William Lane Craig: "What evidence do we have for God's existence?"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- The Bible Study Employee Resource group hosted William Lane Craig to speak on the topic “What evidence do we have for God’s existence?”
LLNL-VIDEO-849083
3:30 Introduction
5:33 Six ways in which science and theology are relevant to each other
6:55 A book recommendation for deeper study of the arguments in this presentation
7:40 Argument 1: Kalam cosmological argument
20:30 Argument 2: The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics
37:55 Argument 3: The fine-tuning of the universe for life
46:40 Conclusion
47:30 Q&A
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
Bless you
I do like William Lane Craig. He shows you can be a university educated professional and also believe in the Christian faith 🧑🎓👨🏫🧑⚕️
Yeah, if you study theology. Or as I prefer to call it: Organized superstition.
@norbertjendruschj9121 Call it what you like mate, but it makes no difference that William would go to town on you in a debate 😉
@@ianwatson194
The way Craig "wins" debates is the same Trump wins debates: Lying, interrupting, ignoring counterarguments.The man is totally thick and the worst philosopher I ever listened to.
Just watch his debate with Sean Carroll.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Comparing a studied philosopher with a populist politician only shows that you don't know about debates and the basics of oratory.
@@JoaoHenrique-yo1lo
I know enough to tell a man, whose argumentation is based on wishful thinking, from a meaningful debater. If you fall for WLC, you can´t tell the difference.
Love Dr. Craig ♥
I disagree with Craig’s faith, but it’s always great to hear him speak. And I’m glad he’s still alive!
he's such a cool dude
Many kudos to DOE. I worked for the DOJ for 25 years before retiring. While they allowed Muslim and other scholars to speak to employees, usually under the auspices of heritage months, we never heard from Christian scholars. Most of the speakers were great, so I am not disparaging them. DOJ would never support posting the speaker regardless of background. I am doubtful they would allow employee groups to host something like this at all. This was awesome, and I am grateful the DOE and Lawrence Livermore encourages this type of productive discussion, especially as we continue to consider the essence of the Big Bang, the problems with Neo Darwinism, and the shutdown of these discussions in most of the academy. BRAVO!
WL Craig is an absolute treasure, a great gift of God to the world.
Grow up
@@stephenconnolly3018That’s rich! In this world, some people happen to believe there’s a higher power, and I just so happen to be one of them. If you don’t like it, turn the other cheek. I’m not forcing you to glorify my God, just like how nobody is forcing me to glorify theirs, or in your case, not glorifying your lack of one. Grow a backbone, and/or go to some atheist channel where the content/comments don’t offend you.
Yes, Craig is such a great gift, doing great work. He’s been gifted with a great mind, and is using it in great ways to serve humanity. Those who don’t agree are free to disagree and move on. I think it’s their loss.
@@paulnash6944 The problem is there isn't any god. It's just a concept.
Consciousness and personality.
Let's goooooooo!!!
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
Thank you Dr. Craig for your well reasoned and respectful presentation arguing for the Uncreated Creator as the cause…the origin of the manifest universe.
Where did you see an origin of the universe? In the bible or in the actual universe? ;-)
It was respectful, and poorly reasoned and incorrect.
Eloquently presented sophistry is still sophistry.
with all this round and round about god, it would make sense for god to step out on the stage and say, "here i am."
William's every bad argument uninterrupted in just over an hour.
It sums up a profitable career in apologetic, masked as philosophy.
Our beloved Low Bar Bill never fails to entertain.
@@norbertjendruschj9121I felt he failed to entertain when he said it's fine to kill kids if god asks.
But his argument was silly and a low key entertaining: "because the kids will go to heaven straight away"
@@oscargr_ The poor Christian apologists are indeed hard pressed with this amoral kind of god.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 Have you seen the scene I was referring to. ( I think it's more recent than anything in this video)
The smile on WLC's face when he says those things, with the most matter of fact attitude. It's truly concerning.
-If he wasn't an elite apologist- , he would probably need to be kept away from children.
@@oscargr_
Yes. WLC and I studied at the same university, Ludwig Maximilians University / Munich, Germany. That makes me feels especially tense about him, though I mastered in physics, not theology.
Great answers at the Q&A! Dr. Craig answered flawlessly the logical problem of Evil!
> Craig answered flawlessly the logical problem of Evil!
_[citation needed]_
Wasn't his answer basically 'oh, it's all part of God's grand design and because of butterfly effect you can't actually calculate the moral worth of suffering today because of downstream effects, in fact you can't judge God at all, so all my opponents haven't thought this through or are emotional and I win 😎'
These are the same people who mock atheists for having standards on whether the resurrection happened 😂
@@ryanmitchell5614That’s not at all the case. Please provide a specific quote or quotes that support your claim.
Rubbish mis quoting out mode philosopher is far from a well thought out coherent argument. There was only rhetoric and stale dogma, it may work on the sheep. Grow up your child like believes should have died along with other myths like father Christmas or do you still believe in him?.
@@stephenconnolly3018 For example?
Atheism is a superstition by the way.
Dr. Craig spitting straight fire, as always.
Sure, as always... 😂
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
@@vejeke Dr Craig has responded to this, but I'm not sure you care
@@steved5960 I listened to his response and the subsequent nuancing of that response and the conversation about his nuanced response, and Kyle and him talking, and Kyle talking to others, and Kyle's opinion about his response, etc. So how sure are you now?
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest...
The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
So let me quote his own words one more time, I know you like them, and he could not have been clearer.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
I recommend you a video recap of Low Bar Bill's confession called: "Christian Philosopher Fails to Fix the Internet he Broke! (William Lane Craig response)"
@@vejeke of course, even granting everything you said, not a single sentence in your comments even attempts to *engage* the arguments. If you feel it unnecessary, then there’s no point in anyone engaging you any further.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I understand that you don't like what I say and you want me to shut up, but it's not in your power. The point I'm making is for me to decide, not you. None of the other comments in this thread engaged with Craig's straw man, not even your irrelevant tantrum did. So if you don't mind, I'm going to keep quoting Craig's own words while you decide to ignore what I say, change the subject and pretend there's no point in engaging me any further.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig A.K.A. Low Bar Bill.
Brilliant, Dr. Craig!
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
@@stephenconnolly3018 Apparently Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were theists. This apparently means they are stupid :D
@@TheSpacePlaceYTlol
@@TheSpacePlaceYTNo lmao, they had freewill like we do so, they genius.
Bro i love this
Love William Craig, such an inspiration and original thinker. I hope he’s doing well, I see his eyebrows have gotten grayer 😅
#Aging
Awesome video
Always love to see the argument from the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics roll out.
How does that prove any god whatsoever?
Much as I love Dr. Craig, and think many of his arguments are great, I don't get the argument from mathematics at all. It seems related to arguments from laws of nature (which I think are very good) and fine-tuning arguments (also good). But, this particular argument just seems incoherent to me.
@@Mentat1231 the scholastic and Feser style versions are better
Why would we not expect the logic of quantity and pattern to apply to quantitative and patterned things, like the things of the cosmos? It's literally impossible for math not to apply because math can describe anything. Why should we be surprised to find a mathematical universe? As opposed to what? We cannot create models or theories beyond what we can understand, obviously. It's just a god of the gaps from personal incredulity, like most theistic arguments.
@@11kravitznSame, I don’t get it, but the expert themselves says that it is weird and a miracle
Whether you agree with him or not i think hes one of the greatest Theist debaters since there has been film recordings. Razor sharp mind and such command of language
Also known as Low Bar Bill.
Thank you Dr Craig , may the lord continue to use your wonderful brain to reach those in the dark! Many are searching, and I know you are reaching many! I pray for you and your family forever and ever amen!
So the Lord needs to use a man for something again? Wow…what a very useless god if it can’t do things for itself.
You mad bro
@@jamesfreeman2253 Not at all…I’m free though
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
@@iam604🐪
1. Infinite Regress Problem: If you trace back the cause of everything that exists, you eventually reach a point where you need a first cause or an origin. This is because an infinite chain of causes without a starting point is difficult to conceptualize logically.
2. First Cause Necessity: To avoid an infinite regress, there must be an initial cause or a creator that set everything into motion. This cause is often identified as God.
3. Conditions for Existence: Even if one posits that our universe was created by a highly intelligent being, a quantum state, or some other entity, the question remains: what created the conditions for that being or state to exist? This line of questioning ultimately leads to a need for a fundamental origin.
4. Simulation Hypothesis: If the universe is a simulation, then the simulation must have been created by some entity. The existence of such an entity would still require an explanation, which leads back to the need for a first cause.
5. Endless Causation: Even if something else caused our universe, such as a quantum state or another dimension, something must have caused that initial cause as well. This continuous need for a cause suggests that there must be an ultimate, uncaused cause to stop the infinite regress.
In summary: If you trace the cause of everything back far enough, you eventually need a first cause or origin to avoid an infinite regress. This necessity for a first cause suggests that belief in an ultimate creator, often conceptualized as God, is rational, as it provides a logical endpoint to the chain of causation.
1)we dont know if the universe is infinite or had a start,
2)if you trace back the cause of everything that exists we dont know where we end up cause we dont know what happened in the beginning. We can follow a rough chain of evolution for most living things but at some point we just dont know. Saying because we know that everything had a beggining or a cause in the time we know,means that everything also had an origin/cause/beggining is not correct
3)if one says any of these things, they are just a hypothesis, theres no evidence for them right now. The answer here is i dont know. It is wrong to say : who created these conditions?we dont know. therefore god. Anytime you say i dont know, you remain with that answer
4)Simulation hypothesis is fun to think about but also no evidence for it
5)Even if something else caused our universe , which we dont know if it did, you eventually need a first cause , which we also dont know. See how many times all these questions include we dont know.
In summary, i disagree with the premise that everything needs a first cause, we know that for a certain time in human history we can trace SOME things that have a cause, but we just dont know when we go far enough back in time. There is no necessity to believe in a first cause because theres no evidence there was one if that cause needed smth intelligent or not. Therefore, the most logical position here is i dont know.
As you seem to think you have proven god, can you please be a bit more precise and share with us the knowledge which of the countless gods is the true one and who you derive at your conclusion.
The boundary that all space time rewinds back to is an x, y axis,, the matrix of the physical world, the Cross. The zero point extends out in all directions; God divides himself into everything, transferring energy outward. Bless it!!
Very interesting lecture! My thanks to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory people who organized the event!
I think that the argument about math and natural laws to be somewhat inverted and misplaced - it should actually be in the first point on theology creating a mental framework that supports the development of science.
The Christian God is Platonic - ideal and good. It was this platonic characterist that led early scientists to look for the simpler and most elegant mathematical description: Galileo, I'm sure, did not find the square law of falling bodies from his experiments - he found that results were around the power of 2 but since Nature was created by God, then it could only be the power of 2. The platonic framework and the works of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Augustine wrote that God composed two books being one written by his own hands and the other by men He inspired. Since the second had been written by humans, in case of conflict the first one should be considered as the correct one. The first is Nature and the second is the Bible.
Thomas Aquinas wrote around the 14th or 15th century about the limits of God's power: 1) God can't create a copy of Himself; 2)God can't sin; and 3) God can't make a [eucledian] triangle with the sum of the internal angles different thatn 180 degrees.
In my opinion the invertion comes out of the fact that math came first and was very successful early on - that resulted in the predilection of science for Laws of Nature that could be elegantly described by mathematics. That predilection created a view that's widely held nowadays - that all we need to predict the future is a sufficient large and precise set on inputs while the fact is even a simple double pendulum (depending on the state space it's moving through) is impossible to predict. Early scientists did not have computers and the calculations necessary to even see the double pendulum problem were unfeasible and that led them to ignore the problems that could not be easily tackled through mathematics. Nowadays, given the successes of the sicence and techology partnership, that mindset - simple mechanicism and the unlimited power of mathematics - has become widely accepted as a universal truth. The problem is that that mindset is wrong - and people can't wrapt their minds around the complexity and seriousness of problems like climate change.
Volume is too low, compared to other RUclips videos.
Great video!
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
@@stephenconnolly3018 "i am very smart THEREFORE I AM RIGHT!
Jesus has been a great why for Craig to make a good living.
It is not a sin to be rich but it is a sin to be greedy.
Not any actual evidence just waffle and premises a lot of them flawed where you insert god with a smile.
Thank you for saving me 47mins of my life that I would otherwise not get back.
This guy has wasted enough of My time.
Classic ad hominem attacks with zero refutation.
@Crazy88277 you would do well to watch and ponder. Just watch at 1.5x to save time.
@@Soaptoaster He's not called low bar Bill for nothing 😁
@truthgiver8286 as expected, zero addressing his points but rather personal attacks. Tells me all I need to know.
louder videos please the ads are 2x the volume
I’ve never understood the suffering bit. To put it simply, first of all human suffering is not a moral evil, and your distaste of it does not indicate anything significant besides that suffering is suffering. I fail to see why a man should not suffer. I’m rather reluctant to desire a heaven that would include no suffering. Not for the ups and downs but simply because I think human life is incomplete without suffering. And the degree of suffering must be beyond all imaginable reason. Why? Else it would not be real suffering. If you could really say to yourself “Thus suffering is reasonable and serves a purpose” you wouldn’t really be suffering in the true sense. You’d have purpose to console you. You’d be missing out on that perfect suffering without any conceivable purpose, that pinnacle of suffering which is so necessary to bring out the best qualities in man. That is to say, unless suffering can and frequently does exceed what is necessary to any conceivable purpose, it cannot serve any purpose. The purpose of suffering requires that it seem arbitrary and excessive
Well I believe heaven is so great we can’t even comprehend it. It’s more real than our realm. Dopamine and reward sensors do not exist in heaven so why would there be a need for suffering?
"first of all human suffering is not a moral evil"
Suffering is actually the only evil there is.
I’m not sure where your moral assumptions are being derived? How is human suffering not evil? If that is the case you would be arguing there is no good and evil?
Simple Fact: Nature is Red in Tooth and Claw !
The purpose is to forge your soul in the fires of God. It is painful, but it prepares you for what's next. That's what I believe.
"What evidence do we have for God's existence?" Jesus
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England.
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms or Wels Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you are English I recommend the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Online you can look up church finders for each of the groups and it will show you locations .
Jesus that's a ridiculous question
@@imverydeadd He’s God the Son
@@boxingfan8274 yeah
Is it "god" or logico physical necessity tho?
Are they identical? If so how so? What is "god" above and beyond this (logico physical necessity) and how do we know?
Define and clarify logico physical necessity. Please and thank you. Meow.
🥰❤🎉😊!!!!!
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
This is classic Craig (the dinosaur liar) recycling the same lies he's used for decades & which he knows are false & unsustainable.
Before addressing, let's end the god of Abraham (GOA) myth (you don't have to accept it, that's irrelevant it's just fact):
The entire basis & reason for belief in the GOA is that it is going to provide you with eternal life after death in heaven.
To be able to justify that claim, believers have to prove the GOA isn't, in even the most minuscule way, evil. If it is, it can't be claimed it is not a liar and you cannot trust its promises of heaven unless you're an idiot (that simple).
As a side note: Understand, as it relates to humans and promises to humans, this must be mans definition of evil not some, non applicable, nebulous fantasy created by such as Craig in an attempt to obfuscate the GOA's way out of blame.
There is evil so believers have to prove it doesn't come from the GOA or the GOA is innocent of it to satisfy the above.
Evil comes from the GOA & the GOA is evil, that can be proven many ways (just ask) but the most obvious is believers must accept to dismiss this is the bible dictates there must be the existence of evil and via some scenario, man (innocent and without sin) is given free will to choose good or evil, defies god & is punished by god. That fundamental requirement of the GOA cannot be met.
Simply put, in any scenario as above, god must create evil and therefore temptation & suffering. We have a law called: "entrapment". The principle of that is simple: If you wilfully tempt someone to commit a crime & they do, they are not guilty by virtue of your wilfull act of creating the temptation. Do you accept that to be justfiable or does man just have a higher moral standard than the GOA? As soon as god created evil to tempt man he branded himself as evil & denied itself of a right to punish.
Now as believers in the GOA, you are going to say: "Well god gave man "free will"." Let me highlight to you where that obfuscation doesn't save the GOA from being evil: Simply this, if there is no evil "free will" to choose good or evil doesn't exist. So, once again, the GOA didn't "give man free will", the GOA created "free will" via an act of evil &, once again, god is self proclaimed evil without a right to punish.
A last note: The GOA precludes itself from teaching about evil it therefore also precludes itself from warning about evil & the simple observation of the GOA offering a "free will" choice of good or evil without explanation or warning what they are is, again clearly & undeniably, evil. Why? Because the person choosing has no basis on which to make the choice because the GOA has denied them that ability. (Note: "Die" is a punishment for evil & therefore must be evil itself. As the GOA cannot offer any advice on evil, it cannot explain die, punishment, temptation, lies, deception and etc.......... Figure it out what that means.)
Let's summarise: By creating evil to entrap man into choosing evil, the GOA removed any justifiable right it could possibly claim for punishing man. There is no escape clause for god. AND BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION AND SCRIPTURES, THE GOA IS FALSE BECAUSE IT IS EVIL AND THEREFORE CAN'T EXIST. (Now start inventing unsustainable lies.)
This is a mere sample of an overwhelming multiplicity of proof the GOA is fake (but you only need one).
1. KALAM's Cosmological Argument (causality = everything must have a cause & god is the uncaused cause. [obviously Dumb I know])
As Craig has acknowledged on his own site (over a decade ago) the natural occurrence of a universe occurs at a quantum (sub-atomic) level & the study of quantum mechanics has revealed, beyond dispute, sub-atomic particles do not follow the laws of the universe which includes causality.
Sure Craig did his usual and tried to obfuscate his way out of it by attempting to display an understanding of the subject (at a level obviously far beyond his reach) by picking through books of famous scientists & selecting the bits he liked & ignoring refutations in the same book by the same author. But he failed miserably.
In short, the study of quantum mechanics has thoroughly and totally destroyed the Kalam's concept & relegated it to obscurity.
2. It is observed the total of +ve and -ve energy in the universe = 0. Energy has no mass & can exist outside spacetime. Quantum mechanics has proved mass comes into & out of existence constantly without a cause on a sub-atomic level.
Once again Craig has tried to argue, with his negligible understanding of quantum mechanics, that doesn't happen & is false. Thanks for the laughs Craig but stick to theology & stop trying to equate quantum mechanics with your bank book. A universe from nothing is possible, you were wrong, get a life & move on.
3. "God is a mathematician". Everyone should have been laughing at this stupid Craig error (stay away from guns & sharp objects).
First let's note: Whether a god exists or not mathematics would take the exact same form as it does, be used in the same manner & by the same people. Fact.
Now, the laughter: Over a thousand years before the GOA was invented, the Egyptians had the numerical concept of nothing. But Ha, ha, ha, it was an Indian Hindu who invented "0" and without "0" mathematics of today would not exist, period. So what have we learned? Undeniably, if "god is a mathematician" that god is clearly the Hindu god Shiva. Feel free to point out any historically sustainable error in that observation. (Not good for Craig's credibility, proving Shiva!)
4. "The fine tuning of the universe" argument. Again Craig knows this has been defeated more times than he can count including on his own site. It's dead, redundant. Here's why:
a. The most obvious is simply this: A god by definition would be omnipotent. It wouldn't use "fine tuning" as it has no need for it: "Moon orbit the earth, earth orbit the sun, sun orbit the galaxy." The end. Universal & life complexity is one of the the strongest indicators there's no god.
b. Scientists have realised in recent years that we cannot claim a carbon based universe is the only universe possible, in fact there could be hundreds of different universes possible e.g. silicone based. Bye, bye "fine tuning".
c. Quantum mechanics & "a universe from nothing". What happens if there's a "Big Bang" and it fails to create a stable universe? Energy can neither be created or destroyed. So what happens? Another "Big Bang". And if that fails?..... Another "Big Bang". Get the gist? A stable natural universe is not merely not impossible, it is inevitable (especially where time is not a factor)..... No god required. Bye, bye "fine tuning".
Entrapment law? If you properly studied the Bible you would’nt be saying that. Don’t you think its just right to not comment so negatively on something you haven’t properly studied?
Fun fact: Do you know that the Bible has all of its prophecies fulfilled down to the letter? Including the drying of Euphrates river. It has 2500 of them, less than 500 are remaining that are still adressed for the future. I hope you wouldn’t be hardened enough to say “it was written in the bible so they made it happen”.
You mentioned that God created evil and gave us no way out. Assuming that God did create evil, how do you explain that the gospel story is not the way out?
I enjoy WLC's talks. 59:18 , what is up with his pant leg here?
He was doing his impression of Data from Star Trek; but only with one leg. Everyone knows he does this at the end of his lectures.
i think there was a spelling error in "cosmlogical".
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:01 🎙️ Introduction to event and speaker Dr. William Lane Craig.
02:21 📚 Dr. Craig's background and purpose of the lecture.
03:15 🕒 Limited time for evidence of God's existence; aim is to spark conversation.
06:13 🌌 Presentation of three arguments with scientific support for theological implications.
10:49 🌠 Kalam Cosmological Argument: Universe's beginning supported by scientific and theoretical evidence.
20:09 📐 Mathematics' remarkable applicability in describing natural phenomena.
26:14 🧙♂️ Theistic explanation for mathematics' effectiveness in explaining the physical world.
34:34 📜 Theistic anti-realists explain mathematics' applicability to the physical world as God's mental model.
38:14 🎯 Fine-tuning of fundamental constants for life's existence challenges natural explanations.
41:23 🎲 Physical necessity and chance are implausible explanations for fine-tuning.
43:10 🔍 Observer self-selection and Boltzmann brain problem challenge the multiverse explanation.
46:50 🌟 Science provides evidence for theological conclusions; dialogue between science and theology is thriving.
48:08 ⛪️ Miracles, like Jesus' resurrection, can be reconciled with scientific understanding.
52:16 🤔 The problem of human suffering involves both intellectual and emotional challenges.
56:38 🌄 Doubt and uncertainty coexist with faith; faith involves trust based on good reasons.
We do not have evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt gods existence doesn’t take an hour.
you misunderstand the meaning of evidence
Nothing so far, even less after enduring but the introduction.
What?
8:08 it is pronounced Ghazali not Khazali.
One observation about the bible quotation Prof. Craig mentioned at the end: it was a woman asking to cure her daughter¹ and Jesus replies "you have great faith!".
Matthew 15:21-28
New International Version
The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
(1) Until just now I used to misquote the passage: I used to say son intead of daughter.
Excellent arguments for God!
Talk is cheap. There are plenty of arguments for gods but absolutely no evidence, someone told you there is a god and you took their word for it, it's why all religions are called 'faiths', the more gullible you the more you are convinced there is a god.
@@Shytot-1you must have more faith then us since the we came out of nothing and their was no force behind the nothing that exploded us into existence.
Your faith is the strongest.
@@edwardb911Yes, seeing things as they are does not work for everyone, some people need to see things as they would like them to be, for a lot of people reality sucks, so they either make something up for themselves or they latch onto something someone else made up.
I take it you prefer the latter. It's OK as long as it doesn't affect anyone else but religious people are not happy just minding their own business, they have to try and contaminate everyone else and make them as damaged as they are.
@@Shytot-1we are damaged? 😂
@@Viiola24 Yes of course you are, why else would you believe the crazy things you believe?
Such poor arguements.
Such poor spelling.
Uplifting indeed!
What was the light that God created in the beginning? The Sun and Moon and Stars did not come until later so I wonder what kind of light was created when God said ‘let there be light’?
Previous ancient text preqch that light is conciousness, god and the fundamentals of everything.
@@SaerdnaOoOoo Case closed so. 👩⚖
If God created the world according to a certain blueprint which He had in mind why didn’t he include any of his equations in the Bible?
There are thousands of gods to choose from. Do we have evidence for all of them?
29:30 circular argument. "The universe wouldnt be fine tuned if it wasnt fine tuned."
Dr Craig--someone who has no real academic connection to science, treats theology as science when it is actually mythology and has been trying to manufacture evidence for God ever since becoming an apologist.
It that’s his job-mesmerizing Christians into believing in a magic genie and to stop asking questions.
I'd say this is just evidence of the larger issues with metaphysics and the temptation to logically "prove" things in a mental a universe of one's own creation. Personally, I think it's interesting and useful to dig into metaphysical questions (e.g. "what is truth?") but it seems to me that the wheels come off when someone like Craig tries to reason the Christian god into existence.
@@shassett79 Yes exactly-he is a minimalist on evidence and likes to mesmerize people with magical dissertations because he knows that should work well with most Christians since they take the lazy way out and do not care to learn about the realities in the world.
@@shassett79 science can tell us "how" the universe operates and with scientific knowledge we have further better our lives, divers inventions are here as evidence of these facts.
To think that this is all the human society needs is a very shallow way of reasoning, science can answer the "how" question but can't answer "why" the universe is, the quest for meaning is our truest need, I applaud science but I believe religion with strong emphasis on Christianity is the closest to giving us Meaning.
Yess, I came by random events and evolution brought me to this point of my existence, but why are my here in the first place, what do I live for.
If I am living to die with no purpose why don't I then live the way I so please, what is the moral restrain holding me from raping a 5 year old.
The Bible answers the question of meaning, this is humanity's greatest need.
@danielajah5262 It's fine if you personally need to know "the meaning of life," or whatever, and I'll grant that science can't provide it for you.
That said, it always sends a shiver down my spine when a theist proposes that they might just as well be raping and murdering people if not for whichever meaning or moral authority they've found in religion...
@@shassett79 oh not in any way, we all know that man is inherently deprived, if not we won't be hearing of street shootings every now and then, my point here is this, we can not have a standard for morality if there is no universal moral law giver that is consistent in every part of the world.
If we live the issue of morality to be relative saying do what makes you happy, what if killing makes me happy.
The issue of ethics and morality can not be relative, now I have heard of an era in a particular African state where twins were considered demonic and so killed, this practice was widely accepted by the community as morally justified, but is this so for every other community?
Ethics and morality will always draw us back for a universal law giver. He is the restrain not because I'm saying this, but because it is an obvious fact.
Why call it evidence when its just sophistry? Does calling things the wrong word make the sophistry more convincing somehow?
The answer to everything is an imagined god who can do anything.
Not imagined
Think you'll find that's G
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
@@stephenconnolly3018 ok if you're so smart then explain how a man came back from the dead and pushed a bolder out of the way, which was recorded weeks after the event. How do you bring other people back to life. Boy atheists are so smart, for example the French revolution, the Russian revolution, Spanish Republicans, hitler.
@@stephenconnolly3018 'Intelligence' doesn't equate to spiritual insight and wisdom, however...Nice try though...The Gospel of Christ is open to rich or poor, old or young, educated or undereducated...If people choose to reject it because they think they're too 'intelligent'/'educated', that is up to them...
☦️☘️⛪☘️✝️
Even the best evidence and arguments will never constitute or rise to a standard of proof of Gods existence. It's not supposed to. Faith is crucial to Gods plan here. To not know to a degree of certainty that God exists, and yet still act in goodness, even when its detrimental to your self, is the only way to procure authentic devotees in a kingdom everlasting. Purposed as the answer to the fall of mankind as a workaround the problem of evil in sentience and duality in creation.
You can always cancel creationists with just three little words...that they love to overuse.
I...think...that
As opposed to atheists "that...don't...think" ?? I think that you're on to something lol
@@este4955 your confusing personal thinking for critical thinking.
@@rickallen9167 You're confusing male with female lol
@@este4955 you're good with word soup, not so good with strong arguments...lol
Dr bill Craig should teach how to research, think critically, write, memorise the material and present to an audience and also to debate
He admittedly lowers his epistemically bar based on wanting things to be true. This is not a good quality of a researcher
"Think critically" 😂
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and that this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence and therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." - William Lane Craig
@@vejeke
Self authentic witness is also based on some kind of experience and if one experience something then this is rationally acceptable. Because God doesn't need to give empirical evidences that can only be known in some kind of laboratory but he can give signs inside a person. So I find nothing wrong with what wlc said. It is still rationally acceptable.
@@munafghori4052 Of course, there is nothing wrong with putting confirmation bias and self-deception before evidence. That's why Muhammad was fully justified in believing that he actually spoke to angel in a cave.
It's a good time to remember that what really got William Lane Craig into Christianity was the beautiful smile of a Christian girl at his school, "Sandy". That and no other is the real reason. A teenager's existential angst and psychological need to be loved did the rest.
"When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God *loved me, he loved Bill Craig,* and that I could come to know him and experience *eternal life* with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. *Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it."* - William Lane Craig
The rest, the theological arguments and the attempt to give a scientific tone to his diatribes, are merely rationalizations with which he has been doubling down ever since.
@@vejeke
If you want to call a persons experiences as confirmation bias then I cannot argue more because you made up your mind. For you to believe need a witness of holy feelings and if I show you a way then I don't know whether you would do it or not but you will not believe until you experience it. For if I show you evidences then ofcourse you would verify it but I don't know whether you are open to spiritual feelings. But as a Muslim I can only tell you that do two things. one is seek forgiveness from God 100 times daily in morning and evenings. And second pray to God for guidance. Hope he will help you and give you better evidences.
Second you say Dr Craig gave theological claim with scientific evidences. I think he didnt do any thing wrong in that. If you had scientific evidence for non existence of God then you will provide it. There is nothing wrong to give scientific evidences for philosophical arguments. Actually those arguments are not theological. They are philosophical. None of the conclusion and premises are theological. It is in the end that dr criag tries to show that these philosophical arguments back by science leads to theological beliefs. This is what he is doing. I don't think this is wrong. But there is nothing wrong if scientific evidences exist in support of religious claims. You just blindly deny theology and religion.
Listening to the obfuscating part re: suffering - gotta wonder why god hates amputees.
The fundamental building block of the universe is an essence. The essence is what we see. An essence isnt bound by logic. Its existence and anti existence essences. Creating random particles and life forms from a logical rule (physical limitations and prohibitations) but not what comes into the vacuume but by chance. This universe might be god but that is far fetched.
What evidence do we have for God's existence: The resurrection of Yeshua Nazarene, the gift of his Spirit and new life thereby, the energy of the apostles and the spread of the church against the might of Rome.
God would know what would convince me and he has failed until now
After Dr.Craig admitted that he took up Christianity on the basis of Pascal's Wager I can't take him seriously, he's clearly in it for the money only.
I think your conclusions are highly presumptuous to feel that he is in it for Money.
Ridiculous comment
For me it was him presenting 'one in a million chance' as a rational standard for believing, from the same guy that loves presenting probabilistic arguments for god.
@@Julian0101you missed it!! With such great probability of everything lining up almost perfect, the perfect distance from the sun, the tides from the moon creating life sustaining waves in the ocean, the sun at the right distance and providing nutrients for life on earth, instructions in dna, suggest a brilliant mind behind the creation of
@@christ_is_coming_back9118 See, the fact that all those things keep shifting, and thus are not perfect, is evidence your mind thing was not involved at all.
Good on you for figuring out why that argument fails so bad.
Why?
That's my question.
Why do you need to explain? Why do you need to prove, convince, influence? Why do you need to defend anything? Since when faith requires defense?
To what means?
I'm repeating my faith theorem:
More you convinced God is good and merciful less wether you believe in Him matters.
With assumption that there is no person on this planet to demonstrate God's active involvement in human lives. As if there would be one would be morally highly questionable.
That leads to explanation of my original question: why?
The question of wether God exists is completely irrelevant to individual human life.
See Job 38.
I mean, it's cool that god actually showed up to talk to Job even if he was a total jerk about it.
Am I allowed to hate Satan?
You are allowed to do anything that doesn't hurt other people. Hating Satan may or may not. If I were your relative or your friend, for instance, then the fact that my Satan hating relative/friend has lost his mind would hurt me though. Don't do bullshit like that. Try to be an adult. ;-)
Ah the genocide guy. He is a prime example of the kind of damage religion can do to a person, and how that person can then damage others.
Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.
Dude, you need to update your argument, not even the DI uses anymore the double slit experiment as evidence of a concious agent
Any scientific cosmology theory is limited by what a scientific theory has to be. It has to exist with a givien theoretical form. This form thus implies that the theory is condemned to posit this form as the beginning of the Universe. So the idea of a beginning is inherently in the concept of a theory of cosmology. It is not a special feathure of a particular theory, nor an empirical discovery but an a priori or scientific cosmology. The only way to make eliminate this limit is to dissolve any hard limit in the past and to have a smooth path of creation from almost nothing to our our current best theory of cosmology. Then God would be manifested not in a brutal creation edge but would be in from the beginning and would remain within in the same way it has been all along.
40:30 trilemma.
Craig gets better,bravo…
Better at fooling people but never proving his god exist.
@@iam604 If you aren't going to engage the arguments and you're just going to say "there's no evidence" then clearly it's your actual heart for God and not the evidence that is the problem.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT What particular argument did you have in mind for me to engage? As of right now, none of his arguments have yielded a Nobel Peace Prize for proving his god exists. But please feel free to ask anyway.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT That’s what I thought. CHECKMATE!
Evidence for a god= Words that come out of the mouths of men and nothing other than that.
31:39 Plato was not referring to the christian god. Please read Plato instead of using him to incorrectly using prove the existence of "YOUR" god. Muslims could use the very same argument in defence of Allah as the true God
Using Philo of Alexandria and Plato to attempt to reinforce your theological position appears hopeful at best! These are arguments the pre-existed before our current scientific and cosmological understanding and have no grounding in evidence. Adding a supernatural element to an argument that works perfectly well without it's addition is just wishful thinking.
Could you help me understand how the big bang can happen without a pre-existing cause? And without assuming magic?
@@bboynewsboy991 Read Lawrence Krauss (Nobel Prize Winner) or Alexander Vilenkin, they'll explain it for you.
Talk is cheap. There are plenty of arguments for gods but absolutely no evidence, someone told you there was a god and you took their word for it, it's why all religions are called 'faiths', the more gullible you are the more you are convinced there is a god.
So …… What was the evidence? I must’ve missed it
34:00. "Why would a universe ot the universe have consistencies/laws/tendencies." And given the evolution theory leading to brains. Scarce as high intelligensen is in the universe (no fine tuning). Why could we not develop mathematical language? There is false math and correct math. The relation argument is right. Although realism and theism might be richer in provning mental well being.
Science cannot interract with theology in a strick sense although it informs the theologian and theology may inform the scientist but formally science is completly separated from theology since it is exclusively restricted to strictly define concepts and its empirically method to support concept. This prevent science at a formal level to venture out of its strict bonds. Science emerged from philosophy and theology and cosmogony in the first place but by systematically stripping away whatever cannot be formally fully deined and which can be empirically tested. This started with the pre-socratic philosophers. Modern cosmology refers as Big Bang theory has a number of common feathures with theological narrative of creation. It has no God but has a beginning and an assumed intial conditions. This limit of Cosmology necessarily beg to the question of the creation of this Beginning opening the door for theology: one stop where the other starts. The limit of science is ''creating''', there cannot be ''creating'' in a formal framework such as Science. Creating , the main attribute of God in all theologies, is necessary in the far past since we cannot end up with a nothing from which nothing can arise and creating is also necessary at the core of any life which cannot be stable biological machine since it would condemn them to die as soon as it encountered circumstances that are never been encoutered, a core self-creation has to be at the core of any life, theology call this the soul, science cannot go there being limited to what has been created. We may identify soul, core self-creation in life and consciousness synonymous and thus strictly beyond any limit of formalisation and science.
Theology is Ontology *ON BLACK ICE*
The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have needed to have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own.
If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago.
Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time.
Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God.
Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us.
Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.
"What evidence do we have for God's existence?" none whatsoever. Shall we make something up or have you already done that? Who needs to believe in gods? gullible frightened people.
Sure bro, It takes really Brave people to march to hell...
The most powerful evidence for God are direct and indirect signs of the divine.
As per: "[John 14:16]; And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you" ; we have a continuous flow of the signs and fulfillment of the promise. It started with the first apostles :
John 14:16
Matthew 10:7-15
John 4:48
Acts 5:12-16
Acts 8:5-8
John 14:21
and last till today:
#1 Apparitions of the Virgin Mary : eg. Our Lady of Guadalupe , Fatima etc.
#2 Eucharistic Miracles " eg. Sokolka (Poland) etc
#3 Healing miracles: examples fr. Pio, br. Andre (from Montreal)
#4 Exorcisms : Look Up fr. Amorth, Fr. Gary Thomas, Fr. Vince Lampert
#5 Stigmata ; eg. fr.Pio , Teresa Neuman, currently : Ghiselle from Trevignano Romano
#6 Just awesome Nature miracles : eg. The Basilica of Our Lady of Good Health in Velankanni, India during Tsunami 2004
And the rest is just a side show speculation and philosophical entertainment, where one may loose himself completely and forget about the reality check.
@@Matt6X So your only evidence are the words of a storybook written by unknown men? That’s called HEARSAY! Not evidence.
@@iam604 You are so right. For example: the St-Joseph oratory in Montreal is really not there ... The 250k HEALING miracles recorded in the archives , thousands of them witnessed by the medical professionals are just stories for babies ... and so on , so on. Take another pill my friend .. or start to seriously looking at the commonly available evidence, the kind of evidence that is acceptable by any court of justice.
@@Matt6X I have never seen a medical miracle. I have seen misdiagnosed medical conditions, though. :-)
@@Matt6X I know I’m right and your failed deflection to believed healing miracles has NOTHING to do WITH THE STORY BOOK! I’m still waiting for a theist to win the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for finally proving a god exists…oh wait a minute…according to you there is evidence? Where are the medical journals of these believed 250k healing miracles located at as well as who are those alleged “medical professionals” you speak of?
Simply saying something does make it true little Timmy and grown ups require actual evidence of a claim while children will simply believe older people like you do.
David Lee Roth turned Christian??
If God existed it should be obvious. Obviously it is not!
Science and theology are two different ways that brains can think. Science is about breaking beliefs so that knowledge can evolve. Theology is about maintaining beliefs for a sense of purpose and reward.
Both of your definitions are utterly wrong.
@@OC3707 please elaborate as to how so from your perspective
@Turtle1967A I don't know if you care but Area 51 Scientist Boyd Bushman Lead Scientist of Lockheed Martin has proof of ours souls... It's amazing our Government🇺🇲 knows Jesus Exists
@@kaecake9575I believe he is dead. It's great if you have proof when you are dead.
If we allow in our premise, the existence of an uncaused intelligent entity, why are we ruling out the possibility of an uncaused fundamental force that could also serve as the constituent for the universe? In other words, why do we assign hypothetical properties to God, but reject the universe itself having those same properties?
That's a no. This is because the entire universe, including fundamental forces, are contingent. That is, they do not necessarily have to exist - they could just as well have not existed. They could have taken other forms, etc. God is the one necessary being, and the only explanation for all contingent beings. I think we are a thought in his mind.
@edzion6433 I’m not talking about the known forces. I’m talking about some undiscovered concept that could possess the same properties we invent for god. And these known forces are absolutely necessary, especially for life. The argument at best suggests some uncaused concept is responsible for the universe in terms of cause. But nothing in the argument points to god.
@@guitart4909 I think you've misunderstood me. The name of the concept that is necessary and from which all contingent things arise from *is* God.
The uncaused cause, or unmoved mover, is literally God.
Once you start from the fact that there's a necessary being from which all things are contingent, then you can arrive at God by knowing that this necessary being must have will: note that he created the Universe, which is a contingent complex structure. He also constructed the universe at a particular time - that means God *chose* to create the Universe, implying some type of person-hood since He (or the concept) made a choice.
A concept that is simply abstract is not capable of making a choice. Nor is a physical law capable of making a choice.
@edzion6433 first we need to establish god as necessary. The kalam argument only establishes the necessity of an uncaused causer.
@@guitart4909 You are the only damn person that actually engages with the arguments in this comment section. Thank God. Anyways, God is necessary simply by definition in classical theism, so this is already GRANTED. The question is "Can we prove that God is the cause?" The answer is yes. The cause must be immaterial yet not contingent. The cause must have agency given that the universe is contingent, and the cause must have sufficient power in order to do so.
Consequently, God exists.
Wow. Amazing!
Amazing!
Craig getting the BGV wrong as usual, all the authors don't agree with him.
If there is one in a million chance wlc dont know about science nor logic, it is worth to believe it.
1) Everything we have observed to exist has a beginning.
2) The Christian god is claimed to have no beginning.
3) Therefore, the Christian god does not exist.
They may present their god for observation to prove otherwise.
Even that argument is false. We have, for instance, not observed the beginning of the universe. Even if we had the above would logically only prove that "god is not a thing". The problem with that for theists is that if god is not a thing, then applying logical arguments to god does not work. They are only valid for observed material objects and their immutable properties. In other words, theists don't know what logic is and how it works. Neither do people who are trying to invalidate logical arguments from theology, though. Don't do it.
@@lepidoptera9337 the intent was to show the people who think the Kalam proves a god that it can be flipped just as easily. I agree with you it doesnt actually prove anything. But read it again, I never said we observed the beginning of the universe.
@@mg-ew2xf Most people don't understand Kalam. I for sure don't. It sounds like absolute bullshit to me because it is absolute bullshit. You say that absolute everything we have observed to exist has a beginning. We have observed the universe. So by your statement it must have a beginning. Since we didn't observe the beginning of the universe your statement is false, unless the universe is not a thing (which it isn't). Prepositional logical arguments are tricky. You have to understand them as statements about sets. If you use quantors like "all", then those only apply to the set you are talking about. "All things" is not the set of "all observations". We are observing plenty of stuff that are not things but e.g. properties of things. Not the same category, not the same set. The universe is neither a thing nor is it a property of a thing. It is in a category of its own and it is the only element in that category.
@@lepidoptera9337 your reasoning for it being false doesnt make sense. Not observing the beginning doesn't invalidate it existing. I didn't see your beginning, therefore your argument is false?
@@mg-ew2xf Claiming something to be true without evidence is simply bullshit. Claiming that the universe had a beginning is just as much bullshit as claiming that the resurrection of Christ happened. Neither is backed up by any observational or experimental evidence. If you want to play by the rules of rational thought, then abide by them for your own arguments as well. I am a physicist, by the way, and I don't need the universe to have a beginning. It's actually a bad idea from a theoretical point of view because it does not play well with the actual phenomenology of time. There are other scenarios that are much, much more consistent with what we know about nature.
Every single atheist is evidence for God’s existence.
🤔😂
I don't know if you care but Area 51 Scientist Boyd Bushman Lead Scientist of Lockheed Martin has proof of ours souls...it's amazing that Area 51 knows how to be blasphemous against The Almighty. It's amazing our Government🇺🇲 knows Jesus Exists 🤗😂🕊️
He should go to other National Laboratories!
Wow, looks like when it comes to God the average question of the most brilliant scientists in the world is akin to that of a first-year philosophy student. Just saying, the questions were pretty basic.
None.
William Lane Craig:
The universe has a beginning!
I am extremely stupid!
Therefore it was created by an imaginary fairy!
.
New research confirms that there is a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence. The findings have been published in the scientific journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. (6-8% lower than non believers the research is the combined findings of 83 studies)
“Religiosity is a pervasive phenomenon. Its influence can be felt in all spheres of life. However, a sizeable portion of the population defines itself as atheist. Why do some people decide not to be religious? I thought it was an important and fascinating question,” said study author Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester.
Quick guide, none. Your welcome lol
Very disappointing to see WLC wasting the valuable time of these scientists with his theological blither. He’s not an authentic philosopher who humbly follows reason wherever it leads, but rather a lawyer pleading a case. Elsewhere, he claims that reason must stand in a “ministerial” (subservient) relation to faith’s “magisterial” (dominant) role: he already “knows” god exists by the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit”, and thus merely seeks to “show” this by the gathering of evidence and argument. Bias much?
Now that Craig has been allowed to speak, equal time should be given to distinguished crystal healers, astrologers and Wiccans.
During an interview, when asked if the genetic code is really a code, Dr. Richard Dawkins answered, *_“It [the genetic code] IS a code. It's definitely a code.”_* (Source: Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually RUclips Channel Interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins on 4-2-2022. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution)
Did Craig say it wasn't? When?
Hitchens replied best to Craig when debating. So I’d ask Craig, whose God? Mormon, Islam, etc. So convenient you just happen to have been raised Christian. Like to see Craig debate Rabbi Tovia Singer.
Use this for ammo!
“If you’re a Christian, that only means that you condone pedophilia by default.
Numbers 31:17-18
Otherwise ditch the Bible and save yourself.”
@@AConcernedCitizen420Pedophiles got the death sentence under the law of Moses.
This isn't evidence for a particular God. It's evidence for God/a Creator God.
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
The bartender who understands what you just posted is in the wrong line of work.
It all came from The Master Source, God.
@@boxingfan8274
Sir Isaac Newton was a believer and so was James Clerk Maxwell. The creation reveals the Creator. How can someone look at an acorn and not see an oak tree? The information in one cell of that acorn could fill a library if it was printed out. Nobody has ever gone into a lab and made a cell from the raw chemicals. Even if they could, they would be doing it by "design".
yes, all these creations came from the Master Source@@SpotterVideo
A good reminder of how silly apologetics is. Apologists sometimes have longer words, but so little reasoning or evidence to support their position. When one like this gets destroyed in debate apologists always complain we pick on easy targets, yet they can never agree who the sophisticated theists are once and for all.
Craig has plenty of evidence. You reject it because the conclusion is unacceptable.
@@terminat1 Great, let's hear it then. Best of luck to you.
@@Ozzyman200 You reject it out of hand, so there's no point.
@@terminat1 Brilliant. So someone asks you for evidence and you can't present any at all because er, 'there's no point'. Of course. Classic Craig.
@@Ozzyman200 Did you even watch the video? Or did you just want to post your comment and then argue for the sake of arguing?
Does he provide evidence or is it just the usual god of the gaps word games?
Nevermind, i already know.
Was that an hour of sarcasm with a straight face. Truly commendable. Bazingaaaaaaa