{"id":654,"date":"2017-08-07T16:48:20","date_gmt":"2017-08-07T14:48:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/?p=654"},"modified":"2017-08-07T16:48:20","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T14:48:20","slug":"istnieje-bog-debata-william-lane-craig-vs-christopher-hitchens-%c2%96calosc-lektor-pl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/istnieje-bog-debata-william-lane-craig-vs-christopher-hitchens-%c2%96calosc-lektor-pl\/","title":{"rendered":"Czy istnieje B\u00f3g? Debata &#8211; William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens \u0096(ca\u0142o\u015b\u0107, lektor PL)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Co do mnie &#8211; z uwag\u0105 obejrza\u0142em ca\u0142o\u015b\u0107. Uwa\u017cam, \u017ce obie strony prezentowa\u0142y swoj\u0105 my\u015bl na b. wysokim poziomie. Gdybym to ja stan\u0105\u0142 przed Hitchensem (kt\u00f3rego ksi\u0105\u017ck\u0119 aktualnie czytam), tobym zosta\u0142 zmasakrowany ju\u017c na samym pocz\u0105tku. Podziwiam Craiga za to, \u017ce ani na chwil\u0119 nie zmiesza\u0142 si\u0119, \u017ce nie da\u0142 si\u0119 zap\u0119dzi\u0107 w kozi r\u00f3g, \u017ce wreszcie nie tylko zbija\u0142 argumenty przeciwnika, ale wr\u0119cz ca\u0142y czas naciera\u0142. To on by\u0142 w ofensywie. S\u0105dz\u0119 te\u017c, \u017ce wiele naszych dyskusji jest zwyczajnie ja\u0142owych. Powinni\u015bmy podzieli\u0107 dyskusj\u0119 mi\u0119dzy ateistami i teistami na kilka wi\u0119kszych temat\u00f3w i w ka\u017cdym temacie wypisa\u0107 najsensowniejsze argumenty ka\u017cdej strony, kt\u00f3re ju\u017c kiedy\u015b zosta\u0142y wypowiedziane. Unikn\u0119liby\u015bmy nieustannego powtarzania wci\u0105\u017c tych samych formu\u0142ek.<br \/>\nTakie debaty s\u0105 potrzebne, ale mam zastrze\u017cenia wobec ich rozk\u0142adu. Uwa\u017cam, \u017ce ka\u017cda ze stron powinna by\u0142a najpierw na wielkiej tablicy napisa\u0107, o czym chce rozmawia\u0107, a p\u00f3\u017aniej nale\u017ca\u0142o po kolei realizowa\u0107 punkty jednej i drugiej strony. By\u0142by tematyczny porz\u0105dek, a nie samowolka. W\u00f3wczas te\u017c Craig nie musia\u0142by trzy razy powtarza\u0107, \u017ce niekt\u00f3re jego argumenty zosta\u0142y przed Hitchensa zignorowane, poniewa\u017c ka\u017cda (hipo)teza Craiga by\u0142aby rozpatrywana oddzielnie. Nie podoba\u0142o mi si\u0119 te\u017c to, \u017ce gdy (w p\u00f3\u017aniejszej cz\u0119\u015bci debaty) jedna strona wypowiedzia\u0142a si\u0119, druga strona si\u0119 do tego odnios\u0142a, to regulamin zakazywa\u0142 kolejnej kontrreakcji. Wiem, \u017ce mia\u0142o to na celu zapobiegni\u0119cie przed\u0142u\u017cania si\u0119 dyskusji w niesko\u0144czono\u015b\u0107, ale s\u0105dz\u0119, \u017ce lepszy by\u0142by niestronniczy arbiter, kt\u00f3ry przerywa\u0142by dyskusj\u0119, widz\u0105c, \u017ce zmierza ona w \u015blepy punkt, ni\u017c sztuczny zakaz dopowiedzenia czy sprostowania (a czasem a\u017c si\u0119 prosi\u0142o, aby pierwsza osoba mog\u0142a si\u0119 jeszcze raz wypowiedzie\u0107 w danej sprawie).<br \/>\n\u017ba\u0142uj\u0119, \u017ce wi\u0119cej tego rodzaju debat nie zosta\u0142o przet\u0142umaczonych na polski. Ciesz\u0119 si\u0119, \u017ce chocia\u017c t\u0119 jedn\u0105 komu\u015b si\u0119 chcia\u0142o prze\u0142o\u017cy\u0107 i to jeszcze z lektorem. Dobra robota.<br \/>\nKomentarz z <a href=\"http:\/\/biblia.webd.pl\/forum\/viewtopic.php?t=9215\">Forum<\/a><br \/>\nPolskie t\u0142umaczenie: Ola Glapa i Piotr Kirklewski<br \/>\nCzyta\u0142: Piotr Kirklewski<br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\"  id=\"_ytid_47308\"  width=\"700\" height=\"394\"  data-origwidth=\"700\" data-origheight=\"394\"  data-relstop=\"1\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/OKsqmC6wg9w?enablejsapi=1&#038;autoplay=0&#038;cc_load_policy=0&#038;cc_lang_pref=&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;loop=0&#038;rel=0&#038;fs=1&#038;playsinline=0&#038;autohide=2&#038;theme=dark&#038;color=red&#038;controls=1&#038;disablekb=0&#038;\" class=\"__youtube_prefs__  epyt-is-override  no-lazyload\" title=\"YouTube player\"  allow=\"fullscreen; accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen data-no-lazy=\"1\" data-skipgform_ajax_framebjll=\"\"><\/iframe><br \/>\nMY NOTES ON THE DEBATE: (WC = William Lane Craig, CH = Christopher Hitchens)<br \/>\n<strong>WC opening speech:<\/strong><br \/>\nIntroduction:<br \/>\nWC makes two contentions:<br \/>\n\u2013 there are no good arguments for atheism<br \/>\n\u2013 there are good arguments for theism<br \/>\nThese topics are IRRELEVANT tonight:<br \/>\n\u2013 social impact of christianity<br \/>\n\u2013 morality of Old Testament passages<br \/>\n\u2013 biblical inerrancy<br \/>\n\u2013 the debate is whether god (a creator and designer of the universe) exists<br \/>\n1. cosmological argument<br \/>\n\u2013 an actually infinite number of past events is impossible<br \/>\n\u2013 number of past events must be finite<br \/>\n\u2013 therefore universe has a beginning<br \/>\n\u2013 the beginning of the universe is confirmed by science \u2013\u00a0 universe began to exist from nothing<br \/>\n\u2013 space, time, matter, energy began at the big bang<br \/>\n\u2013 the creation of the universe requires a cause<br \/>\n\u2013 the cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, powerful<br \/>\n\u2013 the cause must be beyond space and time, because it created space and time<br \/>\n\u2013 the cause is not physical, because it created all matter and energy<br \/>\n\u2013 but there are only two kinds of non-physical cause: abstract objects or minds<br \/>\n\u2013 abstract objects don\u2019t cause effects<br \/>\n\u2013 therefore must be mind<br \/>\n2. teleological argument<br \/>\n\u2013 fine-tuned constants and ratios<br \/>\n\u2013 constants not determined by laws of nature<br \/>\n\u2013 also, there are arbitrary quantities<br \/>\n\u2013 constants and quantities are in narrow range of life-permitting values<br \/>\n\u2013 an example: if the weak force were different by 1 in 10 to the 100, then no life<br \/>\n\u2013 there are 3 explanations: physical law or chance or design<br \/>\n\u2013 not due to law: because constants and quantities are independent of the laws<br \/>\n\u2013 not due to chance: the odds are too high for chance<br \/>\n\u2013 therefore, due to design<br \/>\n\u2013 the atheist response is the world ensemble (multiverse)<br \/>\n\u2013 but world ensemble has unobservable universes, no evidence that they exist<br \/>\n\u2013 and world ensemble contradicts scientific observations we have today<br \/>\n3. moral argument<br \/>\n\u2013 objective moral values are values that exist regardless of what humans think<br \/>\n\u2013 objective values are not personal preferences<br \/>\n\u2013 objective values are not evolved standards that cultures have depending on time and place<br \/>\n\u2013 objective moral values and duties exist<br \/>\n\u2013 objective moral values and duties require a moral lawgiver<br \/>\n4. argument from resurrection miracle<br \/>\n\u2013 resurrection implies miracle<br \/>\n\u2013 miracle implies God<br \/>\n\u2013 3 minimal facts pass the historical tests (early attestation, eyewitness testimony, multiple attestation, etc.)<br \/>\n\u2013 minimal fact 1: empty tomb<br \/>\n\u2013 minimal fact 2: appearances<br \/>\n\u2013 minimal fact 3: early belief in the resurrection<br \/>\n\u2013 jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah \u2013 messiah is not supposed to die<br \/>\n\u2013 jewish theology has a general resurrection of everybody, there is not supposed to be a resurrection of one person<br \/>\n\u2013 jewish theology certainly does not predict a single resurrection of the messiah after he dies<br \/>\n\u2013 therefore, the belief in the resurrection is unlikely to have been invented<br \/>\n\u2013 disciples were willing to die for that belief in the resurrection<br \/>\n\u2013 naturalistic explanations don\u2019t work for the 3 minimal facts<br \/>\n5. properly basic belief in god<br \/>\n\u2013 religious experience is properly basic<br \/>\n\u2013 it\u2019s just like the belief in the external world, grounded in experience<br \/>\n\u2013 in the absence of defeaters, those experiences are valid<br \/>\nConclusion: What CH must do:<br \/>\n\u2013 destroy all 5 of WC\u2019s arguments<br \/>\n\u2013 erect his own case in its place<br \/>\n<strong>CH opening speech:<\/strong><br \/>\n1. evolution disproves biological design argument<br \/>\n\u2013 evolution disproves paley\u2019s argument for a watchmaker<br \/>\n2. god wouldn\u2019t have done it that way<br \/>\n\u2013 god wouldn\u2019t have waited that long before the incarnation<br \/>\n\u2013 mass extinction and death before Jesus<br \/>\n\u2013 god wouldn\u2019t have allowed humans to have almost gone extinct a while back in africa<br \/>\n\u2013 why insist that this wasteful and incompetent history of life is for us, that\u2019s a bad design<br \/>\n\u2013 the universe is so vast, why would god need so much space, that\u2019s a bad design<br \/>\n\u2013 there is too much destruction in the universe, like exploding stars \u2013 that\u2019s a bad design<br \/>\n\u2013 the heat death of the universe is a bad design<br \/>\n\u2013 too many of the other planets don\u2019t support life, that\u2019s a bad design<br \/>\n\u2013 the sun is going to become a red giant and incinerate us, that\u2019s a bad design<br \/>\n3. hitchens\u2019 burden of proof<br \/>\n\u2013 there is no good reason that supports the existence of god<br \/>\n\u2013 all arguments for god can be explained without god<br \/>\n\u2013 atheists can\u2019t prove there is no god<br \/>\n\u2013 but they can prove there is no good argument for god<br \/>\n4. craig\u2019s scientific arguments don\u2019t go far enough, they only prove deism, not theism<br \/>\n\u2013 the scientific arguments don\u2019t prove prayer works<br \/>\n\u2013 the scientific arguments don\u2019t prove specific moral teachings of christianity<br \/>\n5. if the laws of physics are so great then miracles shouldn\u2019t be allowed<br \/>\n\u2013 good laws and miracles seem to be in contradiction<br \/>\n6. extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence<br \/>\n\u2013 none of craig\u2019s evidence was extraordinary<br \/>\n7. science can change, so craig can\u2019t use the progress of science<br \/>\n\u2013 it\u2019s too early for craig to use the big bang and fine-tuning<br \/>\n\u2013 the big bang and fine-tuning evidences are too new<br \/>\n\u2013 they could be overturned by the progress of science<br \/>\n8. craig wrote in his book that the internal conviction of god\u2019s existence should trump contradicting evidence<br \/>\n\u2013 but then he isn\u2019t forming his view based on evidence<br \/>\n\u2013 he refuses to let evidence disprove his view<br \/>\n\u2013 but then how can atheists be to blame if they don\u2019t believe<br \/>\n\u2013 so evidence is not really relevant to accepting theism<br \/>\n9. the progress of science has disproved religion<br \/>\n\u2013 christianity taught that earth was center of the universe<br \/>\n\u2013 but then cosmology disproved that<br \/>\nResponse to the big bang and fine-tuning arguments:<br \/>\n\u2013 was there pre-existing material?<br \/>\n\u2013 who designed the designer?<br \/>\n<strong>WC first rebuttal:<\/strong><br \/>\nReiterates his 2 basic contentions<br \/>\nCH agrees that there is no good argument for atheism<br \/>\n\u2013 then all you\u2019ve got is agnosticism<br \/>\n\u2013 because CH did not claim to know there is no God<br \/>\n\u2013 and he gave no arguments that there is no God<br \/>\nCH\u2019s evolution argument<br \/>\n\u2013 irrelevant to christianity<br \/>\n\u2013 Genesis 1 allows for evolution to have occurred<br \/>\n\u2013 christianity is not committed to young earth creationism<br \/>\n\u2013 the origin of biological diversity is not central to christianity<br \/>\n\u2013 st. augustine in 300 AD said days can be long, special potencies unfold over time<br \/>\n\u2013 also there are scientific reasons to doubt evolution<br \/>\n\u2013 cites barrow and tipler, and they say:<br \/>\n\u2013 each of 10 steps in evolution is very improbable<br \/>\n\u2013 chances are so low, it would be a miracle if evolution occurred<br \/>\nCH\u2019s argument that god is wasteful<br \/>\n\u2013 efficiency is only important to people with limited time or limited resources<br \/>\n\u2013 therefore god doesn\u2019t need to be efficient<br \/>\nCH\u2019s argument that god waits too long to send Jesus<br \/>\n\u2013 population was not that high before jesus<br \/>\n\u2013 jesus appears just before the exponential explosion of population<br \/>\n\u2013 conditions were stable \u2013 roman empire, peace, literacy, law, etc.<br \/>\nCH\u2019s argument that Craig\u2019s scientific arguments only prove deism, not theism<br \/>\n\u2013 deism a type of theism, so those scientific arguments work<br \/>\n\u2013 all that deism denies is miraculous intervention<br \/>\nCH\u2019s argument that Craig has a burden of proof<br \/>\n\u2013 theism doesn\u2019t need to be proven with certainty<br \/>\n\u2013 must only prove best explanation of the evidence<br \/>\nCH\u2019s citation of Craig\u2019s book saying that evidence should not overrule experience<br \/>\n\u2013 there is a difference between knowing and showing christianity is true<br \/>\n\u2013 knowing is by religious experience which is a properly basic belief<br \/>\n\u2013 showing is done through evidence, and there the evidence does matter<br \/>\nCH\u2019s rebuttal to the big bang<br \/>\n\u2013 there was no pre-existent material<br \/>\n\u2013 space and time and matter came into being at the big bang<br \/>\n\u2013 the cause must be non-physical and eternal<br \/>\n\u2013 cause of universe outside of time means = cause of universe did not begin to exist<br \/>\n\u2013 this is the state of science today<br \/>\nCH\u2019s rebuttal to the fine tuning<br \/>\n\u2013 CH says scientists are uncertain about the fine-tuning<br \/>\n\u2013 craig cites martin rees, an atheist, astronomer royal, to substantiate the fine tuning<br \/>\n\u2013 the fine-tuning is necessary for\u00a0 minimal requirements for life of any kind<br \/>\n\u2013 the progress of science is not going to dethrone the fine-tuning<br \/>\nCH\u2019s argument about heat death of the universe<br \/>\n\u2013 duration of design is irrelevant to whether something was designed<br \/>\n\u2013 cars are designed, yet they break down<br \/>\n\u2013 design need not be optimal to be designed<br \/>\n\u2013 ch is saying why create if we all eventually go extinct<br \/>\n\u2013 but life doesn\u2019t end in the grave on christianity<br \/>\nCH\u2019s rebuttal to the moral argument<br \/>\n\u2013 CH says no obj moral values<br \/>\n\u2013 but CH uses them to argue against god and christians<br \/>\n\u2013 but CH has no foundation for a standard that applies to God and Christians<br \/>\nCH\u2019s rebuttal to the resurrection argument<br \/>\n\u2013 empty tomb and appearances are virtually certain<br \/>\n\u2013 these are minimal facts, well evidenced using standard historical criteria<br \/>\n\u2013 best explanation of these minimal facts is the resurrection<br \/>\nCH\u2019s rebuttal to religious experience<br \/>\n\u2013 prop basic belief is rational in the absence of defeaters<br \/>\n\u2013 so long as craig has no psychological deficiency, experience is admissible<br \/>\n<strong>CH first rebuttal:<\/strong><br \/>\nit\u2019s not agnosticism<br \/>\n\u2013 if there are no good arguments for theism<br \/>\n\u2013 then there is no reason for belief in god<br \/>\n\u2013 that is atheism<br \/>\n\u2013 everything can be explained without god<br \/>\ngod wouldn\u2019t have done it that way<br \/>\n\u2013 homo sapiens is 100K years old<br \/>\n\u2013 for 98K years, they had no communication from God<br \/>\n\u2013 lots of people died in childbirth<br \/>\n\u2013 disease and volcanos are a mystery to them<br \/>\n\u2013 life expectancy is very low<br \/>\n\u2013 they die terrible deaths<br \/>\n\u2013 their teeth are badly designed<br \/>\n\u2013 their genitalia are badly designed<br \/>\n\u2013 why solve the problem of sin by allowing a man to be tortured to death<br \/>\n\u2013 that\u2019s a stupid, cruel, bumbling plan<br \/>\nlots of people haven\u2019t even heard of jesus<br \/>\n\u2013 many of them die without knowing about him<br \/>\n\u2013 they cannot be held responsible if they do not know about jesus<br \/>\nthe early success of christianity doesn\u2019t prove christianity is true<br \/>\n\u2013 because then it applies to mormonism and islam, they\u2019re growing fast<br \/>\nobjective morality<br \/>\n\u2013 belief in a supreme dictator doesn\u2019t improve moral behavior<br \/>\n\u2013 i can do moral actions that you can do<br \/>\n\u2013 i can repeat moral positions that you can say<br \/>\nreligious people are immoral<br \/>\n\u2013 genital mutilation<br \/>\n\u2013 suicide bombing<br \/>\nmoral behavior doesn\u2019t need god<br \/>\n\u2013 we need to act moral for social cohesion<br \/>\n\u2013 it evolved for our survival<br \/>\n\u2013 that\u2019s why people act morally<br \/>\n\u2013 it\u2019s degrading to humans, and servile, to require god for morality<br \/>\nfree will<br \/>\n\u2013 i believe in free will<br \/>\n\u2013 i don\u2019t know why, because i can\u2019t ground free will on atheism<br \/>\n\u2013 a bossy god seems to reduce free will because then we are accountable to god<br \/>\n<strong>WC cross-examination of CH:<\/strong><br \/>\nWC why call yourself an atheist when you have no reasons?<br \/>\nCH because absence of belief is atheism<br \/>\nWC but agnosticism, atheism, verificationism all don\u2019t hold that belief, which are you?<br \/>\nCH i think god does not exist<br \/>\nWC ok give me an argument for the claim you just made to know god does not exist<br \/>\nCH i have no argument, but i don\u2019t believe in god because it depresses me to think he might be real<br \/>\nWC would you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?<br \/>\nCH no i don\u2019t agree<br \/>\nWC moral argument: it\u2019s not epistemology it\u2019s the ontology \u2013 have you got a foundation for moral values and duties?<br \/>\nCH i do not, it\u2019s just evolution, an evolved standard based on social cohesion<br \/>\n<strong>CH cross-examination of WC:<\/strong><br \/>\nCH you said that the historical reports of jesus doing exorcisms are generally accepted \u2013 do you believe in devils?<br \/>\nWC i commit to nothing, what I am saying there historical concensus on the reports that jesus did exorcisms<br \/>\nCH what about the devils going into the pigs, do you believe that?<br \/>\nWC yes i do, but the main point i\u2019m making is that the historical reports show that jesus acted with divine authority<br \/>\nCH do you believe in the virgin birth?<br \/>\nWC yes, but that\u2019s not historically provable using the minimal facts methods, and i did not use the virgin birth in my arguments tonight, because it doesn\u2019t pass the historical tests to be a minimal fact<br \/>\nCH do you believe that all the graves opened and dead people all came out?<br \/>\nWC not sure if the author intended that part as apocalyptic imagery or as literal, i have no opinion on it, have not studied it<br \/>\nCH do exorcisms prove son of god?<br \/>\nWC no, i am only saying that the historical reports show that jesus exercised authority and put himself in the place of god<br \/>\nCH\u00a0 are any religions false? name one that\u2019s false<br \/>\nWC islam<br \/>\nCH so some religions are wicked right?<br \/>\nWC yes<br \/>\nCH if a baby were born in saudi arabia would it be better if it were an atheist or a muslim?<br \/>\nWC i have no opinion on that<br \/>\nCH are any christian denominations wrong?<br \/>\nWC 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\u2019m not wrong<br \/>\n<strong>WC second rebuttal<\/strong><br \/>\nResponse to CH arguments:<br \/>\nno reasons for atheism<br \/>\n\u2013 no reasons to believe that god does not exist<br \/>\n\u2013 ch withholds belief in god<br \/>\nwhy wait so long before contacting humans with jesus<br \/>\n\u2013 population matters, not time \u2013 jesus waited until there was about to be a population explosion<br \/>\n\u2013 there is natural revelation (Romans 1) for those who lived before christ<br \/>\nwhat about those who never heard<br \/>\n\u2013 (<em>Acts<\/em> 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)<br \/>\n\u2013 those who haven\u2019t heard will be judged based on general revelation<br \/>\nWC re-assess the state of his five arguments:<br \/>\ncosmological argument &lt;signal loss&gt;<br \/>\n\u2013 heat death of the universe won\u2019t happen on christianity<br \/>\nmoral argument<br \/>\n\u2013 if no objective moral standard, can\u2019t judge other cultures as wrong<br \/>\n\u2013 no transcendent objective standard to be able to judge slavery as wrong<br \/>\nname an action argument<br \/>\n\u2013 e.g. \u2013 tithing<br \/>\n\u2013 the greatest command \u2013 love the lord your god your god with everything you\u2019ve got<br \/>\n\u2013 atheists can\u2019t do that, and that is the biggest commandment to follow<br \/>\nmoral obligations<br \/>\n\u2013 there are no objective moral obligations for anyone on atheism<br \/>\n\u2013 on atheism, you feel obligated because of genetics and social pressure<br \/>\n\u2013 on atheism, we\u2019re animals, and animals don\u2019t have moral obligations<br \/>\nresurrection &lt;signal loss&gt;<br \/>\n\u2013 the belief in resurrection of 1 man, the messiah is totally unexpected on judaism<br \/>\n\u2013 they would not have made this up, it was unexpected<br \/>\nreligious experience<br \/>\n\u2013 experience is valid in the absence of defeaters<br \/>\n<strong>CH second rebuttal:<\/strong><br \/>\nfaith and reason<br \/>\n\u2013 Tertullian says faith is better when it\u2019s against reason<br \/>\nit\u2019s easy to start a rumor with faith-based people<br \/>\n\u2013 mother teresa: to be canonized she needs to have done a miracle<br \/>\n\u2013 so there was a faked miracle report<br \/>\n\u2013 but everybody believes the fake miracle report!<br \/>\n\u2013 this proves that religious rumors are easy to start<br \/>\n\u2013 the resurrection could have started as a similar rumor by people wanting to believe it<br \/>\nname an action<br \/>\n\u2013 tithing is a religious action, i don\u2019t have to do that<br \/>\nmoral argument<br \/>\n\u2013 i can be as moral as you can without god<br \/>\n\u2013 i can say that other cultures are wrong, there i just said it<br \/>\n\u2013 without god, people would still be good, so god isn\u2019t needed<br \/>\nreligious people did bad things in history<br \/>\n\u2013 this church did a bad thing here<br \/>\n\u2013 that church did a bad thing there<br \/>\n\u2013 therfore god doesn\u2019t exist<br \/>\nreligion is the outcome of man\u2019s struggle with natural phenomenon<br \/>\n\u2013 that is why there are so many religions<br \/>\n<strong>WC concluding speech<\/strong><br \/>\nno arguments for atheism presented<br \/>\nWhat CH has said during the debate:<br \/>\n\u2013 god bad, mother teresa bad, religion bad<br \/>\natheism is a worldview<br \/>\n\u2013 it claims to know the truth<br \/>\n\u2013 therefore it is exclusive of other views<br \/>\nwhat does theism explain<br \/>\n\u2013 theism explains a broad range of experiences<br \/>\n\u2013 origin of universe, CH has dropped the point<br \/>\n\u2013 fine-tuning, CH has dropped the point<br \/>\n\u2013 moral, CH says that humans are no different from animals \u2013 but an evolved standard is illusory, there are no actual moral values and standards, it\u2019s just a genetic predisposition to act in a certain way \u2013 that\u2019s not prescriptive morality<br \/>\n\u2013 resurrection, CH has dropped the point<br \/>\n\u2013 experience, craig tells his testimony and urges the audience to give it a shot<br \/>\n<strong>CH concluding speech<\/strong><br \/>\nHITCHENS YIELDS HIS ENTIRE CONCLUDING SPEECH!<br \/>\nA question &amp; answer Period followed end of the formal debate<br \/>\n<strong>Further study<\/strong><br \/>\nCheck out my analysis of the <a href=\"https:\/\/winteryknight.com\/2014\/03\/23\/2009\/04\/04\/2009\/03\/23\/analyzing-christopher-hitchens-case-against-god\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">11 arguments Hitchens made<\/a> in his opening speech in his debate with Frank Turek. You can also<a href=\"http:\/\/apologetics315.blogspot.com\/2009\/04\/does-god-of-christianity-exist-and-does.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">watch or listen to a <em>preview debate<\/em><\/a> that was held in Dallas recently between Craig, Hitchens, Lee Strobel and some other people. Biola University philosopher Doug Geivett\u2019s review is <a href=\"http:\/\/douggeivett.wordpress.com\/2009\/04\/05\/william-lane-craig-vs-christopher-hitchens-first-report\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">here<\/a>. He attended the debate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Co do mnie &#8211; z uwag\u0105 obejrza\u0142em ca\u0142o\u015b\u0107. Uwa\u017cam, \u017ce obie strony prezentowa\u0142y swoj\u0105 my\u015bl na b. wysokim poziomie. Gdybym to ja stan\u0105\u0142 przed Hitchensem (kt\u00f3rego ksi\u0105\u017ck\u0119 aktualnie czytam), tobym zosta\u0142 zmasakrowany ju\u017c na samym pocz\u0105tku. Podziwiam Craiga za to,&hellip; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_sitemap_exclude":false,"_sitemap_priority":"","_sitemap_frequency":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[983],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-debaty-online"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}