Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
William Lane Craig: The Origins of the Universe - Has Hawking Eliminated God? Cambridge October 2011
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 авг 2024
- William Lane Craig responds in a public lecture to the claims in Stephen Hawking's recent book The Grand Design. Speaking to a capacity audience at St Andrew the Great church, Cambridge, Prof Craig outlined the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book. Rev Dr Rodney Holder, an astrophysicist, responded to Prof Craig.
This lecture was a part of The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 sponsored by UCCF, Damaris & Premier Christian Radio.
For more information please visit:
www.bethinking....
www.premier.org...
These conversations are incredibly fascinating. And I like the way William speaks. I could listen to these all day.
To hear that the philosophers here actually quote their opponents in their arguments is evidence that they are not threatened by them, and they have sound arguments.
Amen! Praise God for William Lane Craig! Keep going brother in Christ!!!
This video is the perfect response to anyone who says "Yeah but once WLC is in the room with a scientist, his arguments fall apart!" I would've also said to the questioner demanding empirical evidence rather than arguments that *use* evidence, that there is no such *thing* as evidence without logic and reason. Indeed, science itself couldn't function without certain philosophical assumptions about what we perceive and what those perceptions really amount to.
In fact, science cannot function without theism, Christian theism. The axioms about reality that it relies upon are theistic. Therefore the method of science is 'methodological theism', not 'methodological naturalism'. Naturalism's 'method' is merely that what is, is. This provides no impetus to ask why or to look for a regular objective causality. Christian theism does.
~ㄱ@♥︎
ㅡ4
@@dagwould why is a relevant question in science? Oh wait, its not.
Nice bias dude.
@@dagwould the jews gonna appreciate that one :|
How does Dr. Craig's case fall apart if God needs to exist for there to be anyone else, anything else, or both? If you argue scientifically for what science presupposes, your argument will be circular.
"Has Hawking Eliminated God?"
dunno man looks more like God has eliminated Hawking
All my life I've been wanting somebody to tell me God exists because I really need to know.
Thank you so much for telling me !
God not only exist but God is knowable. You can know him.
@@bible1st
I've been told that God is outside space-time.
@@tedgrant2 Yea he is, but you can know him through his "word" and God's spirit is here on earth even among us and whoever loves God and does his commandments, God will manifest himself to that person.
@@bible1st
As you know, you cannot choose to love someone.
I didn't choose to love my wife before I met her.
@@bible1st
For those of you that don't want to read the next sentence, look away now.
God can't do that because he knows the sentence already.
That was absolutely fantastic!👏 Craig and Holder are a wonderful team.Both of them have helped me in this public lecture.🙏
Another brilliant presentation by Dr. Craig. Thank you!
49:20
If God were to prevent suffering, He'd have to prevent our free will ability to be selfish, and imperfect, (which cause suffering).
Therefore, He'd have to prevent our free will.
Tho, without free will how could we freely love. Without free will we have no purpose, and we are nothing. In which case, life would seem to be meaningless.
I haven't made it to that part in the video yet, but suffering has many sources, and not all are a result of our free will. Children born with severe and painful deformities, sickness and disease, natural disasters, nature in general, etc.
@@niche9015 god is like: ill allow it.
So there is no free will in heaven? Sounds terrible.
@@niche9015
Many (perhaps even all of those) may still be an effect caused by a chain reaction of misused human free will.
@@jtheist32
Idk? I tend to think that maybe in the afterlife people have free will, but not [moral free will]. In other words, we are free to do many things, but perhaps we're incapable of being unfair, unjust, selfish, indignant etc.
I just want to add that this has been, thus far, a very entertaining debate/discussion. You are very articulate, polite and knowledgeable. It has been a pleasure. Cheers!
Now I'm going to go eat that pickle!
Craig is the man
Pity that he wasted his life misrepresenting the truth to preserve an irrational belief.
Everything falls out of the Minds that are opened too far .... more than 60 percent of ALL of the Nobel Prize Winning Physicists from 1900 to 2000 were Christians ... Is it your "belief" they wasted their lives also ? Or is it your "scientism" that dictates this to your open mind ?
@@KevinKilgorepage their life didnt revolve around religion. big difference there. as for WLC, i dont think he wasted it either. hes clearly doing this just for money.
This would've been more impressive if Billy Preston hadn't recorded the hit song Nothing From Nothing in 1974.
The last person who ask the question is what exactly what I was thinking the whole time...
I do appreciate your open-mindedness, and your fairness in discussion. That book by Williams is very good, and moreover demonstrates that one can be as skeptical toward atheism as you are toward theism. A critical, well thought-out analysis is the only right way to approach this matter. But, that being said, it logically follows that "skeptical" isn't a fourth option.
Excellent video and so important.
This was really good : )
What tremendous lecture I wish all thinking people would listen to it!
Please point out one strawman or misrepresentation in this lecture. I assure you, Craig is not the only philosopher who has harshly criticised this book of Hawking and Mlodinow. I think Craig's criticisms here are exactly on-point and valid.
Skepticism applies equally well to critically-thinking theists like the ones I mentioned. In fact, Peter S. Williams has written a book called "A Skeptic's Guide to Atheism", wherein it is pure, critical skepticism that causes Williams to reject the claims of modern atheists.
I am so happy to have heard William. I was sceptical, but now I am totally convinced.
Every believer needs a Willy.
How can someone no matter how many PHD's he has is so sure that the universe doesn't need God. Has hawking already travelled around the universe and study everything there is to know? We can't even fully understand everything here on earth.
Dr. Lane is sane --Hawkins is not. From nothing comes nothing! Even a child knows that! God bless you Dr. Lane.🙏
Without watching a second of this video, I predict that Craig says that Hawking did NOT eliminate God.
Associated with this state-function is K(c,f ) = | y(c,f ) |2. . . . Hence, K(c,f ) is a function of just a single configuration point (c,f ) [i.e., a single point in superspace, where each point represents a 3-space]: there is no (c1,f1) corresponding to an earlier configuration and time from which the system has "evolved." This is the precise sense in which the theory is said to predict the probability that the universe is created in various configurations "from nothing.”
Nicely recorded. Thanks for uploading.
I do agree. Normally, I'd be right there with you arguing the semantics (this is not meant negatively). However, there are far more positions on the spectrum of belief than theist, agnostic and atheist. Human opinion is just not that easy to classify. All I ask is that you listen to your opponent instead of arguing something that is beside the point.
My philosophy professors taught me about possible worlds while I earned my philosophy degree. So I know the possible world idea is useful. But it seems to me that we can ask why someone or something exists in each possible world. Analytic philosophers say that truth is logically necessary when it's true in each possible world. Why not believe that a truth is true in all possible worlds because that truth is logically necessary. That way, you can explain what a possible world is in itself without a circular definition.
Thanks for this reference. I will read this book as I'm interested in this side of the topic. That being said, I never take someone's past or objective as evidence that one side is right or wrong. I was a devout Catholic before becoming skeptical on this issue. I don't expect, nor want, that fact to have any impact on my arguments. I simply have the ability to relate to theists as I was one. My position is no more right or wrong because of if.
(5 cont)
In the Lottery example, even if we don't have exact numbers, we can estimate the probabilities and know that they are heavily weighed against. Being realistic, that is a good reason to believe you won't win. Therefore the position is not nonsensical.
I do listen, and I respect the distinction you (and others) are trying to make. Indeed, the label really isn't that important. What is important is the burden of proof which accompanies a claim. The agnostic makes no claim, and therefore has no burden (unless they are the kind of agnostic who says it is impossible to know; in which case that is a separate claim that needs substantiation).
Great man doc Craig
(cont)... FOR atheism, not just the refutations of theistic arguments. Indeed, some of the ones I just mentioned, in their debates with Craig, said explicitly that it is wrong to think that no argument is needed for the atheist claim.
4) I would LOVE for someone to present to me the probability calculus by which you can judge that God's existence is "improbable". People say things like that willy-nilly and don't stop to think that there are no numbers to attach to this "probability".
(cont)
14) If a biologist wrote a book in which he said that Physics was outdated and irrelevant, and then the biologist went on to outline a biological theory to answer all the deep questions of Physics, the community of physicists would certainly be annoyed, and they would critique the book. Biologists aren't qualified to speak on Physics. Likewise, Hawking and Molodinow are laughed at for their naive, uninformed ideas and for the hubris of speaking so far outside their area of expertise.
"Randomness is just an instance of human ignorance. Probably distributing spontaneous fluctuations?"
That's a fairly bold claim, especially for a person who has not yet defined "randomness" or "spontaneous". In fact, you didn't even give enough of a hint as to your definition for me to know whether I agree with you or not!
Caution.
1) You can't use the term "skeptic" the way you're trying to, because many people are theists specifically because of the same skeptical style of reasoning. They don't find the arguments for atheism at all compelling (and they recognize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and so their skepticism is just an approach to the matter; not a fourth position.
I agree, and I think many atheists are suspending their critical thinking when it comes to the arguments for God.
1) Spineless is a euphemism for being a coward. How does making fun of ANYONE make a person a coward? I'm really trying to riddle through this one.
2) Mocking rape IS insensitive. I didn't say it wasn't.
3) I maintain that he wasn't mocking rape. He was mocking you.
4) Yes I know the difference between a BA and a BS. It's virtually negligible, and varies more from university to university than it does from BS to BS. Mine's in mathematics.
5) Thanks for being so pleasant about this. ^_~
Pardon me. You are correct. I mistakenly referred to "people who claim to be theists" as theists. That was a slip. However, I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. That being said, my answer stands.
To presume anyone's position based on fairly general categorizations is to invite error and misunderstanding.
Your logic is sound IF, in the real world, these labels were understood by everyone. As there is some debate as to what an atheist or agnostic really is, to rely on the labels is foolish.
I have certainly enjoyed our discussion as well.
(correction: this is the actual final continuation of 5)
The Universe is contingent for obvious reasons. One obvious indication is that it began to exist, and necessary things don't begin to exist, but are eternal. No one is assigning properties to "escape tough questions". God has always been defined as necessary (in the modal sense). Horses are contingent on a material Universe which is itself contingent.
I can demonstrate God's necessity with two separate arguments, if you're interested.
I find a very profound and abundant possibility of becoming more confused and deconstructed intellectually, when having so called "intellectuals" tasked with giving evidence on matters which are rather simplistic in nature!! This is what happens when people like William Lane Craig and Jordan Peterson for example, are asked rather simple questions....they seem to spew a bombardment of words and phrases that soon take a whole different meaning of their own!!
There is nothing simple about the questions under discussion here.
And there is nothing "so called" about the intellectual bonafides of Craig or Peterson.
I would say your comment applies much more so to devout atheists than to those that consider that the universe creating itself out of nothing is impossible.
5) Our comparison was your first two: "I know I won't win" vs "I likely won't win." Now you bundle those and add jumble together two discussions. The lottery has the luxury of having a known limited set of combinations, therefore the probability can be determined. I assume you mean to compare this with the lack of solid numbers for the probabilities that God exists. You are right, we have no exact numbers, but we can estimate them and -even conservatively- they will be big.
(cont 5) He is suggested as hypothesis. He is invoked to explain the unexplained, but methodological naturalism has shown that the unexplained can be explained. We are confident that we can continue to do so and until we can't, there is no need to propose an explanatory force like God until we need it. Right now, we don't need it as it is far too early to throw in the towel on things like the origin of life and the beginning (if there is one) of the universe.
(cont)
(cont)
5) Because of the probability, I can state with confidence that I won't win, the prediction is a sound one. But my answer to your question would have been, "I don't know I won't win, but the likelihood is that I won't."
Modern atheists only need to show that God likely doesn't exist or that lack of belief in him is the default position.
(cont)
If the majority of people claiming to be "theists" happened to not believe in God, what would you say to these people? Would you re-define the term to fit their obvious self-contradiction? Or would you instruct them to stop using the term "theist" since theism means the belief in God?
1) I certainly don't question a theists' ability to think skeptically. Since theist, agnostic and atheist are positions on the claim that God exists, I am using the term skeptic to define the unaccounted for position. I am agnostic on some topics, for example whether Jesus was a historical figure.
I did not mean to imply that believers lack critical thinking, however, even one who is an adept critical thinker can suspend that critical thinking on certain topics that they are biased towards.
Atheists face the same problem. We are constantly told what we "believe" or not. I am totally with you except on the default position. If we take this stance as the default position, then literally any claim that is both unprovable and unfalsifiable would be considered "unknowable." This is simply universal skepticism.
🤺☦🇷🇺They ducked that cliche question of that clown, and didn't answer him on such an easy one, I can't believe it!🤦♂️🤦♂️All they needed to answer is: if everything in the universe stated at one point then there must be a point in the beginning of something that is uncreated which created the first creation and so on - that is just fact🤷♂️
2) To say that nothing has ever been observed which requires postulating the supernatural is both biased and irrelevant. It's irrelevant because we are not postulating the supernatural as a hypothesis to explain some hole in our knowledge. And it's biased because it cuts out large areas of inquiry (like the logical entailments of certain terms and their meanings, or of certain categorical facts like the contingency or eternality of a thing).
4) All cosmological evidence points to the Universe having a beginning. It isn't about "belief" per se. But you mentioned what Hawking meant in his model, and so I made it clear that Hawking's model includes a beginning to the Universe. As does Vilenkin's. As does Krauss'. According to Vilenkin, ALL the evidence points to a beginning of the Universe. Moreover there are philosophical arguments that show the past cannot be infinite.
12) I'm not postulating "nothing as I describe it". I am saying that we know what "something" is, and the absence of all "somethings" is described by the word "nothing", or by the phrase "not anything". And, since "somethings" need explanations for their existence, the complete lack of things to explain would require a complete lack of things... aka "nothing". That is why the question is "why is there something, rather than nothing".
Mathematics is the descriptive language of science and can hardly be separated from it. The presuppositions of science may didn't require philosophy even though they have been greatly covered by philosophy. It would be erroneous to say that science depends on philosophy. They both emerged from the same reality, but one depends on concepts and the other on the real. The search for truth has not advanced all that far in philosophy in several millenia, whereas science flourishes.
46:37 - If not Hawking, maybe Mlodinov. It'd be great to see him debate William Lane Craig.
If it is acceptable to say that the universe is eternal and/or that it came from nothing, than it is just as acceptable to say the God is eternal and/or came from nothing. Both theories postulate that something came from nothing and/or that they have always been. To say that one theory is possible but the other is not is a logical fallacy.
For the purpose of education, the search for truth should not limit itself by fear of where it should lead. Truth and knowledge may come from many different sources. One discipline should not maliciously attempt to cancel out another; free market of information will do this naturally. In the end , the educated public shall become the sole judge, and one's individuality shall be the mark of humanity's endowed with its own free will.
_"One discipline should not maliciously attempt to cancel out another; free market of information will do this naturally."_
That's a very naive view that completely ignores how humans learn and form opinions. If society has no quality criteria with regards to what's presented as accurate information then the public will end up getting exposed to such vast amounts of bullshit that it will be impossible for them to evaluate it all in a lifetime and the result will be a public that believes all kinds of absurdities. There's absolutely no reason to think society as a whole will converge on truth in such systems. In fact, the very concept of an "educated public" is meaningless when you don't have any quality criteria to begin with.
A much better approach, which is what's being enforced in areas like the natural sciences, is to demand that disciplines are able to demonstrate their claims before they're allowed any significant presence in the education sector.
hawking's a clown
romney27 The real Hawking was a Christian, so was his wife, and died in the early 70s, this one was another clown presented as himself.
Anyway this is what many believe, and as you said, this is irrelevant, what matters is that these atheists talk more nonsense than anybody else, because they've got a much louder voice and they know there are gullible masses of sheeple who would worship them.
@@alwaysflat7996 um, thats a nice projection you got going on there :D
(final continuation on 5) "Existing outside the Universe" is not semantically, logically, scientifically, or in any other way synonymous with "not existing at all". Even the popular "multiverse" idea (with no empirical support whatsoever) would constitute a vast reality outside our Universe.
Their position is that God just is - timeless. Rather than the concrete observable universe. So to say that time is an illusion.
15) Matenoway was indeed wrong, and you really should let go of this idea that a claim that "X does not exist" is not a positive claim in its own right. For example, if I said that there is definitely no gold on Pluto, I would need to give reasons to think so. The absence of evidence isn't good enough; I need to have good reasons to believe that there is certainly not any gold on Pluto. A "responsible" atheist addresses his burden of proof, and does not try to shirk it. That's all.
16) Pyle specifically says that saying "there isn't enough evidence for God" or "none of the arguments for God are any good" is compatible with THEISM, and that absence of evidence leaves you only with agnosticism. How on Earth did you interpret that to be agreeing with you?? Dacey even more directly condemns your viewpoint, since he says people are WRONG to say "you can't prove a negative". Tooley defines atheism point-blank, and it is as I've been saying; not as you have.
(cont)
Nothing (or "non-being") cannot produce anything. To say "non-being" is to entail the lack of EVERYTHING (including causal power, potentiality, laws, etc). Indeed, Alex Vilenkin, in his book (and in interviews) has indicated that the only feasible answer he can think of is that the laws of nature must exist as "Platonic entities" and they cause the initial quantum tunneling effect which produces the Universe. Of course, if Vilenkin were a philosopher he'd know Platonic forms have no causal power
Is it just me, or is Peter Williams usually front-row-center at these Craig events?
Antony Flew invented it. He called it "negative atheism" (as opposed to "positive atheism" which asserts that God certainly or almost certainly doesn't exist). He did so in the 20th century; that makes it recent. Previous atheists (like Sartre, Nietzche, even Russell) knew that atheism was a knowledge claim.
"Knowledge" is "belief that is both true and warranted/justified". If the atheist BELIEVES God does not exist, and thinks she has warrant for that belief, she is making a knowledge claim.
(Cont 2)
Finally, while this argument may not be positive evidence for atheism, it is a feast for a skeptic. We've already agreed that you aren't arguing with an atheist but rather an agnostic leaning on atheism (which I am referring to as a skeptic). The argument adds weight to the probability against God's existence (only a probability since there is a chance that He exists despite the likelihood that he was invented).
(Cont)
1) I've been thinking more on this one and you may be right. There is a flaw in my explanation, I just need to examine it more to figure out if I'm thking about it wrong or explained it wrong.
1:16:38 The one thing I really dislike is when you clearly see an idiot who tries to be a smart ass as if ah got you, they come up with some childish and most ridiculous arguments and you see that little condescending arrogant grin on his face, where most of his arguments or statements stemmed from ignorance.
1) For example: Some parts of the planet are inhospitable? This generates fallacies and assumptions.
a) The earth is not inhospitable, if you bring penguins to live in the tropics they may die, if you take fish out of the water it will die, if you take other creatures out of their natural habitat they may die or adapt (if possible) I hardly consider this as an inhospitable parts of earth.
Other life elsewhere, this is another assumption, who said there is no other life? Perhaps a life that we know of, but isn't it a little arrogant and pretentious to make such a statement?
As for a potential collision with our galaxies has he seen any of it? And who says that we would be around? I suspect life as we know it on this earth will be over by then, so I wouldn't worry too much.
These are silly arguments made primarily out of ignorance and assumptions sprinkled with arrogance to give it an edge.
If it is acceptable to say that the universe is eternal and/or that it came from nothing, than it is just as acceptable to say the God is eternal and/or came from nothing. Both theories postulate that something came from nothing and/or that they have always been. To say that one theory is possible but the other is not is a logical fallacy stemming from ones preconceived indoctrinations.
cont3) You CAN argue against anything, but there are things that it is wise NOT to argue against. You are essentially arguing that, despite "unicorns" being defined as "horned equines", there might be a unicorn with no horn. That is, obviously, ridiculous. If you found an equine with no horn, you wouldn't say "this unicorn just has no horn"; you'd say "this is not a unicorn".
WLC does not ignore their position; he points out that their position is not actually "atheism". If he were debating against a self-proclaimed "theist" who happend to not believe in God, he would inform them of their error as well.
A word whose etymological meaning is "belief that no God exists" should never change to mean "maybe God does exist" just because of popular vote.
So are YOU! You are not an atheist, and so you also lack understanding of what it's like to be one.
To your final point:
6) There is nothing missing in language unless you're looking for a loophole. People who have never considered the matter of God's existence lack belief in Him. They also lack belief in the claim that He does NOT exist. Some people who HAVE considered it, remain in this noncommital state (agnostics). Others claim that He does not exist, but then try to have the same immunity from supporting their position as those who have no position at all. This is simply poor form.
I apologize for coming across as haughty. However, the primary disrespect here is that which these scientists and laypeople have paid to the discipline of Philosophy and to those who practice it. "Common" is not an insult, and "naive" wasn't meant to be. It is my honest assessment that one is naive if they cannot see the value of Philosophy.
The part where you give one example out of that collection.
4) I could easily write a book to explain all the reasons I think his existence is improbable and the implications of those reasons, especially if I'm talking about the Christan God. Even if every one of those reasons can be argued to be shown to be inconclusive by itself, it doesn't negate a weight of probability. It is hard to assign the probability, but even starting with conservative numbers, the picture is grim.
(cont)
Also, scholars will default to the generally accepted position unless they have go reason to disagree. Many do not want to rock the boat or see no reason to.
Like it or not, the existence of Jesus and that of his disciples is in question. I stay respectfully agnostic on the matter.
1) No offense, but that is a ridiculous distinction. If three people approach the subject of God's existence in a skeptical, critical way, and one becomes a theist, one an agnostic, and one an atheist, how is "skepticism" a separate option??
Let's go through this a point at a time:
1) The arguments that people like Bill Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Kurt Godel, etc have given throughout time constitute "reason to suggest such a being". God's existence could be falsified, and many atheists have tried (from Mackie and Nietzche to Tooley and Law).
2) There is good reason to think that men are incline to invent gods. To think that that in any way invalidates the possible existence of God is a textbook Genetic Fallacy.
(continued)
It amazes me, as a scientist, how much we say we know about the universe and its beginning on extremely limited knowledge. Sure, we have the finest minds debating if God created the universe or not.
How can any mind really understand the existence of the universe when our data is based on our earthly existence. The earth is but a tiny piece of dust in the scheme of the universe. In fact, our entire solar system, is merely a dust particle in the universe.
Q: 1:32:25
A: 1:33:26 . Red Herring. He unnecessarily brings in another aspect of the debate.
A: 1:34:00 . Non-answer. He still does not answer the fact that some people would rather not have that opportunity than risk failure.
@ the man at 1:36:50:
No wonderful taste, beautiful sound, or luxury granted to ME would, to ME, justify the evil which occurs in the more pernicious parts of the world. I AM grateful for what I have; if there were a benevolent god, he would give to them as well.
oh snap. Craig picks apart stephen hawking piece by piece. Exposing the ridiculous claims and illogical assertions in his grand design book. Ouch. Hawking,... in need of some serious burn cream.
Youre such a fanboy lol
I do understand what you mean, but notice the difference. If it's just people misapplying a label then we correct the people. If we first concede that these really are theists, despite the contradiction, then we beg the question. Don't you agree?
To presume that a person who chooses to bear a label must live up to *minimal* requirements of that label is both appropriate and necessary for rational discourse.
That's why we have standard references. Rather than debate the meaning of the...
(cont 1)
I agree that Godel and Leibniz are great thinkers and accomplished philosophers. That does not take away from the fact that purely logical proofs, while they sound fascinating, are deeply unsatisfying, especially for those who know there is something wrong with the argument even though it is difficult to pinpoint.
Both of these arguments are highly questionable. Leibniz in premise, and Godel depends on modal logic, which can be turned on itself to prove the opposite.
I think there is a singularity pun at 26:44
You are right, the dictionaries agree your definition. However, you may have noticed that atheists almost universally disagree with the dictionary definition. Either we proceed forward with a word that doesn't define the target segment or we accept what that segment defines it as.
Atheists identify with the word as they understand it. They are without belief in god. You can either accept their definition or not. The latter is willful ignorance.
You're side-stepping the issue. The authorities on this matter (dictionaries and encyclopedias) disagree with you on the usage of these terms.
Sorry, I should have spelled that it meant "logical negation" which is the statement "~X", read as "X is false". So, the negation of theism is "God does not exist". And, if you make a claim that you believe to be both true and justified (you have good reasons for claiming it), then you are making a knowledge claim.
(cont)
5) The point is that it is a different claim to say "I know I won't win" (which would require a good justification, like the fact that you don't play the lottery in the first place) or saying "I likely won't win" (which is based on odds with actual numbers attached to them) vs. saying "there is no evidence that I will win, and no numbers to calculate probabilities, so I should just default assume that I won't win". That last position is utter nonsense.
(cont) WLC isn't hiding behind definitions, he simply tells people what their position entails and asks them to substantiate them. If they can't do that, they shouldn't whine and try to redefine the debate so that they have no burden at all. And WLC (along with others) have engaged directly with the arguments of these so-called "atheists". Indeed, some ACTUAL atheists have criticised these "new atheists" rather harshly. So the accusation of cowardice was well-placed in my original post.
... terms, why not just pick the one with the definition that actually suits you. For example, if I don't actually believe in God, but just think it's possible that God exists, I should try re-defining "theism" to include me, I should accept the proper label of "agnosticism".
In 300 years of observation, nothing has ever required the supernatural as an explanation. We've never observed it.To invoke it requires explanations of the supernatural which adds levels of complexity, a sure sign that the explanation is wrong. It is inductive reasoning, but until such time as this principle is turned on its head, there is no reason to change it. If philosophy argues for complexity before simplicity then the lack of substantial results is explained by its backward method.
I took no offence from it, I'm just amazed you consider it so bad. Especially when your explanation is off. A 'round square' is a contradiction. A stone that cannot be lifted by the very being who made it so is not a contradiction. It requires a bit better explanation that it being incoherent. It isn't nonsense in the way you describe.
But calling them "the majority of theists" presupposes that it's possible to be a theist without believing in God. That is begging the question. What I asked you was "what if the majority of people *who claim to be theists* happened to not believe in God?".
If a person chooses a label for themselves, they are inviting you to presume their position matches that label.
Agnostics who are outspokenly not atheists can still "lack belief". So "lack of belief" ≠ "atheism".
I didn't miss your point, and it's not befitting a rational discussion to accuse a person of such. You might try your hand at posing your points again and pointing out why what I think is a valid response is not.
1) I've already explained why those questions are nonsensical.
2) My explanation does not involve special pleading unless you would assert that the universe has creative power.
3) Craig DOES have evidence AND arguments for his God. Unsoundness is not the same as nonexistence.
1) Of course I can use that way, don't be absurd. My position on God's existence is one of skepticism. My method is critical thinking which is available to everyone. Theists, by definition, are not skeptical on the position even if they approach the subject skeptically.
I also agree that some/many atheists suspend their critical thinking when it comes to this argument. I've argued against bad atheist arguments before. I didn't single out theists. I said even adept critical thinkers.
(cont)
As for philosphers, they are in question right now as this is the whole point of the book reviewed in this video and a mojor part of our discussion. I love philosophy but it seems to have become disconnected with the real world -and may always have been.
Regarding falsifiability, he has been shown by many to be logically incoherent, but since God is a malleable concept, those arguments are easily explained away by clever theologians. Are the arguments compelling? Not really.
(cont)
1) Perhaps there are reasons but if there were _good_ reasons then they would have convinced a good portion of skeptics by now. It is the evaluation of these reasons that separates theists and skeptics. (I'm going to use the term skeptic to refer to the group of people who call themselves atheists but are not by your rigid definition).
LOL. I'm not the one saying atheism doesn't exist. Matenoway said that. I'm just responding to him. He also says that everyone is an atheist. So I asked him to clarify that obvious self-contradiction. How can it be that atheism doesn't exist AND everyone is an atheist. I have yet to hear a response from him.
(cont 1) I will still read Williams' book but right off, the idea of being skeptical of atheism is making atheism into something it isn't. A belief claim is not a knowledge claim. There is belief and not belief. Not belief is nothing. It is no belief at all. There is belief or there isn't. There is no negative belief.
{By the way, in case you wanted the page number where Dawkins himself identifies "delusion" as "a false belief", it's page 5. Dawkins wrote a book called "The God Delusion", and he defined "delusion" as a persistently-held false belief... it follows that his book is actually "The Persistenly-Held False Belief in God", which entails that God certainly, or almost certainly, does not exist... which is atheism and carries a burden of proof. Q.E.D.}
Honestly, jemmerx, you posted so many responses, that they've jumbled up, and mixed 5's and 6's together. I can't keep it straight, so I'll need to just respond to your points, without numbering:
"Philosophical nothing" is just the semantic meaning of "nothing", which is "not anything" or "the lack of everything". This is not a thing to be observed, but a concept which doesn't require anything at all for its actualization. Whereas any "somethings" would require something.
(cont 1) You are right, we have covered much ground. These 500 word responses aren't convenient for such a discussion so I will forego any further criticism of arguments that are still debated today. There are far more qualified people that can do that.
(cont 5) Also, WLC says God is a timeless, spaceless, changless, immaterial being... Wait! This definition places him outside of the universe, therefore outside of the set of existing things. So he doesn't exist. But, he is defined as a necessarily-existing, eternal being. So he's a necessarily-existing nonexistent being who is both timeless and eternal.
This is tongue in cheek, but you can't have all these together.
(cont)
It is true that most people on earth are atheists with respect to most (obsolete) Gods. That is why when we speak of atheism in public, the implication is that we are discussing the "God of the day", in this case Yahweh in America.
If you were having trouble with this part, perhaps investing in some common sense would help.
By the way, why do you think dictionaries have an entry for atheism if it has no use as a word?
WLC is always so shaky when answering the crowds. C'mon Will, you should be solid! Jesus is your rock!