William Lane Craig vs Michael Payton | "Does God Exist?" | The Michael Coren Show

[Music] hello welcome to the Michael Coren show and it's a Thursday and she was days on Thursdays we do whatever we want to do so Monday Wednesday Friday we have these set panels and we debate all the major issues she was in Thursday a selection federal politics Foreign Affairs faith matters culture oh loads of stuff really one-on-one interviews we thought we'd tackle the issue mmm fairly important I suppose does God exist yeah parent he does does God exist debate the issue and there's a whole series of these debates going around North America I I moderated one in Oshawa Ontario just last week almost 4,000 people were there most of them students almost 4,000 that's a lot of people and there is huge interest in this subject personally I welcome the these signs on buses God probably doesn't exist let's bring the debate on let's have everyone have their their freedom of expression here does God exist well debate this issue at the end of it and one person will win the other one will probably be burning in hell let's introduce them dr. William Lane Craig research professor of philosophy Torbert School of Theology in La Mirada California hello hello we haven't got any of your books we should we could go and sell them for you but that's okay Michael Payton a cognitive scientist at York University are you allowed to go to classes these days oh no unfortunately not it's really a shame what's happening at the University or sister it is a great ship I think what we'll do we haven't arranged this before the show um we'll go segment by segment and it won't be too formal about it begin with you said uh proposition does God exist if he does show me how show me why well I think there are a number of good reasons to think that God exists in the debates that I've been having here in Canada I typically present five reasons and then defend them in greater detail God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world God is the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and God can be immediately known and experienced and on that basis I think it's rational to conclude that God exists there are no alternative explanations as to why we exist how exist and how the well certainly certainly there are alternative explanations and I don't mean to suggest that atheism is irrational or anything of that sort but I'm suggesting that the best explanation the more plausible one is the one that I defend what does evolution coming to this it doesn't come into any of the arguments that I present because the second argument I give the design argument doesn't concern the origin of biological complexity it concerns the remarkable fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe given in the Big Bang that scientists have only begun to discover within the last 40 years or so so that for a biological evolution to take place anywhere in the universe you have to have this elaborately set table in advance in the initial conditions of the Big Bang that cries out for some sort of explanation how old is the world best estimates today are around 13.7 billion years or so now this is good you say this is a position I can embrace because there are people who will sit here and say no it's six-and-a-half thousand years old that that is not a tenable position I don't think it's plausible the arguments that I give are right in line with mainstream science I'm not bucking up against mainstream science and ever sending these arguments whether I'm going with the flow of what contemporary cosmology and astrophysics supports is there a contradiction or an inconsistency between the biblical account of the age of the earth and and your statement that's interesting because there isn't any biblical account of the age of the earth there's nothing in the Genesis or elsewhere in the Bible that says how old the universe is so no I don't think it is incompatible hmm we often hear that other caricatured argument that Christians believe that man and dinosaur coexisted there are some creationists they typically style themselves young earth creationists who believe that I've even seen children's books where Noah takes dinosaur eggs on the ark with him well all of this is reading between the lines there's nothing like that in the book of Genesis hmm forgive these questions in a perfect world I wouldn't have to ask them but if God is all good and all-powerful and all-knowing why does he allow bad things to happen to good people this is I think the principal argument for the atheistic side that my opponents in the debates will sometimes bring up and I think that there's a couple of ways to respond to this first we need to understand what the Atheist is claiming here is he arguing that God and suffering are logically incompatible with each other if he is then he needs to show that there's some sort of implicit contradiction there because there's no explicit contradiction and I would say that no atheist has ever been able to sustain that burden of proof to show that there are necessarily true assumptions that would reveal some kind of a contradiction between God and the suffering and evil in the world in fact I think we can prove that they are compatible by just adding a third proposition and that would be that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in the world as long as that's even possible it shows that God and evil are logically compatible so that logical version of the argument doesn't work now very quickly there's a probabilistic version of the argument which says all right God and evil are logically compatible but nevertheless it's highly improbable that God exists given the evil and suffering in the world and I think there's a number of moves that the theist can make in response to that argument to show that it's it's not improbable that God exists given the suffering in the world I happen to believe and from be as objective as I can throughout the debate that the reasons why there is suffering and pain are entirely obvious and in fact they're inevitable if there is a loving God but how would you explain them why then does God have to allow discomfort suffering pain terrible pain well I I would say Michael that there isn't any single reason it rather there's a multitude of reasons that would be in play here one would be that God wants to create a world of free creatures who can become responsible moral agents and mature persons and that will require a world that operates according to certain natural laws where the fire that warms you can also burn you the water that sustains you can drown you and it would require the ability of these creatures to do morally evil acts and so the creating that sort of an arena I think is going to allow the possibility of natural suffering and moral evil to occur but the god permits these with the overall goal in mind of bringing people freely into a knowledge of himself and to eternal salvation and the goal of human life is not happiness in this life we are not God's pets his goal is not to create a nice terrarium here for his human pets rather it is to bring persons into communion with himself forever freely and in order to do that it's not at all implausible that a world suffused with natural and moral evil would be the correlative of that okay we come back here the first seven eight minutes of the other side I promise you don't go away we know where you want you [Music] [Applause] welcome back Michael Coren show does God exist one of those questions we sometimes come to every now and again even on television does God exist probably not why how well in my experience I've never heard or seen of a single argument that would demonstrate necessarily that God exists right I think there's a lot of speculation about sort of supernatural causes to the universe that type of thing but I don't see any necessary belief that we have to accept in the same way that we'd accept many other logical arguments what about what you have the first seven minutes there well actually I think there should be a distinction between one of the five arguments that you gave one of them was the personal appreciation for God so I think the distinction that Thomas Aquinas used between revealed theology and natural theology is important here that we have to understand that perhaps people did have or do still have personal religious experiences but we have to question whether or not that would be under the same frame of debate as talking about natural theology which should be from first principles hmm that's hardly the center of Aquinas is writing them of course and that's marginally he was really arguing from a very simple point of view as what we heard here but putting aside any question of subjective feeling or personal experience because by its nature those can always be accepted or rejected we heard arguments about for example the origin of the earth accident' ality simply doesn't explain and deceptions maps of an evolutionary pattern but there had to be some sort of imagination design initially why you tell well I don't see any reason why we'd assume that there had to be a an intelligent force behind that I think it's really up to dr. Craig to explain to us why that is a necessary truth not for me to defend but I can give you more time but then people write in and say oh you you gave him too much knife okay well defend I'll address what other people have often said which is that because the universe seems to be set up for us to exist is this correct is this about what you think that is fine-tuned for intelligent life okay well um my brother's well okay then whatever life would exist out of randomness whatever intelligent life would exist out of randomness I think that there's an important point about evolution which is being made here right which is that of course evolved systems had to come about in this system otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here talking about also that there's a pretty strong intuition for us to believe that we have a central role in the universe right I think it was Vic and Stein was very key on this point where he was once asked it was once said once told by someone how ridiculous was it when people thought that the Sun revolved around the earth and he asked well how would it look if the earth revolved around the Sun that is how it looks right so I think the same questions is very pertinent here how would it look if it were random right it seems to me that it would look very much like the earth we inhabit and the universe that we see today interesting you quote to the goon Stein actually I would have thought he probably had a little bit more sympathy with the side than yours it's definitely a Catholic Jewish actually but the EMU is pointing to collage Neil and I'm not I'm trying to give you as much opportunity as prophet I'm not hearing I heard a concrete argument here and I'm want to give the opportunity to respond in some form and let me be more broad in the question give me a the brief thesis as to why we should not believe in God well why we shouldn't believe in God really depends on what you mean by belief well whether or not we should accept the arguments really has to do with whether they correspond with the fact there can be no absolute certainty that there isn't all there is and obviously logic man you would never say a theist nay theism is is rationally impossible you can have strongly doubt you can strongly believe if there was absolute proof then God wouldn't be loving he wouldn't give us freedom there has to be that room and not to believe you have to want to find him so what speaking to viewers out there hundreds of thousands of people watching why would you say to them God is irrelevant don't bother well I would say that it's more important actually for them to examine the reasons why they would believe in God right I actually think that that's really the first step is to appreciate the role of skepticism and the role of taking arguments seriously and investigating them to the best of their abilities I think that would likely lead to atheism I don't think that it's necessary for people for people to have arguments for being atheists rather that they should come to the conclusion that makes the most sense to them why because well otherwise and you're deluding yourself if you're not actually thinking about what you believe I don't think any Christian would agree that you should believe it or that you should believe in something simply because it was told to you you should investigate it I just think that that would lead um we should be gay many circles here but the reason we're having the debate the debate is does God exist ah so obviously it's a self-evident truth that I believe in debate on these issues I want you to tell people why they shouldn't believe if you weren't into semantics what they why they they shouldn't imagine there's a god why show me how there's no God should give me proof that God doesn't exist well we can't prove a negative I think that's why we're going around in circles like I can't prove the non-existence of give me an argument an argument I think actually it was one that wasn't fully addressed by dr. Craig the the argument I think is is the argument from evil right I have tended away from it in the past but I do think it attacks something that's very central to the Christian doctrine which is the the actual nature of God right whether or not they can be actually all good all-knowing and all-powerful at the same time now this argument has changed a lot from it original conception about like 1600 years ago right and we have to be careful of what how we take that argument to be but what we do see I think is that it is incompatible to believe that there is genuine evil in the world that we can that we can believe in a being that is all-knowing all-powerful and all good now what theists tend to do is to attack this idea of evil and say that it's well not really evil right and that it's actually just in light of some greater good now I think that that's actually very problematic position to take because what you're doing actually is you're not giving an objective morality right what you're doing actually is to be basically an apologist for whatever God happens to do right yeah I have to see it I only people I have heard who say there there is genuine evil are as you say theists because for example there's no evil in the animal kingdom right kill for food there's some mild torture a cat with a mouse but overwhelmingly there's no ethnic cleansing or genocide it simply need right but there is evil within humanity and the theists would say we have souls but there is a spiritual war going on it's been actually atheists who said to me there's no there are bad people there's no supernatural evil well it depends on what you mean by a supernatural evil certainly not like I won't hold the position that there's some evil force in the world or there's such a thing as the devil or sir like that to me I think is ludicrous but I think there are genuine arguments for why things are ethically bad and if that's what you mean by evil if that's what you take to mean you're evil then there are certainly reasons why we'd have an objectively unethical behavior right right but not without animals any with people well it depends on the level of cognition that we're attributing to animals right whether or not they can be moral agents as well as moral objects an animal ever killed merely for the sport of it we've seen chimpanzees actually that there is this sort of behavior what do they go for what partly Anatomy did I attack first I'm actually from my knowledge it was the testicle because they're trying to stop their opponents from breeding it's meant to be a selfish out it's not mean to be evil it's not meant to be stated as meant to be I must stop you winning in the end however plenty of time to go in the debate back a few moments on monkey testers see you soon [Music] [Applause] and debate home with a girl it doesn't exist is the issue in the commercial break we were discussing baboons ripping off ah that but back to you sir and that this notion of evil because it having done to radio for many years it's the standard reset position why does God allow now it seems to me that if you believe life ends when you're 80 90 years old or whatever it's a real issue there's evil in the world if you believe it goes on and God doesn't guarantee a good life he guarantees a perfect eternity and and we have to have the freedom to go wrong and that God is most unhappy when we go wrong but it has to be allowed what would they be the arguments are they just comforting comfortable positions to explain why there's so many bad things in the world oh I think it's very important to understand here Michael it's the atheist who has the burden of proof with respect to this argument as you quite rightly I think pressed Michael to give us an argument that God does not exist so if Michael wants to say that God and evil in the world are logically incompatible with each other he needs to give us an argument to show that that's the case and so if you can offer these possibilities so if I may then what is actually being attacked is the conception of God right so we need to have some sort of clear definition of what God is before we can actually talk about it right so if I'm wrong in the assumption that the Christian idea of God which I assumed you would be defending yes is all-knowing all-powerful and all good yes then why do we see evil in the world or why do we see the necessity for you I ask a question and though Michael isn't an argument if you're going to claim that an Allgood all-knowing all-powerful God is incompatible with evil those aren't explicitly contradictory so if you're going to maintain their implicitly contradictory there are some hidden premises here that you're assuming well that we need isn't there a hundred of them in there isn't there a contradiction in that an all-powerful being who would want only the best or the world would allow bad things to happen right you don't see any contradiction what about you that the God that you speak of does he want all good for the world I would say that God certainly wants the best for us but remember what I said in the earlier segment that doesn't mean happiness in this life on the Christian view the good for man is to be found in relation to God and so God's overall plan for Humanity is to bring people freely into a loving relationship with himself now and forever and it is not at all implausible that only in a world involving enormous amounts of suffering and moral evil that that would be accomplished so we've got to get away from the idea that we are God's pets and his goal is to create a nice little environment for his human pets at least on Christianity that's all I think there's something important though that you're missing and that is that there seems to be a displacement of suffering in the world that I think a lot of people who live in Africa who are starving right now as we speak I don't have a luxury of sitting in Nice leather chairs and talking about these like philosophical issues one last Semitism Christian sorry yeah why so many of them prove actually there are great reasons for people who are destitute to believe in God right that I think it gives a lot of comfort to people in in that type of area especially also like we have to I think also acknowledge there is an economic force that there is a great need or desire from religious people in our societies to convert those people so of course it's going to work on some of them especially when you're dealing with people who are destitute that don't have very many reasons to object to some all we know in the EM the dangerous area here of touching on the racist I mean could it be that people who are not splashing around in materialism and decadence maybe have a purer and more pristine vision of what really matters in the world I'm sorry I'm not really following why that what the racist comment um because you're black doesn't mean you're stupid for me to be crass about it and you say you say you say destitute throughout Africa and Asia there are people who yeah they're not all destitute far from it they would argue and I've heard some less brilliant people in the world with African bishops for example they would argue this isn't true at all but we can actually see clearly through the window you're too busy cleaning away how much money how many cars how many homes well you've said it will you simply imply to the very least is well if you're really poor and really needy then you'll believe in other words it may be the materialism consumerism and wealth of the West that is actually the spiritual impediment to knowing God in his life that's better what's going to go well let me address that because I certainly didn't mean it to come off as racist it's not because they're black right it's because they're desperate right so if someone has no ability no education to to properly think out these problems then I think it's unlikely that they'll be able to withstand constantly being told something right I think that's true of anyone even even in our society so I certainly don't think it's racist I'm sure you're not but again and there's an assumption here the people who may not have very much money are not educated and in fact often you have a higher literacy rating in countries that face relative poverty than here and what is what is a challenge we have in the West people so many people very sadly sometimes necessary on antidepressants we have suicide attempts a little suicide race in a country like Scandinavia for example in that region they're so wealthy suicide rates so high compared to parts of southern Africa we're not confusing things here we are we're not in a rather forgive me smug way saying they believe because well I'm forgive me if it sounds smug but I do think there is some truth and validity to the fact that there are economic impulses which are used in missionary work and that's really all I was saying as for the as for the issue of like depression especially in our culture I think that there's a lot to be said about that but I assumed by any means that just because we're we're in relative wealth that we have happy lives like that doesn't follow I think we're an extraordinary extreme wealth actually meant oh well certainly I'd agree with that commercial was nice segue dwarf commercials buy things spend your money then come straight back to us we'll see you very soon [Music] [Applause] welcome back Michael Guerin shalt halftime and at halftime we reintroduce the panel they're still here dr. William Lane Craig he's a professor philosophy Torbert School of Theology La Mirada California I don't even know where that is actually Los Angeles suburbs oh is it oh no Michael Payton cognitive scientists York University a Toronto suburb I suppose where we do what we can here you have these debates frequently you're an apologist doesn't mean that you say sorry you justify you explain the Christian faith in this case I mentioned at the top of the show almost 4,000 people are debated I'm moderated and most of them students and I would say two-thirds if not more seem to support the Christian speaker but there is a popular assumption somehow that the clever people are the atheists Dawkins Hitchens Harris they're clever people that they call Christians with it the dumbs what they refer to themselves as the bright do this oh I suppose that suggests the others are dim bulbs yeah well that's kind of ridiculous though because just because we call homosexuals gates doesn't mean everyone else art is gloms right I think that there's a reason why we call ourselves brights or some people call themselves brights but there are differences in what we call ourselves but how do you react to that I'm Christian I'm not brilliant but I'm not full he seems pretty clever and some of those brilliant people I I've met have been a devout Christian believers I've met some very clever people who aren't but can't we just disagree rather than label one group bright that seems a rather well Rams self description it's it's not them being labeled it's the labeling so so that way so I don't really appreciate the name bright I think there's a there's a point to that being a bit snarky in a way but as for like the intellectualism that happens to be around atheism I think that comes about because there are fundamentalists who are very intellectual right you too don't happen to those people but there is that element and that's a genuine concern of a lot of people well there are without any doubt within all religions there are fundamentalists and fundamentalism by its nature that can be rather closed to the outside world and thus outside ideas but as someone I mentioned talk-radio earlier who for years has hosted a talk radio show I meet so-called atheist everyday who can barely tie their shoes well I think that's true that's why I said at the beginning that it's important to understand why you are an atheist not that you are an atheist right having those good reasons to and that's explicitly why I put that in the beginning there are people who are atheists all right and atheism only really describes just lack of theism so I would accurately describe like Joseph Stalin as well as Bertrand Russell even though they disagree on basically about that was Bertrand Russell of course who's more known for being a non-believer later in his life said I can no longer use the word atheist because I realized that intellectually it's not sustainable he said I don't believe there's a god but as a materialist unless and by the way materialism doesn't of course means us ponting things right as a materialist unless I can see everything I can never say there is no God I can believe there's no good I doubt there's a god but I can never say there is no god I will no longer use the word atheist right and I think in that passage and Dawkins takes us up as well it says that well we can't really be sure but that's where his teapot argument comes in or the likeness to like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and fairies and actually the fairies one I think is not as silly as it sounds right because there were periods of time okay there were periods of time and places where people genuinely believed in fairies like in my own family actually my great-grandfather genuinely in England believed that there were little people that follow to the God yeah yeah and and they were responsible they're actually very active in their own lives like if you lost something in your house then it was believed that the little people had taken it and they're just these little nymphs running around Ronnie didn't come from in acidity oh no that what that would be horrifying the but I think that's so I don't think that's as offensive as it sounds that like if we believe that there's no reasons anymore for believing in fairies I think likely what we won't find very many good reasons for bloom God that I haven't met many people have to admit he believed in fairies and oh not now but that's largely my point is that because that we've gotten to this stage where we've realized more about especially about how the memory system works right so it's likely that you simply forgot that you put the the spoon yeah right and I think like and likely I think in the future that there'll be a time when a lot of these arguments are actually quite old for theism doesn't seem time Arthur Cohen a biography of Arthur Conan Doyle not a very good well Rafi but bunker fields Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes crater and of course he did believe in fairies and he had photographs of some couple Yorkshire schoolgirls he would commit convinced with genuine and but he abandoned Catholicism he was raised a Catholic to become a spiritualist I hear a theist talk about fear of Santa Claus is a standard one and there'll be emails tonight from really clever people saying you know your friend Santa people who believe in Santa Claus I believe in Santa Claus when I was five six seven probably not true and as I grew older reached the age of maturity thought read understood I abandoned the idea as I got I wasn't raised in a Christian home as I got older read mature understood I divert a belief in God there's overwhelming evidence to show that as people grow often they increase their belief in God there's overwhelming evidence to show that as people grow older unless they have some sort of mental instability and they refuse to believe in Santa anymore they're totally contradictory well actually I'd say that I think you're drawing a parallel that doesn't really exist right well no I'd say that belief in God especially when you cite statistics that say that people become more religious when they get older I think that that's largely because they there's the tendency not to become religious but because of the nature of the demographics and how how poor the research has been in the last 100 years that older people tend to be religious simply but I don't know I mean I mean over 14 or 15 well okay let's let's make it simpler then how many people over the age of 21 are convinced there's a Santa Claus how many people over the age of 21 are convinced there's a God and the people over 21 didn't believe in God in an earlier age but did believe in Santa mean quite clearly people abandon a sense in some things as they become mature and the embrace of belief often when they become mature so to compare the belief in God with a belief in Santa or fairies it's when there's digression airy arguments that were put forward it doesn't really address the real issue oh no well I was actually giving that in response to something earlier that you said so what my point was bringing up fairies is that we have no evidence for fairies right right and similarly there's no evidence or necessary evidence for God good point go to break mobile we'll ask you that too when we come back and the fairy community I mean I've been no harm or anyway back in a few moments on the microphone [Music] an interesting point being made here fair is there's no evidence that they exist but equally where's the evidence that God does exist I think there dis analogy is the following we have good evidence that fairies do not exist the reason people don't believe in Santa Claus is not simply there's a lack of evidence form there's good evidence that there is no such person by contrast with respect to God I think we have both good evidence for the existence of God that I enumerated earlier but I don't think Michael can present any good argument that there is no God the Atheist here has a burden of proof to sustain his claim that there is no such being as God and I don't think this is a burden that the Atheist can carry I would like to come back to an earlier point if I may - and that is the notion that atheists are somehow the intelligentsia among us and so forth I think this is just completely false the spate of new books published by the new atheist like Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins and sort are not sophisticated books intellectually these are for the most part angry bitter diatribes against religion and while someone like Dawkins may be a good scientist in his field when he begins to talk about philosophy and theology he is merely a layman and The God Delusion is a very unsophisticated book intellectually as a philosopher I was just appalled at the arguments he gives in that book it is an embarrassment really I think well III can agree I suspect Michael Knight may as well I think it would - if you look at the reviews that this man is is respected in his field yes but this book if you look at the reviews that they're quite damning I used to work with Chris Hitchens he's a bright guy he's a fun guy this is not a profound book it's a fun book in many ways so I think most would agree that the three you mentioned in particular Dawkins Harris and Hitchens what they've written is not first class scholarship however there are first class scholars and genuine intellectuals who do not believe at all certainly certainly there are Michael but there is also been especially over the last 50 years since the late 1960s a a literal revolution in my discipline philosophy in the anglo-american world which has brought about a renaissance of Christian philosophy such that some of our finest philosophers that our most prestigious universities are now outspoken by believing Christians where is this philosophical revolution taking place in the anglo-american realm the ones dominated by assume assumed atheists like people like hire people like Bertrand Russell who really dominate like well I'm sorry I just never have worked this I think you met err a fresh-air that's a bygone generation Michael I'm talking about today bit okay let's talk about people from today like wine alright it was dead - well he died only a couple of you already have it I mean let's talk about let's name names people like Richard Swinburne at Oxford University Robert and Marilyn Adams at Oxford Brian left Howard Oxford people like Alvin planning at University of Notre Dame peter van inwagen Dallas Willard Eleanor stop I mean I could go on and on naming names at top universities in America in England who are outspoken Christians such that the face of my discipline compared to the 1930s and 40s when Russell and air were dominant has been utterly transformed well I'd have to disagree I do know something about the philosophical tradition and what's going on in it now I think that I think you're frankly just choosing people that are theists right and even if there were theists who are also philosophers it doesn't follow at all that that the position is philosophically justified just because of philosophers no I just follow that they that it is not true that the brightest brights are all these atheists that's that's just not the case well III think that that's probably established I mean that there are certain that obviously there is a whole new wave of Christian believers equally there are some extremely vocal anti-christian believers it doesn't alter the argument if we can agree perhaps and I hope this is a fairly sophisticated setting that there are bright people on both sides there telogen to inform decent people on both sides it doesn't alter or affect the argument in any way on a purely practical level and before we close this segment in the UK buses with on the side God probably doesn't exist so just sit back and relax I rather applaud that I think I think it's wonderful as long as the other side is allowed to say God probably does exist stopping neurotic and whatever but freedom of expression surely is a fundamental of any open civilized debate absolutely I think we can all agree on that what I would disagree with is the implication of the slogan that the existence of God is a trivial question that needn't bother you forget about it go ahead and enjoy your life I think that's extremely naive when you read the writings of atheists themselves Friedrich Nietzsche Bertrand Russell jean-paul Sartre they recognized that the conclusion of atheism was an agonizing conclusion that meant that ultimately life was without meaning value purpose sure I really would I don't think I could disagree with you more I think you've got it basically exactly wrong especially out of someone like jean-paul Sartre right and I'd like to just ask you exactly where you think this despair ed of sart's work is coming from like could you quote a piece of literature let's break then come back and straight to that and give you some more time as one a few moments on the Michael Chiron shape okay [Music] if you would like to contact the Michael Coren show please write to the Michael Coren show and Comp 95 north Service Road Burlington Ontario l7r or x5 or send an email to info at Michael Coren comm if you would like to know more about cts TV we invite you to visit our website at cts tv.com straight to it you are you wanted to know where is despair evident in such as writing with it yes and in particular like if you could point us to a piece of writing where you think that that's well the whole basis of his existential philosophy that comes out in books like Being and Nothingness is that we do not find ourselves with a god-given pre-established set of values because he's an atheist and that therefore each individual must create his own values for himself create his own meaning in life which leads instantly to relativism subjectivism and individualism I don't think that's true I don't think that follows at all I think that it's committing the fallacy of just I have Suki to believe that just because God doesn't exist that everything is permitted and that simply doesn't follow at all there are obviously good reasons to be an ethical person and to have reasons for your life but what is it well for instance I think that there are reasons to be good simply by the fact that we feel a necessity to do so right I think that innately and I do study moral cognition moral psychology that's actually where my work is or is being focused that there are basis of feeling empathy towards other beings right and I think even if we had like I emphasized also that this empathy has to be established even in a Christian tradition like if you go from the Bible you're not going to get objective morality it's actually impossible to it doesn't follow from because ultimately what you'll be doing is either you'll be saying there is an objective morality that God happens to be following or you'd be saying that can't happen to follow it if its objective sorry you can't happen to follow if its objective either objective all you have them to follow it oh okay well I must look I'm sorry misspoke or you're given the position that morality is whatever God says it is in which case that's not objective that's simply a an ad hoc reasoning about I I think I think that's actually maybe arbitrary but it can also be objective what why then if I could get away with it why could I not steal your wallet well I think that there are good reasons why you wouldn't want to steal my wallet first of all because I probably punch you in the face but I mean I can get away with if I can steal your wallet you don't know I will never be cool why shouldn't I do it well I think because we have it really comes down to an important question that unfortunately I don't think we have time to give include okay well it's important question of what is the nature of morality in the beginning and I think it's a set of theoretical imperatives right that we have to think out the and rationally think of the consequences of our actions right so I think who issues these imperatives well actually I think the imperatives come from a system of discussing them and being rational about them I certainly don't think that these imperatives can or do come from a God especially because we do see and you'll have to admit this that even religious people have great differences in what they believe to be ethical behavior right like I they believe in ethical behavior they differ in what they believe to be ethical behavior yeah exactly but you're saying there is no such thing as ethical behavior or the ears and one is negative look you didn't answer the question that why if I can get away with it you won't be able to hit me the law won't get me why why should Lang well what I started out with was saying that there we need some nature of what moral statements are right so from that basis I would say that the reasoning why you wouldn't do it is because you'd have some minimal obligation to other people right why and well I think at some point actually moral arguments do have to drop off right and I think this is also true of the theists position right it's actually a logical fallacy just think that something is wrong just because I'll get beat up if I say so or if I say if I do it differently than the bullies adult preservation argument yeah well that's ultimately what what I often feel theological ethics come out is ultimate fear hell and a trial attempt by the way I would recommend though you look at Sartre and de Beauvoir's a justification of their lack of resistance the Nazis in France whereas Christians who failed admit they failed de Beauvoir I should say we didn't fail where's the logical rationale behind having to resist evil well anybody sure more time I got a break we'll come back with the emails and goodbyes and and God will tell us if we've done or not see you soon [Music] you [Music] Kelly Donovan Ottawa Ontario Michael I really don't know why you continue to insist David Menzies hold back his force what especially on an issue like the use of the n-word why he's he on the show if he can't say what he thinks have you seen some of the other garbage on TV these days yeah of course I've seen some of the garbage david says more than anyone else and this is the one show he can speak his mind but I don't think using the n-word in it fully it is fun why if you can anyway I think you know what I mean I think you know know where you're at the email thank you so very much dr. William Lane create a pleasure and Michael Payton thank you so very much it they'll appreciate that with you tomorrow Friday tw3 that was the week that was they'll be back until then take care god bless and goodbye [Music] Michael corns wardrobe supplied by Staller ease serving Canada's business community for over 100 years stall Ares at luring young [Music] you [Music] [Music] [Music] you

Channel: ReasonableFaithOrg

Views: 70,150

Rating: 4.6155844 out of 5

Keywords: does god exist, Michael Coren, William Lane Craig, Michael Payton, debate, God, exist Atheists, argument, Against, Naturalism, burden, proof

Id: jYm4-Lax-ko

Length: 46min 3sec (2763 seconds)

Published: Tue Apr 24 2012