Does God Exist?

This is a John Shook v. William Lane Craig debate held at University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Craig brings up the point several times that a psychotic person (i.e. some one with no moral guide) can’t be condemned by an atheist who believes there are no absolute morals because we must acknowledge that the murder was right to him (or her).

In that sense it may be true we can’t fault the personal moral reasoning of the psychotic person but we can still easily condemn the actions a psychotic person in a societal context.

Morality is a shifting equilibrium of opinions, reason, power and knowledge – we don’t need anything else to explain why we experience moral conscience, why we condemn actions, and why we argue about what is good and bad.

Talks and Lectures You Might Also Like

Is the Foundation of Morality...

Atheism 2.0

Sacking the City of God!

The Three Horsemen and One Ho...

http://www.facebook.com/people/Sébastien-Talbot-Vachon/1134112677 Sébastien Talbot-Vachon
William Lane Craig don’t seem to realize that the burden of the proof is on those who make supernatural claim.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Sébastien-Talbot-Vachon/1134112677 Sébastien Talbot-Vachon
Supernatural claim have been proven false thousand of time since hundreds of years.
misterkel
Supernatural means above nature. Metaphysical means beyond the physical or superordinate to the physical. Thus, the laws of physics are metaphysical – they direct the physical universe while having no physical structure themselves. I cannot understand how scientists deny the metaphysical while proclaiming the laws of physics – these are definitively meta-physical in both legitimate senses of the word. They direct the physical realm and they exist without having physical form in and of themselves.
I’m open to different ideas, but I have never seen this simple topic addressed – scientists seem to deny it. And atheists (of the strident variety) have, as Karl Popper said, ‘an anxiety to eliminate metaphysics. However, metaphysics has been of the greatest use to science.’
wald0
Lane Craig has used the exact line of argument used in this debate in every debate he has ever been in about the existence of god. The argument does nothing whatsoever to prove any god’s existence and especially not the specific Christian God he clings so desperately to. It distorts the main stream veiws of academia, purposely I might add, by asserting that the biblical gospels are considered historical sources- which is just a flat lie and halarious really. It begins from the false premise that if one can not prove the supernatural doesn’t exist Christianity is therefore valid- how does that conclusion follow? If we can not prove it doesn’t exist and we can not prove it does exist, then all we know is “we don’t know”. How does the validity of God and all the demons and angels as well as the bible itself follow from “we don’t know”? The answer is quite obvious, it doesn’t. The best Mr. Craig could do is prove that agnosticism is the only scientifically viable stance, because it admits that we simply do not know. The only real question is what we do in light of that fact, that we do not know? Do we then go on to postulate gods, angels, demons, miracles, etc. or even worse- rely on the mistakenly translated knowledge of people that lived two thousand years ago despite its obvious contradictions and inaccuracies regarding history and nature? Or do we instead cling to a different narrative, the unfolding story of science which invites us each to experience its validity first hand and even provides us with a systematic framework that assures our personal, cultural, and other biases do not interfere? I think the choice is obvious if it is real objective truth we are after.
The side arguments advanced in this debate such as, “Objective morality could not exist without god, the fine tuning of the universe suggests a creator…”, and last but certainly not least, my favorite- “The biblical gospels are a historical source.” (that one is hard to say without laughng) do nothing to sure up Craig’s case. History clearly shows that mankind’s moral standards have drastically evolved through out the advance of civilization and differ hugely due to temporal, cultural, geographic, social, economic, and religious context. There has not been even one moral standard that has been universally accepted as correct by all cultures throughout time and space- murder, rape, incest, torture, decapitation, child sacrifice, etc. have all been accepted as moral in different times and places due to different influences and beliefs. It is only in relatively recent modern times that a true objective morality has emerged, objective in the sense that all educated, sane, seemingly logical persons for the most part agree on it. This objective moral code is very loosely defined however and each culture attaches its own exceptions as we all know. It seems to have evolved out of a mutual recognition by these peoples that to act otherwise needlessly endangers the functionality of society, our own personal safety, etc. not from some divine influence which would seem to suggest we should have been this way from day one, which isn’t the case at all. What was considered perfectly moral to ancient Greeks for instance would shock and disgust most modern day peoples.
The idea that the universe is fined tuned for life as we know it has been proven a fallacy by evolution and by the simple rule of scientific deduction which states when we have a sample of only one we can draw no absolute conclusions as to its state of perfection or otherwise- its fine-tuned compared to what? For all we know there is a much more perfect universe for organic life out there somewhere- perhaps one in which radiation doesn’t affect DNA in the slightest- viola, no cancer sounds pretty sweet to me. Besides, when an entity has evolved to fit the universe of course it seems perfect for its existence, that is the whole point of evolution in the first place- to adapt the living creature to perfectly fit its environment.
I refuse to address the biblical gospels being considered historical texts, that is simply not true and for good reason. Yes there are some historical facts in the text but, that doesn’t automatically qualify it to be considered a valid source of history. Besdies, even if we concede this fact, which I don’t, it is ridiculous to state that the best explanation one can come up with for an empty tomb is someone being raised from the dead.
Whew, that was a mouthful- had to be said and no one else was doing it so- there you have it.
SFXkilla
Dr. Lane Craig is just inserting god into the gaps like so many before. Although he is more articulate than most I find these types of arguments are basicly lazy. It seems to be the attitude of “well I cant know for sure in my lifetime so I will stake my peice of mind on the good old tryed and true”
cynicfrombc
Hey pal, you are so blind to your own presuppositions, it’s actually hilarious, to use your term. Nearly everything you assert so confidently flows from your own non-provable premises.The problem is that you take these premises for granted; they are like the furniture of your mind. One day, perhaps, you will wake up to your own intellectual arrogance. Until then, have a happy life.
elfmachines
Very well said and I am glad to see you writing with some conviction at length I might add! :P
That being said, I don’t know how you can make a claim that angels do not exist, It seems to me that angels like Elves, Aliens and UFOs etc… are all parts of the overmind and depending on your cultural understanding and language to decribe appear to you in the form that makes the most sense. I don’t think that one can prove that something being of the mind excludes it from being real for example and maybe somewhat anicdotle is the fact that Decartes came up with the method from an angelic vision, an angel came down to him and told him that nature would be conquered in the name of god using measurements and mathmatics “PARAPHRASING” to a materialist this may seem to be no big deal but to my mind this is the overmind coming down and telling an individual something that needed to be done to overcome the problems of the day, namely the church and organized religion and its grip on civilization. I think these things do happen, this might be what happened with the teaching of Christ I mean Christ may not have actually existed but the teaching of Christ most certainly shaped history in the same way that science has shaped history, these teaching were what was needed to be heard for a people that had the Old Testiment Father god as there Judge and Jury.
elfmachines
Revalations come to the people that are paying attention and every once in a while these ideas change the game. The ideas of the Christ took hundreds of years to overtake the ruling class until finally the ruling class found a way to hijack the teachings and regain control they mainted control until the method was revealed to Decartes and over a few hundred years it took over religion and toppled it the ruling class then hijacked science compartmenalized it used the data to build more sophistcated means of control but out of the ether ideas are rising that will tilt the scale once more but in the information age the big ideas will spread like wild fire across the web and deliver results litteraly overnight to those paying attention and this will happen pretty soon my sources tell me. ;0
Ninth Legion
Is there anything you don’t believe in? White elephants, the tooth fairy, santa claus, the jolly green giant…….?