The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 04. 2011
- The second annual God Debate features atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris and Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig as they debate the topic: "Is Good From God?" The debate was sponsored in large part by the Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters: The Henkels Lecturer Series, The Center for Philosophy of Religion and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
I searched for "anime documentary" and watched the first or second video (I don't remember), I fell asleep and this is what I woke up to
You could have done worse. This debate between a classic apologist and a “new” atheist was one of the first “God” debates I watched on the journey to striving to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible regarding a deity. Good luck should you try to delve in!
All you need to know is helsing ultimate
@@lunellkruger2981
AHHAHAA exactly the same here tho
I was listening to Jake the Asshole...I fell asleep and woke up to this!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!
People debating without labelling each other racist, nazis, bigots & getting canceled. The good old days
Laughs at the cancel cult in patreon cash clinking in the background
The good old days... Visit the stoneage with Bill Lame Fake ! Hoombah Hoombah ....
On the downside, all the Islamophobes got a blank check.
Ok that's a mediocre joke I know.
@@kaleb51 didn't stop Michael Eric Dyson
@islanti for good reason.
“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that they should value it?” “If someone doesn’t value logic, what logic argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” VERY well said and the root of the problem.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Theism: logical framework and concepts such as evidence completely and already exist due to them being created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good source. Therefore it does not matter if you don’t value them, they are true. Atheism: I personally think that its true.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 You are the epitome of a troll, pasting the same comment, with no reference to the subject of the comment, just delusional lies you believe, with no evidence to back them up.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 retard alert!!!
hail satan
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:17 🎙️ *Introduction and Recognition of Sponsors*
- Introduction to the God Debate event.
- Recognition of the sponsors and supporters from the Notre Dame community.
- Reading of a passage about the ongoing philosophical discussion.
03:03 🏛️ *Background of the Debate and Speaker Introductions*
- Background information on the Center for Philosophy of Religion and its goals.
- Introduction of the debaters, Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, and the moderator, Professor Mike Ray.
- Brief overview of each speaker's credentials and areas of expertise.
07:20 🕰️ *Debate Structure and Ground Rules*
- Explanation of the debate format, including speaking times for each debater.
- Guidelines for audience participation in the question and answer session.
- Strict enforcement of timekeeping and rules regarding applause and disruptive behavior.
08:01 🧠 *William Lane Craig's Opening Argument*
- Craig argues that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God's nature.
- Theism provides a foundation for moral values and obligations based on divine commandments.
- Critique of atheistic perspectives on morality and the value problem.
19:04 🤔 *Critique of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape*
- Craig challenges Sam Harris's attempt to ground morality in naturalistic terms.
- Criticism of Harris's redefinition of moral terms and semantic approach to the value problem.
- Examination of the implications of atheism on objective moral duties and moral responsibility.
25:23 📜 *The foundation of objective moral values and duties*
- Objective moral duties are seen as a social construct rather than an objective reality.
- Sam Harris's view posits that moral responsibility is determined by thoroughgoing determinism, leading to the absence of objective moral duties.
- William Lane Craig argues that without God, there is no sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
27:34 🧠 *The role of religion in shaping morality*
- Sam Harris critiques the notion that belief in God is necessary for an objective morality.
- He argues that morality can be understood in terms of human well-being, independent of religious frameworks.
- Harris highlights a double standard in moral judgment, contrasting reactions to religious practices with concerns about secular morality.
32:29 🔬 *Science and morality*
- Harris presents the concept of a "moral landscape" where morality is based on the well-being of conscious creatures.
- He argues that moral truths can be understood through scientific inquiry, as they depend on facts about human well-being.
- The discussion involves the intersection of science, philosophy, and ethics in understanding moral values.
46:30 🛡️ *Defending the foundation of objective moral values*
- William Lane Craig restates his contention that God provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
- He clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and semantics, focusing on the grounding of moral values rather than their linguistic meaning.
- Craig reaffirms the argument that without God, there is no adequate basis for objective moral values and duties.
48:06 📚 *Divine Command Theory and Objective Moral Values*
- Moral values are grounded in God ontologically.
- Moral duties are grounded by God's commandments, reflecting his nature.
- Divine Command Theory is defended against objections, emphasizing its independence from specific religious texts.
49:41 🧠 *Objective Moral Values in Atheism*
- Without God, there's no explanation for the existence of objective moral values.
- Atheism fails to provide a basis for identifying the flourishing of conscious creatures as objectively good.
- Dr. Harris's assertion that the property of being good is identical to creaturely flourishing lacks a defense.
55:19 ⚖️ *Absence of Moral Duties in Atheism*
- Atheism lacks a basis for moral duties or obligations.
- Moral obligations arise from imperatives of a competent authority, which is absent in atheism.
- Without freedom of the will, there is no moral responsibility, rendering moral duties impossible in atheistic frameworks.
58:50 🕊️ *Critique of Theistic Moral Framework*
- Criticism of the theistic moral framework's implications, particularly related to the concept of hell.
- The argument questions the morality of a God who allows immense suffering, especially among innocent children.
- The debate addresses the moral implications of religious doctrines, particularly regarding salvation and damnation.
01:11:11 📜 *Refutation of Red Herrings*
- Objective moral values exist because God's essence is good.
- The problem of evil and other objections are red herrings distracting from the debate.
- Evil actually proves the existence of God as it necessitates objective moral values.
01:17:44 🧠 *Scientific Objectivity and Moral Grounding*
- Science relies on axiomatic assumptions, including moral axioms.
- Objective moral values can be grounded in well-being without the need for God.
- Human experiences, including profound ones, are accessible without resorting to religious claims.
01:25:57 🔍 *Summary and Concluding Arguments*
- God provides a foundation for objective moral values and duties due to his inherent goodness.
- Atheism lacks a coherent basis for objective moral values and duties.
- The debate extends beyond Christianity, as similar arguments could be applied to other religions like Islam.
01:33:20 📜 *Critique of Christian scripture and morality*
- Sam Harris critiques the Christian scriptures, highlighting the narrow worldview and moral inconsistencies of its authors.
- The authors of the Bible had limited access to scientific information and moral perspectives, making their worldview incompatible with modern understanding.
- Harris argues against the notion that biblical teachings provide timeless moral guidance, advocating for a morality based on contemporary knowledge and inquiry.
01:35:03 🌍 *Building a global civilization based on secular morality*
- Harris emphasizes the need for a global civilization grounded in secular morality.
- He challenges sectarian moral denominations and advocates for honest inquiry as the tool for moral progress.
- The goal is to create a world where thegreatest number of people can live fulfilling lives, free from the constraints of religious dogma.
01:37:41 🤔 *Exploring the grounding of morality and the problem of evil*
- Harris discusses the grounding of morality and the problem of evil in the context of religious belief.
- He argues that objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require a religious foundation.
- Harris questions the necessity of religion for moral grounding and highlights the role of subjective well-being in moral considerations.
01:42:23 🌐 *Understanding moral ontology and epistemology*
- William Lane Craig clarifies the distinction between moral ontology and epistemology.
- He asserts that while moral growth and development occur over time, the foundation of objective moral values and duties remains unchanged.
- Craig defends the necessity of God as the source of objective morality, arguing against naturalistic explanations for moral values.
01:54:03 🌍 *Morality and Interconnectedness*
- Morality is rooted in our intuitions about the sanctity of human life, trust, and community.
- Killing everyone would eradicate suffering but also nullify all possibilities of happiness and experience.
- Our happiness is interconnected with the happiness of others, and we are not separate individuals but part of a community.
01:55:38 🕊️ *Perspectives on Different Religions*
- Dr. Craig discusses reasons for believing in Christianity over Islam based on historical evidence.
- There are points of commonality between Christianity and Islam, but fundamental differences exist, particularly regarding Jesus.
- Dr. Harris poses challenges to Christianity but returns to the debate topic on the objectivity of morality.
01:57:15 🤔 *The Basis of Objective Morality*
- Dr. Harris argues for objective morality based on the recognition of suffering and movement towards the sublime.
- Objective paradigms, including morality, require axiomatic judgments that are not self-justifying.
- The spectrum of human experience informs the understanding of what is morally preferable.
02:00:14 🔄 *Is Statements vs. Ought Statements*
- The distinction between "is" statements and "ought" statements is crucial for understanding moral obligations.
- Dr. Harris challenges the notion that morality stems solely from the commands of a competent authority.
- He raises concerns about divine command theory, linking it to psychopathy and moral relativism.
02:03:48 🤝 *Consensus and Moral Values*
- Dr. Craig discusses the relevance of consensus in moral debates, distinguishing it from doctrinal issues.
- Disagreements about moral perceptions are viewed as epistemological rather than ontological.
- He argues for a transcendent basis for moral values rooted in a being of goodness beyond human nature and cultural shifts.
Made with HARPA AI
This short earthly life is a school and exam for our immortal soul, for those who did not listen by the Creator to understand the value of "light" without experiencing the "darkness".
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see the *free* choices/deeds to reward accordingly. *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
This should be pinned.
damn. good man
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Cutting and pasting the same delusion multiple times is just trolling and highlighting your desperate need for medication bud! Still, at least you are liking your own comments too. No one else would!
Sam harris continually used the words such as terrain, bedrock, landscape so my conclusion to this debate is that he is a minecraft veteran.
He knows that earth is not a globe ;-)
@@j.sch.7542 Zzzzzzzzzz
HERE is The ORIGINAL Semitic Text. HERE is The Creator and “Man’s” ONLY SAVIOR
YaH The Heavenly FATHER was Who they Crucified for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Semitic Scroll:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
What?
@@j.sch.7542
He might be awake on the issue, yet untill asked we can hope so he IS AWAKE and DOES realize the LIES the NASA has told in the last 70 or so years.
LOL, A globe ball spinning @ 1050 MPH , LOL LOL LOL, Thats what they tell is earth is doing LOL.
Funny, I work in HIGH Tech . Absolutely NO way possible can the earth below our tools vibrate like this and rotate .
It would throw OFF our bullseye on the lasers on the wafers 0.005 Nano-meter alignments, easily.
LOL, ya, if we were spinning go tell that LIE to the glass smooth lakes around the world. That they are SPINNING in a centrifugal SLING at 1050MPH, LOL LOL LOL.
Thats pretty funny, Ya your ears could sense a 1/2MPH rotation but no a 1050 One?
LOL LOL LOL.
Ok , keep believing nasa’s LIES allin Gergioa, , keep believing them.
So tell us Allan, How does the moon emit COLD Light from reflcting sun light, or maybe it doesnt1
Moon light emits blur-green COLD 400nm spectrum. Fact measure a 2x4x8’ Long, half in the moon light half in the shade out of the moon. LOL, It measures 10-12 degree WARMER in the shade from COLD moon light, The SAME light YOU claim Is reflected like the Warmer yellow-red-orange spectrums but DOESN'T!!
LOL LOL LOL.
.
WHY, Because the moon emits its OWN LIGHT!!
Not the suns Red-yellow spectrum light.
Anyway, try to get an EDU past a 12 yr old before commenting w Adults on YT.
Timestamps:
opening speech (20 min)
7:53 [William Lane Craig]
27:42 [Sam Harris]
rebuttal (12 min)
46:36 [William Lane Craig]
58:38 [Sam Harris]
rebuttal no. 2 (8 min)
1:10:26 [William Lane Craig]
1:17:48 [Sam Harris]
closing speech (5 min)
1:25:58 [William Lane Craig]
1:31:10 [Sam Harris]
questions
1:37:11
Thank you so much
The real mvp
Grazie
Appreciate
Not all hero’s wear capes
"When something good happens, then God is good but when some agony happens then God is mysterious" Pure sensible statement by Harris
Very simple to explain in a few sentences: When something good happens it's God because he originally only created a perfect world & perfect human life w/no suffering until Adam & Eve sinned & ruined not only the perfect world but also made humans imperfect & suffer. That is why when some agony happens it's from Satan because he caused the original sin that caused all this pain. God didn't create cancer & kidney stones, these are the side effects of sin (THAT HUMANS CHOSE) If you built a car & gifted it to your son, but told him not to add a flamethrower to it or he'll burn himself up. Then he turns around & adds a flamethrower & burns himself up, that doesn't mean that you at fault at all as the father & therefore shouldn't be blamed for the agony
@@TeddyRumpskinz And that, is a perfect example of the verbal gymnastics employed by the believer to justify the laughable nonsense they believe. Let's take two hypotheses:
1. God, the omni kind, created two humans knowing that they would disobey him, then punished the whole of mankind because they did what God knew they would do. This all powerful God also lets Satan run ruin over the planet but still interjects with good things here and there. So we concluded anything good is God because we have defined God as good and anything bad is Satan because we have defined Satan as bad. This doesn't of course answer all the animal suffering and the natural disasters that happen - though I did see on the news from the floods in Libya, a man standing surrounded by destruction and saying "this is God's will" and being seemingly happy with that!
2. Life evolves and good and bad things happen because natural events happen and humans and animals have evolved differently with different goals and desires and some of those goals and desires are bad.
Which one sounds more plausible?
I can throw in an evil God example and a Satan is more powerful example too, but I think those 2 make the point nicely.
How bad would the world have to be for you to think, "maybe this God I believe in isn;t so nice or so just, after all"?
@@TeddyRumpskinz Another double standards nonsense. God created humans on his image, gave them the ability to think but when they really think outside the box, he throws them in hell. Why won't he just alter the thoughts of atheism out of people's mind so that no one would go to hell or else he likes to throw his creation in suffering. Do you even know how cancer occurs, it can happen of causes which humans have no role in. Cancer can occur through UV rays which your God created, through viral carcinogens which which again are the creation of your God. Again any agony happens and you pulls out Satan card like he is more powerful that God can't handle.
@@TeddyRumpskinzSo you really believe that two people ruined the whole world? Because they ate an apple? God just watching kids having cancer or dying from pathogens and earthquakes seems a rather harsh punishment for someone else thousands of years ago eating an apple. You clearly seem to be more of the fundamental kind. Even most Christians today don’t believe in a sin that is passed down the generations.
@@TeddyRumpskinz Why are all religious people such downers? What is suffering?
Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
Do you believe in Santa flying around?
Do you believe in easter bunny nesting colored eggs?
Do you believe in unicorns?
Do you believe in Allah?
They have the same probability as your specific god, satan etc...
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Amazing to realize this is accessible for free!
You have to agree, even after all these years it's still a good laugh.
sam harris can take complex and elaborate subjects and explain them simply and clearly to anyone. wlc has the exact opposite ability
Simplifying a topic is not the measure of its accuracy. And the inability to dive deep into complex matters is what Sam Harris demonstrated here.
@@steveb7587took 9 years but I’m glad you owned this guy
@@aidanpond8940 He didn't own him
I hate this format of debate, I'd rather see Sam and William Lane Craig respond to each other on the spot. I feel it would have held each debater more accountable. This format just seems disconnected and is frustrating to follow.
This is a real debate format.
William Lane Craig will never discuss...he couldnt gishgallop or spout nonsense and he couldnt avoid questions...he is a good debater and the breadth of his knowledge and use of rhetoric is very impressive...but all his arguments start with the position God exists. If I were to talk to him I would ask that if he wanted to educate me he would have to evolve my understanding and start from a point where God does not exist and bring me to understand that he does. He would have a huge problem in doing that though because all his philosophical arguments are conjectured on the thing he wants to prove true. He can't be objective so all his appeals to me would be in essence futile as he cany reason to God without first inciting God.
@@kevintyrrell9559 It's not wrong to presume God is an entity when arguing about if He exists. Let's say I believed the entire universe was a simulation and you wanted to argue against that. I think it would be reasonable for you to start from the position that we *don't* live in a simulation and build your case off of that. In the same way, WLC rejects the notion of the big bang/evolution and instead builds his case off the premise that God exists.
Preston Marlo
WLC actually accepts both the big bang and evolution
@@colinc892 Whats your evidence that Craig believes evolution? ???????
"Threatening an atheist with hell is like threatening to punch them in the aura." that's hilarious
copy pasted comment from the Craig vs Hitchens video.
@@user-br6ve4lz6n Okey Dokey.
he didn't even say that
@@alexispizarro6411 WHo!?!? What !?!?!
@@LGpi314 i'm pretty sure you're a bot
2:00:06 - 2:03:40 - This was great! They should've let them go one on one
Most of the time they were just talking past each other
I completely agree. It didn't seem like Craig addressed any points without dismissing them as incongruent with the argument...
Heathens refuse to listen to reason.
@@ahilltodieons WLC actually operated within the framework of the debate. Sam Harris seemed to get distract and chase a few squirrels!
@@ahilltodieonsThat’s because he was sticking to the topic of debate in witch Harris strayed from every time he spoke. Anything within the bounds of the topic was addressed and dismantled by Craig.
@@frankritchey823Exactly. I’m only half way though but Harris hasn’t really answered the question and has just been parroting very tired atheistic talking points against Christianity. He hasn’t given any solid reasons why objective morality exists without a God.
The debate starts at 7:20 .
Dave Ahem Also just to affirm. The introduction ends at 7:19.
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
But where does it properly start ?
>
When ever I fall asleep on youtube, I always wake up to some part of this video.
😂
Same and I'm a lil tired of it
Omg stop same thing just happened to me
Same
We are all living the same lives aren’t we.
Knock knock. Who's there? Jesus Christ. What do you want? I want to save you! Save me from what? Save you from myself if you don't let me in!
Thats false, Christ is saving us from what we have done to ourselves out of the free will we have.
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 if christ was a God then resurrection was a fart LMAO. You don't have a free will because your God controls all your actions. Stop bsing
This is actually a genuine misunderstanding of Christianity. If you have ever read the Pauline letters which establish the most barebones tenets of Christian theology, nowhere does Paul suggest that faith in Christ is meant to save you from the "wrath of God" or "going to hell" or anything of the sort. It's simply to save you from the finitude of existence, so that you might have eternal life. Most people strawman Christianity, and its mainly a failure of the religion to explain itself because it's become defined so differently by popular culture. By the way, I am an atheist.
@@Potaters12 You do get that this is a joke and it is not meant to be taken seriously. Right!?!?
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 "Christ is saving us from what we have done to ourselves out of the free will we have.' I have not done anything wrong. Why do you need someone to pay for what you have done? That is just nutz.
It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
If you'd lose your morals as soon as god was taken away from you, you never had them.
Yes! Agreed. That pretty much sums up the moral issue in one sentence
The following quotation shows us, also, why it is important to write "God" instead of "god": _"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."_ 2 Corinthians 4, 4
By the way, it is good to be mentioned that God/Jesus cannot be taken away from the true believers / lovers of the truth.
Another thing that worth mentioning is the fact that not the labels that people put one another are important for the Creator of this reality (such as: Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu...) but *our deeds* instead, how we use the freedom He has offered, our free will, to strive always to do only good, to never cause useless suffering (any damage) to others and to ourselves.
@@filmeseverin I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@@filmeseverinself upvoting is pathetic
Believers in Jesus belong to a church. What Christian denomination do you belong to? Imposter! Deceiver!
Every honest reader definitely knows to ignore you and your lies. Why do Romanians lie so much?
There is no intelligence in you for sure. Every honest reader sees it. Stop lying.
7:51 - Lane Craig
26:40 - Sam Harris
46:40 - Lane Craig
58:38 - Sam Harris
1:10:00 - Lane Craig
1:17:50 - Sam Harris
1:25:55 - Lane Craig
1:31:08 - Sam Harris
1:37:10 - Questions
🤔
To Know Good from Evil 🤷🏽♂️
John 17:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Genesis 3:22 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Genesis 3:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
gods in this verse is represents containing the knowledge of good and evil. A big difference between knowing the difference between good and evil and in charge of the ones who know the difference between good and evil. God 🤔
John 10:34-38 Authorized (AKJV)
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
So Jesus as a representative of his Father for the purpose of salvation, must be in the same classification as well as the Father, in charge of salvation after Lucifer destroyed his world. And was lowered to the position of Satan.
Psalm 82:6-8 Authorized (AKJV)
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (because of your sin when Lucifer fell, Jesus and the Father made a plan for salvation).
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. (Live a life in the flesh punishments suit, to justify who your God is, through freedom of choice).
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (because of Jesus righteousness and the knowledge of good and evil, Jesus was in charge of salvation. Alfa and Omega. The beginning and the end of the salvation timeline. Scripture
2 Corinthians 4:4-5 Authorized (AKJV)
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
John 10:35 Authorized (AKJV)
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Thank you Jesus for you Sacrifice 🥰😇 Agape’ Style
@@felixhowton6413 they can't talk for themselves.... they always have to mention something from the Bible
@@felixhowton6413 to quote on unbelive in a document is silly, even of you don't want to hear about that.Use logic to make a statement not by neglecting something because of simple reason that I don't want to hear.
thanks for the timestamps, very helpful and kind of you
Sam starts at 27:40 not 26:40
Comments are pretty simple. Atheists: I came here to see sam Harris win and he won. Theists: I came here to see WLC win and he won.
Sean Austin Spot on. Unfortunately...
Actually, truth won because truth always wins. Whether people recognize or accept that truth is another story.
@@DaFeanor20 doubtful, most people who watch these videos do not come looking for answers but confirmation on what they already believe.
@@markrome9702 What is truth?
@@DaFeanor20 why does skepticism inevitably lead to atheism? I don't see any reason why it would.
I dont understand what dr craig is saying at 1:26:31 . “God is a being worthy of worship…therefore he must be good”. What is the criteria to determine if a being is worthy of worship, and where does that criteria come from?
It's just another of his many circular arguments!
If we call a being god, then that means he is the ultimate authority, how is being with the intelligence to create everything not worthy of your worship.
@@joemama-bv4mg Firstly, calling something "god" does not automatically mean anything. god claims have come in many shapes and sizes. Secondly, why is an authoritarian dictator automatically worthy of worship? To be "worthy" one must show "worthiness". Worship does not automatically follow from intelligence, ability or power. What you are talking about is more akin to enslavement.
@@El_Bruno7510 why do you say that calling something god does not automatically mean anything when we have a clear understanding of someone means when they say god. God is all powerful so there can only be one and if anyone is greater then he is not god.
You say that being worthy is to have worthiness. If the creator of everything is not worthy than who is. You say that god is a authoritarian, I'm confused are we arguing against god as a concept or against a certain type of god.
@@joemama-bv4mg As I said, there have been many 'god' claims over many thousands of years. Zeus was a god claim and was not all powerful.. You are doing what all believers do, assuming yours is the correct god, but failing to empathise that there are others who believe in different gods than yours, who believe just the same as you do, that your god is false and theirs is the 'one true god'. Do you understand this?
Again, I am assuming that you are assigning 'all loving' automatically to your god? This has nothing to do with being all powerful, or the creator of everything. Would you worship an entity like the devil if it created everything? No you wouldn't, because it would not be worthy of worship. You might 'pretend to worship through fear. Do you understand this?
I am pointing out that simply using the word "god" does not automatically mean what you assume it means.
Now to get specific, the evidence of the world around us PROVES that there is no such thing as an all loving and all powerful god.
We're certainly not obligated to pull over if a priest tells us to, so what's your point Dr. Craig?
What is Yours toni4729?
@@kapitan19969838 How long have you been Dr. Craig?
Sam Harris' right eyebrow can literally lift a dumbbell.
😂😂😂
LMAOOOOO bro this killed me
i was literally just thinking the same thing lol
Yeah, but could Harris create a dumbbell so heavy that even his mightily potent eyebrow couldn't hope to lift it?
Did he really lift WLC with his eyebrow?
"If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance." ~ Marcus Aurelius
Good quote
Russel Crowe did that. Too bad he was a little late to prove it..
It's ironic, because I would bet a decent amount of money (not my whole life savings, but a decent amount) that no one in that room changed their position after that debate. (And I'm not talking about fence sitters, but people with a strong affirmation on their values)
Ok atheist pickle rick
@@ZeroFlowers Based Stoic 🗿
The fact that someone has replied to this debate 12 years after , shows how good it was . Good on you SAM
A tree is known by its fruit likewise a real Christian produces good fruit. Suppose you have a apple tree and a peach tree both growing, how do I know which is which? The tree that produces peaches is the peach tree and the one that produces apples is the apple tree, likewise a so called Christian who is worldly/sinful is not a real Christian.
Matthew 3:10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363so a christian who sins is not a christian?
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 so all Christians are weeds?
Sam was good, I personally don’t find it much of a debate. The pastor has arrogance and lots of logical loopholes, but no evidence or arguments that couldn’t be applied to Zeus or Bigfoot. He also dismissed most of the tough questions by the audience.
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 “You weren’t a good enough christian, so we’re going to place you in a tortuous inferno for all eternity.”
What a loving and merciful god
I can never be sure if I’m watching Dr. Craig or David Lee Roth.
Holy crap, you’re right! Now that I’ve seen it, I can’t unsee it. I keep waiting for Craig to finish each comment with “You dig it???”😂
@@Sled-Dog Or do the splits
Somebody created WLC duplicate using AI. LMAO.
@@LGpi314 @Roy Stoflet I would pay $100 to hear WLS say “I’m your ice cream man, stop me when I’m passing by.”
He's just a gigolo.
“You have 20 min for an opening statement”
“Now you have 10 min for a rebuttal”
“5 min for a rebuttal”
“You have 2 min to answer”
“30 seconds for a rebuttal”
“You now have 10 seconds for a closing statement”
“2 seconds for a rebuttal”
“You have 0.5 seconds for last rebuttal”
“0.01 milliseconds for closing remarks”
“You have 0.000000E-999999999999999 nanoseconds to get TF OUTTA HERE !!!”
“Your closing remarks have been crushed into a cube.”
“You have 5 minutes to move your cube.”
hank_says
O
You missed the one minute for slap fighting.
it starts at 7:15
Is this about my cube?
Kudos to U. of Notre Dame for keeping comments open on this excellent debate. There are other, similar debates held at lesser institutions to be found on youtube, where comments have been closed.
yes, I agree. Honest truth seems to matter. Not controlled propaganda, open to further debate.
Hear hear!
Always a bit sinister to not let the people speak. Imho
In most of Craig's debates the comments are turned off. I've always thought it's because he's so embarrassingly wrong, they know it's gonna rationally show in the comments
Be NICE......
One is trying to make clear, logical arguments that stack on top of each other, the other is just throwing elaborate rhetorical blinding grenades that make his fan base feel good. You can find out which is who by trying to summarize each man's line of argument without watching the video a second time. Fairly easy in one case, impossible in the other.
william lane craig was so clear and concise.
I mean this is the only logical conclusion one can objectively come to from witnessing this debate.
I agree, Harris is so skilled at delivery that he makes his very mediocre arguments sound a lot better than they are, perhaps the elements of comedy?
Only the un-educated and simple minded can't understand what craig was saying.
Athiests need simple words and analogies to comfort their beliefs i guess 🤷
@@TheCatsafricanSuch person would never open his ear to opposing views, does he? Maybe it's you who is blinded by your need to disbelieve in God, that no matter the evidence or reason based argument fails to appeal to your senses. Think about it
That was wonderful. The respect you spoke with each other was inspiring. Thank you, Alex and Sam.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
I read these comments and wonder what people were doing while these gentlemen were talking. It wasn't listening to them I can tell you that much.
Str8Faced Honestly, it’s just people insulting the person they disagree with. It’s the internet after all, what do you expect.
Str8Faced just to be honest my man, i listened this after the four 3 hour Jordan Peterson debates and Sam has the same problem when debating in all of them. He is fixated on his claim and doesn’t contend to the debaters claims. He tries to resolidfy his argument while evading the others. I had never heard of this Craig guy but he really won this debate. He was on topic, went tit for tat, and just was better prepared. Harris doesn’t really even bring notes with him and that could be his problem. Harris is brilliant. Like insanely smart but he doesn’t debate well. He is interesting though for sure.
if you ask to me i think harris was great, i don't understand this people, is so frustrating
Amell Yrizarri Harris doesn’t stay on subject. It’s very easy to see that. Just watch the beginning and see the premise , then see how often Harris actually mentions it. It’s basically not at all. Harris also uses the same played out arguments most people use about God. He literally uses Lex Luther argument lol like the villain from Superman in case you don’t know. Harris basically has 100% faith in reason, that’s his dogma. He believes in the goodness of human nature while simultaneously noting the constant dogma humans believe in naturally. That’s contradictory. He’s smart, like super smart, but just because he is able to think something he believes anyone and everyone can. That’s a lovely idea but it has been shown to be a fallacy by history. He also has a poor understanding of the Bible, he knows the King James Version well enough but he should study the hebrew interpretations as this will shine a light on most of his arguments. He also claims he can make arguments that mirror judeo-christian values but if he was being honest and truthful would know that he can’t because when he does it falls short of true divinity and objective truth and values. Secular is great for some but it doesn’t carry through the world well due to the fact of human error and it’s completely open to interpretation, otherwise there would be a singular secular viewpoint and even among those of Harris’ level, there is not.
JD Havrilla I believe that "being focused" makes you more efficient but not more honest. Craig sounds like a lawyer leaning on technicalities and semantic tricks to win the devate instead of opening up to other important issues. I think that would make someone honestly interested in knowing the truth instead of just wining the devate
"if someone doesn't value evidence what evidence can you give them to show them hey should"
Sam Harris is exactly doing that 😂
aroseland1 it is ironic that Harris in this case is the one ignoring Craig’s arguments and evidence.
G Hageman, Craig offers no legitimate evidence but lots of logical fallacies
Cassie D exactly
@@cassied9327 any examples of his logical fallacies in this debate?
In summary, Harris offers a way to measure and observe what we may agree is human flourishing, but, as Craig points out, this provides no basis for an objective moral obligation and still relies on what we subjectively intuit or agree upon.
I agree. Objective morality does not exist. The GOAL of someone's morality, be it increasing human well-being (Harris) or pleasing a supposed invisible supernatural being (Craig) is always a subjective choice. Having set the goal, it is possible to objectively measure how well an act affects physical and mental well-being (Harris). There is no way to objectively measure how well acts please a supposed deity (Craig).
And Craig asserts objective morality without showing that it exists. By his definition, and many theists laughably agree, objective morality is anything that God does or commands must be moral. Hence the Christian ability to accept genocide, sacrifice, misogyny, infanticide as 'moral'.
If ALL people (over history and nowadays) would have followed the main commandment from Jesus Christ, *besides to love / respect our Heavenly Father, to love / respect (care for) the other humans as we love / respect (care for) ourselves,* all the crimes and the tremendous useless suffering would have never happen.
The question is: Why so many are opposing to the main advice from Jesus Christ: to strive always for goodness, wisdom, justice... perfection? *_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48
Most probably, because just as it is easier to destroy something useful than to make/build something useful, in the same way it is easier to be evil=stupid than to be good=wise.
@@filmeseverin Maybe god (wichever) needs to have a better bible then, maybe the next iteration is worth a damn. For an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent thing it sure messes up a lot.
Many people seem to not know that the fallen angels ruled by Satan have corrupted lots of things in this world to sustain the useless suffering, stupidity=evilness in general. That is why, if there are parts from the Bible, which contradict God's perfection, they are Satan's alterations/lies. *_"Satan, the one who deceives the whole world"_* Rev. 12, 9 (should be seen, also, the "Parable of the weeds" and 2 Corinthians 4, 4).
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see our *free* choices/deeds. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose, Satan with the other fallen angels (who, according to the "Parable of the weeds", have altered this world, the DNA... making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc.... to sustain the useless suffering) and their tools, the evil=stupid humans, not with the One who has offered freedom.
God has shown us in this world, created with 100% freedom intentionally (as a school and exam for our immortal soul, for us), how bad=stupid it is for someone to use freedom for evil on purpose. That is why we have been told to always strive to do only good: *_"For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; "_*
Therefore, the wise people will not be deceived because the truth is clear and simple. In Heaven are only those who have understood that freedom has to be used always just/only for good (this is what believing/following Jesus Christ really means).
Therefore, we live into an altered and ruled world by the fallen angels, *allowed as an exam for our immortal soul (for us) to prove to the Creator how good we really are, how much we love perfection and how much we detest evilness=stupidity,* to prove that we are not following the demons anymore, through our deeds in this short earthly life, which will be judged 100% correctly for each of us. *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
All the best to all people!
Craig clearly didn't listen to anything Sam said
Just kept jumping around the facts with "objective moral values and duties"
I feel like I am watching two different lectures and my phone keeps jumping back and forth between the two.
"I'll leave CZcams to sort it out later"
Let's see if the YT comments agree with Harris. :P of course, I already looked, and half of the Harris supporters seem to all think Harris did bad. Lol
That's because the joint press conference style is the style Craig is comfortable with, and Craig only does debates if he can control the arena and officiating crew in which the game is played. The shortcomings of his ideas usually come out in cross-examination, which is why cross is usually short or axed entirely.
@@strategic1710 so what are those shortcomings? you being reminded of your sin?
@@JPX7NGD You nailed it. Craigs arguments remind me of my sin, and thats what I meant by 'shortcomings.' What a disingenuous question. I reject the christian concept of sin.
Brett W it’s ok, god already forgave your ignorance
Take a shot every time Craig says “objective moral values”
I did this. I regret it.
The moral landscape though, that's objective morality for sure.
I ended up blacking out.
i ended up in A&E, i have to wait for a liver transplant....
like people who follow revelations" have unanimous agreement on interpretations xd
Moral obligations are a result of minimization of conflict at the collective level (coded in society through laws).
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
No, they're not.
@@godmanmindworld Why? What distinguishes them from divinely inspired/dictated rules?
@@tefilobraga I'm just randomly asserting things like you homie. Don't put words in my mouth.
@@godmanmindworld Christianityis not a license to sin but to live holy
In one of my visitations to hell, Jesus showed me a person who was a Christian (Jesus said “he was a Christian like you”). But the guy unfortunately started sleeping around (1 cor 6:9). He died middle aged and went to hell forever it was dark but Jesus lit up the area, he asked Jesus for another chance but unfortunately it was too late for him, Pretty sad, Repent and ask Jesus to help you with your struggles (James 4:7)
Thank you for this video.
Two ships passing each other silently on a cloudy night. No intersection in argument.
Nupuqi Om-Re Khonectics
Chamber 45 plus degree
The Generations of ADAM
Atom ( ADAM , Axim ) from the Exosphere 9 cipher Sperm ( SETH ) from the Thermosphere and Heliosphere 9 cipher Nitrogen Oxygen Argon Helium (Noah) from the Mesosphere 9 cipher Hydra O gene Hydrogen ( ABRAHAM , Alpha and Beta particles ) from the Mesosphere 9 cipher 2 atoms of Hydra gene testicles ( Ishmael , Isaac )( Rivers and Creeks ) from the Ionosphere 9 cipher Water channel ( Musa , Moses ) from the Ozone ( Azim ) 9 cipher Universal radiation RAIN ( Gabriel ) 9 cipher Oceans ( Mari , Mare , Mary ) 9 cipher Clouds ( Tri stage of Ion , Isa , Jesus , Ieous ) .
Craig owned him
I knew this from the first speaker 20 secs in.
None, except through me for I am the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is mine alone, can I forgive you all perhaps tell me your own sins and your own reasoning in those moments and I'll try to normalize it rationally with all those who have sinned against me and explain their reasons to showcase how damned those people will forever be in my heart and mind and soul. I can't forgive anyone who stole April Renee Walker from me. I have forgiven her, chances are I can't you more often than not!
@@IshtarLinqu what the hell?
I'm glad that there are atheists and theists alike who are willing to entertaining an opinion without accepting it. This seems like a rare thing nowadays.
This video is 11 years old
@@bbchamp88 yup. Thats about how long ago civil discourse died.
@@bobf5360 Yes people were having tea parties and wholesome conversations during the Muslim Conquests and Christian Inquisitions.
@@bbchamp88 I take the phrase "these days" to mean, within a recognizable amount of time. 1980 to now is more similar to the industrial revolution to the present for many reasons. Such as political concerns and technology. You're the one who put a metric on time by citing 11 years as if the statement "these days" need not apply. Explain to me how his statement was a misuse of said phrase.
Just keep listening to sam harris podcast
I’m an atheist and I have to say I agree with the fact that without god there is no OBJECTIVE morality. In order to determine something as “good” or “evil” that is 100% dependent on your worldview. And since it’s impossible to remove yourself as an observer and somehow prove that one worldview is objectively better than another, I posit that good and evil can only be determined subjectively, and morality as a baseline is therefore subjective 100% of the time.
I disagree. If God exists, there can be no objective morality --- it would mean that morality is arbitrary.
I'm not a fan of the words "good" and "evil". I don't think they actually exist in this simplistic way. Things are more beneficial or detrimental. And they are dependent on the observer's position. I also agree with @citizenghosttown. If a god decrees something as being good, it isn't reasoned, it is just decreed.
@@SamIAm-kz4hg if a God as is described by Craig decrees something is good, then it actually is so.
@@redrkstone
"if a God as is described by Craig decrees something is good, then it actually is so."
What do you think this adds to the conversation? It's like saying "if my car is blue, then my car is blue." If we describe a god as being "all good" then they are all good. but who cares about fictitious BS?
@@SamIAm-kz4hg if God exists then his decrees represent truth. So when he says something is good, it is. That decree reflects actual facts about reality.
Mental health professionals often call hearing voices 'Auditory Hallucinations'. A hallucination is something you See, Taste, Smell or Hear, that other people cannot. If you hear voices, this means you hear something that other people cannot. There are different types voices. Everyone's experiences are different. So if you hear a voice in your head, you should check with your Mental health professional just to be “SAFE”
@@imnotmarthastewart8120 Being Educated often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things For Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So.
That Transfers to the Bible and Gods as Well: “It Says So in the Bible” Isn’t Automatically True for Someone with a Critical Mindset, and Things are not Necessarily Believable Just Because a Pastor Says It.
The problem is that in Particular Islam and Christianity are Authoritative Religions. In Christianity, the Only Path to Heaven is to Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and in Islam, You Submit to Allah as Muhammad Revealed Through the Qur’an - The Word “Islam” Even Means “Submission”.
The Natural Response From the Educated Critical Mind is, of Course, “Why?”
And “Because Muhammad/Jesus/God/the Bible/the Qur’an Says So” Is Not a Valid Answer.
Because We Had the Luxury of an Education That Afford us The Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim That the Characters Found Within Being Educated Often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things for Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So.
Because We had the Luxury of an Education that Afford us the Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim that the Characters Found Within Exist in Reality. If So Many Highly Educated People Don’t Believe in God… Maybe It Is Because They Know Something You Don’t, It’s Because, Due to Their High Intelligence and Education, They Have Realized That All Gods Are Imaginary. Educated People Tend to Believe in Things That Can Be Proved and For Which There is Evidence.
I don’t Believe in God for the Same Reason You Don’t Believe in Vampires, Faeries, Werewolves, Pegasus, Mermaids, and Numerous other Supernatural Beings from Myth, Folklore, and Fantasy. You Make an Exception for One Preferred Flavor of Myth; I don’t. I believe in the Power of Loving Kindness, Illuminated by Self-Reliance and Mindfulness. I Neither Need, Nor Desire, a Belief in Deities to Walk That Path. To Exist in Reality.
“No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.” “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”
@@imnotmarthastewart8120 In the Psychology of Human Behavior, Denialism is a Person's Choice to Deny Reality as a Way to Avoid a Psychologically Uncomfortable Truth. Denialism is an Essentially Irrational Action that Withholds the Validation of a Historical Experience or Event, When a Person Refuses to Accept an Empirically Verifiable Reality... The Bible is a Book of Mythology... Examples are Fables, Fairy Tales, Folktales, Sagas, Epics, Legends, and Etiologic Tales (Which Refer to Causes or Explain Why a Thing is The Way It Is). Another form of Tale, the Parable, Differs from Myth in its Purpose and Character. Things That are Not To Be True... “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Very similar reasons are given by theistic apologists for the religion I left (Islam).
What makes these same reasons any different when it comes to Christianity?
Everyone has voices in their head it’s called your conscience 😂 oh no!!!! We’re all crazy
Let's say we don't have objective moral values, what is the problem? Most people seem to agree about and act according to a large set of universal values without the need to ground them in any objective truth or foundation. This is really the argument that I'm struggling with.
Exactly. Common sense, empiricism, and reason seem to me enough to determine ethics. To avoid Harris's "Worst Possible Misery for Everyone" is clearly the only rear "ought" that we can define. But I agree that no universal morals, are really no big deal. To claim that only theists can be sure about their morals is an insult to life everywhere. And by looking at history, clearly theist morals are not the "best."
Bro I am an atheist and I really like Harris' views of morality, but I have to admit that he kept running away from debating Craig's initial argument.
That's because you're intellectually honest.
THANK YOU!
Craig had no "initial argument". At all.
All Craig was saying was if we don't have the answer, then we should believe that's it's god -typical christians' thought process. What's to run away from?
The reason he runs away from it, is because he agrees with it! Lol
The kid talking about god coming to him is amazing I love him. I want to hug the kid talking about gay marriage.
I want to pray for him and remind him that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light and that God never contradicts His word (objectively; you do not have to believe this, of course-you have the freedom to be an idiot who is wrong).
yea he was pretty funny, and i got the point he was trying to make. if he had posed it as an honest question, i’d be interested to hear craig’s attempt at a retort.
@@kooldudematt1 Yeah because not believing that there is an invisble person named satan dressing up and another invisible person called an angel and another invisible person named god makes you an idiot that is wrong...
The invention of literature was a significant development in human history that has had a profound impact on culture and emotional development. Literature refers to written or spoken works that are valued for their artistic and emotional qualities, as well as their ability to communicate ideas, values, and beliefs.
Literature serves many purposes, one of which is to provide a sense of order and structure to human experience. Through literature, people can explore complex themes and issues, as well as find meaning and purpose in life. Literature also allows for the expression of diverse perspectives and experiences, which can promote greater cultural understanding and empathy.
In addition to providing cultural and emotional benefits, literature also plays a role in cognitive development. Reading and engaging with literature requires critical thinking and interpretation, which can enhance analytical skills and creative thinking.
Overall, the invention of literature has been a significant contributor to the development of human culture and emotional intelligence, and continues to play an important role in shaping our understanding of the world and ourselves.
Agreed. I think the Bible offers us a great perspective about the lives of ordinary people 2000-3000 years ago. Rape, theft, etc must have been very common during those times. Otherwise they wouldn’t have written about it and tried to control it. It also shows their total ignorance regarding the understanding of the world in absence of scientific knowledge.
You wrote this like a 1-page English assignment but you only had 2 paragraphs of substance lol
Chatgpt Generated message
Yes, and there is no question that the Bible is one of the greatest, if not the greatest piece of literature ever created by mankind. Not the thoughts of a single author, but a collaboration and refinements by thousands. This magnificent manuscript only becomes a problem when theists attribute it to a supernatural deity and make claims that it is absolute reality and truth.
@@chrisgraham2904 eh, there is alot of litterature better than the bible, alot of lost history too. And i mean alot
WHO WON???
WHO'S NEXT???
YOU DECIDE!!!
EPIC DEBATE BATTLES OF MORALITY!!!!!!
You're joking, right?
Dude have you seen _epic rap battles of history?_
@@nightoftheworld
He's in fir a treat if he hasn't😂
@@nightoftheworld Not n like a long time, why?
@@HereComeTheTrainComingBlues
My comment is what is said at the end of those Erb videos but just for morality debates😂 just taking the piss
The comment section hurts to read but for some reason I do it anyways.
It means you like to be punished. LMAO
@@faismasterx Step on pls :3
@@annabea5110 I'm sorry, what? What do you mean?
@@faismasterx no - no - nothing ... 👉👈
@@annabea5110 bruh
I don't understand Craig coming out, in something called "The God Debate" saying, "I'm not here to prove God is real, but assuming he is, everything I'm about to say is objectively true and morality is based on him"
Presupposing God and morality being linked to him as a foundation for a debate doesn't leave much room for conversation, at least in my opinion.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Its not meant to be a practical discussion. Its just an argument on which system could serve as a foundation for moral values. In that regard we don't need to know anything about which system is actually true. Its like saying what would happen if we fell into a black hole. No one is really saying its going to happen or a practical question, but we can still think about it
@@radscorpion8 Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back.
God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell.
as I was listening to this, Euthyphro's Dilemma kept popping up in my mind - and to paraphrase: are things good b/c God says they are good, or does God say so b/c they are good?...if only b/c God says so, then good and evil are "subject" (not objective) arbitrarily to God's whims - and God in the Bible has been known to change his mind...I mean, if God changed his mind and inverted what we know to be "the law written into our hearts" and told you to murder your children for no other reason than divine command (God's rationale is a "mystery"), what would you do?...if God is omnipotent, then he is under no constraints not to do so...but if God says something is good b/c it is good, then it admits of an objective morality even transcendent of God...study all the "omnis" of god, and you'll find these Christian apologists' arguments indefensible...they simply cannot concede that they have lost the argument concretely as we observe reality, i.e., simply no evidence of a omnibenevolent God, but they have also lost the argument conceptually in the abstract...I don't see "children of God"; I just see children - most well-meaning and sincere mind you...belief doesn't make you a morally upright person as Chritianity plainly teaches; your behavior determines whether you're morally upright...incidentally, WLC is simply wrong: all the Christians I know when you see through the veneer of vacuous platitudes, they're only in it for the fire insurance...emotionally extorting someone into a relationship is not the characteristics of a loving "God the Father"; it's evidence of a "Godfather", a mafia don...religion smacks of racketeering: create the problem, then sell you the cure.
Craig is so limited in his thinking on morality."No morale accountability with out god". He is very wrong. He is totally discrediting strength of character and personal integrity. Owning ones self, ones own actions, ones own consequences ( good and bad) , how to make amends, to be self questioning, grow in self honesty and to improve on ones self. You do not need a god (his or any other) to achieve these things. That is what most atheists are like. That is why we call our selves humanists, free thinkers and the like. It is not just what is good for ourselves but what will be good and for all.
Our jails in North America are full of people that believe in a Christine religion. With religion it seems to bring on a intolerance, casting judgement and the need to control each other in very unreasonable ways. I find Craig s argument very limiting to the true strengths in the human race. Not all Christians are like this. More people of faith are not so arrogant ( their faith and their way is the way for every one), live their lives more like non faith people. They both want to live as good, progressive humans. Neither are so binary in their thinking as Craig is.
Sounded like they were having completely different debates lol
I totally agree with you. I was very confused and disappointed by Harris's replies. It almost sounded like they were lectures given by 2 different people while pretending they were debating one another!
One person was speculating, that’s why it seemed different. Evidence leading to conclusion is typically atheism. Conclusion seeking evidence is typically religion.
@@Hscaper THIS. I LOVE YOU.
I think they were talking past each other a bit
They are.
I wonder why theists are always saying that building an axiomatic system is the same as something that we've got to take by fate (1:27:54)
Dang this video came out nine years ago and the CZcams algorithm is only recommending it to me now .🤦🏻♂️
Same bro
😂😂😂 same here
Me too 😅
I watched it when I was like 16 back then when it said uploaded 1 year ago
it has to do with what you subscribe to, watch and all that
Harris- Morality only applies to the well-being of conscious creatures, and some kinds of actions consistently help or hurt beings. Good is what helps beings, and would exist without God.
Craig- Atheism has no objective reason to care about the well-being of conscious creatures, while Theists do because God tells them to. Good is what God says it is, so it could not exist without God, because Gods desires determine Good.
Basically, two different definitions of good lead to different conclusions, but Harris's conclusions are valid weather god exists or not, while Craigs conclusions are only valid if a God exists which defines Good as doing what he says.
Harris' isn't applicable, because it's subjective
@@kapitan19969838 Exactly. Harris: "Good is what helps." You're just kicking the can down the road at this point. Who gets to define what "helps"? If I help a person steal so that they can pay their rent, have I done "good" by Harris's definition? I don't think the hypothetical person we stole from would think so! :P
This was interesting but honestly all over the place.
Whether that kid at 1:50:01 was joking or not, there's people out there who legitimately believe that God comes to them and tells them things. Craig dismissing the kid and his experience with God is evidence that 1. Craig can pick and choose when someone is serious or not about their experiences with God, and that 2. If he's joking, the difference between fake experiences and supposed real experiences are blurred.
God is not showing intentionally direct evidences (as atheists want) because He wants to see our *free* choices, how much we love perfection (100% goodness, wisdom, justice, pure love....) and how much we detest evilness=stupidity.
- If/when we will have direct evidences of God, as atheists want, then we ALL will have immediately interested love regarding our Heavenly Father, but now, the really good humans, who love God/Jesus only from the revelation of the truth, can prove their true love for Divinity, for perfection, while living here with 100% freedom.
Humans, with very few exceptions, have lost their merit of direct communication with God because *each sin moves us away from God, from perfection.*
God wants us back into Heaven and that is why we have to learn our lesson here, to prove that we have understood that freedom must always be used only for good, never for evil.
Not all humans who ever lived on Earth had knowledge about the truth from those who deserved to have it revealed by Divinity and especially from Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity. It has always been easy for any human to know what the useless suffering is and to never produce it (no need for the Creator to tell us this). That is why *He expects us to strive to never do evil, especially to never do evil intentionally, to never cause useless suffering, any damage, to others and to ourselves.*
Many people seem to not realize that for God, being _"the beginning and the end,"_ *this world has already ended* (all free human choices / deeds being recorded for what all will perceive as the Last Judgment). That is why the Bible has exact prophecies, like the followings listed below:
- The future will be like in the days of Sodom. Luke 17, 28-30
- People will deny that GOD created the universe. 2 Peter 3:3-9
- The message of the Gospel will reach all the nations. Matthew 24,14
- The future will become frightening. Luke 21, 26 (just few examples: the global warming terrific effects, the third world war final preparations, Corona virus etc.)
- Blasphemy and wicked behavior will be commonplace. 2 Timothy 3,1-9
- There will be money hungry preachers that deceive Christians and lead them away from the truth. 2 Peter 2,1-3
- Scoffers will mock also the Second Coming by claiming these signs have always been around. 2 Peter 3, 3 4
@@filmeseverinaccording to the bible didnt god show direct evidence all the time to people?
So far, my messages have not been read yet for real, *carefully enough.*
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God rewarding our *free* choices/deeds accordingly. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
Yup, if God doesn't exist then there is no objective morality in it's core. But who said that we need one? Maybe we should stop being cowards and accept that we build our future and ideas, and that we don't need an imaginary creature to do that for us. Accepting that is the real moral responsibility. To rationalize it with some ideology beings is running away from that responsibility.
We could do that right now, but unfortunately, the world is ruled by God Believers such as Christians, Muslims, Hindus and other God-fearing religions who all disagree with one another as to whose God is the greater or real God that such a proposal would never get of the ground, let alone even be debated. The only real solution that any of them offer is to find a reason to engage the disbelievers in a war so that their God can then wipe out all the opposition voices and force them into a position of self-confession that they were wrong to believe in their faith and thus convert to the religion of their victors. A practice that many conquerors such as the Greeks, Romans, Muslim and Christian civilisations have been doing for centuries. Nothing has changed in over 3000 years and in 3000 years time, I seriously doubt if it will either. Religious belief in a Supernatural God is a disease for which there is no cure.
Note to moderators; Dont applaud into the microphone.It's not about you!
twomicefighting I think it was an effort to control the length of clapping in the audience. This whole debate was an exercise in presenting the most controlled environment possible in order not to present a bias toward either participant.
LOL. But it takes a good moderator to prevent all hell from breaking loose.
Values and morals should come from know right from wrong and to hurt or not to hurt others. Or also loving oneself or loving others.
Most atheists think that a human being can be good enough without God/Jesus wisdom (laws, commandments), but they do not want to quit ALL their bad addictions to be really good humans, as the Creator wants us to be, and they do not want to love (care about) the others as they love (care about) themselves, as the true Christians do. Their idea of good is way too low than what it should be, and that is why so many people are still far from Heaven (they do not recognize their bad deeds).
1:26:29 This is a super mega circular argument, however. “God is good because he is a being worthy of being worshipped.” Yea but why is God a being worthy of being worshipped? Craig is just saying God is good because he is good
I'm an atheist and an anti-theist but even I had to admit it was a poor showing by Harris. Not with anything he said, but more his failure to actually address Craig's points. It seems whenever Harris took the stand he would talk, in his eloquent way as usual, about the various problems of religion and belief in God, but wasn't really addressing Craig directly. He was just saying what he's said many times before.
Whereas Craig it seemed in his rebuttals actually responded directly to Harris' statements and worked them into his own arguments.
I, as a Christian, appreciate your honesty. You, unlike many people here, were listening, it seems...
Yes, but honestly I've heard Craig before, and there's no point in addressing his points. They are implanted in his head and can't be moved. If you believe something to be true, sadly that becomes your world and how it should work. No matter how implausible the thing is, he's said multiple times that there's no evidence that god doesn't exist, but then goes on to give the reason it does based in faith filled statements with is not evidence. He's terribly contradictory with what he says in favor of his point and against. As the thing of gods will he is often asked about, if you analyze his responses, it's only his will when it's convenient
@@grexgamingkoi6152 I'm not sure what you said, to be honest? but I'll say this to help you, hopefully, Harris and Dawkins are not taken seriously in academic circles! Craig is! Just to clarify, I mean philosophical circles, because Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and I'm not able to judge how good he is in that field. The problem (one of many, I should say) is that both Harris and Dawkins try to make serious claims in the discipline that is not their field of expertise and they often sound like fools. Unfortunately, majority of youtube audience is not exactly bright minded and that's why they are popular here and not in academic circles... if you doubt just check their critics and you'll see large number of serious atheists...
@@grexgamingkoi6152 Doesn't matter if Craig himself will never change his mind. These sort of debates about convincing the audience, not each other.
@@a.b.4474 That's a fail argument though. How many theologians have you even heard of who are atheists? Theologians don't debate theologians because they're all in agreement. So of course the argument has to come from outside of that field. I can think of only one person I know of who is close to being "on the inside" and is an agnostic and that's Bart Ehrman. Go watch the Bart Ehrman vs William Lane Craig debate and tell me what you think
Ben Stiller has convinced me.
I'm pretty sure that's Derek Zoolander disguised as Ben Stiller
I was wondering why he looked so familiar...
💀
I’m on Dr. Craig’s side but this cracked me up haha
David Lee Roth failed to convince me.
I can’t find part one of this debate? Where is it?
Hitchens vs D'Souza, click on the Notre Dame icon, select Videos, oldest first, page down until you get to 13 years ago. Or just search for "the god debate".
Isn't it so invigorating to listen to extremely intelligent people in a debate!!! The amount of respect is just...i have no words
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back.
God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell.
Craig: And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Perfect haha!!
Wow. Now I can't unhear that scene in his voice. Hopefully that will make Craig slightly more entertaining and less annoying in the future. Yay:
Hi! I hope you read this& challenge yourself with my explanation. So, I remember my fears of death. However, I saw that the 10 commandments are God's law. As most people know, we all have broken them. I realized at a time, that I had lied, which made me a liar. I had stolen, which made me a thief. I had blasphemed God's name and used it as a curse word. The God who gave me life and created my DNA, I disrespected immensely with blasphemy. I thought I hadn't committed adultery. But Jesus said that even looking with lust is adultery with the heart in Jesus eyes. So wow, I was also an adulterer. I realized, if God judged me by the 10 commandments, I would be guilty. What about you? Have you broken God's law too? I thought since I was a supposedly "good person" I would go to heaven. But the bible says, "Most men will proclaim each his own goodness" meaning we all can defend our goodness. "I'm not as bad as that person! Well look at hitler! I give homeless people money"!But see, that wouldn't work in a court of law. If a man committed a crime like murder and tells the judge "Judge, yes I'm guilty, but I'm a good person. I help my family, I donate to charity, and I'll do better!" If the judge is a good judge, would he let the criminal go? No. He would say "I'm judging your crime not your good works. And of course you should do those things and of course you should be better. You're going to jail!" Well God is a perfect judge. He is just and the only righteous and holy being. He also not only knows our crimes, but our thoughts and hearts. So I would be guilty and deserve hell because its either be with God (goodness comes from God so heaven) or be an enemy to good and be separated from Him and all good (hell). But, He sent His only begotten son to die on the cross bcuz he's also merciful. But you may not know this: The 10 commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke the law, Jesus paid our fine. Thats why when He died, he cried out "it is finished!" Meaning the debt had been paid for us to accept. And He died then rose again and defeated death and what you have to do to receive reconciliation is to have your heart changed. We cant do that, we arent God. But He can do that. Seek Him and ask for reconciliation. He loves you. Most of us are like a person standing at the edge of a plane and we know we have to jump. And this is our plan: we'll flap our arms and save ourselves. Don't do that! Trust the parachute! Truly truly seeking God for reconciliation is belief because its believing He can answer. We cant give sin up but God will handle it if you seek reconciliation. Be humble and ask for His mercy. Once you truly do this, God will grant you everlasting life in heaven with Him as your father! And He will also give you a brand new heart that desires righteousness because of your faith. That is being born again. You will know you have been saved and that Jesus is your savior💕
@@julietorres7298 shut up
Pro tip: Actually listen. Listen to both without offence or fear. And return to your 'self' at the end.
Sad that nowadays we have to tell people that they have to listen to people.
People always tend to listen to other people. Man is social animal.
@@bunnygirl8482 REALLY?
I felt that neither were in best form in this debate. Which saddens me a little. It would have been nice to see them testing each other's core arguments. Harris missed many chances to score big. And Craig was too dismissive to bend the arguments his way. All in all, not great.
Now that I've listened, and proffered my view. Away with myself to other endeavors! Good luck!
I try to hear the 'other side' as much as possible. I've read Gerald Shroder and Karen Armstrong and still not convinced about a god let alone religion.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
08:01 🤔 Dr. Craig and Dr. Harris agree that objective moral values exist independently of human opinion.
14:23 🌍 Dr. Craig argues that theism provides a solid foundation for objective moral values rooted in God's nature.
18:11 🦁 Dr. Craig questions atheism's ability to ground objective moral values due to the lack of inherent worth in a naturalistic worldview.
21:34 🔄 Dr. Craig criticizes Sam Harris's attempt to redefine "good" and "evil" as human well-being and argues that it lacks objective grounding.
22:57 🔄 Dr. Craig challenges the idea that atheism can provide a source for objective moral duties, highlighting problems with naturalism and determinism.
27:34 🤝 Sam Harris acknowledges the importance of a secular foundation for morality and expresses concern about the erosion of secular morality.
29:13 🚀 Sam Harris suggests that understanding morality in terms of human well-being can provide a basis for making ethical claims about behavior and ways of life.
29:28 🌍 Sam Harris discusses the controversy surrounding denigrating the Taliban's worldview at a scientific meeting.
30:24 🤯 Sam Harris engages in a debate about cultural practices with a colleague, illustrating differing viewpoints on morality.
32:16 👥 Harris critiques the double standard in ethics, where someone with a scientific and philosophical background is detached from real suffering.
33:27 🔬 Harris argues that science can address questions of right and wrong, dispelling the notion that science can't address moral values.
36:10 🤔 Harris presents the idea that consciousness and well-being are essential components of a moral landscape.
37:53 🏔️ Harris argues that the "worst possible misery for everyone" defines the minimum standard for moral goodness.
39:43 🇦🇫 Harris critiques the Taliban's culture as an example of a society that fails to maximize human well-being.
45:14 🧠 Harris challenges the distinction between facts and values, asserting that science and values are intertwined.
49:41 ⛪ Craig defends the notion that objective moral values and duties are grounded in the existence of God.
51:55 🔀 Craig critiques Harris's assertion that the good life is equated with conscious creatures' flourishing.
53:55 ⚖️ Craig argues that Harris's claim that goodness is identical to creaturely flourishing is logically incoherent.
55:19 🛡️ Moral obligations and prohibitions arise from competent authority. Atheism lacks such authority for moral commands.
56:01 🤖 Without God, there is no foundation for moral imperatives or duties, resulting in moral nihilism.
56:44 🛡️ Atheism lacks ontological foundations for objective moral values and duties, contrary to theism.
57:36 🤖 Atheism cannot establish objective moral values and duties without God as the moral lawgiver.
58:50 🛡️ Atheistic moral framework faces challenges in justifying moral accountability and value.
59:18 🤖 The problem of evil and the problem of unevangelized do not refute the existence of God's moral framework.
01:04:30 🛡️ Christianity is seen as a cult of human sacrifice rather than a religion that repudiates it.
01:05:11 🤖 Theistic moral framework is criticized for rationalizing atrocities and immoral behavior based on divine command theory.
01:05:50 🛡️ The existence of evil can be seen as an argument for God's existence due to the grounding of objective values.
01:06:44 🤖 Atheism's lack of foundation for objective moral values and duties is questioned.
01:07:26 🛡️ Moral reasoning within atheism is challenged for not being grounded in any objective foundation.
01:18:00 🤖 An objective morality based on science can rely on certain value assumptions similar to other scientific fields.
01:20:43 🛡️ Science can address both epistemological objectivity (openness to data) and ontological objectivity (objective aspects of subjective facts).
01:22:04 🌍 Sam Harris emphasizes valuing well-being and avoiding suffering, asserting that objective value is based on the well-being of conscious creatures.
01:23:17 🧘 Atheists can experience self-transcending love, ecstasy, and awe; they don't reject profound experiences but refrain from making unjustifiable claims about the cosmos.
01:24:51 🔬 Understanding our situation and deeper possibilities should align with the spirit of science; sectarian claims from various religions might not capture the true essence.
01:29:12 🙌 Objective moral values and duties don't necessarily require religious belief; moral growth and development are possible without a belief in a specific God.
01:31:52 🕊️ Sam Harris questions the problem of religious diversity, showing that the same arguments for Christianity could be applied to Islam or any other religion.
01:37:06 ⚖️ The debate covers the foundation of objective moral values, with Dr. Craig asserting they rely on God, while Sam Harris argues they can exist independently of a divine source.
01:47:23 🌟 Sam Harris discusses miracles and their context in different religions.
01:48:20 📚 Miracle stories in Christianity have ancient origins with textual discrepancies; other religions also have miracle claims with living eyewitnesses.
01:49:16 🧐 Disparity in belief regarding miracles like Jesus' among billions and more recent ones like Sai Baba among millions challenges intellectual consistency.
01:49:55 🌐 Harris is open to evidence of miracles, but notes the subjectivity and inconsistency of such claims across different belief systems.
01:50:37 🏳️🌈 A question on divine revelation and morality highlights differing perspectives on moral issues like homosexuality based on religious beliefs.
01:51:50 🌍 Harris and Craig discuss the possibility of this being the worst possible world and moral implications of destroying consciousness.
01:56:04 🕌 Craig defends his Christian beliefs by differentiating Christianity from Islam, citing historical and theological reasons for his stance.
01:57:01 🔄 Harris responds to Craig's distinction between "is" and "ought" statements, arguing that morality can arise from well-being considerations.
01:58:27 🔄 Harris counters divine command theory with concerns of psychopathy, suggesting an inherent difficulty in deriving morality solely from authority.
02:01:12 📜 Harris questions Craig's reliance on divine command theory, highlighting the potential for moral atrocities based on divine authority.
02:03:48 🛐 Craig defends the notion that a foundation for moral values lies in a transcendent source, irrespective of doctrinal consensus among religious groups.
1:02:03 This point always bothered me as a child; these people, unaware of Christ, are condemned to HELL but not the repentant criminal? No thanks 🤷🏾♂️😂
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Sorry, I believe that you and Sam got it all wrong. People who are unaware of God or Christ will not end up in hell automatically. God will only judge you based on what you do with what you are given. Since they are unaware of God, it means that they have not rejected him. You will only end up in hell if you reject God.
@@Uouttooo Dr. Price is correct. The existence of Christ is a myth. listen to Bible scholars Dr. Richard C. Miller PhD, Dr. Kipp Davis PhD, Dr. Dennis R. MacDonald. on their discoveries about Christianity while studying other religions.Rabbi Tovia Singer Exposes New Testament Lies about how Christians lie in the new testimony about Christ. It seems more and more that Christianity is fake and Christians are just a bunch of thieves.
@@Uouttooo "God will only judge you based on what you are given. Since they are unaware of God, it means that they have not rejected him. You will only end up in hell if you reject God." WHAT!?!?!
@@Uouttooo: Do you really believe that? If so, it’s only because it’s what you were told and chose to believe.
Skip the long-winded introductions. Opening statements begin at 00:07:52
Thank you
Real mvp here.
Amen
God bless
Your comment and or advise would,be better if anyone would,read it first before watching the video. But people usually watch the,video then comment on it
“No one has ever attempted to attack the philosophical underpinnings of medicine”
2022 “Hold my beer”
Apart from all the BS they used to do in the middle ages and before, and some of the garbage that is claimed as 'medicine' now.
Human ignorance is the main way Satan and the other fallen angels have operated and still operate in this world.
For example, cancer must not be treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but with healthy periods of starvation, consuming only natural / organic vegetables and appropriate fruits, especially black fruits (like the black raspberry), with 8 hours of sleep every night, walks / exercises in nature (fresh air), without stress, optimistic ..., not eating sugar and meat at all ... the tumors being "digested" in a few months or even weeks (it is also highly recommended not to have any overload during the healing period).
@@filmeseverin Quack
In spite of the fact that English is not my native language, and I am not living in an English speaking country, my messages are clear enough for the honest readers.
It is true that the distribution of resources, opportunities, and comforts is not equal across humanity, and that many people face significant challenges and hardships due to a variety of factors such as poverty, discrimination, or lack of access to education and healthcare. This uneven distribution of resources and opportunities can result in significant disparities in quality of life and well-being across different populations.
However, it is important to recognize that progress and development are not static or fixed, but are constantly evolving and changing over time. While it is true that some people may benefit more than others from the current state of development, it is also true that progress has been made in many areas that have improved the lives of people around the world. For example, improvements in healthcare, education, and technology have helped to reduce poverty, increase life expectancy, and enhance communication and collaboration across borders.
It is important to continue working towards greater equity and fairness in the distribution of resources and opportunities, while also recognizing the progress that has been made and continuing to build upon it. This requires a collaborative and proactive approach that involves governments, organizations, and individuals working together to create a more just and equitable world.
However, it is important to recognize that progress and development are not static or fixed, but are constantly evolving and changing over time. While it is true that some people may benefit more than others from the current state of development, it is also true that progress has been made in many areas that have improved the lives of people around the world. For example, improvements in healthcare, education, and technology have helped to reduce poverty, increase life expectancy, and enhance communication and collaboration across borders. we are alone in the wold, what you see is real, dreams are based on elusion and fantasies humans will love to come into existence, ails and wonderland will never exist, read between the lines.
When is the God Debate 3?
Dr. Craig lost because he didn't even attempt to prove the existence of his deity and instead based his entire argument on a deity he has no evidence even exists. Not sure why he is viewed as a challenge to atheists as his arguments could not be any weaker or based on circular reasoning, mixed in with every known logical fallacy.
Jodi Fowler
As he stated many times that wasn’t the topic of discussion. Harris apparently wasn’t aware though. They weren’t debating the existence of God. They were debating how a high power or authority or law giver is required for moral objective values and duties. Harris attacked Christianity while Craig justified his claims.
Maybe because the debate was not about the existence of God. He said it many times
I absolutely enjoyed this debate. The speakers were very knowledgeable and did a remarkable job. Thanks for putting this on you tube. Much appreciated
Harris is out of topic
Most reasonable comment ever posted on CZcams.
only a theist would think this 'debate' had any worth at all...
if you think they both did a remarkable job, then you have not understood much at all from the debate. Both cannot be right here. Either one of them is wrong and remarkable depends on being right. Unless, that is, you find something that is completely wrong to be remarkably so.
@@aimedon That's a inane way to approach a debate. It's not just to prove your right it's to get to the truth of the argument.
If you asked sam if he thought he was 100% right he'd say no as most of those intellectual types would that's the point of debating taking new viewpoints away to strength your own views.
Are used to men are not talking about the objectivity of morals, instead they are talking about a wide consensus, in regard to certain morals. Consensus is not a synonym for objectivity.
Belief in ferry tales and hobgoblins does not move us forward as a society. The dogma stated by religions tend to limit our understanding of the way things work in a normal society; they hobble the free thinking format of our normal understanding
Religion is indeed a hinderance to progress, as are most human institutions. Given the pervasiveness of religious institutions throughout mankind's history, what do you mean by "normal society?" Are you speaking in hypotheticals here? Because, as far as we know there has always been "religion" so wouldn't that indicate that religious society is the norm? Also, it seems like the general movement of secularization we are witnessing in the Western world is nothing more than a new religion of Meliorism built on man and his progress, whether that be politically, technologically, morally, etc... Is this the norm you are alluding to, where it seems we are currently replacing a "god" with the idea of a future concept of man at the end of history?
@@pathofthegamer8590 well I don’t think of society as a place where you can assume anything but belief is a matter of acceptance of a proposition that while providing people with comfort that is at the expense of rational thought and one has to be clear as to what you are committed to .There is no proof of the existence of gods, in fact there have been thousands of gods throughout history and not one of them have every shown there face. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
I think we need this debate of beliefs to continue because unlike other wars, this ones slightly more pacifist yet promotes just as much human progress as war does. I might be crazy for this take
10 years on and you can really see how the conversation has moved on. Thank you for the discussions that have led us to learning
Its funny because we are actually seeing a situation Harris thought we never would in his introduction with the fat acceptance movement. I think the progression of time is revealing who won this argument.
@@calebalbertson1690 Not really
Not really religious people still fear doubt more than they want to know the truth and keep trying to make their problem everyone else's.
@@Terminalsanity Christianity is not about "Religion". Jesus himself denounced religion, already knowing it would only divide us. There's no doubt in my mind you have never even given Christianity a chance. Your mind was made up long ago by ppl you considered 'smarter' than you. I can guarantee you have never picked up the Gospel and read it for yourself vs having heard a preacher give his interpretation of it. Had you read it, then you would understand why Christians believe its the Truth. You can find no lies in It. And the ppl back then thought exactly and react exactly the same way ppl would today. That's why it is very easy to relate w his disciples and what they went through, witnessed, and wrote down.
@@Trey-ny7wh Your obvious fear of doubt is not my not problem no matter how much you try to project it onto me.
The truth in full is beyond us all. We decidedly finite beings can never truly know the infinite only know it better and only if we make the effort. Your impotent attempts to try and make the truth as small as your understanding only serve to further divorce you from it.
BTW the you're completely wrong about me indeed reading the gospel is precisely why I'm no longer a practicing Christian. I had been lied to about what it actually says precisely because so much of what it says makes no sense and is frankly awful: Do not punish the son for the sins of the father... except when it comes to David then you murder an innocent infant to punish his father's sin. Re-read Exodus it implies the Egyptian Gods are real and have actual power after all if there were no other Gods the 1st Commandant is rather redundant and pointless.
Oh and there's actually almost nothing in the bible about the devil and hell, pretty much everything you believe about them them is literally Christian fan fiction mostly based off of Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost. You don't even know what you don't know about the book you claim to believe in.
From a scientific perspective, our understanding of reality is based on empirical evidence and observation, and is subject to ongoing revision and refinement as new data becomes available. Our senses provide us with information about the world, but they are not infallible, and can be subject to illusion or misinterpretation.
Dreams and fantasies are products of the human imagination, and are not necessarily grounded in reality. However, they can have important psychological and emotional significance, and may serve as a means of exploring and expressing our desires, fears, and aspirations.
In conclusion, the nature of reality and the limits of human knowledge and perception are complex and multifaceted topics that are subject to ongoing debate and exploration. While we may never have a complete understanding of the nature of reality, we can continue to explore and learn more about the world around us through scientific inquiry and philosophical reflection.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Lol - did they splice in that applause at the beginning? There's no one in the seats and I don't see anyone clapping.
This comment's section looks like a mental ward.
You liked your own comment didn't you Neal
@@LunaDelTuna nope, but here I'll do it for you
Only if you don’t understand both sides of this story..
well take your meds and go back to bed then
@@nealbrewer3799 Awe thanks Neal!
It sounded to me like Craig was trying to win the debate, while Harris was actually trying to speak to and convince the audience, not so much respond to Craig's points.
I agree. The ending statements by Harris was shocking! It’s almost as though he strawmans Craigs position. Craig refused to deal with points irrelevant to the topic on hand.
Craig has a repertoire of verbal tricks designed to appear as convincing arguments for his position on on our subservience to supernatural beings. Harris is not interested in taking apart the details of Craig's position (and neither would the audience be). Harris has something he wants to say about HUMAN affairs, and he concentrates on saying it.
@@Oldtinear I agree, I think Harris' arguments are more convincing. However I also think Craig did a better job at addressing Harris' arguments in this format. It depends what you think the goal of the debate was to judge who won, in my opinion.
@@JigglePhysics3000 Craig insisted that Harris's morality based in human well-being is subjective.
To be honest, I am unsure what 'objective' morality might be. Objective means based on facts. There are zero facts involved in Craig's belief that a supernatural being exists who has desires regarding our behaviour, and that these desires have been reliably discovered and recorded, and we are obliged to conform to them. Craig scores zero.
Harris's morality involves some measures which can be objectively assessed - physical, mental and social health can be assessed by experts in those fields. Even so, people may ask 'What evidence have you that morality is or should be based on human well-being?' Harris's answer is that anyone who questions whether the worst misery for everyone is bad, does not know what he is talking about, and I agree!
@@Oldtinear Oh I personally very much agree with Harris and I think he had the most convincing arguments. I just also think that in the context of a debate, where premises need to logically follow eachother to come to a logical conclusion, Craig did do a good job. I'm just saying Craig did a better job debating, but not actually convincing me, at least. To be fair, he did misrepresent Harris a few times and I disagree with some (if not all) of his premises, but I followed the structure of his arguments better than I did Harris'.
I may have very well missed some stuff or misunderstood some of Harris' arguments, but that was the impression I got after watching the video.
The two catholic churches in my town recently combined. I rejoice at such news on easter Sunday.
I agree. One down, one to go!
Too small to survive on their own!
We must continue to question the belief that we need to worship. It will take a lot to convince those that find comfort in living a servile life. Whilst there are people committing heinous crimes in 'God's' name, we can't take this lightly. I believe that continuing the breakdown of broad-based Christianity will lead to the undoing of the more potent religions. There is a lot of work to do to free the victims of religion!
Ben Stiller VS David Lee Roth.. Thats crazy!!
Lauro Neto lol
Spot on! Hysterical!
Good one lol
Ha!
Hahahaha, you are so right!
they aren't addressing eachother's points and it makes me mad
You really heard this and think Sam Harris didnt address any of Craig's points???
@@ryan49er1 you really heard this and thought Craig addressed any of Sam Harris' points???
i made a more lengthy and detailed observation somewhere in this comment section.
I thought Harris addressed him. I thought Craig was avoiding such questions as kids dying at a significant rate.
@@ryan49er1 Really? Did you not see that Craig addressed Harris point for point, but made sure to note when Harris was bringing up irrelevancies? And did you not notice how Harris kept bringing up new topics in his rebuttals, none of which had anything to do with what Craig said? I personally thought that it was clear that while neither of them were comprehensively addressing each other's points, only Craig actually stayed on topic.
@@ethanm.2411 Hmmm, I must of missed the part where he addressed Harris's explanation of geographical luck when going to heaven. Or Millions of non Christian kids dying and not going to heaven but a murderer who asks for forgiveness will receive eternal life....I guess that's Moral objective behavior.
Nurnberg principles:
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."
Thus, instigation of war crime and crimes against humanity (including instigating to murder and slave labour of civilians) is against international criminal law.
Deuteronomy Chapter 20:
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."
Samuel 15:
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris but Craig's charge that Harris didn't refute many of his core claims rings true
They were both putting forward different hypotheses for the source of good. I'm not sure that I remember Low Bar Bill refuting any claims from Harris. Did he? Harris pointed out the absurdities one must believe to think that Craig's definition of a good God is the source of good. He did this but pointing out the relaties we see in the world around us.
Do you have any examples of points Craig made that Harris did not refute? And do you have examples of points Harris made that Craig did refute?
It seems to me like everyone seems to think that Craig gets to assert all he wants and Harris must refute every single point, but that does not have to be done in reverse because, hey, Craig is asserting God and God is obvious if you believe.
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see the *free* choices/deeds. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan did to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
Most unbelievers of the truth think that a human being can be good enough without God/Jesus wisdom (laws, commandments), but they do not want to quit ALL their bad addictions to be really good humans, as the Creator wants us to be, and they do not want to love (care about) the others as they love (care about) themselves, as the true Christians do. Their idea of good is way too low than what it should be, and that is why so many people are still far from Heaven (they do not recognize their bad deeds).
@@El_Bruno7510 Minute 52:50 WLC gives what he argues is a knock down argument against Sam's conflating moral good with wellbeing. Using modal logic he demonstrates that the continuum of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape, as the peaks of well-being can be occupied by sociopaths. He refuted the whole basis of Sam's philosophy. It is a complex refutation so that could be why you didn't remember it.
@@mikegrecamusic5917 It certainly is complex! I also do not pretend to be a philosophical expert, but it didn't sound like the knock down argument that Low Bar Bill (and you) thinks it was to me. Wellbeing does not just apply to the individual enacting the actions, it applies to the recipients of the actions too. Maximising wellbeing still stands even with psychopaths existing!. Now it could be that he was claiming a possible world where everyone is a psychopath? If so, I think this 15 min YT, "Christian Apologetics: Hitler can't help you." from the NONSTAMPCOLLECTOR fits the bill quite nicely. Wellbeing is not claimed, but seems to me would fit in well, and it nicely highlights the problems with the argument that a world full of psychopaths (or if Hitler had won the war, and as a result the world population accepted what the Nazis did as not immoral) would trash atheist morality claims.
@@El_Bruno7510 I wasn't taking the side of WLC. I was just pointing out that he was not just refuting a claim, but thee claim Sam makes in his book: that we can derive a moral system from the scientific analysis of what brings us closer to Well Being. It's a compelling hypothesis. I'm not yet convinced. But I want to be fair. WLC did refute that claim, and Sam didn't know how to rebut that refutation. WLC can get insanely technical so Sam did the wise thing to ignore it and go on building his framework, counting on the fact that many of us couldn't fully grasp what he presented as a "knock down argument."
Thanks for the response and the video recommendation.
My kid got an Objective Moral Value in his Happy Meal today.
both this and the response comment are really good. thank you lol
That’s funny lol
One day do an unboxing of meal and see how much food actually get. Then start eating at a grocery store deli.
Yo I spit out my drink omfg!😂🤣😂
Didn't he also get a doody with that?
Hitchens is more entertaining but I think Harris is slightly better at building convincing logical arguments in such a way that it results in a powerful and clear conclusion, Hitchens is strong at individual points but not as good at the big picture
Hitchens is definitely more entertaining and more brutal but Harris has a way of communicating complex ideas in a simple manner that reeks of pure genius
Oh, Hitchens was a genius entertainer and very well informed but Harris has him on scientific understanding, which Hitchens readily conceded in his debates.
Hitchens in his debate with Craig had no interest in answering his claims, which I found to be quite funny. : D I still smile thinking about it
agree
sissacd
This is CZcams.
You are not allowed to agree !!
Craig: Gods on holy and loving nature…
God: Destroy all that they have and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
Seems like Sam was having a different conversation 🤔
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
It's my first time watching through but it almost seems like Sam didn't have any conclusions to the evidence he was bringing up.
@@adamfrank2906 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Don’t act like you don’t recognize that brilliant introduction from the undergraduate student.
10:30
I'm not getting over how much Craig truly sounds like Microsoft Sam.
Magnify facts 😂
Hahahahaha
Actually he is. God sent him to an alternate universe with Jesus to do voice overs and come back to save us from the A.I's. It's all in the scrolls
We need to see Dawkins vs WLC then. Microsoft Sam vs C3PO
The Wall Demon Of Kentucky 🤣
Evolution is the origin of 'moral values'. Most higher species demonstrate examples of group cooperation, altruism, compassion, generosity and community action. All these are evolutionary adaptions that significantly increase the survivability of both the group and thus the individuals. There's even 'internal pressure' towards group cooperation, where those who don't participate are alienated in many ways.
There's no question 'moral values' are an 'evolutionary adaptation'.
What's 'good' about 'moral behavior' is species' increased likelihood to survive! Once this is understood, the true concept of 'moral behaviour' makes total sense.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
"Worthy of worship" - mini-word salad typical of Craig
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Listening to Dr. Craig repeat himself over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Can’t count how many times he said “without the existence of god there are no objective moral values and duties”
He did the same exact thing in his debate with Hitchens.
God is real and He Loves You. Jesus is the Son of God come in the flesh and he died on the cross for all of our sins, he was buried and he rose again. He is alive forever more. Believe on him and have everlasting life. When I die I will be with him forever. If you don't believe in him before you die, when you die you will burn in hell forever. Please believe on him before it's Eternally to late. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
I mean it’s bc it’s true and he couldn’t find any other way to put it to make the bright intelligent hitches understand the simple concept
@@slowjamcdub "If you don't believe in him before you die, when you die you will burn in hell forever."
So the god you believe in is a nasty cruel narcissistic sadist.
@@slowjamcdub your god is a megalomaniac “love me or burn forever” psychopath. Such a being will never be worthy of worship and I’m thankful that it does not exist. Get help.
Why isn't anyone responding properly?
I just hear wordplay from Sam TBH. What he’s actually argued for is subjective morality.
He argues for objective morality
Subjective morality - moreover, with the additional nonsensical expectation that the agent will freely choose the good - while entirely genetically determined - in the full absence of free, unencumbered agency. Absurdity upon unwieldy stilts again. Although I appreciate that Harris is recognising the reality of objective values (something other anti-theists are afraid to do, because of the implications), he can offer no coherent grounding whatsoever - as materialism gives none.
His defence here is so poor, that Craig must resort to refuting the assertions in Harris' book directly, where some nebulous effort at justification is attempted. I was actually looking forward to this debate, having been genuinely shocked at the philosophical ignorance of Harris' colleagues. This wasn't merely weak water, it was utterly absurd in the poverty of Harris' argument. There have been atheists in the past who were actually conversant with the history of ideas, at the very least. Even now, with a philosopher like John Gray, for inst. Vacuous celebrity culture leading the discourse down the toilet again.
@@antodubhasaigh7611 many atheists believe in objective morality, just like there are many atheists who believe in subjective morality, whether or not morality is absolute or not is entirely exclusive of being an atheist.
And i know Sam Harris believes in determinism, but again there are atheists on both camps of free will debate, it has nothing to do with atheism.
This is such a boring issue for me lately, because even if you believe in subjective morality, it still has nothing to do with being a good person. Just like gravity has nothing to do with being a good person. Just saying you think morality is objective, does not mean its true or that you are automatically a more moral person, yet every religious person ive had discussions with before somehow infer this notion.
@@gerritkruger4014 I appreciate your sentiments, partly because they were my own.
"many atheists" I would say greater than that; as a matter of practical reason virtually all people who identify as atheist believe in objective moral values, and act accordingly. However, such a dynamic is entirely derivative of the established order.
But the issues here are the atheist claims in the present context, not the wider convictions.
We're entitled to ask the warrant for any claim; and when that proposed warrant is the standard woolly, unhelpful, empty, rambling, unsustainable attempt at support/justification, we're rationally entitled to withhold assent.
Equally the radical disjunction between his determinism & our dignified, uncoerced agency to opt for objective good is entirely pertinent, and cannot be expediently set aside.
Where are the coherent grounds here? Again, not remotely provided.
"Subjective morality" & being a "good person" are absolutely relevant, and the relation must be established & sustained. The "good" is itself an objective claim! The gravity factor & relation?
Objective values (of all variants - not merely ethical) are absolutely core, and cannot be conveniently dismissed or brushed aside. No claim is coherent unless it can be coherently established & validly maintained. We can otherwise make no reasonable claims regarding truth, justice, morality, meaning, etc. etc. These necessarily objectively transcend & ground the individual subject. This is the perplexity of base materialism & reductionism. It can offer no such grounds.
Rational objectivity is not an optional extra. Harris realises this, but can offer no basis or ground.
I have to say that, in fairness, your contribution stands apart from the standard internet expression of the uncontrolled id.
So trueee lol… I watch him speak and I’m thinking, this guy didn’t put any thought into this debate lol
The debate was over at the 45' minute mark!
Theists individually can be moral, but they have no way to explain through faith why any act is right or wrong. Unless someone can manage it?
In Christianity, the Book of Romans proclaims that the Moral Law of God is written in one’s heart, meaning soul, and that those who break this law will be convicted by the Holy Spirit through guilt, while other religions have their own claims, I wanted to present the Christian viewpoint to expand understanding, have a great day!
Sam Harris reminds me of Ben Stiller lool. Does anyone see it?
I see Seth green/Scotty from Austin powers.
@@WinnieTheTrain them too 😂
Heyyy its uu from CP!
@@Rocky-ur9mn it is!!
@@dilz2467 came to Christ yet?or still searching?
I can only offer a less than sophisticated objection to Dr. Craig's insistence on the existence of "objective morality." Craig accuses Harris of equivocation with the use of the words "good," and "bad." I think Dr. Craig is using the phrase "objective morality" in a similar way with respect to the way Harris is using the term. Craig is appealing to the idea that there is some ultimately objective morality that is completely independent of and prior to sentient creatures such as ourselves. There is simply no reason to think this is so. When we observe the natural world, and the behaviors of creatures (including ourselves), we do not observe an independent moral substance that creatures happen upon or otherwise discover. What we find is that the social creatures which have a natural sense of empathy for their fellow creatures are the ones that survive to propagate the species. Hence, empathy has become a biological and psychological norm for many conscious creatures. Evolution and biology offer a more than sound explanation of where morality comes from. Pushing the question further, as Dr. Craig is doing, by insisting that morals must come from some more ultimate source is simply question begging and is ultimately non-sensical. Not all questions such as "What is the ultimate ground of objective morality?", demand an answer because not all questions are valid questions. We can ask, "What does the sound of music taste like?". It grammatically qualifies as a question, but it is an invalid one because it makes the unfounded assumption that taste is a quality of music, when there is no evidence that this is so. Therefore, as an invalid question, it cannot be answered. It simply makes no sense. In the same way, "What is the ultimate foundation of objective mortality?" qualifies as a question, but it is one that does not have an answer with the way Craig is using the words "ultimate" and "objective."