Customer Reviews

Does God Exist?

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If we are being honest we must realize that the only reason people who gave this dvd low scores (at the time of this response) did so, was due to their personal hopes that Hitchens would do a better job of representing Atheism. This is not the dvd's fault or, as one critic puts his critical emphasis on, the production company La Mirada. Both opponents were given a change to display their view a best as they could. They both did. The same critic then goes on to say that they cut Hitchen's closing. But if he had watched the other disk, he would have learned that it was Hitchens who called it off by claiming he had nothing more to say and choose not to initiate his closing statement. Another critic wishes to condemn the argumentation that Craig used (which, by the way, I believe was not a very convincing critique). Well, that likewise is not the dvd's or the production team's fault. It was Hitchens failures to demonstrate the "problems" with Craig's arguments. Therefore, we cannot critique a dvd on our wishes that the side we would like to win would be successful. For the DVD did a good job of it's simple intended purpose, which was to record the debate and allow it's viewers to witness it.

If you like apologetics or If you are an atheist it it is probably one of the best battles between two of the best guys in their field. I really enjoyed it.

I purchased this dvd in December of 2011 and have watched it three times.

2 disc set. The 1st disc contains the world view debate.

Mr. Hitchens is world famous for his book "god is not great", and eloquently represents new atheism. Dr. Craig is a philosophy professor at Biola, representing theism.

Dr. Craig, presents his case using 5 arguments

1. cosmological argument, the well known first cause argument,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

2. teleological argument, the incredible beauty, organization and complexity of the universe testifies to intelligent design. He uses the anthropic principle to back up his point here. There are over 100 known fundament physical constants that demonstrate the extreme fine tuning required to support life on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

3. Morals come from a transcendent creator making them objective.

4. The resurrection of Jesus, shows us there is a personal God. Dr. Craig expounds on the veracity of this claim.

5. The immediate experience of God

Hitchens, bases his belief of atheism on lack of evidence of a supreme being and a few of the things he brought up include:

1. The big bang and evolution with very large quantities of time explain the start of the universe and life as we know it today.

2. When presenting his case, he groups the major monotheisms: Christianity, Jewish faith and Islam into one assembly asserting the arguments based on his vast experience of debating representatives from each world view are similar

3. Since Mr. Hitchens doubts all arguments for the existence of God based on lack of evidence, he concludes there isn't one

4. All religious beliefs are gibberish and wishful thinking

5. He states the Bible has records of genocide and slavery in it, asserting that it promotes immorality

6. Firmly believes that morals evolved much the same way organic structures have and cultures that didn't practice basic morality became extinct.

7. Uses the fact the Catholic church promoted an Earth centric universe as evidence the theistic camp doesn't know what it's talking about when it comes to science

8. He values personal freedom very highly and doesn't want a theocracy telling him what to do.

9. He takes this subject extremely seriously and respects the discussion of it.

10. He attacks the saint hood of mother Teresa strongly.

There were four sections in the debate: a 20 minute opening speech, rebuttal, question and answer period between Dr. Craig and Mr. Hitchens, a closing argument was given by Dr. Craig and not Mr. Hitchens, presumably he presented his case completely in the first 3 sections of the debate.

The 2nd disc includes:

1. Questions and answers session with the attending audience. One query I found interesting was given to Mr. Hitchen's "what is the meaning of life" to him

2. Dr. Craigs insights after this prize fight.

In my opinion, this debate is a heavy weight contest between two goliaths with wide ranges of knowledge and vocabularies each highly capable of expressing their clashing world views. It features two men about 60 years old that are seasoned veterans mature in their beliefs and are very articulate in making them known.

I highly recommend this material both for believers who want a solid foundation of apologetics to defend their faith and for doubters who are seeking truth in the spiritual dimension.

First, I feel it important to explain why some people have given this a low rating. They believe that Hitchens didn't represent atheism well, or maybe that the debate was rigged (as one guy said?!?), or that rather than Hitchens completely wiping the floor with Craig as he tries to fight back with "weak" arguments, Craig actually pushes and challenges Hitchens to give everyone one good reason founded in evidence and logic why you should become an atheist as to believing in agnosticism or theism. Hitchens completely ignores the question and rather tries to give reasons to not believe in God over actually giving evidence and logical arguments for his own position. Apparently some atheists don't like being questioned like this.

Now, on to why you should buy this. Well, it's cheap, and it's a classic debate. I'm sure if you are surfing for debates such as this on amazon you can afford it. Atheists might not like it as much or call it a classic, but I still recommend that you watch this regardless of your beliefs. It starts off a little slow, with Craig giving some very basic apologetic arguments, and Hitchens doesn't have a very good first speech, but after the first 40 minutes of the debate it becomes a much better debate which is very entertaining with good questions from both Hitchens and Craig.

EDIT: Also, I don't want to give off the vibe that Craig won this debate and was without fault (I think that this was a fairly close debate that can't be called by one person), I just think that Hitchens made more mistakes and answered less questions

There's no way to politely say this... Craig from the beginning is on fire and Hitchens seems very passive. Craig is on the offensive, organized, and very well stated. Hitchens just seems to shrug his shoulders a lot and doesn't answer many of the questions put to him. Craig does come off pretentious, stopping short of declaring himself the winner, but in reality he clearly is.

Even though I am a Christian, I did hope that Hitchens would have been a stronger speaker. I value good discussions, but unfortunately this just didn't meet expectations.

Well, I had a chance to attend this debate, but I missed it. I was looking forward to it for sure, and I WAS NOT LET DOWN! I was surprised at how docile Mr. Hitchens was as opposed to other debates I have seen where he borders on arrogant. I have to say that Dr. Craig had his number and took him to task. If any of you ever watch debates like these, you will see that Hitchens tends to not stick to any argument and is all over the map. Craig, wise to this would, in his rebuttals remind Hitchens that for all he brings up, he has failed to address the challenges set before him. This was quite something to say the least, and the Q&A was incredible. Both sides had to address every question asked, which is the best I have ever seen in a debate. That is all for now. I reccomend this HIGHLY along with any and all material from Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, C.S. Lewis and John Lennox.

I really enjoyed this debate. That's why it has 4 stars. Who doesn't like to see a clash of two well known figures regarding such a perennial question as "Does God exist?" But ultimately I can think of many debates which are more informative and more challenging. This was anything but.

First, I liked the clarity WLC gave to his arguments, and those arguments remained more or less unchallenged. As a result I was abe to really think about what he was saying instead of constantly having to come to terms with the latest objection. Yay for a slowing down of pace in thinking. So, the clearness was good, I enjoyed being able to clearly comprehend what WLC was saying and trying to understand it for myself

For the not so positive. Christopher Hitchens was just really not there, maybe this was WLC's fault for wanting him to give a reason for his atheism, and CH's reluctance to do so, but it was frustrating too hear a lengthy monologue on how WLC is not an evidentialist after all. I just wanted him to deal with the arguments clearly and concisely. Instead he misunderstood some arguments, and then asked 3 or 4 questions that only helped WLC to expound on his arguments even more. The Q and A session was not very interesting, and CH was not nearly as amusing as usual.

So, amidst the smoke, some nice clarity, but nothing much to say other than if you really want to think through the issues, you're probably better off reading a book.

I have been attracted somehow to this work, simply because I knew otherwise. Now I know few things more nothing that can change my life in any important way. I have to say though, for those who need truth forget this and read: Free to Be Me by A. Vonshtain, it will show you that you were blind and now you can see, just like when your brain can clearly read information, better than the pill nzt48 in the movie Limitless, better than anything!

I've grown up reading nonsense from both sides of the argument where pseudo-seekers of truth or actual philosophers beat straw men and ignore obvious criticisms as if such counterpoints never came across these respected author's minds; from Lee Strobel to Nietzsche.

At any rate, it was nice to see that though there wasn't a lot of time to cover the breadth of the debate between atheism and theism (roughly an hour), at least such conversations were conducted in live dialogue with another representative on the other side.

One one hand, you have William Lane Craig who is a Professional Philosopher and great logician with a sound understanding of Physics. He has edited, what I believe to be the best cumulative case for theism in: Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. He also has debated Professors with Phd's in Philosophy, Physics and History and is known as perhaps the best apologist in the last 50 years.

On the other hand you have Hitchens who was a journalist and has great persuasive skills with his humor, rhetoric and charm. He has also debated the existence of God all over the world. As I'm sure you know, Hitchens is known as one of the four spokesman (along with Dawkins, Dennit and Harris) of The New Atheist movement. (If one wants to know what the difference is between the new atheist movement and the old one, the primary difference you will find is that the new atheists want to abolish God from even being a thought in the minds of humanity. They say it is time that we "evolve" and give up such primative thinking.) Hitchens also wrote the book "God is not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything". Though Hitchens is well-versed in history and speaking colorfully, articulately and with charm (as he was a popular journalist), and though some of his logic is valid, we must be careful in examining whether someone's powerful emotional appeal in argument is logically equivelant. He made some great points but in the end, was rather dodgy on some of the biggest issues such as the fine-tuning argument, and didn't even approach the Kalam.

All in all its an explosive dynamic. A must view for Atheists, Agnostics and Theists. Well worth the watch, this makes for great conversation...refreshing to see some of the most up to date arguments in the spheres of Philosophy, Theology, Ethics and Philosophy of Science from both sides of the court. Enjoy!

I was led to believe this would be a good reasonable classic debate. I was quickly disappointed by it.

I should have researched the production company, La Mirada Films. Had I done so I would have known that it is a company which specializes in Christian Propaganda films and known that the "debate" would likely be less than straight up. Nonetheless, Hitchens knew what he was getting into.

On to the debate...

There are multiple types of debates, but I am most familiar with the form wherein a resolution is stated and each debater argues for or against the resolution. For example, here it would be: "God Exists." or "God Does Not Exist." Then the debater arguing for the resolution goes first followed by his opponent. This debate did not follow that format, it began with Craig make his opening statement and attempting to place on Hitchens the onus of proof when Craig was the one making the claim. It was at this point that I knew this was not going to be a 'balanced' debate and in this I was not disappointed.

Craig is a very skilled debater, he was organized and clear. However, he made little effort to argue his position but rather continued throughout the debate to demand that Hitchens answer his unanswerable questions rather than allowing him to make his own arguments. I have since looked into Craig and found that he is capable of making real arguments, but since he had a very friendly audience he must have gotten lazy that night. Hitchens was not as skilled a debater. He was not as crisp and tended to wander off point a bit. Craig was coming off better through the first half of the debate. Then they got to the section of question and answer...

Here Craig lost his lead and Hitchens showed the power of his arguments and the limitations of Craigs position. So by this point, one might say they were 'even'. Then came the final statements...

Craig made his penultimate argument, followed by Hitchens' and then Craig made his final argument and summary...and the video ended!!

They cut Hitchens final segment! Craig got to START the debate, FRAME the arguments and END the debate, as far as anyone watching the DVD would know. The final word goes to the second speaker, Hitchens. Since I'm sure they followed this format, this means they cut Htichens and sent the video out that way.

I don't know if they found his final words to be to damaging to their predetermined narrative or if they just did a really lousy editing job, but I'm leaning toward the former.

Aside from a few amusing comments during the debate, I cannot recommend this DVD to anyone who is not just looking for something to reinforce their precarious faith and who can overlook the egregiously unbalanced nature of this video.