William Lane Craig vs Michael Payton | "Does God Exist?" | The Michael Coren Show
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 04. 2012
- William Lane Craig is a guest with Michael Payton on The Michael Coren Show. The Michael Coren Show, Canada -- January 29, 2009
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums
www.reasonablefaith.org
Craig makes me laugh so much. The way he states things so logically and yet rarely annoyingly
11 years later, still such a classic.
“GIVE ME AN ARGUMENT” is what I have asked atheists my whole life, but I never heard one
It's on you to prove god's existence.
@@opywop18 Saying that is like saying "disprove God's existence". It cannot be done, but arguments for why that cannot be the case reasonably is one that both theists and atheists need to participate in to defend their assumed positions. You cannot solve a problem by saying, "No, you."
07:10 - 08:18 WLC; "God wants to create a world of free creatures who can become responsible moral agents and mature persons and that will require a world that operates according to certain natural laws where the fire that warms you can also burn you - *A world suffused with natural and moral evil would be the correlative of that*"
Well if that was true why then did God need to drown the world and remove the evil from the world?
08:25 That look on his face, he looks like he realizes he painted himself into the corner and is hoping Payton doesn't respond with "Why then did God destroy evil in the world with the flood?" 🤣😂
Why didn't you Christians notice this *gaping hole* in Low Bar Bill's argument?
@@cody2901 Demanding atheists to disprove God is like asking someone to prove unicorns don't exist. It's a logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies squarely with those asserting a deity's existence. Atheism isn't a claim; it's the default position in the absence of credible evidence. Theists need to bring more to the table than just shifting the burden of proof. It's not about saying "No, you" - it's about adhering to the fundamental principles of rational thought and evidence-based argumentation. LOGIC 101
@@opywop18 You are obviously not well educated in philosophy. Pitiful.
I'm Christian but the host was hardly bias....he debate the atheist more than Bill did.....guy was in a 2 v 1 .....host shoulda backed off a Lil
Craig just beat the hell out of this younger Michael guy. lmao
William LAME Craig is a better debater, but he is wrong.
@@opywop18 why is Dr. Craig wrong? Please give your defense of what he was wrong about.
@@cody2901Because it is highly unlikely that there is a god (although of course I can't be 100 percent sure).
@@user-qd2hl9lu3h "Highly unlikely"? Thats your opinion. Wheres your argument or evidence?
Highly unlikely because..............
Awful panelist, evidently bias. Craig did not need such help.
*"Awful panelist"*
Are you referring to the host or the moderator Michael Coren or one of the debaters?
Im south african .and a born again Christian .the younger man is trying to say i only belive in Jesus because im undeucated.wowbelieving in Jesus who is god is not the same as believing in faries because jesus is a real person the question is not about fairies or santa but to you believe in who jesus is and what he did fof us by dying for our sins .
The question isn't whether or not Jesus was real, its whether or not he was divine. I think even Bill craig, who i very much like and respect, would accept that there is very little hard evidence to support that, outside of arguments of inference etc.
Ooga booga jewish guy was god😂
@@oioi9372Jewish guy IS God. God being Jesus, God being a man, this upsets something inside you. Look at it and ponder it; you'll see.
@@oscarotter790 naah, what upsets me is the level of stupidity you guys are projecting without having a single clue on what you talk about. You're worshiping some freaking guy who died 2000 years because he was an narcissitic and arogant lunatic, and by doing that, you're betraying every potential intelligence remaining in your head. You are actually so stupid that you believe in literature which is written by greek people who've had nothing to do with actual events that are at stake. Not only that, but there is no original manuscripts at all, but 5th hand copies of copies of copies, with all internal contradictions and inconsistencies. And even if we would give you credit that idealized version was true, you would still be worshiping devil and not god, since Christian God is the devil; a selective piece of trash tyrant who has not better things to do than deceiving, killing, and slandering poor mortals. People like you make me sick.
The issue isn’t whether God exists or not. The issue is that Craig’s arguments don’t hold water.
William Lane Craig vs Reddit 😂
34:17 Williams quick wit in action LOL
“Of course evolved systems had to come about to this system, otherwise we wouldn’t be sitting here.”
How so? As far as I understand evolution is quite literally not only a theory, but even if it were true, it’s merely a description of a process or a progression. “It” doesn’t know anything. How would this first life form “know” or “understand” anything in regards to knowing what the benefit of why it should or should not evolve this way or that way? How would it know anything? Even deeper than that, how would one explain consciousness through the process of evolution? How would this life form know or be aware of anything? Even deeper than that, how did this life form come to being? What caused the Big Bang?
Evolution isn't a creature's conscious choice; it's a natural, automatic process driven by genetic variation and environmental factors. Suggesting that a life form needs to 'understand' evolution to evolve is a blatant misinterpretation of the science. Consciousness likely evolved due to increasing brain complexity, not because organisms decided they needed to be aware.
Regarding the origin of life and the Big Bang, science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that's no reason to dismiss everything we do understand. Leaping from "we don't know everything" to "it must be divine intervention" is not logical-it's a cop-out. Evolution is a robust scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence, not a guesswork we can discard because of unanswered questions. Your argument is a classic example of misunderstanding and misrepresenting scientific principles.
Once again Craig has to sit through an atheist that fumbles around avoiding direct debate.
Because it is impossible to debate an idiot
Ok, I am an Atheist. Provide me with a DIRECT question and I won't 'fumble around'. Until then, you'll be the only one avoiding anything...
I read Lord of the Rings over and over again, but I never found Tolkien anywhere in the story. Therefore, the story wasn’t written, and Tolkien does not exist.
Why not just say I don't see him do you?
Why did the host try to imply the atheist was racist? I didn't like that, that was a complete misrepresentation of what he was getting at.
I wonder what happened to the kid.. Hes very smart kid in this old video. He was very polite and handled himself very well and pre mainstream internet days. I also think he may be a homosexual?
Yes , he certainly is a smart intelligent young man and what if he is gay ! Big deal !
@user-pr8cw7zx1t lol he giving of that vibe and I'm noticing many in the atheist community are homosexual. Maybe its because they dont like the idea of there being a God in opposition of that lifestyle? 🤔
does God exist...no
Two against 1, not fair. Miss characterization, not fair. Accusations of racism, not fair. These religious folks run this emotional stuff hard to win a debate.😂
What is fair?
@emusiqs5253
*"Two against 1, not fair."*
Are you kidding? I'd have loved to put a muzzle on the moderator or the host (Michael Coren) at times.
He totally jumped in and effectively rescued Payton at 20:15.
Craig said,
"If Michael wants to say that God and evil in the world are logically incompatible with each other he needs to give us an argument to show that that's the case."
Payton began to sputter and then Coren jumped in and took the conversation in a different direction.
38:47 38:47
Forgive you for sounding smug?! You sound smug precisely because you are! Michael Payton would not have to steal my wallet for me to want to punch him in the face, he would have to merely present his smarmy mug.
(34:44)
After watching dozens of hours of Dr. Craig teaching me about theology and philosophy, I can safely say that this "atheist" is spitting some philosophical nonsense. Apart from the fact that he used the "A-word" (anthropic principle) as a scientist, which isn't really elegant, is it? Thank you William Lane Craig for the work you've been doing for so many years that has changed many lives, including mine. Maybe my words will reach you. 🙂✝️
Every human knows that a creator and designer of the universe exists. The fairy analogy presented here is silly. Also, observational science points to a young earth and universe.
Science does not point to a young earth 😂😂radiometric dating says it's 4.5 billion years old MINIMUM but go ahead and believe in your delusion 😂
@@brilliant13675 Right... Apparently, you're not interested in the evidence that shows that radiometric dating is highly inconsistent. Or that scientists throw out the results that contradict their old-ages belief.
@@terminat1 lmao. The oldest life on earth has been dated to be 3,6 billion years old. We even have recorded civilizations that are older than 6,000 years.. And nope, young earth creationism just isn't scientfic.
@@neutral269 Age cannot be directly measured. The billion-year figure you provide is based on guesswork and subjective interpretation. The 6000-year figure is similarly wrong.
Observational science points to a young earth and universe.
@@terminat1care to back up your assertions with some citations? Also, who are these scientists who are throwing out data that go against what they currently believe to be the age of the earth? Do you have the data you speak of?
How do things look like they came about by chance? Everything in nature comes from something else so why shouldn’t the universe with intelligent life in it come from an intelligent higher being? When ppl see a great building they assume an architect designed it and that a crew of workers built it but how did the raw materials they used to build it come about? We know that glaciers formed great mountains and valleys but where did the water that froze to form the glaciers come from? The evolutionary process doesn’t make sense apart from a higher being superintending it. Random chance mutations even over billions of years doesn’t seem to make sense as being the source of all of the complex life forms we see. It takes just as much faith to believe that it was all just random chance mutations over billions of years that created all of the complex life forms as it does to believe that an intelligent higher being designed the complex life forms and superintended the evolutionary process. Without an absolute moral standard of goodness what does it even mean to be good? In Hitler’s opinion and in the opinion of most ppl in Nazi Germany he was good so goodness becomes a meaningless relative thing that’s based on subjective differing human opinions. Without an absolute moral judge of the universe then justice becomes a joke because ppl who do great evil in this life yet are never punished but instead live lives of ease and comfort and die peacefully in their sleep never face any ultimate justice and never receive punishment for their great evil and ppl who suffer at their hands and live difficult lives full of distress and who die slow and painful deaths never having done great evil receive no justice for their suffering nor reward for their good lives
This comment is riddled with fallacies and misunderstandings about science and morality. Firstly, evolution is not about things coming about by 'random chance' but through natural selection, a non-random process. The complexity of life is not evidence of a designer; it's the result of billions of years of evolutionary processes, well-documented and understood by science.
Your analogy of buildings and architects fails because it conflates human-made objects with natural phenomena. Nature isn't a construction project; it operates on different principles entirely. The origin of water, glaciers, and mountains can be explained through natural processes studied and understood in fields like geology and hydrology.
The leap from evolutionary processes to the need for a higher being 'superintending' it is a giant assumption without evidence. It’s a classic argument from incredulity - “I can’t understand how this could happen naturally, therefore it must be supernatural.”
Regarding morality, suggesting that without a divine moral standard, concepts of good and evil are meaningless, is a narrow view. Morality is a complex social and philosophical construct that doesn't require divine dictation to be valid or meaningful. Many philosophical frameworks provide robust bases for morality without invoking a deity.
Also, equating belief in evolution with faith is a false equivalence. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence; faith is belief without evidence. They are fundamentally different concepts.
Lastly, the issue of justice in the world is complex and isn’t solved by invoking a divine judge. It’s a human issue that requires human solutions, not a theological one. Your argument mixes up different domains - science, morality, justice - and tries to find a one-size-fits-all divine answer, which is not how rational inquiry or moral philosophy works.
You’re not giving me any proof of everything happening naturalistically but you’re just making a dogmatic assertion just like religion does. For one thing the whole principle of natural selection would have had to come about by random chance if there is no ultimate intelligent designer who set it up and who is behind it and guiding it but principles require a rational principled intelligence to design them and to set them up. You ascribe to nature G-dlike powers which leads to nature worship as pagan religion does. Natural selection works as a principle based system of weeding out the weak in favor of the strong even though it doesn’t weed out all of the weak nor do all of the strong survive either. Random chance mutations are the common view for how variations developed though but since usually mutations are harmful how does that work? That problem is why Stephen Jay Gould proposed the punctuated equilibrium theory of how evolutionary variants occurred as a thing that happened quickly which is more how I see it happening. The question is how did those new variants happen and even new species develop from it without a higher intelligence guiding it? The whole concept of a spontaneous big bang that happened without an intelligent first cause is a chance thing by definition and it makes no sense. You yourself said (and I paraphrase) ‘’natural occurrences aren’t the same as human designed things’’ which means that you believe by faith that natural things if given billions of years will somehow come about with great complexity (like the human eye) on their own. There is no definitive proof of the Big Bang happening spontaneously and that natural selection can happen on it’s own over billions of years without a higher intelligence guiding it just like there is no definitive proof of a creator either but If you tried saying in a court of law that a damning piece of circumstantial material evidence against your client just spontaneously happened to be at the crime scene on it’s own after billions of years and that it wasn’t either left by the defendant or planted there by someone trying to frame him you would be laughed out of the courtroom. By the same extension trying to say that the Big Bang just spontaneously happened on its own is just as preposterous and is a statement of faith and not fact. Morality systems are all relative without an absolute moral law giver giving us an absolute moral law code (as we Jews believe G-d gave us when he gave us his Torah at Sinai) and you failed to prove otherwise so even though different societies developed different law codes it has primarily been the influence of Torah (since Christianity included Torah into it’s scripture canon and then spread Torah values around the world) that has influenced many cultural law codes and got rid of practices like human sacrifice and honor killings. In Torah we see the first basis for human equality when it says that we all both male and female are made in the image and likeness of G-d and thus have equal dignity and worth and value. Prior to the Judeo Christian influence many cultures had barbaric systems which they came up with on their own so yes different societies will come up with their own standards but often they contradict one another so without an absolute moral standard given by an absolute moral law giver whose moral code is right? Justice is still a joke without an ultimate moral reckoning before the judge of the universe because plenty of ppl die without ever getting what’s justly owed to them both for the good and the bad. Everything in the universe by definition is contingent on something else to exist so thus logically there must be an ultimate non contingent source for all of those contingent things and that non contingent source would be the uncaused first cause of the Big Bang who because that first cause is not an effect that first cause doesn’t need a cause. Even the multiverse theory ultimately needs a first cause for the multiverse to exist. How did life come from non life? How did consciousness come from non consciousness? How did intelligence come from non intelligence? It all had to come from a higher intelligent living conscious source because life begets life and consciousness begets consciousness and intelligence begets intelligence
Your argument is a classic mishmash of scientific misconceptions and theological assertions, desperately trying to shoehorn a divine entity into gaps in our understanding. Let's break down the numerous flaws:
Natural Selection Misunderstood: To claim natural selection is random is to fundamentally misunderstand it. It's a process where advantageous traits are naturally selected, not randomly chosen.
Nature Worship Fallacy: Acknowledging the power of natural processes is far from nature worship. It's recognizing the evidence-backed mechanisms observed in nature, not attributing them to divine will or pagan beliefs.
The Lawgiver Fallacy: The assertion that natural laws need an intelligent creator is baseless. Natural laws are observations of consistent patterns in nature, not commands set by a divine entity.
Misconceptions About Evolution: Your grasp of mutations and punctuated equilibrium is flawed. Evolution isn't a neat, guided process; it's messy, with many mutations being harmful but some leading to significant changes over time.
Big Bang and Divine Cause: Invoking God as the cause for the Big Bang is a classic argument from ignorance. "We don't know, therefore God" is not a logical conclusion but a stopgap for our current understanding.
Complexity Doesn't Imply Design: Comparing biological complexity to crime scene evidence is ludicrous. Biological complexity can arise without a designer, as evidenced by natural biological systems.
Moral Relativism and Divine Law: Arguing that morality is meaningless without divine command ignores centuries of philosophical thought on ethics and morality, which have developed independently of religious texts.
Justice Without Divine Reckoning: Suggesting that justice is meaningless without a divine judge is a bleak and dismissive view of human efforts towards establishing justice. Earthly justice, while imperfect, is our responsibility, not a divine being's.
First Cause Argument: The "first cause" argument falls flat because it begs the question of the creator's origin. Science seeks natural explanations for life’s origins, not supernatural ones.
Origin of Life and Consciousness: Claiming that life, consciousness, and intelligence can only come from a higher being is an assertion made without evidence. These are areas of ongoing scientific research, not closed cases solved by invoking a deity.
Your argument is riddled with logical fallacies, scientific inaccuracies, and a desperate need to insert a god into every unknown. It’s a textbook example of theological overreach, trying to claim dominion over domains well-explained by natural science and rational inquiry.@@Matzah1982
does God exist?...no