Is Faith in God Reasonable?

What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens? Or what hath faith to do with reason? Drs. William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg debate this all important and pervasive question concerning the reasonableness of faith in God. The nature of the question in this debate is no mere academic matter. The question of God is the most important question. One’s answer to it will impact nearly all other beliefs one holds from common notions of morality to politics and from our interest and investigation of our world to what we take to be our purpose(s) in life. Is “faith” foolish? By this, should it be understood to be blind? Or is it reasonable and, if so, by what measure and to whom is it foolishness? For many, Mark Twain is right on the mark when he said that “Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.” Yet the great thinkers of Judaism and Christianity like Philo, Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin considered faith to be an extraordinarily important virtue (moral and/or intellectual)! Indeed, it is not only the condition by which salvation is appropriated in these Abrahamic faith traditions (which are taken by insiders to actually be knowledge traditions), but it is the basis for movements from Mother Teresa’s compassion and our concern for the poor to Isaac Newton’s inspiration in science in light of God’s creation of the world and man being made in God’s image. Is faith in God reasonable? Ought we to have faith in God? Captured February 1, 2013 on the campus of Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN.


Play At


Comments on this Resource

Post a Comment 37 comments from 31 people
    • Matt
    • about 1 year ago

    Good debate!
    Seems like many atheists don't comprehend the notion of coming from nothing into nothing.
    Dr. Rosenburg immediately starts giving examples of things that are coming into existence that are caused by other existing things such as an atom. He uses this as proof that things can "come from nothing".
    Ontology seems to be the "starting point" for every God/atheist debate. Right out of the gate, the atheists are unscientific and then start mixing some science in when naturalism form there.
    They talk about "the multi-verse" as though this thing has been discovered and all you have to do is go look at it through your telescope. Even if there were a "multi-verse", the same argument applies to it as to the universe, just on a larger scale.

    Atheist argument summary (in my view)
    1) Atheists only believe that which can be validated by science (or will someday certainly be validate by science; because atheists believe it; and atheists only
    believe in that which can be validate by science)
    2) Everything that begins to exist must have a natural cause,
    3) Therefore; there is an infinite multi-verse that has no cause which is the natural cause of everything. This is not scientifically proven yet, but certainly will be someday because of premise 1 and 2.
    The above is literally logical babbling, but this is the logical flow I hear; and yes I'm trying to hear what they are saying.

    Addendum: If you are not intelligent enough to see the undeniable certitude of the above logic; it is because you have a lazy mind and will attribute anything that you cannot explain to ferries or Zeus rather than to where credit should be assigned; that is "nothing" or the multi-verse. It takes a brilliant mind to truly understand that "nothing" is far more sophisticated than God as an explanation to everything that has not been explained.

    • mike flynn
    • over 1 year ago

    I am emphatic to Dr Rosenberg's gigantic losses and grief burdens.
    I pray he could realize that the capacity to love his family
    can not be understood from science and philosophy.

    • Darrell Miller
    • about 2 years ago

    WLC has never been beaten the arguments he gives refuted. I get a lot of wannabe atheists that say otherwise...but that's all they do...just say so. Whatever. I've also actually had some guy on another site actually try to tell me that the universe did come into existence out of nothing, & that since he considered my to be unknowledgeable about science/physics that I therefore was stupid and out of touch. Total ad hoc comments to me. I just ignore such fools. WLC is awesome. Rosenburg got his butt spanked in this debate. If you can call it that....c'mon Alex, couldn't you have at least addressed the arguments?????

    • Darrell Miller
    • about 2 years ago

    WLC has never been beaten the arguments he gives refuted. I get a lot of wannabe atheists that say otherwise...but that's all they do...just say so. Whatever. I've also actually had some guy on another site actually try to tell me that the universe did come into existence out of nothing, & that since he considered my to be unknowledgeable about science/physics that I therefore was stupid and out of touch. Total ad hoc comments to me. I just ignore such fools. WLC is awesome. Rosenburg got his butt spanked in this debate. If you can call it that....c'mon Alex, couldn't you have at least addressed the arguments?????

    • Darrell Miller
    • about 2 years ago

    WLC has never been beaten the arguments he gives refuted. I get a lot of wannabe atheists that say otherwise...but that's all they do...just say so. Whatever. I've also actually had some guy on another site actually try to tell me that the universe did come into existence out of nothing, & that since he considered my to be unknowledgeable about science/physics that I therefore was stupid and out of touch. Total ad hoc comments to me. I just ignore such fools. WLC is awesome. Rosenburg got his butt spanked in this debate. If you can call it that....c'mon Alex, couldn't you have at least addressed the arguments?????

    • Roger Christiansen
    • over 2 years ago

    I wondered why he didn't answer the holocaust question? The answer is in the scriptures, or were they not allowed to use them? I thought it was more of a head knowledge debate and so it lacked substance but had a lot of intellectual flare (big words). I thought the atheist had an empty wisdom and I thought the theist won, but I thought it was by using empty wisdom as well. The only part I thought was not head knowledge was when he shared how he came to Jesus.

    Respectfully ...Roger

    • Theodore Seeber
    • over 2 years ago

    Given that the holocaust was caused directly by free will, how can you have a world of free will and NOT have the holocaust?

    • Hewitt Jung
    • over 2 years ago

    To Open Biola staffs
    I watched it and it is very interesting to me. And I hope to translate it to Korean and update it my youtube channel privately. I want to get debate script but I think I cannot, don't I? Please let me know your permission which I want to.

    Thank you,

    • Wayne B
    • over 2 years ago

    I really wish that the debating format would have been what Dr. Rosenberg suggested during the debate; a continuing back and forth exchange between the debaters after the initial opening statements. I strongly believe that both the debaters and the audience would have gained much more insight if each presenters position was continually challenged by the other and then defended. I wish Dr. Craig would have at least asked the moderator to accommodate this request from Dr. Rosenberg. They only engaged this way a little toward the end.

    • BrettC
    • over 2 years ago

    BrettS...Bro...I understood your question and countered it perfectly. The problem we are running up into is your lack of understanding about the difference between Moral Epistimology and Moral Ontology. You have to look at the post debate question at hour 2, minute 4. Then maybe you can articulate a response.

    But if you insist, I can summarize the difference for you. Moral epistimology asks the question as to how we discover or realize morality (this allows for moral differences and seeks to understand them). Where as, moral ontology seeks to understand the basis or foundation of moral beliefs (if God is the foundation, then morals are objective...which means regardless of what one thinks about a certain moral situation, there is an objective truth)

    So, going back to your comment about one disagrees that there were Christians who owned slaves and Christians who fought for it abolition. This would be a perfect example and discussion for moral epistimology. I personally think that the Abolitionists were objectively right. But if you say that morals are always subjective, then you can't say any situation is either right or wrong...the best you could say is...persons w believe x, and persons y believe z. You can't make a moral judgments on anything...or get mad when some wrong is done to you (this line of reasoning was refuted by CS Lewis in Mere Christianity a half a century ago).

    You should try not making any moral judgments for a day...I'd like to know how long you can go ;)

    Come from anotha motha...wake up and smell the coffee. The reality of the way we all live, talk and feel are the most powerful evidences. Your example of the knee jerk reaction you would have to an intruder is prime. Whether the intruder won or lost, you would objectivly believe that he was wrong to intrude your house!...If you didn't, I'd be worried to be your wife!

    Again.. reality, reason and logic are the Skeptics kryptonite

    • Steve
    • over 2 years ago

    Battles are often won or lost before they even begin.
    Dr. Rosenburg was foolish to accept this debate topic.

    OTOH if it had been something like "Is it reasonably probable that there is a God?", then the debate is quite different. Any moral implications of God's existence or non-existence then do not enter into the debate.

    And Frankly Science is not "flawless", but it is by far the most reasonable method of making an accurate model of the Universe. There is no flawless method.

    I always find it funny that people with faith believe that there is an omnipotent, all knowing being, that made us and wants us to know him. But all the people with faith are so different from each other. That reality simply does not fit with what they say. And don't give me that "free will" nonsense. Anything Divine should be perfect should it not? That would mean informed decisions. How can I pick between the Bible and the Koran, objectively? (for example)
    And even if you do pick the Bible how do you choose an interpretation? Most people start with a morality then read it into the Bible.
    I find people with faith never dig very deep. They are satisfied with answers such as "free will" but never look into it in depth.
    How much free will do people born with serious brain chemical imbalances have?

    Scientists are much more cohesive in their beliefs but good ones say how much is not known and that a lot of what we currently think is true, actually isn't. THAT fits a world without a Divine Creator that wants us to know him.

    • Grant Stevens
    • over 2 years ago

    Cary Hawkins,

    I resent your suggestion of hubris on the part of Prof. Rosenberg. If you had listened to the Q&A, you would understand that his demeanor and personality, however arrogant they might seem to a narrow-minded person such as yourself, are things that cannot be helped. He is unaware of any way in which he can alter his conduct in such situations, and thus he cannot be held accountable for his behavior. It would be like berating a child born with dyslexia for not reading up to his or her grade level. It is simply unfair! Thought the child may be brilliant, the child CANNOT read, and without guidance is likely unaware of anyway of rectifying his or her situation. Prof. Rosenberg, in the same way, is unable to learn what you may find to be a properly basic form of etiquette, but that seems to be more of a function of a learning disability than anything else. Further, he sees no reason to tackle said disability given that he finds little value in the classic debate format. I'm virtually certain that Prof. Rosenberg might be tempted to learn to match your image of grace and courtesy in other more substantive settings such as the one-on-one dialogue, a medium he mentioned more than once in this debate.

    In closing, I would ask, Mr. Hawkins, that you refrain from hate-mongering and STOP your mean-spirited attacks on people with disabilities. I would ask that you see Prof. Rosenberg and others like him as what they truly are: people with learning disabilities who ought to be afforded leniency and grace more so than other fully formed individuals like Prof. Craig.

    • Corey
    • over 2 years ago

    WLC's position was thoroughly reasonable. Rosenberg's position was emotional and lacking substance. All of his arguments were dealt with thoroughly and he offered no objections to the existence of God that WLC couldn't handle. Until WLC's arguments are dealt with the case for a Creator will stand.

    • Derek
    • over 2 years ago

    Dr. Craig killed it; however, that tie...

    • Cody
    • over 2 years ago

    @David Hess - This is truly the real problem. I believe you to be 100% correct in your observation.
    One thing that cracked me up was Rosenberg's first speech where he out right derided Craig for using the same arguments that he always does... Um, until somebody defeats them they will always and forever be used. He seems to puport that the age of the arguments says something of their validity. That's like criticizing someone for still using the wheel... which we all know is so 10,000 B.C. I mean for real. My grandmother certainly isn't in a hurry to go get new receipes for her apple pie. Why? Because the old receipes WORK. Until someone conclusively defeats the Cosmological, teleological, and moral, arguments for God's existence, God will still be around, you know, existing... As if a man refusing to accept/believe in God somehow diminishes Him. It should be noted that if every man, women, and child on earth were stricken deaf and dumb, the glory of the sun, moon, and stars would not be affected by this event in any way. Such is the case with humans refusing to believe in God.

    • Jake
    • over 2 years ago

    Brett Strong,
    This is a debate about God not Christians. However, to address your concerns... have you ever considered the fact those people were simply professing "christians", perhaps missing the entire point of discipleship and life surrended to Christ? Professing to be Christian and then going on LIVING COMPLETELY in sin.. seems to suggest that these people were deceived as much as you are. This is a debate about the reason for belief in God. not the fact that Christians are just as prone to sin and selfish motives. SO id encourage you to put aside your problems with the Church and Christians.. and actually think about the debate under view. As a Christian myself, I have put aside my biases in hopes of finding the truth. and found Jesus. I encourage you to put aside the chip on your shoulder about Christians and instead come from an open and unbiased approach to the question of "does God exist?" and "what evidence is there?"..

    Im assuming you are a proponent of science and nature. So as a student and lover of science myself, I would encourage you to return to the very basic principles of science: one of which proposes the idea that we are to enter into a conversation or problem with an unbiased perspective, ready to observe the phenomena. You should not immediately trust the ideas and beliefs of those in authority simply because he went to a prestigious university, has three letters behind his/her name (PHD), claims to be an expert, uses big fancy language, etc. I am not however proposing you can study God in an experiment. God, from a purely scientific approach, is an untestable hypothesis. However, on a personal level.. he is testable. Put aside you biases and ask God if he exists. or at the very least.. listen to the conversation being open to the ideas of both sides. or else ignorance will be your demise.

    • Cary Hawkins
    • over 2 years ago

    The biggest problem with all of these atheist debaters can be summed up by one word: hubris.

    • Brett Strong
    • over 2 years ago

    To BrettC …you missed it, my friend, my point (on my first post) was perfect and 100% correct, a large portion of American Christians passionately believed black slavery morally right (thus they did the vilest things against them)!, and simultaneously an opposing section of America Christians passionately believed black slavery was utterly immoral

    And as we all know they went to war over their ideology….

    BrettC…as you can see, there is no deciding immaterial law (i.e. moral law giver) between right and wrong outside of man’s subjective mindsets (that’s why our laws have changed over the centuries and throughout history and worldwide geography)…so slavery being either morally right or morally wrong is up to the persons mindset which forever makes slavery subjective and never objective

    Abortion, murder, slavery, robbery, lying, rape, incest, cannibalism, and so on, is all subjective (up to people’s mindset, belief system)…and that’s a fact of life my friend…that’s why this saying is truer and truer as one gets older and wiser: only the strong survive!

    And only the strong makes the rules that we all live by (and the weak get steamed rolled over)…that’s reality my friend

    So be strong, not weak

    Brett Strong strikes again…hey BrettC check out my debates (against Christians) on Redemption Radio (June 2012) and Backpack Radio (July 2012)…the next wave is here…and I am he/the human kryptonite to Christian apologists…

    PS: BrettC, to be true to reality and not wayward dogma, I was asked that same question during a live radio debate in Phoenix Arizona, what would I do if someone tried to kill my wife and kids…my reply was typical and manly, I would utterly try to destroy the intruder in the worst of ways but yet still in the intruders mind he believes he is doing right while simultaneously in my mind I believe he I doing utterly wrong thus the deciding factor (as far as who wins the day)is not our belief system but who is stronger (no different than the Nazis vs. the Jews, Rwanda genocide, 250 years of tragic black slavery by Christian Americans, Salem Witch trials, and all other scenarios throughout mankind’s history…and that’s a fact my friend [for at this moment there is said to be 27 million slaves worldwide!])

    Actively looking to fill my 2013 calendar with more debates so if anyone wants to debate me live on radio, podcast, or in person (like a campus or church setting , please let me know) blog is

    I’ve also debated the great Greg Koukl and the great J Warner of STR (Stand to Reason) and I’ve also personally dialoged with the great Dr Paul Copan, Mary Jo Sharpe, Sean McDowell, and many others

    • Jose Villalobos
    • over 2 years ago

    Rosenberg takes the Dr. Craig's answering to the existence of Evil personal. He thinks that because he is a child of Holocaust survivors then he has more authority. Finally, he wants to set his own set of rules for the debate. @Brett Strong, we are not shivering in our pants, but if thinking that makes you feel more important then keep thinking that.

    • K.Diamond?/
    • over 2 years ago

    Rosenberg got JACKED. He's currently picking his feet in Poughkeepsie!
    He based all his stupidity on a bunch of dead philosophers who knew even less than he did. Seriouly? THOUGHT is IMPOSSIBLE??? It's IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK ABOUT SOMETHING?? Really? That's your argument. It reminds me of how STUPID Richard Dawkins looked in that interview that they put in the movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein. He was busted in the whole "Something came from nothing" garbage, got stuck and ended up "theorizing" that life came from CRYSTALS ON OTHER FREAKING PLANETS. I kid you not. " Doctor Rosenberg is completely encapsulated in the last scripture in this set...
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    ROMANS 1:21-22

    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    As to his "thought" that God could not be "wholly benevolent" and allow things like the Holocaust etc, that is easily answered in two ways, First, the logic. God gave people FREE WILL and what would FREE WILL be worth without an ALTERNATIVE? That's just logic. God doesn't want slaves, He wants us to worship Him out of our own desires for Him. But it's ALSO answered in Scripture. Obviously anyone who is really entertaining most of this bunk has only a false idea of what the bible does or does NOT say, so it's difficult to point out false doctrine to someone who has never heard the truth. But that's my job so here goes. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND EVER SAID THAT GOD WAS WHOLLY GOOD AND ONLY GOOD!!!! Only an IDIOT with poor reading skills would believe that! In ISAIAH 55:8 God clearly states that HIS THOUGHTS ARE NOT OUR THOUGHTS NOR ARE HIS WAYS OUR WAYS, so trying to understand WHY God would or would not do something based on a FINITE MIND'S ability to comprehend the infinite is SILLY! To put it mildly. SECONDLY and MOST IMPORTANTLY God is not "wholly good" because HE SAID HE ISN'T. That's right atheists the STRAW MAN you've been muttering about for years is a complete and utter LIE. The bible doesn't work off the premise that God is Good and THEREFORE entertaining evil would be "impossible". Rather the BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT EVIL IS A CREATION OF GOD,and not just conceptually, like Lucifer was an Angel, God created Lucifer, therefore tangentially God created "evil". NOT SO my child. EVIL , like TIME, SPACE, LIGHT and DARK is a CREATED THING. Why? To give us a choice. But let's see what the WORD has to say on that point shall we?
    ISAIAH 45:7
    7. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

    BAM. *DROPS MIKE*, walks away.

    • BrettC
    • over 2 years ago

    Brett S...Maybe you didn't listen to the post debate questions. The question you posed about slavery isn't about whether or not objective moral values exist, but about whether or not slavery is morally right. The argument of objective morality posed by Dr Craig is about moral ontology not epistimology (hint: hour 2:04)

    Anyway...I don't think you believe morals are subjective (or that they don't exist) why do you get mad when someone cuts you off? or steals your car radio?..or when some one kills or rapes a child?

    You would say "That's wrong!! They shoudn't have done that!..They should go to jail!" If you believe that morals are always subjective, then the worse you could say is "I don't believe its right, but its right for I guess its ok." And what's worse if you don't believe in objective morals, then you can't say anything.

    I'm thanklful to the Christians who believed in objective morality and fought to free the slaves, not the ones who believed that morals were subjective and fought to keep their slaves. It appeaers that reason, reality, and logic are your Kryptonite ;)

    • Brett Strong
    • over 2 years ago

    Hi John!

    This is Brett Strong, the internet skeptic that has Christian apologists shivering in their pants!

    Now John let me point out how wrong you are…you say morals are objective…then explain to us how one group of American Christians could enslave black Africans in the sickest of ways (rape them, sell them, torture them, murder them, burn them at the stake alive and much worse!), and feel absolutely just about it, but yet at the exact time (!) another group of Christians deemed slavery a travesty of epic proportions

    …both groups reading and living by the same bible in the same country (praying to the same god!), and both feeling just in their morals, but yet those morals were totally opposite…and these opposing people went to their graves this way…

    …so how could morals be objective John?????

    …hint John, reality shows all that morals are subjective, always was and always will be, from your bible to the world we live in, morals are subjective in every sphere of life and that is a fact!!!!!

    Brett Strong strikes again…hey John check out my debates on Redemption Radio (June 2012) and Backpack Radio (July 2012)…and I the human kryptonite to Christian apologists

    • Daniel
    • over 2 years ago

    The purpose of the debate was not to address the question of whether or not god exists. The purpose of the debate was to decide whether or not "faith" in god is "reasonable".

    Those who set up, sponsored and summarized (and attended) the debate were a majority believers, and set the debate up to answer that specific question.

    Thus, it is no surprise that voting turned out as it did. But we must remember that, while we vote to elect Presidents, we don't vote to establish truth.

    The summary of the debate begs the question, asserting: "The question of God is the most important question. One’s answer to it will impact nearly all other beliefs one holds from common notions of morality to politics and from our interest and investigation of our world to what we take to be our purpose(s) in life."

    This, of course, is merely an assertion. One's belief or lack of belief in a god may be, but need not necessarily be, "the most important question", much less "impact nearly all other beliefs".

    Regardless whether you "voted" that Craig "won" the debate, none of his arguments successfully (logically nor empirically) "proves" either that the question of god "is the most important question", nor that god actually exists. Of course, that is not what the arguments were intended to do.

    The summary asserts "Yet the great thinkers of Judaism and Christianity like Philo, Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin considered faith to be an extraordinarily important virtue (moral and/or intellectual)!"

    That these "authorities" considered faith an important "virtue" does not establish that it actually is, nor does that fact support the idea that faith is "reasonable". Indeed, what does it mean to say that anything is "reasonable", much less "faith" in a god? The question should perhaps be rephrased: "Is there a persuasive rational argument for the existence of god?" Or, better yet, "Can one arrive at faith in god by the path of reason?" which is another way of asking "Does (right) reason lead inexorably to belief in god?"

    Put in such terms, it seems that "faith" appears to rule out any logically necessary arguments or "proofs" of the type we would call reason/rational (from the 14th century Latin root "ratio", invoking the concept of mathematical proofs as a model for arguments that lead inexorably to necessary conclusions).

    This raises a problem: If "faith" is what it is understood to be in (many) religious traditions (e.g., "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"); and if we take seriously sola fide, sola gratia, sola Christus (over against sola ipse and sola ratio), then these core religious concepts seem to exclude, a priori and in principle, the possibility of a necessary, inexorable rational argument for "faith in god".

    This is because faith, regardless how its definitions are embellished and obfuscated by believers, has at its core the idea that it is not a "conclusion" to which one may arrive at the end of a logical syllogism; rather, faith is a "(first) principle," and "principia probant non probantur". As such, with the "decision" of faith already made, all "reason" can do is provide the (a posteriori) "ratio decidendi" that is unavoidably a tautological use of reason.

    • Whit U.
    • over 2 years ago

    Rosenberg continually states that he doesn't understand why Craig asserts that some of the concepts discussed are simply obvious. But according to the comments on this page and questions the audience asked, the audience clearly understood what Craig is talking about. By saying he didn't understand Dr. Craig, Rosenberg defeated his own ability to understand very simple concepts that don't require a degree to understand. What does that say about his ability to understand what he is debating about, let alone simple things that every human being can observe? I have to admit that I feel sorry for him. I think Rosenberg showed that Dr. Craig won this debate after the very first argument that Craig made, as Rosenberg seemed speechless and unsure of where to go at such an early stage of this debate. It is my opinion that Craig needs a greater challenge. This is not a good match of debating opponents. Craig is the top pick, undefeated by those he debates with. My guess is that Rosenberg is not even close to top pick among his peers.

    • Whit U.
    • over 2 years ago

    Rosenberg is full of ad hominem... very unappealing to start with. But overlooking his condescending remarks, he pretends to know what is out there and his lack of scientific knowledge and theoretical assumptions seem to better support the opposing argument rather than his own.

    • John
    • over 2 years ago

    Todd and Ledrias,

    You don't make any arguments in your comments, they are mere assertions. Ledrias, you state that moral absolutes cannot exist and that morality is relative essentially. That worldview, although attractive, is unlivable in practice. If I were to break into your home, rape your wife and steal your stuff--you would condemn me for being an evil criminal. But, since you claim morality is subjective, I could walk away without going to jail by merely claiming that I think it is morally right to sexually assault people and steal their things and you think it's not. Morality then just becomes opinions and likes and dislikes. Moral relativism is unlivable.

    However, I will agree with you that religious experiences are not good evidence to someone other than the person experiencing them. They can help convince me that my belief is true, but they aren't useful to anyone but myself.

    Todd, on what do you base your statement that the God of the Bible is a "piece of trash?" I'd be curious to know. Is it the God who commands us to love our neighbor as our self? Who demands that we take care of widows and orphans? Feed the sick and help the poor? To turn the other cheek? To not get divorced? Is it the God who promises us eternal life if we believe in Him?

    • Frank
    • over 2 years ago

    Regarding "if God why suffering"
    The Truth doesn't change according to ones ability to stomach it.
    God seeks those who will worship in Truth not by forced slavery but free will must exist for True Love to exist
    If only more knew the real Love God has for them...!!!

    • Frank
    • over 2 years ago

    The Atheist guy is pretty arrogant and condescending.

    • Todd
    • over 2 years ago

    ledrius, i like your points. a lot of things have evolved and changed. tolerance and our understanding of the world around us has led to equality, minority rights and one could argue even democracy. religion has not contributed to those things, knowledge and free thought has.

    • Ledrias
    • over 2 years ago

    As an atheist, I do believe Craig had a better representation for his case than Rosenburg did of his.

    I wish the moral absolutes and religious experiences would have been addressed by rosenburg. That might have helped his case somewhat more than not.

    Moral absolutes cannot exist. Morality is based on subjective values and empathy. As humans evolve, our morality deepened. It was normal to sacrifice humans to gods. Now, not so much. Morality will constantly change as we evolve, therefore moral "perfection" and "absolutes" cannot exist.

    Religious experiences lie within one's own perception of the world around them. It's subjective, and means nothing for those outside of the body explaining his experience.

    When I was a theist, I couldn't bring myself to pray. I honestly tried to pray, was open to a relationship with God, but it wouldn't spark. I just felt nothing when trying to be open to a god.

    • no morals
    • over 2 years ago

    There are no objective morals. Some tribal cultures killed people and children for sacrifice, is it the aztecs? what is the objective moral that everybody agrees on? any state with the death penalty or abortion, have decided that murder is ok. morals are not agreed upon, therefore they are not objective.

    • Todd
    • over 2 years ago

    Aaron, I figured someone would stoop to that. How immature. Eduardo, you're funny. It's a debate sponsored by a xian college, of course he got more votes. But, he used the same old, tired arguments that are not convincing. There is no god, and if there is, and it's the god of the bible, he's a real piece of trash.

    • David Hess
    • over 2 years ago

    It is abundantly clear that personal pain/bitterness is what drives Alex Rosenberg's atheism. All of the arguments he presents from Science are secondary, tertiary, etc., etc. to the real reason he isn't a theist.

    There are Christians theologians/philosophers who are providing far more satisfying arguments to the problem of evil (i.e. Greg Boyd, Thomas Oord) than Craig, Plantinga and others like them. Rosenberg even concedes that IF Craig could solve that problem for him he would personally become a Christian (so much for all of his other arguments that he supposedly so convinced of and feel refute Craig's).

    Rosenberg is an atheist for the sole reason that he can't understand how his own ancestors were the victims of genocide and he continues to be driven by paralyzing bitterness and even feelings of vengeance towards the God who according to him can't exist because He sat by and did nothing. He is driven by that anger and it seeps out of almost everything he said.

    The tragedy is that the very God he blames and subsequently denies the existence of is the ONLY one who can heal the very bitterness that imprisons him.

    The way he so dishonored the man who him asked the last question, and his countenance upon concluding his rude treatment of the man reveals the truth of what I am here so confidently asserting.

    • Frankly
    • over 2 years ago

    Tiring to see Craig restate the same things every debate, but that's debates should be, insofar that none of the arguments or points raised has been disproved or shown irrelevant.

    Being a nihilist deist (theist), I disagree with Craig on practically all points, with the minor exception of something transcendental existing. I reject the divinity of Jesus, the existence of God, moral duties (wrongs and rights). I even disagree that God with his current attributes should be the greatest conceivable being - and of course I reject mind-body dualism, that any mind can exist independently of the body.

    I do, however, agree with Craig on the principle of sufficient reason (Leibniz's principle), and take indeterminism to be obviously false (as per Alex's use of the word - i.e., literal randomness of causality).

    As for Alex, I disagree that science is flawless (as he put it, 'the only way to truth'), since human beings are the maintainer of such a system of rationalization and we can only know as much as we can perceive - and, ironically, we can perceive our lack of ability to perceive possible existing entities, such as invisible objects that cannot be confirmed or necessitated by another function or object.

    So, I stand more or less neutrally on this. I agree with equal strength to both theism (which is the godly - i.e., the transcendental to the natural), but also to most naturalistic principles, such as that miracles don't occur, human values are illusory and so on.

    As for my own evaluation of the debate, it seems obvious that Craig won it. Alex could of at least have raised an argument against the existence of God (I know the topic, and such an argument would in fact be useful for his own position in the debate) by proving that human beings don't have free will (proven by the fact that I am writing this right now), and inferring that God cannot create a universe which is evil and where no man has the ability to freely choose good over evil - that would show God's nature incoherent, besides that he's defined as a bodiless mind--seems extremely incoherent to me.

    On another note, I came to find this clip quite funny: 2:37:58 What are the girls on, or what the heck are they doing?

    • David Foster
    • over 2 years ago

    Though I thought Craig had the stronger case, I appreciated Rosenburg's courage in accepting the strange conclusions which follow from scientism. Much as I think these constitute a reductio ad absurdum, I can't fault his consistency (except, perhaps, in behaving as if his thoughts have intentionality).

    • Aaron Ramsey
    • over 2 years ago

    I uh, uh, am an atheist. Dr. Craig wins.

    • Eduardo
    • over 2 years ago

    and "He" wins...again.

Post a Comment

Leave this field blank or your post will be marked as spam

Biola University
13800 Biola Ave. La Mirada, CA 90639