Debate starts at 17:15

17:13 You're Welcome

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌟 Dr. Craig introduces the debate on the reasonability of faith in God, highlighting the significance of the question and the engagement of viewers worldwide. 01:21 🎓 Dr. Craig presents the debaters: Dr. Alex Rosenberg arguing against faith's reasonability and Dr. William Lane Craig arguing for it, both distinguished philosophers with extensive contributions to their fields. 05:11 🎙️ Mr. Miller sets the stage for the debate, addressing the themes of faith, reason, and life. The symposium aims to explore these topics through discussions, lectures, and debates. 08:02 🤝 Distinguished judges from various fields are introduced, adding credibility and expertise to the evaluation of the debate's arguments. 10:58 🤔 Mr. Miller contrasts views on faith: Mark Twain's skeptical humor and historical philosophers' perspectives on faith as either irrational or a virtue. 13:49 🙌 Dr. William Lane Craig's opening statement focuses on arguments supporting the reasonability of faith in God, including the explanation of existence, the origin of the universe, mathematical applicability, and fine-tuning for intelligent life. 28:05 🌌 Fine-tuning argument: World ensemble hypothesis disconfirmed, design is best explanation for universe's fine-tuning. 28:59 🧠 Intentional states: Materialist view lacks intentionality, theism accommodates finite minds and intentional states. 30:51 🤔 Objective moral values: Atheism lacks objective moral values, theism grounds them in God and commands. 32:21 ⚡ Historical facts: Jesus' divine authority, resurrection, and disciples' beliefs evidence for God's existence. 38:22 🗣️ Debate approach: Critique of Dr. Craig's debating style, focus on victory vs. truth-seeking. 45:52 🌌 Fine-tuning counter: Critique of fine-tuning argument, multiple universes, string theory possibilities. 48:45 📜 Objective values: Critique of divine command theory, challenges to normative underpinnings of ethics. 56:25 🤷 Argument from evil: Argument against God's existence based on omnipotence and benevolence amid suffering. 56:54 🧐 Dr. Rosenberg argues the problem of evil: If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why is there suffering? This either questions God's power, goodness, or existence. 58:19 🗣️ Dr. Rosenberg presents the logical argument from evil, asserting that the presence of suffering contradicts the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God. 59:46 🙌 Dr. Craig argues that the logical problem of evil's premises are disputed and asserts that evil doesn't disprove theism without proving the impossibility of morally sufficient reasons for suffering. 01:00:42 🤯 Dr. Craig challenges Dr. Rosenberg's scientism, asserting that epistemological naturalism (science as sole knowledge source) doesn't entail metaphysical naturalism (only physical existence). 01:03:30 🤔 Dr. Craig argues that his theistic arguments can be accepted by epistemological naturalists, demonstrating compatibility between science and theism. 01:04:28 🤷 Dr. Craig contends that metaphysical naturalism's implications, as argued by Dr. Rosenberg, are absurd and contradictory to reason and experience. 01:08:19 🤨 Dr. Craig rebuts Dr. Rosenberg's criticisms of his arguments for God's existence, particularly the fine-tuning argument and historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. 01:12:55 📚 Dr. Rosenberg emphasizes that his book's arguments regarding intentionality and other philosophical concepts are distinct from the question of the reasonableness of belief in God. 01:20:37 😰 Dr. Rosenberg challenges the logical compatibility of a benevolent, omnipotent God with the existence of suffering and seeks a coherent explanation for the suffering in the world. 01:23:37 🧐 Dr. Craig emphasizes that logical arguments from evil are largely abandoned in philosophical discourse, as even agnostic philosophers recognize the complexity of the issue and the limitations of human knowledge. 01:28:13 🌌 Dr. Craig argues that the universe's fine-tuning for life, the applicability of mathematics, and the existence of objective moral values are better explained by theism rather than atheism. 01:34:51 😨 Dr. Rosenberg contends that the problem of evil remains a challenge for theism, suggesting that the free will defense isn't sufficient to reconcile the existence of God with the presence of suffering. 01:37:14 🤔 Dr. Rosenberg questions why a world with free will and no suffering wasn't chosen by God, proposing that a better arrangement could have been possible. 01:46:06 🙏 Dr. Craig shares a personal transformational experience, encouraging others to explore their own beliefs, and argues that God's existence is a more reasonable explanation for the world than atheism. 01:49:06 🤖 Dr. Rosenberg criticizes the use of mathematical objects as arguments for God's existence, suggesting that if God were as relevant as mathematical concepts, scientists would be more receptive to God's existence. 01:49:37 🛡️ Dr. Rosenberg advises believers not to demand that their faith be reasonable and warns against making oneself vulnerable to reason and evidence. 01:50:09 💼 Dr. Rosenberg proposes that believing in the absurd, even without reasonable grounds, can be a stronger psychological basis for faith. 01:50:36 🙏 Dr. Rosenberg acknowledges that faith, not reason, is often the firmer basis for commitment to Jesus, as experienced by many devout Christians. 01:52:11 🎙️ The debate concludes, leading to the Q&A session where the audience can ask questions to both debaters. 01:55:25 🤔 A question challenges Dr. Craig's stance on faith conflicting with evidence and reason, and the possibility of descending into radical skepticism. 01:57:10 🧠 Dr. Craig responds, distinguishing between propositional belief and trust, asserting that belief in God's existence can be grounded in personal experience. 01:59:54 🧪 Dr. Rosenberg explains the violation of causality in the decay of Uranium 238 due to quantum mechanics and argues for an event without a cause. 02:02:30 🤝 Dr. Rosenberg questions the effectiveness of debates as venues for genuine philosophical inquiry and suggests that they often lead to increased controversy and arrogance. 02:04:14 🤝 Dr. Craig emphasizes the importance of conducting debates with civility, charity, and honesty, even while presenting passionate arguments. 02:10:34 🌌 Dr. Craig clarifies his fine-tuning argument, which focuses on the narrow range of fundamental constants necessary for life, and emphasizes the argument's compatibility with various interpretations of quantum mechanics. 02:12:30 🌍 Dr. Rosenberg explains the emergence of universal moral norms through evolutionary selection, particularly cooperation, fairness, and equality, which facilitated human survival and progress. 02:16:27 🕊️ A question inquires about reconciling Christian faith's transcendent nature with the pursuit of reason. Dr. Craig responds, asserting that although God is beyond full comprehension, humans can still gain knowledge and understanding about God. 02:18:54 🛑 Dr. Craig argues that moral values and duties are rooted in God's character. He rejects the idea that God merely commands things arbitrarily; instead, God's commandments reflect his own goodness. 02:23:33 🎤 Dr. Miller prepares to share the conclusions of the audience's voting regarding the debate's arguments and perspectives. 02:24:57 📚 Dr. Craig counters Dr. Rosenberg's claim that science can operate without needing to account for God. He argues that while predictability is one criterion, other factors like simplicity and explanatory power are also important in scientific evaluation. 02:26:42 🤷‍♂️ Dr. Rosenberg highlights that he's more interested in exploring science's consequences for philosophical questions than directly proving atheism. He asserts that the further implications of science are not material in this particular debate. 02:27:42 📜 Dr. Craig counters Dr. Rosenberg's narrow scientism, asserting that science is not the only source of knowledge. He argues that fields like history, ethics, and aesthetics also provide valuable insights about the world. 02:32:16 😂 Dr. Rosenberg humorously reflects on the motivation behind writing his book and exploring the implications of science for philosophical questions that trouble humanity. 02:35:24 🤔 Dr. Craig responds to the question about why Jesus doesn't continue to physically reveal Himself. He emphasizes that God seeks a loving relationship rather than mere belief, and trusts in God's wisdom for providing evidence for His existence. 02:41:31 📖 Dr. Rosenberg clarifies that his book's seemingly paradoxical stance on sentences and meaning is intended to convey that his work is about rearranging neural circuits to correct misconceptions, rather than conveying traditional semantic statements. 02:43:58 🧠 Dr. Rosenberg refers to his book's explanation for making sense despite neuroscience challenging intentionality, and mentions a paper to elaborate on the topic. 02:44:26 🏆 Formal judging panel declares Dr. Craig as the winner in a 4-2 decision. Local Purdue audience votes: Dr. Rosenberg - 303, Dr. Craig - 1,390. Online vote: Dr. Craig - 734, Dr. Rosenberg - 59. 02:46:34 ⚰️ Dr. Miller humorously shares an epitaph and invites reflection, ending the event with a call to consider the discussions and upcoming talks.

I think it's pitiful how many people come to these comments sections and just blithely post that Craig's arguments have already been defeated. I keep looking for these supposed refutations, and all I find are amazingly weak attempts. I would love for someone to actually show me a flaw in the Kalam argument, or the teleological argument, or the moral argument, or the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. And I would pay good money to someone who could show me something wrong with the contingency argument. So far, nothing.

The biggest issue ALL atheists make when engaging in such debates is that they debate against religion, not against the concept of God or christianity as it's supposed to be. Religion is man made The core essence of Christianity isn't. Not trying to sound aggressive, but at least know the difference before starting to bash the wrong thing publicly. Just cuz the catholic church is the public view of christianity, doesn't mean that THAT's what christianity is about. (And there's lots....and lots...and LOTS of people who are faithful that will gladly tell you they're not religious but they are christian)

Im a believer but i would become and atheist if it meant Rosenberg would never saying uh again

lol, that last question seriously ticked off Dr. Rosenberg. 'I'm not stupid enough to contradict myself in the puerile way that you suggest.' No, you're smart enough to contradict yourself in a more sophisticated way ...

I do wish that there was a cross examination. They are the best parts of the debates I think. With that being said I was surprised that Doctor Rosenberg brought up a different argument in his closing statement. It seemed to be an attempt to leave the audience with such a thought in their heads without giving Doctor Craig a chance to try and refute it.

So Mr. R says we can't accept Christians writing about Christianity. I think this is wrong. First I would say the bible is Jews writing about Jewish history. Jesus is a part of Jewish history wether He is the Son of God or not and that's from the NT. We accept Romans writing about Roman history and Greeks writing about Greek history. Why would we not accept Jews writing about Jewish history? It comes down to textual criticism and the bible passes that test.

I think that the crippling problem with Rosenberg's presentation was his unwillingness to present any arguments in favor of any of the premises of the argument from evil, coupled with his deeply emotional, opposed to calm, rational, presentation thereof.

Let's clear this up. So William Lane Craig says that you can't just dismiss the resurrection of Jesus because of eye witnesses that testify that it happens. He then says that the book of mormon is wrong because it is probably lies even though it has 12 eye witnesses. He also says that the quran is wrong because it is probably a legend. It's pretty clear from his reasoning right there that he is not looking for the truth; he is trying to defend his christian faith. He wants to be a christian, he wants to believe in god, so he defends it no matter what and ignores the arguments against it.

so Craig's argument for god's morality is that "god is good because god is good, because god is good, because god is good....." And he claims to have a PhD in philosophy? .... wow

(cont) btw - just to be clear, my field is mathematics. You said initially that you're studying Economics. That's typically considered to be a social science, unless you're studying econometrics or some particular sub-field overlapping into pure or applied mathematics. Also, depending on whether you're studying at the undergrad or graduate level, you may also simply be what we call "a food taster".

Furthermore, as far as the final ratings go, I would have appreciated if they did what they do at Intelligence Squared debates - make the audience vote about their answer to the proposition, prior and after the debate. Rather than naively assume that people judge objectively.

As much as I'm loving the debate. Listening to Alex Rosenberg is becoming irritating. Those constant short pauses and the UM UM UM.

This was a fun debate to watch ☺️

Dr. Rosenberg thinks we shouldn't accept Christian scholars who write about Christian documents and Christian doctrine. Should we then accept atheist scholars writing on atheistic philosophy?

And Rosenberg starts it off with a good ol' ad hominem! Keep it real Mr. Rosenberg.

If I had a dollar for every time Rosenberg says "uh"

Goodness knows Christians need Apologetics.

"I'm ruled by reason and evidence so I will start my opening debate with insults." - Atheist Debater

That was brutal to listen to. Rosenberg needs serious help with his debating techniques.

Am I having a stroke or is there an issue with a mic? The audio keeps cutting for Dr. Rosenberg, I hear "uh" 99/sec.

...and still the heavy debate champion of the world; Dr. William "make dudes look elementary" Lane Craig! Good Going.

The question Rosenberg proposes is, essentially, why did not God create beings with the ability to always choose the good? My question: who said God didn't? Rosenberg asks, regarding NT documents, what should we take the word of Christian scholars on NT documents; it would belike taking the word of Islamists on the Quran? My question: why should we take the word of an atheist that God does not exist?

William Lane Craig usually debates very strong opponents, but this debate is definitely an exception. Alex Rosenberg completely ignores a lot of Craig's points and warrants for belief in God. There ARE strong responses to theistic proofs, but apparently Rosenberg chooses to not use them. Craig destroyed him.

“...The peace which surpasses understanding” is not an evangelical statement or apologetical argument of the Apostle Paul for the belief in God, rather it is the experience of the one already believing in God contingent upon his cooperation to doing (subjunctive) the things within that verse. It is not to be equated with reasons for belief in God. Those are two different concepts.

Joseph Campbell said that God is a metaphor for all the energy in the universe

At 40:18 Dr.Rosenburg says, "This is the wrong format for a profitable discussion of faith or God or science and reason." Well then - uhhh - ummm - uh - why did you agree to the debate since you clearly knew this is how Dr.Craig debates?

Please seek a personal relationship our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Sam How do you make the leap from methodological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism there? Maybe you should check with Terrance Deacon (Berkeley) or Michael Gazzaniga (UCSB), who coined the term cognitive neuroscience in the back of a taxi with fellow scientist George Miller in a taxi 30+ years ago, when they say that observing phenomena does not explain how it came into existence. So how exactly do you make the leap from methodological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism there?

If Rosenberg says “uh” one more time I’m going to scream

It's scary how well WLC is prepared.

No one spews out unfounded non sequiturs with more conviction than WLC.🙄

nice thank you for this presentation ஐ

characteristics of debaters theist an atheist. theist orderly, controlled , poised articulate,respectful,detailed, methodical, reasonable. atheist. arrogant, rambling, abrasive, non explicative, all over the place, disruptive promotes avoidance aka can i get some water. this says something

Thus we can summarize our argument: 1) timeless, spacless, immaterial beings can not conclusively be demonstrated to exist. 2) but if God exists he must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being. 3) therefore… God can not be conclusively demonstrated to exist.

How might materialists respond to Craig’s 5th argument, that intentional states of consciousness are incompatible with naturalism/materialism.

He is also a philosopher and an author.

I'm not sure I like the vote at the end re: who won the debate...

Don't debate William Lane Craig if you are not a good debater because he will humiliate you in public. I'm a Christian but its very sad that Rosenberg was destroyed in such way...

The only logically consistent argument from atheism is that there are no morals, no good or bad, no thoughts, no souls, and no minds. Dr. Craig won this debate by a mile. Praise God!

"I experience existence in some way, so I cannot question existence itself. Sure you can question it. Who says you cannot? That is simply your belief. You can question, "what is reality (all that exists whether observable of comprehensible)?" and "why is there existence vs. non-existence?". And. you can question it from multiple views of realism (e.g. ontology, platonism, phenomenology, mathematical realism, logical positivism, and many, many other views).

I was hoping for a good debate. Its truly sad that Alex Rosenberg's opening statement was a "argumentum ad hominem" attacking the character of William Lane Craig rather than the subject matter. After that immoral kickstart by Alex Rosenberg everything else he said was null in void and defiled. But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. Matthew 15:17 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. Luke 6:45

It's disappointing that Rosenberg opens his presentation by insult; he starts with an ad hominem argument, instead of just presenting his argument for not believing in God's existence (whether or not he follows Craig's particular systematic approach).. FIRST, debate is like the situation in a court of law where one is trying to convince the jury, by the evidence presented, the validity of his defense as opposed to the prosecution's. If Rosenberg is afraid of losing, he ought not debate. Why debate? just to present argument? For what purpose? Just because...?? I agree, debate need not be, necessarily, for the purpose of winning the argument, but it is, as I see it, to (a) present new information to those who may not have it, (2) convince the audience that such evidence as presented is reasonable, and (3) that the opposing argument, if it's position is not wholly unreasonable, at the very least, it is in reasonable doubt. Truth is honestly sought when differing and contrary positions are put forth and, according to the evidence presented, propositions are either embraced or disregarded, held as, at least, reasonable or thrown out of court, so to speak, as proved unreasonable. So, seeking truth does consist of adversarial positions; and if one is not willing to look at the adversarial position, one is not really and honestly seeking truth. And if we disagree, we ought to do so as gentlemen; not as hostile contenders by personal insult or an immature child that whines at the rules already agreed upon. SECOND, Rosenberg seems to have differentiated between belief and faith and he seems to have changed the subject of the debate but not to belief in God's existence but to God's existence per se. I'm not sure his differentiating faith from belief is valid since faith is defined as "strong belief or trust in someone or something," and in this particular case, belief in the existence of God. That is what this debate is all about, not whether or not God exists (which Rosenberg seems to have turned to) but whether or not faith/belief in God is reasonable in particular, if it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God. Don't have the time to express my opinion on the rest of Rosenberg's argument, the nature of his arguing is pretty hostile. However, I must admit that the personal offense Rosenberg takes at what he claims are professor Craig's defense of God's existence in the face of evil is, if professor Craig made such statements as Rosenberg claims and as correctly understood it within it's context, is valid (irrespective of whether or not it is true).

What happened to our culture over the last 9 years? Regardless of the strong disagreement here, both of these men were friendliy and respectful. And they both came across as intellectually honest. Those things are almost not found today and we are the wrose for it.

The last question asked by the guy in the audience was very valid ... basically Rosenberg from his book doesn't think his own words are true so why shouldn't anyone listening to the debate think his (Rosenberg) words are true ? Rosenberg seemed to get perturbed and gave nonsense for a reply. No wonder he lost the debate by such a large margin.

This Rosenberg dude kind of had me bustin up w/all his..uh..umm..uh..uh.uhh.uuh..uum..its like he gets stuck..and then somethin smacks him in backa the head..and then he continues speaking...

Alex Rosenberg reminds me of that dude on Django

the space between the two identical uranium atoms are different. right? so can it not be the spacial difference which can be the CAUSE of the emission of the alpha particles?

This was interesting..thank you.

"I'm ruled by reason and evidence so I will weigh in on objective morality even though I'm incapable of distinguishing between killing and murdering." - Atheist Debater

God, being all-knowing and almighty, has a perfect plan for everything. No amount of power from the devil, or from human free will, or from whatsoever could mess-up with his plans even a little. therefore, whatever is happening is in accordance to his will.

Growing up, I wasn't really into Jesus. Recently I read a very important text (Matthew 13:42) Since then, I have become rather fond of him.

why would a Being with infinite power and knowledge require puny humans to praise and worship it? it strongly implies such a Being is insecure and has an uneasy vanity.

"I'm a holocaust survivor. All of my family except my parents have been killed by the nazis. I will not take kindly to the idea that my brothers suffered a horrible death and went to heaven compared to the SS officers that lived a very comfortable life"--Rosenberg This has no place in a debate. This is improper, this would have been disqualified, and it discredits every opinion, fact, and evidence you bring to the table because it is clear that you have a personal bias and hatred against God because of what he allowed to happen to your family. Now, I'm not undermining his pain, I could never imaging coming from a family where such an atrocity happened and I feel extremely sorry for him and hope that the mental weight of the anguish his parents feel will be treated with respect and consideration. But a debate floor and a desire to seek and explain reason and truth cannot be tinted by the shades of person bias, or it is no longer truth. You have not come to share your scientific findings on the concept of God being reasonable, you have come to pick a fight. This is NOT a debate. You do NOT use emotional arguments to reaffirm your statements or attempt to get the audience on your side (not that I'm saying he was doing the latter but that's a motive for other debaters and can be a result of bringing emotions into a debate that's why we don't do it)

I wanted um to listen to Alex um but um I couldn't um listen to him um um anymore so um I had to skip it um because after um a while um that's all um I could hear um and um it was slowly um driving me um mad um.

+sciencetrumpsfaith "Vic, have you ever visited someone in the hospital after they have had a severe stroke? They may no longer be able to speak or even recognize a spouse of 50 years. This clearly proves that memory is destroyed when the brain gets damaged." What if all that's happening is that that part of who they are has *left* their physical body? Your examples are not answering this sort of question. You're talking about the capabilities of the human body while a person is assigned to it, you're not speaking to the possibility of the body simply being a flawed and fallible construct which the soul attempts to *use.* And again, this doesn't address Craig's cosmological argument which, along with the analysis that follows it, is an *argument* for the existence of an unembodied mind. Left unrefuted (which it still is), it can be considered evidence for one.

Much obliged :)

I love how WLC got his notes with him 😁

I honestly cannot understand how any highly intelligent person would give up 2hours of their life to argue with a bloke who should be selling dodgy cars in a low rent area-seriously this bloke W L Craig is a charlatan who can only live his luxurious lifestyle by poking his hands into your wallet/purse- he is a low-life!.

if God existed, you would see this pattern > top atheist debates top theist... atheist gets demolished... atheists are seeing this obvious pattern and books have been written about this pattern the theistic argument is just more coherent, logical and rational and ironically is presented in a much more dispassionate way than that of the atheistic argument this point begs the question ? if indeed all is meaningless as atheists argue > why get emotional about it?

Rosenberg argues that we cannot use intuition to back up the Principal of Sufficient Reason yet he gives no reason why not? Does he expect us to accept this on blind faith or perhaps should we intuitively accept this?

polling and votes depend largely on how well the target audience understands the debate and i daresay there are too many out there with insufficient understanding

Dr. William Lane Craig is like a soccer striker he will tell you where he is gonna kick the ball, but you won't be able to stop it.

In the future, I would like to hear the debaters questions and answer towards each other….

Anyone know where Rosenberg says (in his written work) that there are no intentional states?

I think Alex made some strongly presented arguments that were good and healthy for any person of Christian faith to carefully consider. I think it added a very real perspective and thought it may not have been as direct as Craig's remarks at times that was a beneficial quality to the audience. If all he did was attack every point Craig put forth it would not have been nearly as exciting, and unlike a presidential debate, many points were quite direct and answers clearly aimed at the root of questions as opposed to mere deflections, at least within the benefit of the doubt.

1. why do many miracles occur in the world, all miracles occur by saying in Jesus name. eg. the blind, death, excorism. 2. If only physical things exist why is it we can think, we have minds thats not physical, why? 3. Lastly, why is it we have a consience? Why do we feel bad when we do something wrong? Or have a hard time deciding for something? whats the point if God didnt exist? Explain this. Please.

We can’t comprehend the existence of God as a reality because it’s extremely difficult to comprehend with rational thought the existence of a fictional character.

Regarding "finite beginning", I was referring to different views under cosmology on whether time itself has a beginning. Other questions with regard to existence are whether time itself actually exists or if it is epiphenomena, is our material existence all that exists vs multiverse and other cosmological views, is the "universe" finite, and different views on infinity and other abstracts. But I'm not going to carry a discussion in 500 char sound-bites. If you want to take it offline, mail me.

This Rosenberg is a rather poor debater...he kept bishing about Craig repeating himself, but it's not like Rosenberg himself made a case. (And this is independent from the validity of Craig's arguments, Rosenberg is still a poor debater. Seems he only came here to ridicule Craig. The topic was if faith is reasonable, Rosenberg didn't show it isn't.)

Group consensus doesn't exactly make Craig right or wrong. you have to judge each argument individually and doing that in real time is often difficult.

Mudslinging muddling hoping something sticks seems to be the atheist approach here. Why is honest dialogue so difficult. It’s acceptable to say I don’t know when you really don’t know during a dialogue. That is like pouring out water from your cup, which creates space for other possibilities.

Following Rene Descartes meditation Category 1: Minds I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist. Category 2: Matter I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorize as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists. Category 3: Space My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist. Category 4: Time My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist. From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another. Now to the question of the origin of these categories Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another? Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time. From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localized change to space and time. So then could space and time be the origin of everything else? Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories. Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events? Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event. There can be no space , time or matter without events. In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next. From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories Category 1 : Minds Category 2 : Events Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical. Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind? If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind. Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind. This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger) So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds. These other minds may have also been created by The Mind.

That was a great debate. Both genius.

What the hell is up with these comments? Are any reasonable ones deleted by the channel?

Does the universe really require a "personal" cause, i.e. Creator? Why not a "non-personal" cause? Saying the universe must have PERSONAL cause is non-essential.

The law of the universe is growth… Water, Touch, Air, Food, Shelter, Clothing. The rule of nature is giving… Love, Security, Understanding, Validation, Affirmation, Appreciation.

Craig starts with arguments and valid points, Alex starts with Ums and personal attacks 🤦

Thank you Dr Rosenberg thank you. Your argument just recon firmed my faith in God's existence. your carbon argument was epic, but not because of what you think. Moral arguments right is right because put his law in our hearts!

Because our existence having a finite beginning doesn't answer the question of "why is there existence vs. non-existence?". Why does anything exist? It also doesn't answer - what is existence (regardless of whether it is observable or comprehensible)? - is existence limited to our physical/material, contingent and causal universe and existence? - what other types of objects and entities exist in reality, independently of our existence? and many more questions

Sam, I'm curious, why do you think causal mechanisms "destroy any argument for free will"? Frankly, I think you're presuming a causal law governs outcomes of phenomena, and also confusing epistemic versus ontic. Indeterminism may be attributed to limitations of human observation and perception (epistemic), or may be explained as a real "maybe" (property) of the universe and/or reality (ontic).

Favourite Moral Norm: Whoever has not sinned, cast the first stone.

theists usually seem to me more happier and well thought out than atheists....just an observation

To Rosenberg's comment that if you want believe in Jesus you must throw faith, so to speak, out the window. Faith does not necessarily oppose faith, nor vice-versa. They are complementary to each other.

He says the same thing all the time because the truth is the truth.

You're doing great job for God, dr Craig! Greetings from Finland!

Faith in God makes perfect sense.

Dr Rosenburg clearly wasn't prepared for this debate. He routinely just begs the question for his world view. Like in his closing statement when he said he had no need of that hypothesis. That's to just confuse what theist mean by God, and hand wave away the implications.

In asking for proof of the existence of God, in the very questions lies the answer. Ask your self what is it about a proof that makes it so great? A proof is great because it does not depend on the time, place or person that gives it. A proof exist even if it has never been spoken. Therefore where do they exist and were they created? If you believe proofs were not created then you believe the proofs are eternal. So then the proofs are your God. If you believe the proofs have a creator then that creator is God. PS:It takes a mind/intelligence to understand a proof so can a proofs exist with no Mind or is a Mind essential for the existence of proof?

Which is more 'reasonable'? That this planet, though having cooled to exact narrow parameters of temperature from thousans of degrees of heat, though completely sterile, was able to result in teeming life forms that somehow appeared from water ( only oxygen & hydrogen) OR that a superior intelligence was responsible firstly to create the laws that govern physics & then create an endless variety of highly complex organisms. ( Even a star fish has a more complicated nerve system that the largest auto telephone exchange in the world!. Which is more reasonable? which requires more faith? Which stance requires more moral responsibility for our actions?

I don't honestly remember, I watched this weeks ago. However I've watched someone who takes the cake over ANY of these people. Lawrence Krauss. In his recent 'debates' with William Craig, he interrupted around 70 times in each cross examination, and in one part he actually took out a toy buzzer and buzzed it loudly whenever he thought Will made some factual error.

Reasonable Faith Win

The atheists always put up a good fight but if you work their arguments out Craig's makes way more sense with our reality and given the information that we do have. It makes perfect sense

Because events ARE spatiotemporal causes. It is fundamental to physics and the natural sciences, and it is a staple in western philosophy - Are the causal relata immanent, or transcendent? (i.e. concrete and located in spacetime, or abstract and non-spatiotemporal) - why is there material/physical existence vs. non-existence? - is emergent phenomena part of a larger complex system? - what are the causal relata of objects? - what is reality (all that exists, whether observable of comprehensible)?

I remember watching this as an atheist and member of Dan Barker's group and then I thought Rosenberg was losing the debate though he sounded affirming to how I felt. Now as a theist I can see how well WLC did. This man is the equivalent of Eminem on a diss/rejoinder track

39:30 "WLC doesn't listen to his opponents debate."

This question is quite amateur. How can something beyond reason be reasonable?

Very good but 17 minutes of introduction is too long 🙄