Is There Evidence for God? William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp discuss the validity of reasons given for God's existence at The Veritas Forum: "Is There Evidence For God?" at the Ohio State University, 2016. William Lane Craig is a Christian philosopher and research professor at Talbot School of Theology. Kevin Scharp is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Ohio State University and identifies as an atheist. Find this and many other talks at http://www.veritas.org/engage. SUBSCRIBE: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=VeritasForum FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/veritasforum?fref=ts For over two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at http://www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
Comments
-
Wow, Kevin Scharp ain't so sharp... sounds like he plucked his whole presentation put of thin air...
-
If a drowning man wanted to drown when you asked him if he needed help, then he drowned, would it be your fault? No, that would be called a suicide. Same goes for Kevin's argument against God.
-
All the delusional Christians in this video. Astounding! William Lane Craig wins most of his debates, but Kevin Scharp absolutely annihilated him here. Embarrassing!
-
kevin seems like angry
-
Craig got buttfucked with a vengeance.
-
Dr. William Lane Craig - the only man who can win arguments with his wife.
-
I can't help but cringe and cover my face in embarrassment every time Kevin Scharp finishes one of his long drawn out, contradictory, incoherent and vain babblings. I have respect for many of the atheists that William Lane Craig debates even though I do not agree with them because they at least provide structure to their arguments and attempt to explain their positions using evidence grounded in science or philosophy... but this Scharp is honestly just talking out of his rear end.
-
Scharp's method: Fair enough, your argument shows that chances are, a god created the universe. But how do we know he would create it? ... ...besides him having just done it, I mean...
-
I'm at 70% confidence level that Scharp's arguments are shit. Is that enough?
-
Wow I read all comments on this video about how terrible the atheist did so didn't watch the debate for a long time. Having watched most of it now this guy did fine his arguments are worth taking seriously. I do agree that the major flaw in confidence argument is the subjectivity of the value you place on it. There seems to be no objective way to arrive at a exact numerical value. Yet most of us would say that the confidence level that Japan exists would be 99-100% yet something like the locness monster would be close to 0%. So this suggests some objectivity based on empirical evidence. Regardless of whether it's flawed the idea is interesting and worth pondering.
-
Scharp has a kindergartner's understanding of biblical Christianity. It's actually sad. It is like watching a garter snake being predated by a king cobra. Scharp is the garter snake.
-
Kevin was wrong about Hillary being the next president, and he was wrong about God.
-
So riddle me this, is 1000% more confident than 100%? what about 100000000000% confidence? what about 1% confidence? lol, ridiculous, using abstract numbers to gauge confidence...must of been the years and years of social conditioning from school that made him choose 100% as being completely confident.
-
If aliens took the body of Jesus Christ who created the aliens.
-
I guess that many of the below comments are one reason why folks should not trust eyewitness testimony! I just got done watching the debate and felt that Professor Scharp was the clear winner. Clearly, Craig, in not claiming 100% certainty for his beliefs and yet professing greater than 50% certainty is somewhere between those two extremes, and yet, his unwillingness to give any sort of confidence interval shows his disingenuousness.
-
I didn't like this debate but one thing Kevin Scharp did get right is the definition of a modern atheist which is someone who goes off of probability and not certainty.
-
Math is the language patterns...
-
Mr.Sharp is an idiot first class. I never saw a bigger failture as him vs Dr.Craig
-
I actually think that both guys did exceptionally well with this debate. This was one of the better debates that I've seen. I'll have to watch it again soon.
Even though it seems like the people on opposing sides believe that the other guy did badly. -
This is long but worth the read
1 - God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.... This argument falls apart in many ways. In making this point Craig summarises that the universe is a contingent thing, sounds like a scientific claim, however, no one has ever proven any such thing, for years Craig has been told that the big bang is not being proposed by any scientists as the casual point for the existence of the universe, the big bang theorizes a shift in phase, i.e. the universe did not expand from nothing. Any further inquiry into what caused this expansion and what caused that cause has not been concretely established nor presented. Another place this argument falls apart is it implicitly supports monotheism. Why couldn't it had been gods (plural) that created the universe. While we're at it, what if there's an ulti-verse where unicorns and leprechauns constantly fight and each time horn magic and rainbow magic collide a random universe is created. Surely that hypothesis cannot be disproved. This argument fails every time.
2. Origin of the Universe... basically the same argument as above, Craig went back to a 2003 version of the big bang theory, this is 2016. In 13 years so much has been discovered (e.g. Higgs Boson), any scientist that suggests the big bang theory to be the point source of existence of the universe would be laughed and surely would not be taken as seriously. Craig has been presenting this Kalam point for years and surely must know why this argument is flawed, notice how he never refutes the debunking of the argument, it's quite likely he's aware of the issues with the argument but it doesn't work in his favour so we see why he doesn't care to mention. Besides, if Craig actually had any interest in the truth of things he would had become a scientist and not a philosopher.
3. God is the best explanation to the applicability of mathematics to the physical world... Let's look at what we do know, we know for years mankind has speculated the cause for the world around us, eventually we found ways to measure and verify, this was allowed to grow and has resulted in the technology we have today, all things in nature obey the laws of mathematics. Now what does this mean, are the laws of mathematics laws in the sense of legislated constructs, obviously not. By conflating a law in science to a law in jurisprudence Craig immediately implies a law giver. The physical laws as we see them are relationships between quantities. The only interest question left to ask is why do these relationships not change, why is it that if two objects interact the same way with everything else equal, then the reaction is the same. The answer to this,of course, is we don't know, it just is that way but hopefully eventually we'll learn these before heat death. Flaw in the summary is that if god id not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincident, can he prove this, no he can't just making vapid statements, also who says math isn't just as happy coincidence, can he prove that....
4. God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life... Where are the scientists that say this, would be nice to present a quote here, we all know how much Craig loves throwing in a quote to support his claim, maybe the reason is that no science ever. After all, Craig did find time to quote Dawkins in saying "an unparsimonious extravagance", would be better to had quote the scientists who made the claim of fine tuning. Only persons I've ever heard with this fine tuning argument in recent times are religious with an agenda. Where are the scientist that claim fine tuning, maybe he'd say Newton, same person who believed in alchemy. After all, when your point itself carries no weight why not appeal to authority and hope that the popularity of the person might give the argument weight.
5.God is the best explanation for objective moral values... So upon what grounds do we say these morals are objective. Certainly it can't be upon the grounds of a consensus, if that was the case it would only be objective is everyone agrees but throughout history we can find civilisations that have moral systems that vastly conflict with anything we call moral. This leaves the grounds for objectivity to therefore be the proposed deity himself. This presents a problem to our proof. We were trying to prove that if objective morals exist then god exists but we cannot even prove that morals are objective without invoking a deity so this just isn't a good proof. Okay let's try doing it the other way around. Let's say if god exists then objective morals exists. Well, we were trying to develop this argument to prove that god existed in the first place so this defeats the purpose. Seriously Craig, you've been saying this for years, this is sad for a man that's so well studied.
6. God can be felt and experienced... Craig starts off by saying this isn't an argument for god's existence, so what's the purpose of presenting it here, and he does this every time. Further he always end up added that he has experienced god unless maybe his opponent thinks he's delusional and also thinks all the other members of the audience hearing these points are also delusional. So what is this, nothing but an appeal to the emotion. This argument has no purpose but to set up Craig's competition to commit the offence of calling Craig and other audience members delusional. A claim that even if made cannot be proven. The truth is this, why should we believe anyone when they claim they hear from or experienced a god. Look at how many religions they are, look at how vastly different they are, some even don't exist any more. If there is this god then why are so many people hearing from many other gods, unless all the gods are real, but they can't be because many of the gods are based in religions that claims that god is the only one and other religions are fake. So we're now left to say only one set of people are telling the truth of actually hearing from god and all the others are lying, now how can you tell which is which. Your guess is as good as mine.
So 5 failed arguments and 1 appeal to emotion, all of which missed the mark but I'm sure Craig will keep spouting these tails for years to come, after all, this is how he makes his bread. By the way, arguments are not evidence. I have yet to hear the airtight argument for God's existence. However, when found, without some actual evidence for this god the argument will be quite useless, especially since these gods all have the power to interact with the physical world and even do so on a regular basis.
0m 0sLenght
382Rating