Christopher Hitchens debates William Lane Craig: Does God Exist?

Here is the video of the debate:

TOPIC: DOES GOD EXIST?

MY NOTES ON THE DEBATE: (WC = William Lane Craig, CH = Christopher Hitchens)

WC opening speech:

Introduction:

WC makes two contentions:
– there are no good arguments for atheism
– there are good arguments for theism

These topics are IRRELEVANT tonight:
– social impact of christianity
– morality of Old Testament passages
– biblical inerrancy
– the debate is whether god (a creator and designer of the universe) exists

1. cosmological argument
– an actually infinite number of past events is impossible
– number of past events must be finite
– therefore universe has a beginning
– the beginning of the universe is confirmed by science –  universe began to exist from nothing
– space, time, matter, energy began at the big bang
– the creation of the universe requires a cause
– the cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, powerful
– the cause must be beyond space and time, because it created space and time
– the cause is not physical, because it created all matter and energy
– but there are only two kinds of non-physical cause: abstract objects or minds
– abstract objects don’t cause effects
– therefore must be mind

2. teleological argument
– fine-tuned constants and ratios
– constants not determined by laws of nature
– also, there are arbitrary quantities
– constants and quantities are in narrow range of life-permitting values
– an example: if the weak force were different by 1 in 10 to the 100, then no life
– there are 3 explanations: physical law or chance or design
– not due to law: because constants and quantities are independent of the laws
– not due to chance: the odds are too high for chance
– therefore, due to design
– the atheist response is the world ensemble (multiverse)
– but world ensemble has unobservable universes, no evidence that they exist
– and world ensemble contradicts scientific observations we have today

3. moral argument
– objective moral values are values that exist regardless of what humans think
– objective values are not personal preferences
– objective values are not evolved standards that cultures have depending on time and place
– objective moral values and duties exist
– objective moral values and duties require a moral lawgiver

4. argument from resurrection miracle
– resurrection implies miracle
– miracle implies God
– 3 minimal facts pass the historical tests (early attestation, eyewitness testimony, multiple attestation, etc.)
– minimal fact 1: empty tomb
– minimal fact 2: appearances
– minimal fact 3: early belief in the resurrection
– jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah – messiah is not supposed to die
– jewish theology has a general resurrection of everybody, there is not supposed to be a resurrection of one person
– jewish theology certainly does not predict a single resurrection of the messiah after he dies
– therefore, the belief in the resurrection is unlikely to have been invented
– disciples were willing to die for that belief in the resurrection
– naturalistic explanations don’t work for the 3 minimal facts

5. properly basic belief in god
– religious experience is properly basic
– it’s just like the belief in the external world, grounded in experience
– in the absence of defeaters, those experiences are valid

Conclusion: What CH must do:
– destroy all 5 of WC’s arguments
– erect his own case in its place

CH opening speech:

1. evolution disproves biological design argument
– evolution disproves paley’s argument for a watchmaker

2. god wouldn’t have done it that way
– god wouldn’t have waited that long before the incarnation
– mass extinction and death before Jesus
– god wouldn’t have allowed humans to have almost gone extinct a while back in africa
– why insist that this wasteful and incompetent history of life is for us, that’s a bad design
– the universe is so vast, why would god need so much space, that’s a bad design
– there is too much destruction in the universe, like exploding stars – that’s a bad design
– the heat death of the universe is a bad design
– too many of the other planets don’t support life, that’s a bad design
– the sun is going to become a red giant and incinerate us, that’s a bad design

3. hitchens’ burden of proof
– there is no good reason that supports the existence of god
– all arguments for god can be explained without god
– atheists can’t prove there is no god
– but they can prove there is no good argument for god

4. craig’s scientific arguments don’t go far enough, they only prove deism, not theism
– the scientific arguments don’t prove prayer works
– the scientific arguments don’t prove specific moral teachings of christianity

5. if the laws of physics are so great then miracles shouldn’t be allowed
– good laws and miracles seem to be in contradiction

6. extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence
– none of craig’s evidence was extraordinary

7. science can change, so craig can’t use the progress of science
– it’s too early for craig to use the big bang and fine-tuning
– the big bang and fine-tuning evidences are too new
– they could be overturned by the progress of science

8. craig wrote in his book that the internal conviction of god’s existence should trump contradicting evidence
– but then he isn’t forming his view based on evidence
– he refuses to let evidence disprove his view
– but then how can atheists be to blame if they don’t believe
– so evidence is not really relevant to accepting theism

9. the progress of science has disproved religion
– christianity taught that earth was center of the universe
– but then cosmology disproved that

Response to the big bang and fine-tuning arguments:
– was there pre-existing material?
– who designed the designer?

WC first rebuttal:

Reiterates his 2 basic contentions

CH agrees that there is no good argument for atheism
– then all you’ve got is agnosticism
– because CH did not claim to know there is no God
– and he gave no arguments that there is no God

CH’s evolution argument
– irrelevant to christianity
– Genesis 1 allows for evolution to have occurred
– christianity is not committed to young earth creationism
– the origin of biological diversity is not central to christianity
– st. augustine in 300 AD said days can be long, special potencies unfold over time
– also there are scientific reasons to doubt evolution
– cites barrow and tipler, and they say:
– each of 10 steps in evolution is very improbable
– chances are so low, it would be a miracle if evolution occurred

CH’s argument that god is wasteful
– efficiency is only important to people with limited time or limited resources
– therefore god doesn’t need to be efficient

CH’s argument that god waits too long to send Jesus
– population was not that high before jesus
– jesus appears just before the exponential explosion of population
– conditions were stable – roman empire, peace, literacy, law, etc.

CH’s argument that Craig’s scientific arguments only prove deism, not theism
– deism a type of theism, so those scientific arguments work
– all that deism denies is miraculous intervention

CH’s argument that Craig has a burden of proof
– theism doesn’t need to be proven with certainty
– must only prove best explanation of the evidence

CH’s citation of Craig’s book saying that evidence should not overrule experience
– there is a difference between knowing and showing christianity is true
– knowing is by religious experience which is a properly basic belief
– showing is done through evidence, and there the evidence does matter

CH’s rebuttal to the big bang
– there was no pre-existent material
– space and time and matter came into being at the big bang
– the cause must be non-physical and eternal
– cause of universe outside of time means = cause of universe did not begin to exist
– this is the state of science today

CH’s rebuttal to the fine tuning
– CH says scientists are uncertain about the fine-tuning
– craig cites martin rees, an atheist, astronomer royal, to substantiate the fine tuning
– the fine-tuning is necessary for  minimal requirements for life of any kind
– the progress of science is not going to dethrone the fine-tuning

CH’s argument about heat death of the universe
– duration of design is irrelevant to whether something was designed
– cars are designed, yet they break down
– design need not be optimal to be designed
– ch is saying why create if we all eventually go extinct
– but life doesn’t end in the grave on christianity

CH’s rebuttal to the moral argument
– CH says no obj moral values
– but CH uses them to argue against god and christians
– but CH has no foundation for a standard that applies to God and Christians

CH’s rebuttal to the resurrection argument
– empty tomb and appearances are virtually certain
– these are minimal facts, well evidenced using standard historical criteria
– best explanation of these minimal facts is the resurrection

CH’s rebuttal to religious experience
– prop basic belief is rational in the absence of defeaters
– so long as craig has no psychological deficiency, experience is admissible

CH first rebuttal:

it’s not agnosticism
– if there are no good arguments for theism
– then there is no reason for belief in god
– that is atheism
– everything can be explained without god

god wouldn’t have done it that way
– homo sapiens is 100K years old
– for 98K years, they had no communication from God
– lots of people died in childbirth
– disease and volcanos are a mystery to them
– life expectancy is very low
– they die terrible deaths
– their teeth are badly designed
– their genitalia are badly designed
– why solve the problem of sin by allowing a man to be tortured to death
– that’s a stupid, cruel, bumbling plan

lots of people haven’t even heard of jesus
– many of them die without knowing about him
– they cannot be held responsible if they do not know about jesus

the early success of christianity doesn’t prove christianity is true
– because then it applies to mormonism and islam, they’re growing fast

objective morality
– belief in a supreme dictator doesn’t improve moral behavior
– i can do moral actions that you can do
– i can repeat moral positions that you can say

religious people are immoral
– genital mutilation
– suicide bombing

moral behavior doesn’t need god
– we need to act moral for social cohesion
– it evolved for our survival
– that’s why people act morally
– it’s degrading to humans, and servile, to require god for morality

free will
– i believe in free will
– i don’t know why, because i can’t ground free will on atheism
– a bossy god seems to reduce free will because then we are accountable to god

WC cross-examination of CH:

WC why call yourself an atheist when you have no reasons?

CH because absence of belief is atheism

WC but agnosticism, atheism, verificationism all don’t hold that belief, which are you?

CH i think god does not exist

WC ok give me an argument for the claim you just made to know god does not exist

CH i have no argument, but i don’t believe in god because it depresses me to think he might be real

WC would you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

CH no i don’t agree

WC moral argument: it’s not epistemology it’s the ontology – have you got a foundation for moral values and duties?

CH i do not, it’s just evolution, an evolved standard based on social cohesion

CH cross-examination of WC:

CH you said that the historical reports of jesus doing exorcisms are generally accepted – do you believe in devils?

WC i commit to nothing, what I am saying there historical concensus on the reports that jesus did exorcisms

CH what about the devils going into the pigs, do you believe that?

WC yes i do, but the main point i’m making is that the historical reports show that jesus acted with divine authority

CH do you believe in the virgin birth?

WC yes, but that’s not historically provable using the minimal facts methods, and i did not use the virgin birth in my arguments tonight, because it doesn’t pass the historical tests to be a minimal fact

CH do you believe that all the graves opened and dead people all came out?

WC not sure if the author intended that part as apocalyptic imagery or as literal, i have no opinion on it, have not studied it

CH do exorcisms prove son of god?

WC no, i am only saying that the historical reports show that jesus exercised authority and put himself in the place of god

CH  are any religions false? name one that’s false

WC islam

CH so some religions are wicked right?

WC yes

CH if a baby were born in saudi arabia would it be better if it were an atheist or a muslim?

WC i have no opinion on that

CH are any christian denominations wrong?

WC calvinism is wrong about some things, but they are still christians, i could be wrong about some things, i do the best i can studying theology so i’m not wrong

WC second rebuttal

Response to CH arguments:

no reasons for atheism
– no reasons to believe that god does not exist
– ch withholds belief in god

why wait so long before contacting humans with jesus
– population matters, not time – jesus waited until there was about to be a population explosion
– there is natural revelation (Romans 1) for those who lived before christ

what about those who never heard
– (Acts 17:22-31) god chooses the time and place of each person who is born to optimize their opportunity to know him based on how they will respond to evidence (this is called middle knowledge)
– those who haven’t heard will be judged based on general revelation

WC re-assess the state of his five arguments:

cosmological argument
– heat death of the universe won’t happen on christianity

moral argument
– if no objective moral standard, can’t judge other cultures as wrong
– no transcendent objective standard to be able to judge slavery as wrong

name an action argument
– e.g. – tithing
– the greatest command – love the lord your god your god with everything you’ve got
– atheists can’t do that, and that is the biggest commandment to follow

moral obligations
– there are no objective moral obligations for anyone on atheism
– on atheism, you feel obligated because of genetics and social pressure
– on atheism, we’re animals, and animals don’t have moral obligations

resurrection
– the belief in resurrection of 1 man, the messiah is totally unexpected on judaism
– they would not have made this up, it was unexpected

religious experience
– experience is valid in the absence of defeaters

CH second rebuttal:

faith and reason
– Tertullian says faith is better when it’s against reason

it’s easy to start a rumor with faith-based people
– mother teresa: to be canonized she needs to have done a miracle
– so there was a faked miracle report
– but everybody believes the fake miracle report!
– this proves that religious rumors are easy to start
– the resurrection could have started as a similar rumor by people wanting to believe it

name an action
– tithing is a religious action, i don’t have to do that

moral argument
– i can be as moral as you can without god
– i can say that other cultures are wrong, there i just said it
– without god, people would still be good, so god isn’t needed

religious people did bad things in history
– this church did a bad thing here
– that church did a bad thing there
– therfore god doesn’t exist

religion is the outcome of man’s struggle with natural phenomenon
– that is why there are so many religions

WC concluding speech

no arguments for atheism presented

What CH has said during the debate:
– god bad, mother teresa bad, religion bad

atheism is a worldview
– it claims to know the truth
– therefore it is exclusive of other views

what does theism explain
– theism explains a broad range of experiences
– origin of universe, CH has dropped the point
– fine-tuning, CH has dropped the point
– moral, CH says that humans are no different from animals – but an evolved standard is illusory, there are no actual moral values and standards, it’s just a genetic predisposition to act in a certain way – that’s not prescriptive morality
– resurrection, CH has dropped the point
– experience, craig tells his testimony and urges the audience to give it a shot

CH concluding speech

HITCHENS YIELDS HIS ENTIRE CONCLUDING SPEECH!

A question & answer Period followed end of the formal debate

Further study

Check out my analysis of the 11 arguments Hitchens made in his opening speech in his debate with Frank Turek.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

FBI revises 2022 violent crime rates upward – up 6.6% from previous numbers

A strange thing about the secular left. You would expect them to want to be concerned about the safety of people who live in high crime areas. These people are often too poor to afford to move to safer neighborhoods. But if you look closely at the policies of secular left candidates like Harris and Walz, you see that they tend to take the side of criminals.

Here is an article from the New York Post about how crime rates have changed after nearly 4 years of Biden-Harris:

Last month, new FBI data showed that reported serious violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) fell by 3.5% in 2023.

But at the same time — and much more quietly — the FBI revised its earlier data for 2022, turning a reported decrease into a worrisome increase in violent crime.

Last year, the media trumpeted the FBI’s claim that reported violent crime had fallen in 2022 by 2.1%.

But now the FBI admits that violent crime rose in 2022 instead, by 4.5% — off by 6.6 percentage points.

Although the Biden-Harris regime likes to quote FBI crime data, that data is based on crimes that are reported to the police. Many crimes are not reported to the police. There is another survey conducted by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. It’s called the 2023 National Crime Victimization Survey. They interviewed 240,000 to see if they were impacted by crime. And the latest report says this:

Instead of the FBI’s 3.5% drop in serious violent crime, the NCVS found a 4.1% increase in violent crime victimization from 2022 to 2023.

While the FBI claims that serious violent crime has fallen by 5.8% since Biden took office, the NCVS numbers show that total violent crime has risen by an incredible 55.4%. Rapes were up by 42%, robbery by 63%, and aggravated assault by 55% during his term.

The increases shown by the NCVS during the Biden-Harris administration are by far the largest percentage increases over any other three-year period, more than doubling the previous record.

Here’s another article about crime from illegal immigration, reported in RealClear Politics:

The new data on all the criminal noncitizens coming into the U.S. is shocking.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) checks the background of illegal aliens they have in custody. But, the administration’s letter to Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) shows that as of July 21, 2024, ICE let 435,719 convicted criminals and 226,847 people with pending criminal charges in their home countries into the U.S.

[…]About 7.4 million noncitizens are in the “national docket data,” so 662,776 is 9% of the total, and if one extrapolates the numbers to the homicide rate in this country, it strongly indicates that the government is letting migrants into this country who commit murder at a rate 50% higher than the rest of the U.S. population.

And these numbers clearly underestimate the crime rate of these noncitizens. The noncitizens in the “national docket data” turned themselves in to border agents for processing or were caught. Those who don’t turn themselves in are obviously far more likely to have something to hide from those doing the processing, so-called “gotaways,” who are observed illegally entering the U.S. but not caught or turned back.

These figures coincide with other data from the Arizona prison system and show illegal aliens commit crime at much higher rates than Americans or legal immigrants.

Now, you would expect elected representatives who are paid by taxpayers to allow those taxpayers to own legal firearms and to defend themselves from criminals without being persecuted. Sadly, there’s no reason to think that a Harris-Walz regime would be supportive of law-abiding citizens owning weapons, or defending themselves from criminals.

This new article from the Daily Caller talks about how the Republican party is trying to appeal to gun owners to vote in the election, so they can avoid gun confiscation and facing criminal charges for self-defense against criminals:

According to Vote4America, more than 10 million gun owners across the country are not registered to vote.

[…]For Republicans, these figures can be perplexing, but gun owners explained to the Caller that there is skepticism towards voting and politics as a whole in the community. Some believe that because they don’t want the government in their business, then they shouldn’t get involved by voting.

Personally, I know a lot of men like this. We have them in Christianity. These are the same people who try to do whatever involves the least amount of work, but they want to sound pious about it. They don’t want to read apologetics books, but they instead cherry pick from the Bible in order to make their laziness and ignorance sound pious and holy. The same thing is happening with many male gun owners. They want to drink beer and watch football, but they also want to say words that make you think that they are patriotic. Their apathy will actually result in the end of the second amendment. Infuriating! But for now, let’s just focus on getting them to vote, so we can save the Republic.

So how do Republican candidates intend to solve this apathy?

To carry its message, Hunter Nation, alongside the NRA, has partnered with celebrities such as Ted Nugent, Donald Trump Jr. (a prominent hunting enthusiast) and the Duck Dynasty organization, Mark told the Caller. Similarly, Vote4America has teamed up with pro-gun personalities like Brooke Ence, Shawn Ryan, Andy Stumpf, Andy Frisella, Dan Hollaway, Shermichael Singleton, and Jason Alden to encourage gun owners to vote, senior adviser Baker Leavitt told the Caller.

Mark expects these types of partnerships to pay off in a big way.

In Wisconsin, according to Hunter Nation’s data, 416,085 gun owners are low-propensity, at risk or newly-registered voters. Of that total, the organization expects to turn out 54,196, Mark said. Biden won the state in 2020 by 20,600 votes.

In Michigan, the number of those potential voters is 452,471. The organization is estimating that it will turn out 70,142 in the 2024 election. Biden won the state in 2020 by 154,000 votes.

The organization also expects to have a big impact in Georgia, where Biden won by about 11,000 votes in 2020. Hunter Nation hopes to turn out 122,913 of the state’s more than 825,000 low-propensity or newly-registered gun owners, Mark said.

In perhaps the election’s most critical state, Pennsylvania, which Biden previously won by about 80,000 votes, the hunting group says their campaign projects to turn out at least 58,000 low-propensity gun owners.

I like this approach, because it’s doing something to solve the problem. I hope that the Republicans can convince these second amendment non-voters to vote. If they can’t, then the second amendment people are going to find out real quick what their apathy costs them.

New study: Google search engine is biased in favor of Democrat party

A couple of weeks ago, I was doing some searches to try to find the policy positions of the candidates. I started using Google, in order to get the latest news. But I just got pages and pages of far-left corporate news propaganda. But is there any hard evidence that Google intentionally designs their products and services to benefit the Democrat party at election time?

Here’s an interesting article from the New York Post:

While Congressional Republicans were hammering Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey for censoring conservatives on their platforms, Google’s executives sat back smugly, confident that their obscene censorship schemes went undetected.

But our organization, the Media Research Center, and others have shown that Google is the most effective weapon in the left’s arsenal — the one that gets its candidates across the finish line.

In the last presidential election, Google swayed anywhere from six to eight million votes in favor of Joe Biden.

MRC’s studies over a 12-month period consistently showed that Google completely buried Republican campaign websites in favor of their Democrat opponents.

Here’s what happened during the GOP primaries for this election:

During the presidential primary contests, MRC conducted studies searching for the campaign websites for both Democrats and Republicans.

Not surprisingly, when MRC searched for “democrat presidential campaign websites,” Biden’s campaign site was always the first or second search result.

But the results were very different when searching for the Republican campaign websites.

Shockingly, Google only produced a total of two sites: one for Democrat Marianne Williamson and another for Will Hurd, a little-known Congressman who never polled above 1%.

Google would not produce the campaign websites for Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy or the other eleven candidates.

And here’s what’s going on right now:

In our latest study, we show that Google is finally revealing Trump’s website, albeit, still lower than Harris’.

But a user is now required to wade through a flood of news articles, almost all hostile to Trump, before ever reaching either candidate’s website.

[…]Congressional Republicans and several state Attorneys General understand that Google is weaponized against Republicans and uses its corporate resources to help Democrats.

It is not illegal for a corporation to use its resources to influence the outcome of an election.

But it is against the law when a corporation does not disclose its efforts with the Federal Election Commission.

And this is the conclusion, which should be shocking to you:

Google is either illegally coordinating with the Harris campaign, or if its expenditures are independent, it is unlawfully failing to file its disclosure reports.

Congress should find out which it is.

In another recent article, the Media Research Center tried using Google to search for JD Vance, after the VP candidate debate:

The morning after the debate, MRC Free Speech America conducted a search in the Google News tab for “jd vance.” MRC analysis revealed that 100 percent of the results came from outlets with a leftist political bias. Google News tab did not display a single article from an outlet that did not have a predominantly leftist political bias.

And what about the “fact checkers” that are used by big social media sites like Facebook and Instagram to censor content? Well, those fact checkers are just more journalists, like the ones who work for NPR, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

The Media Research Center reports:

Donald Trump was fact-checked 42 times from April to September, and none were on the True side, two were Half True, and 40 were Mostly False or worse. Forty to zero. Does that look nonpartisan to anyone? Add in the first quarter, and it’s 57 to 0. Fully 15 of the 40 new False verdicts were the worst designation of “Pants On Fire,” falling just short of the 17 False rulings.

From April to September, President Biden was checked 19 times, and he was on the True side as often as the False side, seven and seven (with five Half Trues). For the year, it’s nine on the True side and 11 on the False side (10 Half Trues).

In that time frame, Kamala Harris was checked 17 times, and she was rated as True or Mostly True on six occasions, and as Mostly False or worse on eight occasions (six Mostly False, two False). She had three Half Trues. For the year, it’s eight on the True side and nine on the False side (three Half Trues).

Biden drew zero “Pants on Fire” warnings this year, and has only seven of those in the entire history of PolitiFact going back to 2007 (just one during his presidency). Kamala Harris has zero overall, and she was first elected statewide in California in 2010. Trump currently has 201. This is where you can see PolitiFact’s editorial aggression, since Newt Gingrich has only twelve. Bernie Sanders has a perfect zero like Kamala.

In the April to September time frame, Republicans were whacked as “Pants on Fire” 19 times, and the Democrats only once. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker drew one — for saying on ABC’s This Week that J.D. Vance is “getting known for his obsession with couches.”

Please be careful about where you get your news. My choices for good news web sites are Daily Signal and Christian Post. I also look at Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon and sometimes The Federalist.

By the way, I’ve start using StartPage as my search enginer, and it’s so fun to see this blog appearing in the first page of results when I search for something that I specifically wrote about. I remember when Google used to work like that. But when Trump won in 2016, that all changed. I used to get over 1000 searches a day coming to this blog. Now it’s about 1% of that per day.

And if you want to try an alternative to StartPage, try Qwant.