It can be many things but not immaterial, because cheese and ham are material. It can however be a plug to clog the toilet, bathtub, etc. It can be a weapon if shoved into the throat of a victim you wish to asphyxiate, it can be garbage, it can be a colony of bacteria or vermin. It can serve functions other than food for the man who makes it. It can't be immaterial though because it's made of matter, like ham and cheese.

well thats what a structured debate is, it is not a one on one argument, but a series of statements and refutations.

@@jarskiXDme hurling.

+conman parker What writings? If I recall, the earliest non-Christian writings about Jesus were those of Tacitus, who wrote a good two centuries ater the supposed event. Also, Begon's argument was actually that a book asserting that Jesus took a post-mortem walking tour of Judea is only an assertion and is therefore insufficient.

A writing saying that Christian believed in Jesus and we're doing X... Proves Christian's believed not what they believed actually happened. All the writings and letters I've see outside of the bible do not confirm anything other than Christians existed. It would be like looking back 2000 years in the future at now... And saying well ppl wrote about ppl believing in big foot so it must have existed.

to william lane craig: if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??

kuroshashu, WRONG. One of the earliest was Josephus.

Riya So, making up your own definition for Yahweh, God? Or you believe in the possibility of an infinite regress?

to william lane craig: if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??

@@soriya011"if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? " Craig doesn't believe that god came from nothing as, like every other Christian, he believes god never had a beginning of his existence in the first place. "isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??" Craig never argued that the universe must've had a cause because "it's wonderful" or anything like that, either. It's because we have good evidence that the universe had a beginning, that warrants asking "What was the universe's cause?" By contrast, we've no evidence/argument that any god which might exist must've had a beginning, and it's for that reason it makes no sense to ask "Who/what caused god?" or some such.

@@Vic2point0 Correct. Sure its hard to believe and understand but the fact that the universe and we are here proves that something must have been eternal.

His body language showed he was conflicted

Actually, you are quite wrong. Contrary to Craig’s claims that his opponents must “tear down his arguments and erect a case of their own”, all his opponents actually has to do is show the flaws in the claims made. Actually, there are a number of serious flaws in Craig’s arguments that you, as a theist, are either not aware of or, if you are, are you are choosing to ignore. Mike, although not particularly philosophically literate, is quite right to point out that Craig made numerous assertions, not realising that what Mike called assertions were in fact Craig’s metaphysical inductions to a preferred conclusion, and very poorly qualified ones at that. And, of course, Craig (dishonestly in my view) allows people to leap to his preferred conclusion without seriously justifying his leap of faith. And Craig is also well known to have a penchant for inaccurate quote mining and misrepresenting his opponents arguments and objections. The real issue is that he is rarely challenged on either his intuitions or claims he makes about what god thinks or does not think. Craig is doing no more than what engineers call reverse engineering, but in this case to a preferred conclusion. And, surprise surprise, Craig reaches his preferred conclusion. This is not to take away from Craig his debating skills and ability to appear to answer every objection. However, there’s a reason why when these arguments are examined in slow time, the flaws and unjustified assumptions are brought into sharp focus. And these are the same reasons that professional philosophers do not give serious credence to Craig’s arguments. Finally there is a reason why 90% of professional philosophers are atheists and those who are not are thrusts of one stripe or another. And no this is not an either ad populum or appeal to authority fallacy. This is presenting a relevant difference. This is not to say a god does not exist, but it is to say that those arguments that are made do not cut it in terms of being defensible and able to withstand sustained critical evaluation.

@@keithboynton He gave you a video full of evidence and where it has led him. It's funny how "scientists" will freely admit the universe looks fine tuned for life and can't give a reason why that isn't the case but will still deny it and accuse you of not following the evidence. They even disprove their own theories (there must be multiple universes turns out to generate the exact same problems one does) but still do not accept a timeless space less personal creator is the only logical beginning

9 years ago, interesting. Are you alive? :D

It's funny... Cause from my point of view... Begon told you exactly what he was arguing for. It's a more scientific view of the world. Like David Hume. Craig has baited you into his tactics... Its offering what he wants to debate against as what his opponent must do. That's not exactly true... Arguing the position to a don't know so it's reasonable to with hold a belief. A because every magical answer humans have found an answer to has turned out to be not magic... Maybe we should with hold a belief... Is a reasonable position. Kalam does not get you to a personal agent because using the same logic leaning on intuition.... We have never seen a mind outside of a brain... So we cannot say a personal agent is automatically the answer. Plus it's special pleading to say that a god's physics can be eternal but the cosmos can not be. Universe does not mean cosmos... And nothing could exist but a empty void in the future but started from a thing that existed mins or billions of years......

Before out universe expanded.. a dying God that's death created the universe is possible. Again same logic as kalam... all beings die... So a mind with that possibility isn't needed. So it is an assertion that a mind is needed.

//Begon comes here with the claim that belief in God is a delusion, yet gives no arguments whatsoever to prove this// Of course he did. He proved it beyond all doubt. What on earth is the matter with you people?

Peter Metcalfe Here! Here! What we are seeing is the stupid people have to convince themselves of and to believe in a stupid idea.

Peter Metcalfe How can you prove, beyond all doubt, that a supernatural entity doesn't exist? That's as incoherent as saying a blind man can prove what Einstein looks like.

It's very interesting how many times Mike Begon says: "I don't know" I agree with @John Watson, Begon is one of the weakest opponents of Craig, he said absolutly nothing for his case, I think he didn't even mentioned that belief in God could be just the result of wishfull thinking or just an adaption of socio-biological evolution (show me time if I am wrong). These are 2 very obvious arguments that Begon could bring to support his case. WLC instead adressed everything Begon said, he explained well why his definition of delusion is better and why Begon has to show that God is a delusion.

Lol. Where is WLC’s evidence?

The reason Dr. Begon says he doesn’t know is because he’s being honest. In all reality- how can WLC actually know what he confesses to know. It’s ludicrous! It’s all just assertions and he’s really good because he’s so articulate and he dresses everything up so well. But if you really listen to what he’s saying- it’s all just BS. But Christians really like that they have someone who places everything in an organized fashion, that it seems to make sense, but most importantly- that it’s all fact; that in itself is a false idea because there’s no proof for it.

@@richrobledo6561 Jesus Is King

@@zachg8822 Jesus Is King

Science can only provide evidence regarding material things. You ignore reason, logic, ethics, purpose and all the most important things. Your thinking is at the level of grunt.

to william lane craig: if the universe couldn't come from nothin', then how could god, who's even more powerful more sophisticated more wonderful more … whatever, come from nothin'?? isn't it a silly irony that you believe that the universe couldn't come from nothin' bcoz it's so wonderful that it must have a creator called god, & yet you believe that god has no creator, even though he's more wonderful more powerful than it 2 the point of bein' able 2 "create" it??

@Papa Smurf i love the illogical leaps lol. "universe had a beginning, therefor god". Then you wonder why people mock you.

@Papa Smurf nice projection. the burden of proof is all on you.

@Papa Smurf "The universe is most likely from God rather than from nothing or natural processes. " - evidence? "That would leave the burden of proof on both of us" - nope, its you only. " Regardless of any debate though you do see how it's not really good to walk around starting debates that you cannot defend but just try to ask questions." -- because you cant stop making unsupported claims. "For instance antidepressants have about a 40% success vs. Placebo which is 20percent and when they interpret it they say it's scientifically proven except for the 60 percent of people it didn't work on the majority it's more likely not to work than work" -- no idea how this applies, but ok.. " I use drugs to avoid god" -- um, good for you? "Science can and is not as good as you might want to believe" -- you know nothing of my beliefs. "you can scientifically prove something that's not true." -- example? " No one ever said hey I can scientifically prove god exist without a doubt." -- they cant anyway and thats why we dont believe their claims that gods exist.

@Papa Smurf ahahahaha, i love this. you got almost everything wrong :D no idea what you were expecting though. im not a hormonal teenager with anger issues who would get angry with you. mostly people like you just make me laugh.

Tom Paine Did you read my comment or watch the video? I quoted him saying, "If a belief is not supported by evidence, then that belief is false." That is a direct quote. If you disagree that he said that, watch the debate again. This is actually something that he goes back and forth on throughout the debate. He says that he's not trying to prove that God does not exist; he's just trying to prove that belief in God is a delusion. But then he says what I just quoted, which gives away that he at least *should be* arguing against the existence of God. If it is true that belief held without evidence is false (it isn't), then he should try to at least show that there is no evidence for God's existence, but then if he does that, he is arguing against God's existence. But remember how he defined the word "delusion." He defined it as a belief held without evidence. So, he's trying to show that belief in God is a delusion, or a belief held without evidence. In order to show that belief in God is a delusion, he must show that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But in showing that there is no evidence for the existence of God, he is, on his own merits, showing that God does not exist! And I haven't even addressed the problems with the individual claims that he makes. I'm just saying that, on his own statements, it can be shown that Mike Begon is attempting (or should be attempting) to show that God does not exist. His views on this are incoherent.

Sorry, I wrote my reply before seeing the end of the video. I presumed he was smarter than to have said that. I agree that statement was misguided, but I still agree with much of what he argued. I think Craig probably won the debate on his terms and the other guy won on his terms, but unfortunately the terms were apparently not well enough defined before the debate. Craig won on style and the fact that the other guy got muddled, though I'm still convinced that belief in the God of orthodox theism is delusional.

+Tom Paine The difference is that in Craig's example of the person being the other side of the wall, we can verify this by looking. And even if we couldn't look there are lots of ways that we could establish the truth of the claim. No such avenue exists for the god claim It is unverifiable in principle. As for the issue is defeaters, Craig is being incredibly dishonest when he discuss properly basic beliefs because the whole point of a properly basic belief is that there can be no defeater for them. That is precisely why they are called proper basic. And Begon was quite right to point out that Craig's arguments were no more than metaphysical assertions. Craig's claiming the resurrection is a hypothesis is laughable, especially given that Craig is imposing a theological interpretation on the evidence that no historian either give it or can give it, because historians deal in matters of fact and what can be verified. I wonder how many believers would square up to someone like Peter Sutcliffe, a mass murderer in the UK some years back, claiming that his belief god asked him to plunge hammers in the backs of heads of prostitutes, was properly basic. What would be the defeater for that argument? And this is the problem with this claim: it allows the criminally insane a get out of jail free card as there is no way, using the concept of properly basic beliefs, to distinguish madness from religious assertions. In this sense Craig is being incredibly irresponsible. Here's a particularly troubling contradiction, which was highlighted in a debate with Michael Payton. When discussing the problem of evil Craig claims that evil and suffering are not logically incompatible with god being all good and loving. He adds that god can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing both and this would explain the apparent contradiction. The problem here is that Craig claims that Objective Moral Values exist, and that as a theist he can 'objectively' know that the holocaust was wrong. This is supposed to be a knock down argument against atheism. The problem, as you might have already guessed, is that Craig CANNOT claim he objectively knows the holocaust (or any immoral action or suffering anywhere or at anytime) is wrong, as he doesn't know what morally sufficient reason god had in allowing these and many other atrocities. He is in effect claiming that he knows that god does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing morally abhorrent crimes. In other words, in using the OMV argument, he is in fact judging god to be guilty of genocide. He [Craig] can't have it both ways. Either he knows the crime being discussed is wrong, because he knows the mind of god, or he doesn't, and so judges god in absentia and without knowing what morally sufficient reason he had to allow these atrocities. The whole enterprise stinks. As Sean Carroll commented to Craig, and I paraphrase, 'why go through all these intellectual gymnastics, when it is easier to admit he was wrong and that god does not exist.'

Tom Paine This was such an odd debate to me because, as you said, Mike Begon and Dr. Craig seemed to approach the debate with two different goals in mind. I'm personally not concerned at all with who "won" the debate. I'm concerned with the truth (I'm a Christian, by the way). In this debate, my primary concern was with Mike Begon's approach to the debate. I'm not sure how a delusion can be a delusion if it is a true belief. Mike Begon defines a delusion as "a belief held without evidence." But how can a belief be a delusion if it is a true belief? I have more comments to make, but I'll stop here. It's best to address these points one at a time.

CogitoErgoSum We're on the same side here, and I agree with all of your arguments and have made the same argument you do here, before, regarding Craig's argument against the problem of evil. I might add that his counter to that is ad hoc because there really is no reason whatever to believe that there is any morally sufficient reason for something as horrific as babies born with cancer or any number of other real world horrors, except as a means to rationalize the POE. This makes it a poor argument to begin with, but when you consider that it is darned near impossible to even imagine what a morally sufficient reason for such a thing would be, it has to be considered nothing but a blatant ad hoc rationalization, not a good reason for rejecting the POE. Furthermore, it's a means to an ends argument, and makes little sense used in an argument for a supposedly all-powerful being. The reason humans sometimes have to resort to the ends justify the means arguments is exactly because we are not powerful enough to accomplish our ends otherwise. That shouldn't be a problem for an all-powerful being.

Do watch the Craig vs. Kagan debate. Craig wins that one too.

Brent Arnesen your mental ability is on show with that statement ridiculous

mike begon is disappointingly weak. i suspect that's it's a dishonest plot of the theist side 2 invite weak atheist debaters 2 confront william lane craig.

I dont get it... youd notice an elephant if it was crossing the road.. yet you are so blind to simple truths.

2 phds he is an idiot

mike begon is disappointingly weak. i suspect that's it's a dishonest plot of the theist side 2 invite weak atheist debaters 2 confront william lane craig.

Riya So like Hitchens?

Lol Grotiuos, Poufendorf and Locke all lived during the Enlightenment and had the same philosophical method. Your complaint actually is that Craig doesnt accept Hume or Kant's Irrationalist rejection of reason and logic.

Surroundx extraordinary claims are extraordinary because they are claims about something that is an extraordinary event. If the event was not extraordinary, then the claim cannot be extraordinary... Unless you are talking about an extraordinary claim from the angle of making an absurd claim (such as 1+1=6)

@@keithboynton What makes you think that is a work of an INTELLIGENT designer?

There is - and can never be - any evidence at all for multiverse ideas, other than the desperate imaginations of atheists who will conjure up anything than admit that God is the best hypothesis. Try applying Occam's razor!

What was the some sort of quality and we're did it come feom