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

Much love brother

TYFYS

@@bm359 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

What debate?😈

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

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

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.

@@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.

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

Christopher did dodge a lot of questions

@@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.

@@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.

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

@@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.

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

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

@@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 UKposts🤣

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Totally agree w you !

Hes not a philosopher or a scientist. He's not even a journalist. He's a polemicist.

Christopher got his ash handed to him. His brother probably did the same for many years. Christopher never got over his mom committing suicide. Looks like he blamed himself for the rest of his life. Very sad indeed.

​@@aljay2955 hahaha what a loser. It's funny how people would rather lie to themselves than acknowledge truth

​@@aljay2955 I don't know if he blamed himself but it stuck with him for sure. As far as losing? 😂 It's an easy task to trounce these toolbags, he's just being more polite than he sometimes is.

Athiesm affirms God doesn't exists, Theism affirms God must exist. Both camps have the burden of proof, but only one accepts said burden and the other doesn't.

@@t.d6379 Theists claim God exists, i simply don't believe that, this is not a positive claim, don't you know the difference between yes and no, the burden of proof is always on those that make the claim. Atheism is a lack of belief not a belief.

@@nealgrimes4382 the universe spawned into existence with no cause is quite a big claim

@@NosyFella I made no such claim, i don't know what caused the Universe, the really big claim is that you do know what caused the Universe.

@@nealgrimes4382 I agree that you did not explicitly make that claim

And what's your conclusion?

@@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

Its kind of a cult isn’t it?

Depends how you stretch the definition

😭😭😭😭

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

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

Its because religion is not in power

@@tradingcompanion1056That’s a dumb comment , even by internet standards

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

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

@@tradingcompanion1056 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.

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.

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.

@@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.

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

@@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.

yes just listen to 27:00 he litteraly said atheist dont see any problem with rape

Yes. It's the presupposition position. With that position, they make God a brute fact that doesn't require explanation.

Yes. He has an ability to talk so much, while saying so little. Its just mindgames and thoughbending. He might have half an argument rarely, but mostly its just typically religious nonsense

he made absolutely no progress arguing the question. We don't fully understand the source or nature of the universe, therefore God? But he sounded smooth. His wife will have said he won.

He claims to not have presuppositions. But he does.

Your heart is not where you need to reconcile this.

@@tomrecane6366 my headheart?

You have that in common with the late Norm McDonald.

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

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!

@@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."

​@@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

@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!

A brilliant man would have offered proper philosophical refutations and premises to support atheism being more logically sound than theism. Hitchens failed in this regard.

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

@@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.

WlC lost this debate... Still you're congratulating 😂😂

Winning and losing are one organic globule from which we extract what we need. --White Men Can't Jump. You obviously have a lot staked upon a WLC win. By all means, claim away, friend.

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

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.

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”

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

I think you just grossly misrepresented his argument

You > *"No words"* You need exposure to more viewpoints. Even atheist ones. May I suggest, *ukposts.info/have/v-deo/np-ho298botyt4U.html*

You > "No words" You need exposure to more viewpoints. Even atheist ones. May I suggest a video from CosmicSkeptic titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens"

@@samdg1234 cosmicskeptic fanboy gets in a comments section to rant about christopher hitchens and how bad his opinions are

@@ale6o Your comment is almost indecipherable. *"cosmicskeptic fanboy gets in a comments section"* What comment section are you talking about? CosmicSkeptic made a video not a comment section. *"to rant about christopher hitchens and how bad his opinions are"* He is not ranting about his opinions. CosmicSkeptic and Hitchens share many of the same opinions about God. CosmicSkeptic is addressing the sophism used to deliver those opinions. Maybe you didn't listen to the video, or was it all over your head? Use google and look up the word sophism.

So funny in the regard that while Hitchens lived so much bad stuff happened here on this Earth🤣🤣🤣

@@tasiletoa1037 my money is on Kent, he just going 2 speed rap his entire speech & declare victory

I think they would fall instantly in love with each other and start frenching on stage -clasping each other’s butts frantically. By all that’s holy and unholy-please don’t let those two illogical men get together. There’s not enough KYjelly for that to occur.

Ouch!!

You guys are too thick to understand that's all

You forgot to mention John Lennox.

I agree

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

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

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

Así es la verdad.

😋👍

😂 Spot on

😂😂😂 hahahahahahahhaha

Lmfao😂

I saw Scott Bakula

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

@@mbrum3230 If not every day.😜

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.

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.

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

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

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

For Creation is _so_ perfect and God loves us _so_ much that he designed our bodies to require food to survive and He's going to feed _some_ people _some_ of the time! Blessed be Him. I'm pretty sure that the children that die of hunger every 10 seconds around the world would _really_ appreciate some of that manna that God gave the Israelites during their journey out of Egypt.

Jupiter soaks up the comets so they don't hit us. Watch the debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens.

​@@joeturner9219 So what it's not like that earth is the only planet. There are billions of galaxies which contain billions of planets. It is not a surprise that one of them happen to contain good conditions to support life

​@@joeturner9219 really ? Then why create those unnecessary comets in the first place that comes shooting towards earth ? At least he could have saved the task or purpose he gave to Jove 😅 Go on, give your next excuse.. Make it up!

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

​@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

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

@@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.

​@@jpgrygusu are a delusional lunatic

He did In reference to his resurrection argument Sadly this type of argument requires lengthy presentation And it doesn't matter whether you are a proponent of the minimal facts approach like Dr Craig Or the maximum data approach And yes the resurrection of Jesus may very well be the most credible miracle claim ever It's not a joke In fact, world-renowned atheist Antony Flew once said, “The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”

The topic was: "Does God exist?" not: "Does the Christian God exist?" Therefore, Craig doesn't need to "explain how his God is right while the other 10,000 are wrong." He just needs to explain how A God is right, not particularly the Christian one.

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

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

Because some people are unable of listening to counter arguments

@@izregistered It might also be because Craig spouts the same old, and quite frankly ridiculous Christian apologist arguments. It’s incredibly boring. Some of them are completely childlike in their presentation. Hard to listen to, and pretty embarrassing for the most part. At least when Hitchens speaks, there’s actually a good point being made, and is largely based on logic and reason rather than superstition, maybes and what ifs.

​@@izregistered 🥱What did you say? Aha, arguments. Some "arguments", not rooted in reality and factless,are tiring to hear over and over again. Craig lost me instantly when talking about "atheism", because it doesn't exist. But he,instead of making his case for god, cling to this ridiculous claim and attacks "atheism" with also ridiculous claims and not arguments. In philosophy,and a god believe is a matter of it and not of reality, you argue with fact based arguments, always. You can make hypothesis about nearly everything,even about the claim a god exists, but if you left the path of using reality you already have lost! And Craig uses hypothesis on self-made arguments, guessing and lying. It's not really worth listening to him. People like Kant and Schopenhauer did a much better job when looking into this "Does god exist?" thing and came to the conclusion that there's no evidence for that. Craig is neither smart enough, nor is he a philosoph to make his case for the allegedly existence of the particular Christian god. He's weak in his argumentation,makes things up to use it to prove himself right. Even for a tenth grader, or highschool student, he can't defend shit and got crashed with logic based on facts, grounded in reality. You certainly are of limited understandings when it comes to these things. Craig like you are fools. One makes a lot of money of his bs,the other can't think for hinself because heavily biased, gullible and guided by a worldview based on myths, not evidence presented by science. And btw., no, atheists doesn't have to prove a negative, because no one can! Make your case,if you can. Until now is true. No one ever was able to prove god, any god, exists!

@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl "Craig like you are fools" I was once as arrogant as you on this subject. Using observation, reason and logic I concluded that intelligent design is all around us. I didn't say "perfect" design, because certainly there are significant problems in some of what exists. I don't need to use the watchmaker analogy or any of the other common arguments for Deism. When all is said and done, we are really only left with our own intelligence to conclude one way or the other that a creator/god could exist. I say a creator must exist because the evidence of created things exists around me. When I watch maple seeds spin and fall to the ground away from the mother tree I know that there is not enough time to have allowed this one thing to mutate and form over billions of years. That the tree lacks the intelligence to design an aerodynamic delivery system for its seedlings with purposes that go beyond evolutionary possibilities. Really, I could care less what you believe or if you think I am a fool. I'll just invite you to go sit beneath a maple tree in late September or October and simply watch what happens around you.

@@izregistered “I believe in god because I’m not smart enough to understand natural processes on earth” - Sino Rich 2023

But I am sure he does not miss you.

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

Do you ?

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

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

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?

Similiar as any dead believer is not a believer any more.

He become nothing and we miss him.

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

😂 wow

How is he a machine when he cannot even comprehend the fact that Athiesm is not a belief system. Athiesm is not something to be proven or disproven. It is simply the belief that something is not true. The Santa Clause example is best: there is no word for the non belief in Saint Nick. Or the tooth fairy. Or the Easter bunny.

@@mockingbird195 ok, but why don't you believe in God? You have reasons to not believe in God, don't you? You have reasons and beliefs and assumptions and presuppositions about the world, don't you? All of which entail there is no God. In other words, a belief system; belief system without God. Not believing in God is not the same thing as not having any beliefs. Of course, you have beliefs. You're just being dishonest by not recognizing them. "Atheism is not something to be proven or disproven." Then why would anyone be an atheist if there are no good reasons for accepting it???

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.

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

Very Christian-like.

Lmao! The logical fallacies alone make my head hurt. I want to believe Craig and other theists are arguing with integrity, but their positions are disingenuous at best and potentially malicious at worst.

Where did they come from?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

what does that even mean

accurate

Nonsense. The chaos in the universe is an extremely small fraction compared to the universe as a whole. Are you denying the complexity and order of the universe? The only reason why we can do science is because there is structure in the universe. Otherwise we wouldn't even be able to do science in the first place.

Your God does not exist.

Also most importantly, The Romans were brutal, violent, manipulative liars bent on ruling the world and their religion was an attempt to control the dying empire. Jesus and his story is just that! Nothing more. An idea keeping time with the changing, evolving people and the control they seek of you.

@@kevs6402 that's right... 'your' god does not exist... 'my' god does not exist; however, God exists.

product of chance? who told you that? did you just make that up? if we are a product of chance, then, within that experience we have the ability to evolve beyond all mind creation... therefore if chance then evolution beyond mind creation... if you can avoid the lava men of course. we, the collective, are the One, individual, looking for ourselves. Shirley Maclaine called and she wants her theism back. oooommmmmm

If that's the case then both atheists and theists have the burden of proof. Only agnostics do not.

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. 🌎

@@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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@matthewstokes1608 Try learning some basic logic.

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

@@matthewstokes1608 English. Do you speak it?🤤

@@FourDeuce01 far better than you do, clearly

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.

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

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.

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

@@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?

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.

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

@@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.

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

​@@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??

@@azmainfaiak8111 Timothy 1:10

Exactly!!!

and WLC is truly a nut

Well, he was wrong about God lol

@@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

@@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

You couldn't be more right.

I don't think you give enough credit to Craig's argument. What he is saying is that the calculated probability of the sequence of events that must occur for intelligent life to exist at all are extraordinarily small. Because they are so small, that is sufficient statistical evidence to suggest that life was not due to random chance. This is a well-established process in statistics known as hypothesis test. You take the data of your sample, and you create a random model (a distribution based on its mean and standard deviation). IF the random model shows the phenomenon observed in the sampled data as being probable (usually with an alpha greater than 0.05) then you conclude that it is not unreasonable for the effect to have been the result of random chance. However, if the probability of a phenomena in a random model is less than alpha, then there is enough evidence to suggest that the phenomena observed was NOT due to random chance. This procedure is used in many fields of science, including vaccination efficacy studies. If we apply this same line of reasoning, and we find that the probability of intelligent life is too improbable in a random model, then we can conclude that it was not due to random chance. Then it follows that there is good reason to believe that the parameters of the universe that made life possible were not randomly set, but rather "fine-tuned." This does not necessarily mean that it was a God that did it, it could've been an effect that is not conscious, but it is a good compelling argument to doubt the randomness origin of our existence.

@devilmansanchez I understand the argument. I was brought up Christian for 27 years. The issue I take is mainly the fact that it is used to discount the other side's argument. I just find it frustrating when two sides come together for a debate, and one (or sometimes both, I also find fault in the way Hitchens argues) doesn't discuss the point in good faith, because, "its such a small chance of happening, therefore it can't happen." The odds of getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery are tiny, but it happens every year, hundreds of times in the case of lightning. And I think that even when the odds are infantesimal, given the scale of space/universe/nothingness/time, I think the odds argument is weak. That's all I get frustrated at. And I think Hitchens was frustrated at that too.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

That's all he ever does. He hopes the audience will self-brainwash like he does & forget everything his debate partner just said. Fat chance, dummy.

It’s incredible to me how you can make this conclusion having heard the full debate. WLC specifically was addressing “does God exist?”, and provided arguments in favor, which were hardly even addressed by Hitchens. Hitchens came to the debate talking about “why the Christian God is not one I think is moral”, and “why the Bible is not inerrant.” These are a different topic from the stated one “does God exist?” He did not provide any actual good arguments for atheism (to say, no, God does not exist), and failed to rebut WLC’s arguments in any substantive manner. It felt like he was on side tangents rather than tackling the meat of the topic. To his credit, he provided answers when pressed and was very cordial. I think he was sincere in his ideas, but he was severely underprepared to address the actual topic and the arguments

​@dskoogle ​ He did say that its a pointless thing to try to argue because of course you cant prove something does not exist. Its the same as trying to say that beacuse you cant prove that unicorns, fairies, santa claus therefore they exist. He said also repeatedly that to make extraordinary claims you need to present extraordinary evidence. The claim that beacuse the disciples thought that he had resurected is not enough evidence to suggest that therefore it is true as WLC kept coming back to. The same goes with the other arguments provided. Also, its a very common tactic in debate to try to put many opinions out there and say beacuse not all of them were argued therefore the other person conceded them as true. Which is what I think WLC was trying to do here. It also tries to leave no time for the other person to present any of their own opinions

Like what, for example?

His scientific babble is annoying

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

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

​@@arriuscalpurniuspisoWhy? Because you know it's true?

@@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".

Great quote. But you've got to get the wording right and fix the grammatical errors if you're going to quote Carl Sagan, man. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

@@chrysology Such ego.

Well, this charlatan might be either christian or atheist, it does not matter. The charlatan is a charlatan.

Hence MAGAts.

@@jelsner5077 I imagine people like you 100 years ago would have said “hence n***ers” You’re the type that thinks people that disagree with or are different than you are less human… That comes from secular humanism.

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".

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

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

@@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

@@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?

@@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

Oh i think Craig understands quite well, but he also knows that he doesn´t really have anything to present, so trying to shift the burden of proving on the side that simply rejects the undemonstrated claim that this or that god is real, is all he has left.

He invented a gap and then inserted his god there.

You can know Him, Jesus loves you.

@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?

​@@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)

@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.

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.

@@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.

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

@@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.

I miss him so much

God's allowance of free will.

@@zebo6162 which if God chose the universe to be the that way it is then got couldn't have chosen us to have free well we're literally just be doing what God already chose for us to do at the beginning of time

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

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

Here’s a physics question fo dat azz How did a 14 billion year old universe get 93 billion light years across is matter can’t move at the speed of light? Other questions that haunt atheism: How did life begin? How does consciousness happen? Atheism is for ydyots

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

@@patman142 you presume a non God explanation is possible without any supportive basis. That’s your problem. “Some day someone will prove how it’s possible for this suspension bridge to just appear without being intelligently designed and created” You’re going to die hoping and praying that some Poindexter will have a non God explanation for the existence, orderliness and size of the universe, life, and consciousness. Tell me your top 3 favorite sins as defined be the Holy Bible. Just the top three. Be the only atheist who’s ever *ever* directly answered that simple question. God is the best explanation for the existence size and orderliness of the universe, life, and consciousness. Best explanation.

@@chriscuomo9334 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?

@@chriscuomo9334 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

Craig is saying for the purposes of this debate all you need to argue is that people believed he cast out demons in the same way that people believed they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. Craig's point was if you don't believe Jesus actually rose from the dead, you would need to explain this widely and suddenly adopted belief that arose regardless. Funnily enough, Hitchens bringing this up is just an Ad Hominem attack on Craig; believing in demons wasn't important to anything in contention, but seemingly more of an attempt to portray Craig as some superstitious loon.

​@@zebo6162 Not really. For starters, that's not what Craig said. He said that it was a historical fact that Jesus exorcised demons. And no, it was absolutely not an ad hominem attack. Hitchen's was refuting Craig's argument that "God is the best explanation for the resurection of Jesus." The point (which he explained) is that if individuals are exorcising demons, that's evidence of, and just one more example of, supernaturalism or magic. So even if it's true that an executed man was resurrected from the dead, that's hardly an argument for the existence of a particular God.

Who _exactly_ believed this Jesus supposedly cast out demons?

@@Theo_Skeptomai William Lane Craig.

@@citizenghosttown I meant _during the time_ this Jesus supposedly lived.

//How anyone can still believe in a religion after hearing this man speak is baffling// Perhaps because they value truth over rhetoric. - RF Admin

A sociality excepted dogma can be beneficial to the continuous propergation of a species. As social creatures we thrive with a common goal. God or not. The unconscious will to exist will always find a way to survive.

Bingo!!!