Uploaded February 2011 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
My two videos, inundated with comments with one and the same content - objectively existing standard of judging right and wrong, given by god:
Atheists Offer Primitive Phylosophy, Dr. Craig?:
youtube.com/watch?v=uondpHfpC8k
Craig Is NOT an Honest Philosopher:
youtube.com/watch?v=DlAKHrp4_u4
Craig is not an objective debater. He is not emotionally unbiased, he is subjective (touched by the holy spirit, therefore subjective), he does not consider dispassionately both sides of the argument, he does not even know what the atheist position is. Moreover, he misrepresents it. He uses emotional ploys from the concentration camps to give credence to his own position.
His worst mistake, and his Achiles heel (espacially for people, who simetimes read) is diametrically misrepresenting what the Nobel laureate Jacques Monod writes in his essay/treatise/book "Chance and Necessity". Monod, on the basis of science, especially molecular biology, reveals how things stand, most of all with living beings, how they are the only objects in the known universe who are characterized by teleonomy (purpose, meaning, projectivity), how they got to have teleonomy, and inanimate objects don't.
Links to the videos with Craig's lecture:
youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c
youtube.com/watch?v=8dGAyDmxqpE&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=SwYR2j9PgJQ&feature=related
My two videos, inundated with comments with one and the same content - objectively existing standard of judging right and wrong, given by god:
Atheists Offer Primitive Phylosophy, Dr. Craig?:
youtube.com/watch?v=uondpHfpC8k
Craig Is NOT an Honest Philosopher:
youtube.com/watch?v=DlAKHrp4_u4
Craig is not an objective debater. He is not emotionally unbiased, he is subjective (touched by the holy spirit, therefore subjective), he does not consider dispassionately both sides of the argument, he does not even know what the atheist position is. Moreover, he misrepresents it. He uses emotional ploys from the concentration camps to give credence to his own position.
His worst mistake, and his Achiles heel (espacially for people, who simetimes read) is diametrically misrepresenting what the Nobel laureate Jacques Monod writes in his essay/treatise/book "Chance and Necessity". Monod, on the basis of science, especially molecular biology, reveals how things stand, most of all with living beings, how they are the only objects in the known universe who are characterized by teleonomy (purpose, meaning, projectivity), how they got to have teleonomy, and inanimate objects don't.
Links to the videos with Craig's lecture:
youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c
youtube.com/watch?v=8dGAyDmxqpE&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=SwYR2j9PgJQ&feature=related
