "authorities" on earth

[@drockopotamus1]

@@Beyond_trade Quit being triggered. You said a dumb comment, so people call your comment dumb lol. Even most religious people are fine with separation of church and state.

[@fray6258]

If god exists, and if god says he loves us, why won't he tell us which religion to believe? Why is he allowing us to kill each other over him?

[@justanotherguy9300]

Humans free will is why that is

[@johanb.7869]

@@justanotherguy9300 But his son also says that for he who believes nothing is impossible. If that's true where are those believers? Why aren't they stopping us from killing ourselves over him? Why aren't they in hospitals curing children who lay there sick with cancer or any other disease?

[@justanotherguy9300]

@Johan B. Well religion is another argument, I'm not Christian myself so I can't argue for Jesus, but my comment was strictly about God

[@johanb.7869]

@@justanotherguy9300 Me neither.

[@clarkporter1340]

@@justanotherguy9300 r u of d opinion dat men do ds killings by dia own freewill & dat freewill was given by a God?

[@takeiteasycheesy]

Don't try and tell me that isn't David Lee Roth.

[@schmarpsywinkleurnklabean659]

😋👍

[@jmg567]

😂 Spot on

[@miscellaneousetc.4280]

😂😂😂 hahahahahahahhaha

[@johncampbell9120]

Lmfao😂

[@Exitof99]

I saw Scott Bakula

[@julia.parker]

"Believe it if you can, I can't stop you. Believe it if you like, you're welcome."

[@MakeSomeNoisePlaylists]

clever....but only some got it in the audience....

[@razony]

So many will believe in what they are told to believe in without question. Fear is evil excuse to make one believe. 'Believe or ELSE.' Utterly evil!

[@markuse3472]

@@razony I know right. Evolutionists fear so much admitting what they believe and teach for they have so much to lose. "Science" institutes and colleges threaten like bullies not to teach creation, "or ELSE."

[@CeeJay611]

​@@razonythe same can be said on the opposite side. You believe what atheists say but not tons of actual evidence because you choose not to. If you don't believe then don't. You will never not prove God. You may say I can't prove God but when you can't even come to a conclusion without borrowing from our beliefs that's very telling. Also you're saying every part of our bodies on down to laminin that's shaped like a cross and holds our bodies together came out of nowhere sounds logically insane

[@razony]

@CeeJay611 You missed it. I'm not an Atheist. They are just as wrong. I do not believe in the 'biblical' God. That God is a manmade God made in the likeness of an evil man. There is a Divine source of everything that is of Love & Light. Look at the veridical evidence of NDE'S. The millions of them. Christianity is a scam from day one and it's time to WAKE UP from this deception. What Christians are doing is wasting their time here in this body/earth with the fear of believing in this religion. Your wasting away your lives in this mess of a religion. WAKE UP!

[@voodoochild24262]

"before mister hitchens succeeds in launching a religious war among christians..." might be the best transition ive ever heard from a host so gooood

[@goldenlira1]

Very Christian-like.

[@davidwebster6005]

William always looks directly at Hitchens, but Hitchens for the most part looks at the crowd.

[@FourDeuce01]

Yeah, con artists often learn the tricks and try to use them to fool gullible people.🤤

[@FourDeuce01]

@@mbrum3230 If not every day.😜

[@ilikepinacoladasandgetting896]

Hitchens knows who he is trying to convince and it wasn't Craig, and so far it has worked. American population in 1970 was 90% Christian, now in 2023 it is 63%. Facts and evidence cannot be sugar coated 😊 Pointing out where someone is starting is irrelevant in this debate for those who will hear the arguments and change thier minds is the audience and those watching.

[@jeremiclement5723]

Interesting observation. It might be because Craig thinks he can convert Hitchens, or at least, plant a seed. While Hitchens, knowing he will not convince Craig, appeals to the crowd instead.

[@ElficGuy]

​@@mbrum3230 spot on. And some of them are theists

[@citizenghosttown]

It's interesting to hear Craig say that the purpose of life is NOT to serve God. 2:05:00. Really? But Craig quotes Scripture and reminds us that Jesus said: "I have not called you servants; I have called you friends." Sounds very warm and friendly. But notice how Craig entirely skips over the preceding verse in the Gospels, where Jesus declares: "You are my friends if you do what I command."

[@johnferguson8794]

I still think its strange the leap Craig always makes. The kalam only says the universe had a beginning, nothing else. Where does he get a personal creator from?

[@terryleddra1973]

He invented a gap and then inserted his god there.

[@GodSoLoved.Yeshua]

You can know Him, Jesus loves you.

[@johnferguson8794]

@GodSoLoved.Yeshua that's a nice assertion or thought. But I see no good reason to believe that. How do you respond to the outsiders test of faith. Equally, I'd guess you believe God to be a necessary being. So, where is the contradiction in the not god worldview?

[@kiroshakir7935]

​@@johnferguson8794be already outlined his reasoning at minute 20 In short 1 Since the big bang didn't happen in a place but rather was the expansion of space itself 2 Then the Cause of it can't be a material entity This leaves us with limited options 1abstract objects like numbers 2 platonic forms 3 a mind 3Of the three options only number three has causal capacity The leap from 2 to three can't be questioned As It follows basic logic However if you want To refute the second deduction You need to refute the premise on scientific grounds (Note I am more of a philosophy guy than a physics guy so my only criterion for judging Craig's premises is what I find on popular websites like NASA science)

[@johnferguson8794]

@kiroshakir7935 I appreciate the response. My issue is we can have some necessary concrete object at the end of a casual chain. Like the amplituhedron or some 11D membranes...who knows. The mind hypothesis just feels like an adhawk insert.

[@призрак999]

Still one of my favs. I play this once a month for years now. My kids and all their friends love this one and end up sitting down. Clear Audio makes all the difference. 👍

[@kevinadamson5768]

And what's your conclusion?

[@CahyaTroy]

@@kevinadamson5768 He listens to it every month and it clearly makes hitch look bad so I'd bet that he's a bible thumper who uses this debate is reinforcement for damage control over feeling like a retard from atheists usually plowing theists into the dirt in debates

[@easygreasy3989]

Feels like these guys are speaking two different languages, funny thing is I can understand both but can't reconcile it in my headheart either.❤ Thanks for the value.

[@tomrecane6366]

Your heart is not where you need to reconcile this.

[@easygreasy3989]

@@tomrecane6366 my headheart?

[@harlowcj]

You have that in common with the late Norm McDonald.

[@punchline43]

CC completely misinterprets when Hitch says "or don't outlive it" showing the word *genital* instead @1:09:13. Then just 32 seconds later @1:09:45 he says our "genitalia" etc. Just a humerous observation.

[@dariodespotovic2029]

If infinity is just an idea, then how come god does not have an age and was, is and will be here forever? Does this contradiction not apply? Just a thought

[@Luvallo]

Think away

[@DonDezz]

If you take the literal metaphysical description of G-d in the Bible, G-d is light, he is the father of Lights. And if you understand the characteristics of Light you would know that time does not matter to Light. Hence G-d being light and eternal makes absolute sense.

[@dariodespotovic2029]

@@DonDezz thx for the feedback :-)

[@rubendilda8142]

My man used Einstein to prove god

[@davesmith5482]

It's called special pleading and is the usual endgame of apologist arguments. "This thing can't be possibly be true, therefore god.", "But you just said this thing can't possibly be true and even if you had a god, it would be true of god.", "Well it's not true of god, because god is god."

[@Dahmac]

Why Dr Craig acts that, if Hitchens cannot disprove the existence of something outside of time and space, that must mean it exists? It's bizarre

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Where did you get that as Dr. Craig's approach? It's not. - RF Admin

[@alecxjones4419]

Well he clearly laid out his reasoning to coming to the conclusion of creationism. His reasons for why it seems to be more likely. What his opponent did was say, “I don’t think you’re right” and gave no justification for statements like such.

[@Lolzzz483]

Because that’s the athiest position you have the stance that such thing doesn’t exist so by definition you should have some type of proof of some kind or atleast some type of objective reasoning not just “religion bad because religious people have done bad things in name of religion”

[@harrykane_]

​@@Lolzzz483 Eh not really, religion is bad because religious scriptures has those words and religious apologists will simply say "out of context" or "misinterpreted" to dismiss it.

[@scottmalkinson6712]

I think you just grossly misrepresented his argument

[@alexanderx33]

These debates should be structured so that you can only make one point in a single buttal. Not constant time and variable number of points, but single point and variable time. The moderator would need to be properly trained for this but ideally the debaters would know how to make one point at a time.

[@ViniciusSinistrae]

Uma das pessoas mais articulosas que eu já vi na vida. Hitchens era, sem dúvidas, um homem de outro nível. Ácido, engraçado, irônico, sarcástico... único.

[@henrygingold6549]

I agree

[@polduran]

His jokes is the only thing that he have. No argument just jokes for people to laugh and applaud.

[@Asmokedetector]

​@@polduran if you haven't graduated high-school than please do not misrepresent the man with multiple degrees' argument.

[@DangerousWordsPodcast]

Hopefully his personality doesn’t send you straight to hell.

[@AnkiMirandaBellyDance]

Así es la verdad.

[@Kumite_Champ]

Craig having a very difficult time understanding what atheism is.

[@TheEntity-k7g]

Atheist have a hard time understanding what atheism is lol 😅

[@zirixsmari8273]

​@@TheEntity-k7gAbsolutely true.

[@InformationIsTheEdge]

Incidentally, Dr. Craig is still getting what atheism is wrong 15 years after Christopher very carefully and very thoroughly corrected him on it. Even going so far as to preface his correction with, "I really wish you'd get this bit right."

[@InformationIsTheEdge]

@@TheEntity-k7g Atheism is the name for when people find themselves unconvinced by the claims of a religion. It's really pretty simple but Dr. Craig is still getting it wrong.

[@citizenghosttown]

Dr. Craig is only pretending not to understand what atheism is. It's a debate tactic that allows him to take on a straw man.

[@Bradslifestyle]

Love this

[@makersdiaries6944]

It is indeed true that the wise has been blinded from the wisdom of God.

[@ronaldrrootiii6040]

So if it is so insanely unlikely and improbable for things to evolve on their own then isn't that still saying that there's a chance they could? And if the sheer size of space is so mind-boggling that we can barely even comprehend it then wouldn't that suggest that maybe we are that one extremely improbable chance of it happening on its own out of such vastness and so many failures of it not happening? Cuz even the Christians just said for it to happen on its own it is so so improbable like one out of one with so many zeros so maybe there's one with so many zeros places in space for it to happen and it didn't happen in any of them except that one chance did happen right here on Earth. So really it seems like they kind of are saying that it did happen on its own. Nobody is doubting the vastness of space and if they are saying it is highly unlikely but still likely then the vastness of space give us that one unlikely chance the opportunity to actually be real all on its own

[@citizenghosttown]

Note the sneaky way Craig uses the word "being" when he unpacks his cosmological argument. At 19:04, Craig repeats the conclusion of his argument and declares that something must have caused the Universe to come into "being." In the very next sentence he mentions the "being" that caused the Universe. It's a clever transition that plays on the dual meaning of the word. Craig smoothly moves from "some cause" to "some being" and hopes no one will notice.

[@truthisaquestion]

Note the sneaky way this loser skips over the point Craig made about how only the only non-physical things we know of that can affect matter are minds! It must be nice to be as deluded as this fool. You get to hear whatever you like!

[@citizenghosttown]

​@@truthisaquestion Nope. I provided the timestamp so that anyone can see exactly what Craig does -- he concludes that the "cause" of the Universe is a "being" and only THEN does he try to argue that this being is somehow "personal". It's clever stuff -- notice that he doesn't argue that the "cause" must be personal. He argues that the "being" must be personal. Very convenient and, of course, very circular. But I'm glad you pointed out the additional absurdity of Craig's argument. The only non physical things we know of that can affect matter are minds? Did you really just write that? Please let us all know the last time a disembodied mind has ever affected matter. I'll wait. Repeating Craig's weakest arguments isn't helping you. You're better off sticking to childish insults -- that's clearly much more your thing anyway.

[@truthisaquestion]

@@citizenghosttown “I provided a time stamp” So just bc he may not say it at that exact moment you decide to lie about his conclusion. That’s misrepresenting his view. So thanks for proving you are a liar that cannot be trusted! Loser!

[@truthisaquestion]

@@citizenghosttown “very circular” The only thing circular is that you keep making idiotic errors and I keep correcting them. The universe has a cause. The cause must be non-physical. The only non-physical thing we know that can affect matter are minds. All minds we know of have agency (i.e. are persons). THAT is the argument. Not your delusional version. The only thing you’ve proven is that you can leave out information to misrepresent Craig so you can misapply a logical fallacy you heard of, but clearly do not understand. Thanks for proving you are a snivelling little liar! I appreciate it!

[@truthisaquestion]

As I have shown, this fool is so desperate to feed his delusions, he has to misrepresent Craig’s entire argument and broadcast his lies for all to see in the hope of some validation from another deluded fool full of incoherent babble. I really appreciate that you keep doing that, as you are a perfect example of how desperately deluded atheists are! Thanks for being my “Hitch-bitch”! Really appreciate it!

[@emmanuelbudke6499]

Does anyone know who William lane Craig says has a list of miracles?

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

He often refers to Craig Keener's two-volume set on miracles. - RF Admin

[@FourDeuce01]

@@matthewstokes1608 Try learning some basic logic.

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@FourDeuce01… er, what are you prattling on about?

[@FourDeuce01]

@@matthewstokes1608 English. Do you speak it?🤤

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@FourDeuce01 far better than you do, clearly

[@carlinlemon5884]

Did I hear William say that infinity was "just an idea in your mind", going on to argue how ludicrous the idea of "infinity" was, yet he also believes in a hell that will punish you for infinity if you don't at least try to make yourself believe in God?

[@codyworley5623]

You are confused. Hell and heaven and God exist outside of time and the mortal realm. That's the point.

[@kiroshakir7935]

​@@codyworley5623this isn't how Dr Craig typically answers this objection as he always differentiates between potential infinities and actual infinities Hell and heaven are potential infinities It's a limited quantity that approaches infinity Unlike past infinities which are actual infinities

[@codyworley5623]

@@kiroshakir7935 that's a paradox. If something is limited is is by definition not infinite. You can not approach infinity, it is by definition unattainable. Infinity is limitless and can not be bound by reality. You can not travel to infinity. you can not count to infinity. Time and space are very finite so for something to be infinite it can not exist in our universe.

[@kiroshakir7935]

@@codyworley5623 it isn't a paradox A potential infinity according to doctor Craig Is a finite quantity that always increases This is why it's not called an actual infinite "You can not approach infinity, it is by definition unattainable." Approaching infinity means going in the direction of infinity If it decreases it doesn't approach infinity It's simple

[@codyworley5623]

@@kiroshakir7935 infinite- limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. what you are talking about with "approaching" Is traveling or moving towards something indefinitely. Indefinite - lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time.

[@TripleXMango]

27:05 WLC cannot be serious. How can this be interpreted any way other than an admission that the only reason WLC does not condone rape is because his God does not permit it. If the bible said rape was fine, would he agree. Does WLC support slavery? The bible condones that, so it must be “objectively moral”.

[@Telamonian]

That’s not his point, believers do not need rules against certain things because the law of God is written onto their hearts, unbelievers too. The Bible is like a code of conduct that affirms these feelings. However atheists cannot objectively claim that rape is bad like believers can because they think morality is subjective to culture or whatever excuse they come up with. It’s not difficult to comprehend, atheists can live a moral life we aren’t saying otherwise yet they have no justification in doing so, and if there is no justification then morality is just superficial and unimportant, we see this in many cases throughout history where marxism ruled. A facade of moralism that couldn’t live up to any religiosity, and led to the losses of millions of souls as well.

[@TripleXMango]

@@Telamonian dodge much? What if the bible said rape was ok? By his logic, he’d be fine with it.

[@guaranagaucho3071]

@@Telamonianyou clearly do not have the ability of empathy unlocked.

[@Ethanshmeethan00]

Doesnt make sense that just because you dont understand or know how the universe got created, that it must be a god

[@user-rw5ok6rn5k]

He cited the relevant evidence of mathematicians and physicists to answer that question

[@Lolzzz483]

Just because it might not have been god doesn’t mean it wasn’t be a agnostic if you say you don’t know but to be a athiest is literally just religion on the opposite side of the same spectrum it’s a theology you have a strong conviction in something without one single thread of proof offer a better explanation

[@redmed10]

2:05:30 Kid - my purpose in life is to serve god. What is your purpose in life as an atheist? Hitchens - i prefer not to answer the question Wlc - my purpose in life is not to serve god but to glorify him. Mr hitchens what purpose in life can you have when you believe in a universe will die a cold death. Hitchens - wait a minute.....

[@mikewiz1054]

At 28:50 Craig claims that a group of women found Jesus tomb empty. Very clever since the four gospels contain wildly different accounts of this event. No one can say which account is true (or if any are true). Then he cites Jacob Kremer as if Kremer is some kind of historical scholar. Kremer is a theologian and therefore an invalid source since he is not a historian. Kremers work is not respected among real historical scholars. His proof of an empty tomb is that “it says it in the Bible”. There are also sources that claim Kremer recanted this assertion later in life. To the average person Craig comes off as credible…but to someone like me that is a historian, he is a con man that cites dubious sources that are out of the mainstream and would get laughed out of any discussion with academics.

[@stelliosskouloudis703]

THIS WAS A GOOD DEBATE!!!!!

[@JamesJustice-x5e]

thanks, bot.

[@ChocoCosme]

I've come across this debate and it amazes me how Hitchens never proposes alternative options for the creation of the world, life and morals etc. He only attempts to disprove or discredit the Christian stance without giving a reasonable or coherent replacement for the questions debated. Also, it's obvious that Hitchens doesn't understand the bible, it's context or who Jesus is. He may have read the bible but reads with a harden heart and with presumptions grounded in antagonism. He uses humor, charm and sarcasm to mask his lack of substance in his arguments.

[@bleedingsnowman67]

No one understands the Bible, that's why there's innumerable denominations. Just different interpretation of something that is unreasonable and incoherent for which there is no reasonable replacement without more knowledge of the universe.

[@lawsonmontgomery2559]

You have to be a fool to believe the Bible is the written word of a supreme being. I cannot believe anyone can believe such nonsense. Why did he show himself to Bronze Age peasants in the Middle East and not the humans to the east that could read or write? He chose a group of people over others. It’s all just so obvious and laughable

[@user-rw5ok6rn5k]

How is the Bible "unreasonable" and "incoherent" yet without a "reasonable replacement" due to our lack of knowledge of the universe? What incredibly poor reason.

[@bleedingsnowman67]

@@user-rw5ok6rn5k because it makes baseless assertions without any verifiable evidence. Same as all other religions.

[@bleedingsnowman67]

@@user-rw5ok6rn5k as far as the incoherency, why is there catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc if it's clear and everyone can agree what it says?

[@Mr_mechEngineer]

Hitchens was truly an interesting man.

[@calldwnthesky6495]

and WLC is truly a nut

[@charles3788]

Well, he was wrong about God lol

[@calldwnthesky6495]

@@charles3788 he was wrong about how paciified the masses are by those in power.... the ape masters have co-opted ancient fairytales and peddled them to vulnerable and needy people, keeping them a nice docile herd

[@thaDjMauz]

@@charles3788 something something burdon of proof etc etc. Can you prove it though? Also which god? Do you wear fabrics? Should parents stone unruly children to death? Was it okay for Muhammad to marry a 7 year old? Any such questions

[@YualChiek]

You couldn't be more right.

[@gwill2376]

Interesting stuff. It seems to me, though, that there's a fair bit of 'ships passing in the night' in this debate. You can see this clearly in the question portions: 1:19:11 Craig wants to talk about the arguments for the truth of atheism and gets a little bogged down in semantic differences. Hitchens' response at 1:20:00 explains clearly that atheism is not in itself a belief system and cannot be proved or disproved as true or false; all atheism is is the assertion that God does not exist. That's it. So when Craig again asks at 1:23:08 "do you have any arguments that God does not exist?", Hitchens is understandably confused. Hitchens mentions unicorns a little later, so let's use that as an example of what's going on here: We have 'unicornians' who believe in the existence of unicorns, and we have 'aunicornists' who don't believe unicorns exist. The default position for everyone will generally be that unicorns don't in fact exist because no one has ever seen a unicorn and we don't have any evidence for their existence (put another way, we are all atheists regarding the existence of unicorns). If the 'unicornians' do, in fact, claim unicorns exists, they are the ones on whom the burden of proof falls, because they are the ones claiming something extraordinary and unexpected. And this is the crux of Hitchens' complaint at 1:24:05, for he says that the evidence provided is not good enough for him to believe in God (and there are better explanations in any case). Thus Craig's statement at 1:23:08 (and again at 1:48:41) that Hitchens has not met his challenge for the 'truth' of atheism, is not really a viable complaint, for Hitchens would argue that atheism in itself contains no truth or falsity: all it is is the refutation of another idea (theism). It's like saying "do you have any evidence that unicorns *don't* exist? No? This is therefore an argument that unicorns do exist, then" or "do you have any evidence for the truth of your 'aunicornism'? No? Therefore we must assume they exist". You can see at a glance that Hitchens has the stronger position here without even getting into the finer points of his critiques of Christian teaching. My 2c

[@marcusaurelius9123]

Did the intelligent designer use a white board for the design? Was he sitting or standing when the design happened? 🤔

[@user-wu8sj3ee3d]

He had to stand because he had hemorrhoids when he came to creating Earth.

[@gbowers]

2:20:20 that’s exactly the kind of question you want to ask these God believers. I would’ve loved to have heard Craig’s response to that, see how he would’ve justified that horror and suffering to have went on and been allowed and somehow part of God’s plan. "The joy and pain that we receive must be what we deserve I was brought up to believe" - Neil Peart

[@realtruth2817]

Neil’s 19 year old daughter killed 1 hour after leaving home for college. Allegedly, supposedly. What did he do to cause that?

[@0mniVerse777]

The answer to that question is simple. Free will, if God stopped people from doing evil, then everything based on Christianity and Jesus's message would be false. God does not intervene into peoples bad decisions, they choose the bad decisions. So everyone has a decision to do bad and good and God will not stop the bad people otherwise he is unjust.

[@gbowers]

@@0mniVerse777 That’s absolutely retarded to believe that. There is no God first of all. The point is not about the evildoer having free will, it’s about the innocent victim’s unnecessary suffering, FOR 25 YEARS. By that logic, you’re implying that God cares more about protecting his own brand than intervening and stopping an innocent person from suffering because otherwise humanity will suddenly not have freewill. So better to let the evil human torture the innocent human for 25 years in the name of freewill because it’s better if he has the choice to do evil or do good than it is to just have God, who could’ve stopped the suffering, but didn’t because if he did, it would be unjust and contradict his own rules?What sense does that make? You’re implying that God is real and has the ability to intervene with people doing evil on their own freewill but doesn’t because he wants them to be able to have the choice to do evil, even though they know better, as long as God doesn’t have to intervene, it’s okay because then God is always right because he doesn’t have to answer to all the evil in the world that he allows. He doesn’t have to take responsibility for that because it’s not his fault technically because he gave us all freewill and we chose against him. That says a lot for the innocent victim, doesn’t it? Let’s make it all about the guy who chose evil and not about the innocent person being tortured just to set an example about God’s opinion on us having freewill. This has nothing to do with the evil person who tortured her and her son, it’s all about her as a victim. This is about the victim. What justification could be made for her suffering? It’s impossible to make any and preposterous to assume that her suffering is not in vain because she will be safe in the afterlife and her perpetrator will be punished also in the afterlife, so in that case, God will just let her suffer and get tortured in the REAL world for 25 years.

[@gbowers]

@@realtruth2817 What did Neil do, or God do? I’m assuming you mean Neil. Neil didn’t literally say that. He wrote it in a song called "BU2B." It’s pretty much sarcasm. He’s saying he was brought up to believe all this nonsense that Christianity teaches and the notion that all the good and bad in the world is justified and deserving one way or the other according to God’s divine plan. The other verse sums it up as well: "All is for the best, believe in what we’re told. Blind man in the market, buying what we’re sold. Believe in what we’re told, until our final breath. While our loving watchmaker loves us all to death."

[@Dean4471]

​@@0mniVerse777that's a cop out that Christians always use. If God was a truly loving God, rather than a sadistic bastard, then he'd intervene occasionally.

[@CesarClouds]

12:12 Atheism is a position about a deity's existence not a worldview.

[@DemstarAus]

Intriguing to me that in many of Craig's and other creationists' debates, the practice of name dropping is common. It doesn't matter who said it, and just because a scientist or a doctor or a physicist said it doesn't make it true. Is it in their professional or personal opinion? Would the same conclusion be drawn by anyone else given the education and opportunity to examine the data for themselves?

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

1:45:00 Bonhoeffer took a stance against Hitler

[@MrGreensweightHist]

Irrelevant. A few dissenting priests does not negate the OVERWHELMING support by teh churches as a whole. All it does is illustrate the lack of consistency

[@truthisaquestion]

@@MrGreensweightHist Easy on the capitals buddy. You mean that people under threat of violence were coerced into submission? That is sooo weird, eh? You can't even keep your genitals covered, so you are not in a position to criticize. I think its great that you take your kids to Pride events. Hopefully, they will be gay and we won't have to worry about your genes getting back into the pool! Win-win scenario bro.

[@aprylvanryn5898]

It's really difficult to listen to Craig say that grape is ok in an atheistic world view. If he truly believes that he should totally stay a Christian.

[@Questioning_God]

What's your problem with rape?

[@marioncarbonell6047]

@@Questioning_God​⁠he’s basically implying that Craig thinks since there’s no God, us humans have no morality, but that’s bullshit, we can clearly tell right from wrong without the Bible telling us so, In fact, Ironically, the Bible literally tells people to stone a woman to death if she had been deflowered, the Bible is a terrible book when it comes to morals, we know rape is wrong because of the terrible psychological and emotional harm it causes a person who was a victim to it.

[@aprylvanryn5898]

@Questioning God I don't understand the question (I hope). I don't like a lot of things about rape. The thing I don't like most is that it's non-consensual. I hope you mean something else.

[@Papa-dopoulos]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the argument. The point isn’t that we theists think it is automatically okay under atheism. The point is that atheists don’t have any solid recourse when declaring it not okay. Only subjective opinions, which reduce the rhetorical power of the argument against rape to that of your preference of pizza topping. Consent is thrown out as some kind of magic word that is supposed to satisfy the objection, and everyone is so afraid of looking rapey that they don’t think to critically assess this standard. But consent is not objectively offered. It’s a thing that we hold on to; that we made (assuming God doesn’t exist). Point being, if person A consents to rape person B, but person B does not consent, and morality is purely a product of our own minds, then why does person A lose? They consent, don’t they? Isn’t it a tie? Why is person B not consenting more important than person A consenting? If a prisoner doesn’t consent to being moved from their cell, does the guard just say “oh well, guess I can’t do anything”? And if you’re just going to say “well duh, rape is harmful,” then ask person A. He doesn’t think so.

[@Questioning_God]

@@aprylvanryn5898 where is your foundation for consent structured upon if we are living in an uncaused and unguided universe from which we randomly evolved into humans?

[@alaingSEO]

"6 day creation isn't necessarily true" So when is God's Old Testament volume 2 coming out?

[@jirskyrjenkins1959]

I can never understand this argument. If part of the Bible is not true or to be taken literally, which Christians will also say about the slavery and racism parts, then none of it can be taken literally. It's either a collection of well-meaning anecdotes and allegories, or it's the literal word of a god handed to man (of course, not handed down in English, nor produced all at once, nor officially dictated from god to one or more officials, nor without revision and edits, nor without Apocrypha).

[@grapegripe]

It has come out. It’s called the New Testament.

[@steveboone7390]

Why does causality have to equal 'a being'/ 'god'??? 19.09

[@jakubholic8769]

Craig talks abou probability evaluation of this universe to fit our life, but obviously doesn't understand, what do we base probability on. Probability is always defined as amount of positive cases devided by number of all possible outcomes. So, for example, probability of having 6 on a dice is 1(amount of desired outcomes)/6(all the possible outcomes). But in case of universe, there is no chance that Craig would know the amount of possible universes or of possible caracteristics of one. Therefore, his "probability" isn't based on numbers, but his feelings only. And there is another important probability to the fine tuning topic, where we know all the needed numbers. If we take as certain basic fact, that there is life in this universe, what is the probability, that the universe we live in, has characteristics suitable for life? 100 %. Sothis universe simply must be so tuned, because in other case we wouldn'be here to have this conversation. Simply, there must be such univers, because we exist. The reason, why it has the characteristics it has is unknown. Even craig doesn't know. But he uses again god of the gaps - I do not know, what universes must look like, I do not know, if there is one or many or what can and cannot universe look like, but I pick up just one of infinite amount of options and say, that god is the cause. He tried to prove god by asserting god. And of course, he doesn'know how the burden of proof works.

[@UnbiasOP]

What you missed is that these are not his words, he's just citing the numbers scientists who do that for a job calculated.

[@jakubholic8769]

@@UnbiasOP Yeah, than they do not understand it as well. They use probability word in a way it cannot be used, when they don't have enough data. And they don't. There is nothing but a feeling, they can base that "probability" on. No matter who is selected as his source (because, there are plenty of people who would criticise him for the same reason), the fact remains, that his arguments are false. Or he doesn't cite them precisely, than he is the only one who's wrong.

[@UnbiasOP]

@@jakubholic8769 Perhaps. There's a possibility you're correct and those scientists have a lot to learn from you, but it remains that the best Craig can do is trust the science and use their calculated (albeit imprecise) numbers.

[@jakubholic8769]

@@UnbiasOP That is low possibility, Craig just misinterprets their views, that is what I find more likely. The same way he did that before.

[@UnbiasOP]

@@jakubholic8769I agree that the possibility I proposed has a very, very, infinitesimally low probability, but you're moving the goalpost now.

[@lespaul14]

How I miss the clarity of Christopher Hitchens.

[@mitchellrose3620]

Craig makes my skin crawl, but it is, after all, just an argument on God's existence. It does exemplify that the Christian is one with deceit. Even Joel Osteen said that"Sometimes, we have to lie for God"! It is amazing how much human beings can stomach dishonesty before we say "no more"!

[@connordolence520]

Joel Osteen is a fake Christian who does not believe in nor preach the Gospel of the Bible. Nowhere does God ever say to lie for Him. In fact every one who did had bad things happen in spite of doing so. Abraham and Isaac are two easy examples

[@KevinSmile]

You're assuming lying and dishonesty are somehow worse than truth and honesty. There's no difference in the two from a moral perspective if you're an athiest. Just like picking candy... it's up to your personal taste.

[@Papa-dopoulos]

Ah yes, quoting Joel Osteen to represent Christianity. Okay. I choose Dennis Rodman as the ambassador of atheism. Hope you don’t mind 😂

[@harlowcj]

On what basis can you actually say that Joel Osteen ripping off the members of his church is immoral? Isn't he just a shining example of Darwinism where the strong survive? Why does the fact that Joel Osteen takes advantage of people for his personal gain disgust you? On what grounds? Did he take advantage of you?

[@johnathanbrandt3027]

'Christianity is clearly the more rational world view' 1:39:43 Craigs entire argument rests on his personal inability to understand science. A word to the believers out there. Believing and hoping is not a sound argument. Facts do not care about your feelings. It is more rational to say 'I don't know' than to say 'A book written by a series of bronze age authors which is filled with contradictions, proven falsehoods and which has been edited and revised and updated over the centuries to adapt to the contradictions that science has uncovered is a rational belief system'. Grown ups that believe this sort of nonsense have no place making decisions that impact on other people. If the afterlife is real and soo perfect, why are all my christian friends trying to hold on to this life soo dearly? Its because when it comes down to it and we have stripped away all pretenses and are staring death in the face, they doubt their own convictions. Hold a gun to Craigs head (hypothetically! dont actually harm anyone) and I am certain that he will feel fear and do what he can to prevent death. He may say God save me, but why would he want that? When all is said and done, we are all aetheists.

[@jays1de]

hitchens arguments are quite compelling; while craig makes too many assumptions, particularly those he attributes to the non-theist side.

[@Questioning_God]

Could you give me one good argument that he gave in favour of the non existence of God?

[@jays1de]

@@Questioning_God i could, but it is up to those who claim the positive to offer good arguments. craig doesn't do that.

[@Questioning_God]

@@jays1de How convenient. Actually Craig gave four arguments (if i recall correctly) for the existence of God. 1. Kalam Cosmological argument 2. Fine tuning argument 3. Moral argument 4. Historical argument for the resurrection

[@jays1de]

@@Questioning_God and yet, i remain unconvinced. if God does exist, and He is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, why then does evil exist?

[@Questioning_God]

@@jays1de what specifically is unconvincing about those four arguments? If a person is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give us free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. Badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. Evil is a parasite, not an original thing. C. S. Lewis

[@chigimon]

The world is a worse place for not having Christopher Hitchens in it.

[@TheNobleLoyalist]

The world is a worse place for removing ANY AND ALL mention or general moral teaching of Christ from every institution, most specifically the removal from school. Whether you are a believer or not of the finer details of the BIBLE, I dont see how anyone could argue that morality was at its core and had subdued MANY of the sin and lonliness that has poisoned our society in such an overwhelmingly quick time.

[@chigimon]

@@TheNobleLoyalist I have never needed a belief of a god, any god take your pick, to tell me that I shouldn’t be a arsehole. I have met many lovely people that believe in a god and many who don’t. I have met many arseholes and generally horrible people that believe in a god and some who don’t. If you choose to have faith that is all good and well but don’t use that faith to tell me that you are somehow more better than me. The Catholic Church has committed and still commits horrendous crimes against children and seek to cover up the vile acts their priests perpetrate, they helped hide nazis after the war, never a good look. My argument has always been, if children weren’t taught about religion or a god until they were of an age were their minds aren’t as easily led, say 14, not from school or parents etc and were then told there is an imaginary being that has never been seen, ever, that there is zero proof that this being exists or has existed. That he made a Virgin pregnant and his son turned water into wine, walked on water, was crucified and then rose from the dead and we know this because of a book that was written by illiterate primitives that tells you to own slaves, kill and many other atrocities. Tells you that a man parted a sea, another built a boat because he was told by a voice that there’d be a flood and a male and a female of every species of animal on earth including penguins and polar bears found their way to his boat and survived. A book that has been changed many times. Tell them this when they are 14 and see how many would believe the utter nonsense of any religion, a small child’s brain is easy to manipulate, fortunately I saw through the nonsense when I was a child, my parents never really bothered with religion, I don’t know what their thoughts were but it did me no harm. I got in trouble at school for not bowing for prayers and singing hymns etc but I didn’t care. I have grown to be a honest and hard working man that cares deeply about many things. I’m know what is right and wrong and I have manners. Last year my dad died from cancer, he died an horrific death, a man that worked his arse off all of his life, loved and looked after his family, never had a bad word for anyone and kept himself to himself, what kind of god would sit back and watch a man die in that way, wasting away, unable to raise his arms, unable to stand? If there is a god and that is the type of sick, warped being he is then I’d rather not bother anyway. What god would allow his priests to rape children? What god would allow evangelists to rob people of their money while they live in luxury? Do those unfortunate enough to be born in a country where they have a different god get sent to hell through no fault of their own? If you wish to believe in an invisible cloud wizard with zero proof of its existence then crack on, I’ll continue with my life believing in science and things I can see and that can be proven.

[@Veritas316]

He's probably in an even worse place. Unless he changed at the end. I pray he did.

[@BillytheSchmidt]

@@TheNobleLoyalist In school facts should be taught, not claims. I remember how religion was taught to me from first to fourth grade as if it was undisputed fact (this was 1986 to 1990), luckily a couple of years later I started thinking for myself and quickly realized, that everything in the old testament was just the desperate attempt of mankind to explain a world they couldn't understand - that's why it appears so ridiculous nowadays whereas the new testament is already not be taken seriously as there are four gospels that are so different that they just cannot be true. As for the morality of the bible, for me personally there is just way to much incest, rape and human sacrifice in there to use this book as a moral compass. In other words, I would never send my child to school where the bible is taught and I am glad that where I live religion is no longer a subject in public schools.

[@MxXxD]

I miss him so much

[@stepangambati2224]

Entertaining two hours, however the subject of the debate, "Does God Exist?", was hardly discussed, with the exception of Dr.W.L.Craig. Mr.Hitchens should debate questions of natural theology (branch of philosophy) which are pertinent to the subject, instead of wading into all kinds of cultural, sociological or historical topics.

[@nickfox8836]

So you didn't care for Mr. Hitchens compelling arguments that belief in a God, or Gods (or the god that you believe in one has to suppose) is demonstrably fallacious?

[@AcidGubba]

In the past, people could not explain lightning, earthquakes, thunder, volcanic eruptions, etc. So people created nature gods to better explain events. Today we know that there is no Zeus who throws lightning at us. Basically, science has made it possible for us to understand things and that is why nobody believes in Zeus anymore. But imagine if you had lived in that time - then you would also think that lightning was sent by God as a sign. The history of humanity shows that out of ignorance, gods were always blamed for everything. The people who believed in Zeus back then were not stupid, they just did not understand why it happened. Today in Islam or Christianity it is no different - there are open questions and belief in a supernatural being provides simple answers. Basically, belief in Jesus is the same as belief in Zeus.

[@isaacson21]

16:00...He doesn't know that the famous question " why there is anything rather than nothing?" is absurd because "why there is nothing?" doesn't make sense.

[@appledough3843]

48:14 This is one of the most foolish are ridiculous takes on seeking truth I've ever heard. Shows just how twisted and broken Hitchens was. I feel bad for him. To be so broken to think "seek and you shall find" meant that we would find any pattern and hold strong to it. That's not seeking truth that's seeking arrogance. You WANT to be right. Not for truths sake but for YOUR sake. This is pride. Seek and you shall find is God telling us to search for truth. Hitchens injected his own twisted and broken views on the verse. Lets pray that we never become this foolish and broken.

[@Preservestlandry]

You proved him right, you seek to never lose your God belief, you will keep finding your God belief.

[@bobwilkinson2008]

I think the words are pot and kettle. How misguided

[@patman142]

Hitchens: "Physics is not an ideology". Questioner: "I think that would be subjective" - What? Is this the level we are at?

[@patman142]

@Chris Cuomo we don't know, therefore God, simples

[@patman142]

@Chris Cuomo yes, the most lazy explanation also. It's the most arrogant of positions thinking it's all done for us. Yet, for the vast majority of history, life has been an incredible struggle and people tended to die young. Only for advances in science we now have the ability to live longer and more comfortable lives. Are you referring to the same bible that says demons are a cause of disease? Seriously?

[@matthewlowe552]

@Chris Cuomo Dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light. Eventually, all the nearby galaxies would be beyond the observable horizon and we would only see the stars of our own galaxy

[@patman142]

@Chris Cuomo how can that be lazy? Please explain

[@Roy-or6ev]

Unfortunately, yes, this is where theists, those who invariably invoke "the leap of faith" are. "Leap of faith"? Faith in what, faith in whom? 😂!

[@meridien52681]

That look on Hitch's face at 57:14, though, says it all. Why am I here with this dolt??

[@steveboone7390]

William presupposes a lot of stuff in his opening speech. I was very worried when he stated that from an atheistic standpoint there was nothing wrong with rape from a moralistic view objectively! This is very upsetting as an atheist and also totally unfounded!

[@TheGuy..]

If God does not exist and if what you say is true, then what is the objective standard that makes raρe an absolute "ought-not"?

[@steveboone7390]

@@TheGuy.. It is no solution to say that God commands only what is good. This presupposes that we can tell good from bad, right from wrong, or, in other words, that we have our own independent standards for moral goodness. But if we have such independent standards, then we don’t need God to tell us what to do. We can determine what is morally right or wrong on our own.

[@TheGuy..]

@@steveboone7390 And so those in power get to dictate what is good or evil, right and wrong, if left to moral relativism. But I think we know that some things are absolutely good or evil which would make a transcending standard for moral goodness necessary. If God exists then He would be the primary originating source of goodness. A Creator God would be the greatest conceivable being. A God that is both good and evil would be a conflicted nature making that being something less than the greatest conceivable being. If God was only evil in nature then He wouldn't be able to create anything good. We know some things are good. But Christians, nor myself (which I didn't), don't believe God commands the good or points to something aside from Himself calling that good because that would make God arbitrary. God "Himself" would be the source of good and the good flows from Him necessarily. And, if we are created in His image, we would have the capacity to know good from evil. I think the fact that we know some things are absolutely good or evil makes for reasonable evidence for a transcending standard of good...which we typically call God. Again, my opinion.

[@steveboone7390]

@@TheGuy.. I would like to further add that every day we continually see examples of acts of compassion between the animal population where traditionally species are rivals but instinctively intervene when acts of sadism or torture are apparent with no divine moral compass purely on instinct!

[@denjua2234]

Craig: "You redefine atheism to mean a sort of A...theism.. Or non-theism..." Christopher: "... that's what it means...

[@clorofilaazul]

We miss Hitchens.

[@joemildner5667]

But I am sure he does not miss you.

[@clorofilaazul]

@@joemildner5667 you are a very intelligent person. Congratulations!

[@dogwithwigwamz.7320]

Do you ?

[@joemildner5667]

@@clorofilaazul Hugo, I only try to speak in language darwinian apes are capable to understand.

[@m.a.a.d9275]

@@joemildner5667 kinda diffcult to miss someone when you are dead

[@gbowers]

All is for the best, believe in what we’re told. Blind man in the market, buying what we’re sold. Believe in what we’re told, until our final breath. While our loving watchmaker loves us all to death.

[@citizenghosttown]

Craig is best known for his first argument --- the Kalam Cosmological argument. But the deductive logic of that argument, goes no further than "the Universe has a cause." Craig is then required to "unpack" the argument in order to reach the conclusion that this "cause" is likely to be the God of Christianity. So how does Craig get there? He asserts that the "cause" of the Universe is a "Being" and that being MUST be "personal." Why? Because, he argues at 19:21, the cause of the universe MUST be spaceless and timeless and he, William Lane Craig, can think of only two things that fit that description: 1)abstract concepts and 2) a personal mind. But, Craig says, of those two possibilities, only a mind can affect physical matter. Really? How? When has an unembodied mind EVER caused anything without the use of physical matter? There's a whole lot of "God of the Gaps" in Craig's unpacking. And the entire argument is a special pleading, dressed up with a veneer of philosophical terminology.

[@davesmith5482]

And to even get that far, you have to accept the Kalam argument, when in fact neither of its premises can be demonstrated to be true.

[@jaroslavserbus2331]

Craig and he's using of words like "fact, true" It's like "fact number one: Voldemort lost his powers after he killed Harry's parents, fact number two..."

[@JamesJustice-x5e]

oh. you stole my profile pic. can you change your color plz

[@MatteBlacke]

I enjoyed the debate. Both of them defended their positions extremely capably and cordially.

[@khanyisaqhuba6659]

I don’t think so, as a proponent of Hitchens I think he made mildly contentious arguments , which did prank a punch nonetheless , with respect to Craig , I don’t think anything is off the table if you believe in the supernatural, it’s very easy to find unfalsifiable justifications for preposterous ideologies , you can just make up rhetoric which is exegesis in essence but just barely consistent with logic. I think it is the theists burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a supernatural dimension , not to defend what hasn’t been established, in other words begging the question

[@alecxjones4419]

@@khanyisaqhuba6659well that’s cool but in a debate one side takes the affirmative and one side takes the negative or aff and neg. The structure of a debate demands that both sides partially bare the burden of proof. Especially when the topic of the debate is worded in such a way.

[@AcidGubba]

Anyone who can think logically knows that you can't prove something doesn't exist. If I say I've seen blue unicorns and ask you to prove that it isn't the case, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If faith were proven, it would be science, but we have over 10,000 known gods and most of them are obsolete thanks to science. Yet there are still enough stupid people who continue to think that a Bible is proof of something. It's no coincidence that people who are better educated are more likely to become atheists.

[@blatherskite3009]

You can't really debate sensibly with a person on the subject of whether their invisible friend exists when that person is inventing the qualities and characteristics of his invisible friend on the fly, and the invisible friend seems to inhabit the sphere of semantics, word-games, and cod-philosophical non sequiturs.

[@GodSoLoved.Yeshua]

Jesus is alive 👑🥳 The world view of an atheist destroys itself. Why? Atheist believe God is evil, but there is no such thing as objective evil, good or bad in an atheist world view, ultimately destroying your own argument. 🌎

[@blatherskite3009]

@@GodSoLoved.Yeshua Your premise is broken from the start. "Atheist (sic) believe God is evil." Wrong. We don't believe your god _exists_ - how do you get from there to us thinking it is evil? It is a fictional entity, so who cares what its character is? Do better.

[@GodSoLoved.Yeshua]

Again, the world view of an atheist destroys itself. Why? Atheist believe God is evil, but there is no such thing as objective evil, good or bad in an atheist world view, ultimately destroying your own argument. 🌎 Jesus is alive 👑🥳 It appears you've missed my point, but it's ok I reposted it.

[@blatherskite3009]

@@GodSoLoved.Yeshua Humans created your god and wrote his words, so it's all just humans subjectively deciding it. The fact that they say the words from behind a god-mask adds nothing except lies; an attempt to claim to speak with authority that is "objective" and beyond human. Believe it if you will, but you've been conned.

[@GodSoLoved.Yeshua]

I understand your point of view. I understand you don't believe and it sounds absurd. I wasn't born a Christian. I walked away from Christianity. But guess what it's true, Jesus is alive, it's true 🥳👏 I left and returned to the Truth, follower of Christ for 13yrs+ all glory to God. He has changed my life, made himself present. The evidence is actually there historical and archeology evidence. 🥳👏 not to mention you can talk to Him. Again I understand you believe it's absurd. But you know it actually takes more faith to believe there is no God. Your morality points you to a God. But many deny Him and many more will.

[@steveboone7390]

An agnostic suspends judgement, An atheist does not. The decider is 'any' evidence!

[@TheGuy..]

Atheists make the proposition that God does not exist, not just lacking the belief in gods. If you disagree, with what word do you title the person that makes the claim that God does not exist?

[@steveboone7390]

@@TheGuy.. An atheist does not claim that God definitively does not exist, but rather that they do not believe in the existence of God, meaning they lack a belief in any deity, without necessarily attempting to prove God's non-existence.

[@TheGuy..]

@@steveboone7390 Well then, there are a lot of atheists that don't know what an atheist is. I've had countless people claiming to be atheist telling me that God does not exist, God is a fairytale, etc. Those are positive claims which leaves them with the burden to substantiate their claims. Back in the 60's-80's people typically claimed to be atheist saying "there's no such thing as God". Making those positive claims makes atheism at least part of one's worldview but now atheists are sayign that atheism is not a worldview. It seems to be a later trend for atheists to say they just lack belief in God in order to avoid the challenge to prove God doesn't exist. I would say that the person lacking belief in God would be a non-theist and that would be compatible with an agnostic who claims that they don't know if God exists. Lacking belief in God is the same as not knowing if God exists. My opinion.

[@tomatbebo]

The preacher: “god exists, prove me wrong by satisfying unfalsifiable statements”

[@Hackerhaxkerhacker]

Hitchens en ningún momento dio un buen argumento a favor de que Dios no existe, yo respeto su muerte, pero se sincero, craig barrio el piso con el en este debate

[@aaronfunnell5220]

​@@Hackerhaxkerhacker Your point maybe more impressive if you say WHY Hitchin's arguements are not good. Otherwise I could say Lane Craig's arguements were not good and we are both sitting at a stalemate untill one of us explains our reasoning because both are just opinions without any explanation. It's pretty basic analytical thinking to explain your reasoning behind your opinions otherwise they are literally meaningless. I could say that drinking gasoline makes you live longer. My opinion there is now just as well explained as your statement because neither of us have explained our reasoning. Over to you, why are Hitchin's arguements wrong? Convince me.

[@PramodKumar-gy8lb]

All the "holiness" aside, I wish at least one religious book had at least one statement that helped advance science. Eg: I created light and it's the fastest thing in the universe. I created microbes and until you discover antidotes, you shall die young.

[@chillinkrillin1378]

About 800 years ago Jewish theologians came up with the concept for a constantly expanding and cooling universe. Pulled straight from scripture. They didn't need to be modern readers with knowledge of the Big Bang to make this interpretation. It appears the main scientific theory held today is quite old indeed.

[@fatstrategist]

Actually, the Bible did! At the time all the other religious lore inferred that a god created things within creation and never creation itself. The Bible said that God created everything

[@PramodKumar-gy8lb]

@@fatstrategist You're ignorant. According to the Hindu texts, Brahma set into motion the creation of the universe. However, he doesn't interfere in the affairs of the universe.

[@denjua2234]

The problem is that someone who is trained at debating, like a lawyer or politician, would beat most scientists at debates such as this, even though it is the scientists who are closer to the truth. In the case of this video, they're both very good at debating. Nevertheless, debating just shows who is the best orator rather than who can get closer to the truth of the subject.

[@phoenixslayer2449]

Philosophers are the closest to proving or disproving gods' existence. A scientist will never be able to prove that which is abstract and not confined to this universe

[@denjua2234]

@@phoenixslayer2449 I don't think philosophy ever really proved anything, it provides a fantastic reasoning medium for logical statements, but you can't actually 'prove' anything with philosophy. Nevertheless, I see philosophy as the foundation for knowledge and it indeed provides us with an amazing system to reason about absolutely anything and everything.

[@phoenixslayer2449]

@denjua2234 You can prove certain things in philosophy,

[@denjua2234]

@@phoenixslayer2449 like...

[@phoenixslayer2449]

@denjua2234 the laws of logic, the types of arguments etc

[@peterb2272]

1:26 "As proof of his devine authority he cast out demons", but 1:29 "casting out demons doesnt necessarily prove devine authority" Wut?

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

Other people casting out demons did it in God's name. Jesus, crucially, did it in his _own_ name. That's a very important distinction to make

[@peterb2272]

@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 Wut?

[@lolfzbf]

I love this debate. Craig just presented his usual word salad & endless assertions, while Hitch calmly and rationally debunked most of Craig's nonsense.

[@ShalomEntirety1]

Wow...how interesting perspectives hey... I thought Craig mopped the floor with Hitch...amazing... well, at least Hitch will KNOW by now...whether he was right or...wrong.

[@turboepicgamedump7501]

@@ShalomEntirety1 Craig doesn't even really have any arguments, all he's doing is quoting people. It's idiot-whispering.

[@ShalomEntirety1]

@@turboepicgamedump7501 so is the dead dude...😉

[@turboepicgamedump7501]

@@ShalomEntirety1 Listen to the video, Craig wins the quotes quota by a landslide. He's in automaton mode.

[@ShalomEntirety1]

@@turboepicgamedump7501 if you say so😉

[@zpd8003]

People are good at creating stories and fictional characters. That includes all the 'gods' of the past. I'm pretty sure christians don't believe in Zeus or Thor, so christians are in fact ATHEISTS with respect to all the 'gods' they don't believe in. They just need to cross out one more fictional character and join the rational club. Christianity, islaam and the other major religions today just happen to be the latest human inventions that stuck around, and there is zero reason to think that they are any different than all the other made up religions of the past. Religion serves a purpose which is control and power.

[@simonzai7386]

I've always thought that.If this dude makes planets and stars and shit why would they give a feck about us and why send your son down in human form to be tortured to 'death'?

[@Emiliocab47]

It's a fairy story...it never happened

[@clarkporter1340]

Yeah also if he can condemn us 4 just d sin of one man den y didn't he just find another good man & 4give us cos of dat person but he instead decided 2 sacrifice his son 2 himself 2 4give us 4 a sin of simply eating from a fruit he made available

[@Fairburne69]

When you start asking questions the whole thing falls apart. The answers to those questions are never good. It's either speculation or anything idk it's in God's hands.

[@Roy-or6ev]

These, these fairy tales are the reason I failed Sunday school. 😂

[@dcmastermindfirst9418]

​@Emiliocab47 Actually it did happen and it's completely backed up by history.

[@razony]

Mathew 14:26-31 Jesus himself (It's in the bible) said to Peter, 'Oh thee of little faith why do thy doubt.' Peter supposedly walked on water. Why can't Christians of faith at the very LEAST walk on water, let alone create miracles of love and need? WHERE IS THY FAITH? Is the story a fake or do religious pious people of belief, have no faith? Humanity hears religious folks talk the talk, but humanity does not SEE the religious people walk the walk. Humanity is being deceived by this religion!

[@TheLegendOfRandy]

Cool! Jesus may or may have no said that! That's great, but _so what?_ I can quote even more beautiful things about reality from Carl Sagan. That wouldn't make atheis true, would it?

[@razony]

@@TheLegendOfRandy Nope. I'm an Ex-Christian that became spiritual. From my own experiences, I know there is life death. The Christian God is a sad, evil God.

[@joelonsdale]

Craig's arguments are pathetic and demonstrate a naive and unsophisticated understanding of rationality and logic. "Atheism" makes no claims about universal origins, so arguing "what else can it BE?" is pointless and for Craig to think otherwise is a clear demonstration of his unsophisticated understanding of rationality. As an atheist I don't know how the universe started, I make no claims for objective or subjective morality and I don't know that something can't come from nothing (the one and only example of that hypothetically happening was the big bang, so our only example demonstrates that something CAN come from nothing, but this is not my claim, it's a humorous aside). All I believe, as an atheist, is that theists think "god did it" but can't seem to demonstrate it... AND THAT'S ALL! Dismantling our position would only require you to demonstrate that your god exists - any other argument is useless and OBVIOUSLY SO to anyone with even a vaguely rational mind. Craig's use of probabilities is just dishonest and, besides, and once again, irrelevant. Truth is unaffected by poorly assembled probabilities. Besides, how is magic ever a probable, or "more probable", cause of anything? None of Craig's arguments hold up to even cursory examination. His qualifications suggest he is an intellect to be reckoned with, yet he provides the same childish crap that people with none of his qualifications or experience are perfectly able to think up. It's embarrassing for him, honestly. To dismantle the atheist position, he only need demonstrate that his god exists. The theist position requires no dismantling as it isn't even "mantled" to begin with! Honest atheists need only see sufficient evidence for whichever god a particular theist thinks "did it" and they will no longer be atheists. Our position is only a reaction to the theist position and doesn't stand independently. If nobody was claiming a god existed, atheists wouldn't exist. I'm aware that Hitchens does not require my help, but the childish mindset of the WLC is utterly frustrating to listen to and I need to vent on a long train journey!

[@GayorgVonTrapp]

Eloquently put. Brilliant.

[@jomdizon6930]

😂

[@michaelyoungberry8601]

I listened to the opening arguments that god exists, that were labelled by the speaker as ample evidence he exists, and I'm not at all convinced he exists. The debate was over at that point.

[@metanoia29]

Yes, there was no credibility behind his assertions. Christopher could have wiped the floor with him, but clearly showed more respect than usual and didn't need to go full out to handle this debate.

[@strannick2212]

all of those arguments were sufficient.

[@dotails]

At 2h10m: The reason for legislating morality is an effort to make earth like heaven and being like God is to share his will and he shared the will to make earth like it is in heaven.

[@hhmaster789]

Amen

[@MrGreensweightHist]

No it isn't. It is merely a desire to control others.

[@BandAid350z]

@@MrGreensweightHist yeah bro. Just let everyone do whatever. Wouldn’t want to control them like a religious nut.

[@MrGreensweightHist]

@@BandAid350z So long as what they do isn't harming others. That's the ONLY viable criteria for legislating.

[@BandAid350z]

@@MrGreensweightHist the NAP is a pipe dream. Hey bro, let him do heroin or crack. It’s his prerogative. So what if they’re shitting in the streets or dancing around naked. They aren’t harming anyone. Mind your business. Right?

[@Sigur_Sixx]

Theists always go for the cosmological argument and I dont understand why. The argument states that the universe must have a cause, that tells you absolutely nothing about what the cause is. On top of that, yes we have to assume the universe has a cause but we are constructing this argument based off of our understanding of the universe. We have no idea if this argument would apply outside of the universe, or if outside of the universe is even possibile. So applying an argument bound by the universe to something before the universe does not track.

[@jirskyrjenkins1959]

I agree. I always argue that actually, no, the universe need not have a cause. Cause and effect are behaviours familiar to us within the known universe, but there's no reason to assume those behaviours also apply outside of the universe (which is basically how I understand your comment). Quantum physics already shows us that even within the known universe, what we predict and experience at the macro level does not always hold true at the quantum level. So we already have evidence that even within the known and measurable universe, not all laws or predictions hold in all cases at all levels. And then second to this argument - that even if you presume that the universe has a cause, theists then claim to know the nature, mindset, desires and plans of that cause. An ant cannot fathom the mind of a human; cannot remotely operate at our cognitive level, nor can we ever explain our thoughts and desires to an ant. So how does any human claim to know the mind of any being that could possibly be capable of creating a universe from nothing? A being that is proposed to be many many magnitudes superior to us, than we are to ants. And how could such a being explain itself in terms we would understand. There is no logic to such a proposition. So even if we accepted the existence of a creator, which we don't need to do, then theists still have "all their work ahead of them" (per Hitchens) to explain and argue how they would claim to know, understand or interpret the will of such an unbelievably stupendous being? "How it would care what we ate and on what day, and who we had sex with and in what positions".

[@punchline43]

1:22:53 lt amazes me that for someone as well read and well spoken as Craig evidently is, he can still have such a short attention span.

[@delgutotti]

😊

[@josephno1347]

the apologists already believe they know the position of the anti-theist, the blinders are already up and the chains are on

[@modestogonzalez182]

I find myself extremely lucky to be alive in this time. Through technology I am able to watch two men that i greatly respect in a civilized debate even after sadly one of them has passed. I am a Christian and I love the Lord my God but the brilliance of Mr Hitchens cannot be overlooked. In my opinion though Dr Craig is on a level that is difficult to attain. Mr Hitchens was at the very least elated to debate Dr Craig going by his facial and vocal expressions. As usual though, reading some of the comments by atheists reinforces my theory that most atheists do not just merely deny God's existence but are offended by the very idea.

[@markcostello5120]

Low Bar Bill? Ok.. I don't rate him very highly and I don't think too many actual philosophers rate him either. Not offended at all by the idea of a god (still waiting for some actual proof) it's more to do with the religious always banging on about how we'll pay when we're dead or some other religious demand on how we think/act. 1 WLC; There's no good argument that Atheism is true". It's NOT a truth claim. Most of the time it's NOT a claim it's usually just the rejection of the claim "There is a God". No philosophy involved.. 2 WLC; "There are good arguments that Theism is true". If there was EVIDENCE then no argument is needed..

[@freddiegrigson4463]

Hitchens - 44.58, argument over. Back to that drawing board for WLC.

[@josephno1347]

the idea of god is very dismissive

[@Imbettadenu]

At least we have a reason to be offended To be a Christian means you think all the suffering such as starvation and torture and poverty are all justified and not just justified but justified by a being who has the power to halt all suffering with a single thought

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

@josep And yet you took the time yo watch a 2.5 hour video and leave this comment. Whatever you say, mate

[@adelehorn2055]

The only miracle to be found is Hitch not rolling his eyes every 30 seconds

[@AbsurdityViewer]

God cured Hitch of dystonia right there on the stage??!! How did I miss that? Praise God!!

[@Lost_Delos]

​@AbsurdityViewer This is joke comment right?😂😂😂

[@jodeost3924]

The absolute best part is at 2:18:45, a 3 second snapshot of Hitchens non-verbal communication while Craig is is rambling on about Jesus suffering on the cross to 'explain' why the problem of evil is not a valid argument against theism is priceless.

[@simeonsamuel8495]

NOT One sentence orterd by Craig is in the realm of reason or reasonable reality.

[@matthewstokes1608]

... Is that supposed to be in English?

[@grahamrogers3345]

What a ridiculous thing to say

[@littleherms3285]

​@@grahamrogers3345 not any more ridiculous than practically everything Craig said.

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@littleherms3285 The entire universe and all life and matter coming into existence from nothing, by chance, is ridiculous.

[@littleherms3285]

@@matthewstokes1608 nobody but religious zealots claim this. Absolutely NOBODY in the science world actually believes that everything came from nothing.

[@happydigging]

"I am not going to straw man atheism!" "I will now instantly straw man atheism, and scientific rigour!"

[@citizenghosttown]

Exactly. Craig knows what he's doing. It's debate strategy --- he forces his opponent to spend half his time addressing the straw man issue.

[@faelheavymetal]

Not going to strawman atheism... By immediately starting shifting the burden of proof and misrepresenting science.

[@matthewturner915]

Right at the beginning of the debate is the biggest flaw. Craig states "There was an absolute time at which the universe began", asserting that therefore the universe is not "eternal". However, he also states that at the big bang "this is where time began". Eternal's definition is "for all time". If time began at the big bang, the universal has been eternal. It's just that Craig does not understand the idea that there can be nothing "before" the big bang, because time does not exist as a concept.

[@goncalobastos3808]

When the Universe appeared, time appeared along with the Universe. It cannot be said that the Universe is eternal, because eternal means timeless (something that is beyond time). Along with the creation of the Universe, the creation of time took place. As the Universe is not prior to time, one cannot speak of the eternity of the Universe. Furthermore, the fact that there is no "before" the Big Bang does not mean that the Big Bang does not have to have a cause, as causality is independent of temporal precedence. There must be a timeless cause for time itself, but this cause cannot be said to have appeared "before" time (one can only speak of "before" in the figurative sense of "from all eternity").

[@goncalobastos3808]

Eternal's definition is not "for all time", but "beyond time".

[@matthewturner915]

@@goncalobastos3808 also, casualty is not independent of temporal precedents? There doesn't have to be a cause for time, nor of the big bang. Dr Krause established this well on his book "something from nothing".

[@goncalobastos3808]

@@matthewturner915 Lawrence Krauss' argument is extremely poor. Yes, there has to be a cause of the Big Bang (which is the same cause of time). Everything contingent requires causality. Krauss doesn't master philosophy at all. He is the type of atheist who, when trying to refute the First Way of Thomas Aquinas, confuses movement (passage from potency to act) with locomotion.

[@goncalobastos3808]

@@matthewturner915 Krauss also confuses "nothing" with a vacuum. What he says is that it would be possible for something to emerge from quantum nothingness. Now, it turns out that the quantum nothing is not "nothing". Nothing is the absence of being, while the quantum nothing is a set of particles that act according to the laws of thermidamics. The quantum nothing also needs a cause (because it is not "nothing" in the proper sense of the word). If the Universe could be produced out of nothing (from the absence of being), we would see universes appearing before us infinite times per second, everywhere (since "nothing is everywhere", or rather, it is nowhere).

[@Joe7_OSRS]

37:00 "random mutation" is not a sufficient argument against the existence of a creator. Since science still cannot replicate non-organic life into life through abiogenesis (origin of life) then the phrase "random mutation" is arguing for the gaps of time (a similar fallacy using the gap of the gods argument). If a scientific explanation is not repeatable to be observed than it is not scientific, and therefore cannot be used as a scientific explanation for how humanity came to be.

[@JamesSmith-cm7sg]

"Faith" isn't exactly a great argument for the existence of a creator either.

[@Joe7_OSRS]

@@JamesSmith-cm7sg I never once used the word faith in my comment

[@meraldlag4336]

Science is not looking for evidence against a creator. It happens that a lot of discoveries show that a creator is less and less needed.

[@Joe7_OSRS]

@@meraldlag4336 What evidence is showing that a creator is less needed through science? Both coexist.

[@Joe7_OSRS]

@@JamesSmith-cm7sg Chemistry has been unable to create life from inorganic matter even though we have examples of it everywhere existing. Abiogenesis being started by a creator doesn’t contradict evolution, it just poses a better explanation than “random mutation." If you want a scientific explanation of this, I suggest you watch "James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained - Science Uprising Expert Interview" uploaded by Discovery Science.

[@vakninshy]

You have to respect WLC. he keeps coming with bad arguments, and it doesn't seem to be an issue for him. Either he is full of real strong faith, or he is a master grifter.

[@montgomeryburns9979]

WLC doesn't believe in God anymore than Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins does, but he lets on he believes in God because it's worth too much money to him.

[@montgomeryburns9979]

WLC doesn't believe in God anymore than Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins does, but he lets on he believes in God because it's worth too much money to him.

[@samcero]

During debates, WLC avoids the bible like the plague.

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

His scientific babble is annoying

[@kurooaisu]

It's understandable, actually. Because if he doesn't avoid Bible it will be easier for Hitchens to make counter argument.

[@Hackerhaxkerhacker]

La evita por que el debate no es sobre la biblia, es sobre la existencia de Dios, genio.

[@jirskyrjenkins1959]

@joeturner9219 No, because he does exactly what Hitchens accuses, that he attempts to retroactively squash and contort all new discoveries into his pre-existing belief system. Religion originally made very vast claims about the universe that were ignorant of what is now considered common knowledge - ignorance of germ theory, cosmology, plate tectonics, evolution etc. For example the religious were adamant that the Earth was the centre of the universe, until they were compelled to accept that it is not. And since science continues to make significant discoveries about the true nature of the universe, people like Dr Craig have the reductive argument: "see, that's even more evidence for how wonderful our god is". Dr Craig makes similar attempts in this debate to co-opt scientific fact into his pre-existing belief system. For example he quotes Saint Augustine and claims that 6-day Creationism isn't necessary nor is the belief of a universe that's only a few thousand years old. So he claims you are free to disregarding a fundamental part of the Old Testament as merely a guideline or allegory. Creationism was Church doctrine for a very long time, until it was disproven, and now Christians like Dr Craig attempt to co-opt things that Christianity previously rejected. As Hitchen says in another debate, "they are getting nearer to the truth all the time".

[@kawibomber6098]

@joeturner9219no it’s because he can’t take refuge in science when his beliefs do not allow him to haha

[@RedBishopGaming]

I love how the first guy started by saying "we arent here to debate old testament ethics" then literally tries to use "no God, no objective morality" as an argument for Gods existance lol. Aside from the hypocrisy, that doesnt even remotely count as evidence of literally anything; so why even waste time talking about it. Christian apologists simply do not understand how logic works. Im not trying to be rude, its true. It goes without saying that Hitchens clearly "won" this debate. Although thats not even really fair because he was the only one actually debating the topic 😂

[@tristan8041]

Lol where does objective morality come from then? You claim the universe has no higher purpose. Therefore it has no higher moral value. Pretty simple. Atheists are subconsciously piggybacking off of religious dogmas. Then pretending they only care about cold hard science. Yea sure dude.

[@RealDianaGarcia]

Hi! I love that you as an atheist mentioned objective morality. Would you like to explain the basis for objective morality from an atheistic perspective? I would love to hear it

[@RedBishopGaming]

@@RealDianaGarcia I literally said nothing about it aside from the fact that he brought it up... There is no objective morality; certainly not as ordained by a God (or else religious people today should champion stoning women, slavery, rape, etc). Morality is derived from personal experience and your own feelings. Nothing more. That's why there are so many different systems of morals across the globe; past and present.

[@RealDianaGarcia]

@@RedBishopGaming ah, then I completely misunderstood, thanks for clearing it up. To us the existence of God is tied to objective morality, if you don’t believe in objective morality (as in your case) then that’s not a problem, but that is the reason he said no God, no objective morality. So if an atheist does believe in objective morality, he will have to explain where his foundation for that believe is, if there is no God. That’s why we think that atheist don’t know how to think logically, not trying to be rude, it’s just the truth.

[@hamizali7780]

I noticed that. But not just that, he started by saying we aren’t here to discuss Biblical inerrancy / provenance. Then goes on to make claims about resurrection which literally come exclusively from the NT.

[@DS-en4et]

But infinity is real? Black holes/singularity literally breaks our understanding and mathematics due to infinities

[@nipkin1]

You really do need faith to accept Craigs arguments, but is it reasonable?

[@tannermclaughlin5001]

No

[@KevinSmile]

You are today's reminder that people do not think. You're astounding.

[@MartinHindenes]

You need faith to dismiss his evidence confidently.

[@Spamcloud]

Objective morality is primitive and evil, which is why developed countries have complex, subjective legal systems that allow for flexibility in each case. We have moved on from one-size-fits-all moral codes, and we are better for it.

[@DylanDin-it1ed]

Evil to you 😅

[@bc5228]

​​@@DylanDin-it1ed I think that helps further the point

[@Questioning_God]

Can you explain to me how allowing for flexibility in these moral codes is of benefit to a society? You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (lie), You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

[@graham2014]

@@Questioning_GodAs pointed out by Hitchens and many atheists, the last one (coveting) is akin to a thought crime… Personally I try to avoid hold such Orwellian beliefs.

[@Spamcloud]

@@Questioning_God In 2023, we understand that accidentally hitting someone with your car on a bad day is not the same as premeditated murder; cheating on an abusive spouse is not the same as abandoning a loving family; stealing a can of tuna from Walmart is not the same as stealing someone's Social Security check; lying to avoid direct harm to yourself or your family is not the same as lying that causes direct harm to someone; and that coveting your neighbor's ass is the basis of capitalism. Every trial in the United States considers these cases individually and subjectively. Judges and jurors interpret the contexts of each case, and decide, on an on-going basis, whether the actions of each case rise beyond the level that society will allow. Our system is fluid and subjective, and while far from perfect, it works better than the all-or-nothing prescriptive morality of the Bible.

[@jeremywilliams5311]

The very fact that we're able to debate whether God exists without coming up with a definitive answer is already a black eye for people who say he does. They have the burden of proof, and they cannot produce it.

[@LGpi314]

god is a 1st place champion of playing hide-and-seek and it does not even come to inauguration.

[@ngmui430]

@@LGpi314 any god who hides during a genocide isnt worth worshiping

[@LGpi314]

@@ngmui430 I think that god created or ordered those genocides.

[@carloduroni5629]

Christian doctrine says that God is both "almighty" and "good", by definition. Now, we have four options: 1 - God IS both "almighty" and "good" (as per doctrine); 2 - God is "almighty" but NOT "good"; 3- God is "good" but NOT "almighty"; 4 - God is NEITHER "almighty" NOR "good". Case 1: Then WHY is God allowing Evil? There's a contradiction, thus the Christian God is NOT true. Case 2: Then God is basically evil, thus he/she's NOT the Christian God. Case 3: Then God is unable to thwart Evil, thus he/she's not the Christian God. Case 4: Neither good nor almighty? Then what are you supposed to worship? To sum it up: IF God exists, then either he/she's NOT the Christian God, or he/she's not a God worth worshipping.

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

If there is no God then there is no absolute standard for morality thus you are in no position to say something is "evil". Ironically your argument for God's non-existence has substance only if you first acknowledge his existence lmao

[@azmainfaiak8111]

​@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313Christian God never said slavery is Evil....but we believe it is....why is that? How can the absolute morality provided by GOD suggest it??

[@thehumblepotatoreborn9313]

@@azmainfaiak8111 Timothy 1:10

[@rossb6204]

why does Craig keep dismissing all of facts that Cristopher has given him and repeated over and over. It's like talking to a wall.

[@cirilloucazzu4457]

That’s what one does when one has no credible response

[@HisMajesty99]

This country isn’t open to debates like this anymore, unfortunately. We should return to this sort of culture of debate, or we will cease to be a peaceful, rational society.

[@carlmarks7448]

We’ve already ceased “to be a peaceful, rational society.” Your profile picture is proof of that, assuming it’s unironic.

[@davidowens5898]

That ended with ronald reagan and newt gingrich. RWNJ's play by different rules now. Rules for thee...none for me.

[@nofairytales5604]

I think we ceased to be a peaceful, rational society the moment Donald Trump took the stage.

[@jelcoleys8087]

Debates like this happen all the time. Stop getting all your information from KZbin.

[@SohelBahjat]

The awesome Hitchens

[@joemildner5667]

Awful.

[@Lost_Delos]

​@@joemildner5667Fragile much?

[@MikeRomulus]

While I can see how many finds this debate interesting, and it certainly is - many of the arguments presented by Dr. Craig, are really best left to cosmologist, physicists and astro-physicist to debunk, rather than a journalist, I'm sorry to say. A simple example is the one of the fine tuning argument, followed by Dr. Craig mentioning Entropy, which, by its very definition is not finely tuned, as it deals with the randomness of the universe, not a constant or a specified force.