William Lane Craig: The Evidence for God. Imperial College, London, October 2011
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 мар 2012
- Prof. William Lane Craig was invited by the undergraduate Christian Union at Imperial College, London to give a lunch-time lecture on "The Evidence for God".
Dr Craig presented seven arguments and then invited questions from the student audience. The lecture was web streamed at the time. This is a high definition film recording of the event which includes the previously unseen Q&A session.
![Finesse2Tymes & Og Boo Dirty - Real Recognize Real [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3xb4bl5PWF8/mqdefault.jpg)
God Bless Bill Craig! We need people like him to keep the faith "reasonable"
I'm sure God will give him treasures in Heaven
This man is the greatest to ever defend God, God is inside him and that scares evil spirits 🙏🏾❤️😊 God bless him.
He is lovely.
This man is a clown and only in the US can somebody like him be considered a ''thinker''.
lmfao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
He is the best and still any 8 year old could beat him in a debate.
@@michaelwright8896yet. He destroyed Hitchins and beat Sam Harris, Peter Atkins etc. So they might have lower iq than an 8 year old. Sam Harris said this in the debate in his opening speech about WLC. “The one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.”
in fact most new athiests I find are not particularly smart themselves.
Says the one who believes in myths.
I’ve watched many debates between Christians and Atheists, seems like the Christians always come out on top based on reason. Atheism seems very unreasonable and illogical.
Wooow, atheists are going bananas with this video. Look at how they insult Dr. Craig and religion instead of refuting any argument. And now imagine what they'd do if Craig acted like Dawkins and started mocking them for their beliefs or making videos laughing about their "hate comments"... they'd be asking for the removal of this video on the basis of hate speech or sthg like that
+adeusbandeiras HAHAHA! You're so right! In fact, the Amazing Atheist has a video talking about "A kid punished for atheism." They would whine like mad! AND JUST LOOK AT THE COMMENTS SECTION! It's full of "Oh, CLEARLY Bill's an idiot because I say so."
Craig had been refuted many times..just check the evidence against his metaphysical nonsense
Sceptic Science There are no real “atheists”. Everyone knows deep down that there is something or someone that we will answer to after death. Atheists are just God haters. That’s all..
Tony Dardi
Psychologically,I might agree with you as 6 Billion People need a God... but there is no real evidence for Theism..unless you need the supernatural!
ruclips.net/video/ew_cNONhhKI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/79J1fzRgoR8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/7xVBldyy_Oo/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/uLcK3Up8z7c/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/tRrq3s3P3Pw/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Gpw-TSd36l8/видео.html
Acharya S- Exposing Christianity: ruclips.net/p/PLE7a2nnRT4JfSvwoWbc6LiR3hN7sHL7J1
ruclips.net/video/9KQaBxRt_bM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/mAJVKbVRPZU/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/9C_Mqd4z16U/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/wKGFU3IVz2M/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/xzOrc_kwcU4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/kzAqr4ymqck/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/cfhjIMArYG4/видео.html
@@rationalsceptic7634 What do you mean by REAL evidence for God? There is no real (let me add: scientific) evidence for evolution and yet most atheists embrace it.
Graig has the soothing voice of Morgan Freeman, the Intellectual prowess of Aristotle, the Articulation of Barack Obama
all he needs now to become supremely powerful is the speed talking of Ben Shapiro
Hahaha🤣🤣... hilarious!!!
The absurdity in an eternal universe has to do with the self-contradictions that arise in an actually infinite number of events. Craig gives arguments for this.
If you want to dispute that, you must refute his arguments, as well as dispute all the evidence we have in cosmology for an absolute beginning. Writing in capital letters isn't an argument.
If God exists timelessly without the universe, then He isn't "born." He is simply necessary, unlike the universe, which is contingent.
William Lane Craig is awesome
Do you understand anything he babbles about or are you just pretending to understand because you can't think on your own?
we think with him... if something doesnt make sense then we think about it ourselves... but it is awesome because all he says makes sense... and we dont need to question ourselves...
Even as a nonbeliever, I can admit that Craig is indeed awesome. And even Christopher Hitchens said that his colleagues took him very seriously; why can't any of these classless anti-theists on RUclips do the same?
Vic 2.0 Vic, I see you under a lot of debates in the comment section, and I have to tell you that you are one of the most honest people on earth. Finally someone who doesn't have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks
@JP Collider dawgie, you are an idiot. Lol please stop with the nonsense! You are too stupid!
Excellent! My first time listening to him. I would have really liked to hear that conversation continue between him and the Muslim questioner, because he was asking some very important questions, and I bet WLC would have been very prepared to answer them if there was more time.
Nick J
I doubt very much he would answer them convincingly except appealing to an emotional arguments, like he already stated, That God of the Bible is merciful, he completely swept under the rug all the vengeful, the jealous, the angry God who would punish his creatures for x or y reason.
And more importantly, if he does what many "Christians" do, is when the Bible is criticised they run to the "NT" but that doesn't wash for several reasons.
a) If Jesus is God that means he is the same God of the OT
b) If Jesus' father is i.e God had to sacrifice his alleged "begotten" son in order to forgive his creatures.
Which is the remark he made against Allah in the Qu'ran who doesn't forgive unless you worship him, and unless you do this and that, some of it is true, but the rest is not.
If you don't accept Jesus then you will not enter the kingdom of God according to the core teachings of Christianity, so where is the difference that WLC was referring to? None.
So many things wrong with these arguments and concepts of God in Christianity.
So, WLC won't be able to answer any of them, he is not the first Christian to be confronted with these dilemmatic issues.
He presented strong arguments against atheism but as for substantiating his own faith, I am afraid he failed. To this day no Christian has ever successfully refuted these arguments.
"I don't want my worldview to change so I'll close my ears"
Atheism isn't a worldview.
@@xxxod how is it not lmao it is
@@xxxod atheism is a worldview but most atheists don’t live by it’s true nature because that would mean they would need to adopt a nihilistic mentality. And they just can’t do that, they have no integrity to their own worldview that would have to consist of nihilism so what they do is borrow morality when they shouldn’t have any to begin with.
@@myidentityisamystery5142 because it's not. Atheism just means you aren't convinced of any gods. nothing more than that.
@@rickyderby atheism is not a worldview and what do you mean "true nature".
You are the nihilist here. You don't have any moral compass so you need a book to tell you right from wrong (and it fails). You also think there is a better life after this one which means you don't appreciate life for what it is like an atheist would..
Atheists know right from wrong better than any religious person since we know that what harms people, often is immoral.
Yet your holy book will try to tell you otherwise by creating exceptions for acts of evil like genocide or slavery.
Morality is exclusive from religion. any atheist would know that!
This man is a remarkable scholar and an exemplary Christian.
And God has blessed him with treasure !
His understanding of cosmology is superficial at best.
I correct myself. I listened to him. I scoffed at him initially during his infinity coins argument but I misunderstood him. He was arguing against infinity existing in reality which is absolutely correct.
Ah, the famous argument of the dog barking at the wall.
@ciprianpopa1503 Ah, somebody looking to hit their lazy insult quota.
@@IrishBeerCan If there is a quota then I fill it well.
Great stuff from Dr. Craig as usual!
Eric J. Miller
Nonsense from WLC...such a Liar
@@rationalsceptic7634 He’s speaking the truth my friend
@@liamlogan5337
It’s called begging the question.
Empty claims no evidence whatsoever. He’s defining his god into existence
@@liamlogan5337 The truth contrasted to what? Stop using big words and let loose the religious scenario of good vs. bad, cause you'll soon find out that your god is the bad guy in the story and the devil is the good guy trying to please his god and be protected from his well known loose of temper and wrath.
There is no such thing as truth. There is only reality.
I don't understand why people automatically discard his arguments. They are well constructed and we have to be open to the possibility of a Creator God (whatever religious or not).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument has profound implications for us all.
Weapon Chest Christian Ministry “Weapon Chest Christian Ministry”? Uh ...
If you state that you must doubt the naturalists’ claim that the universe has always existed, the same doubt must apply to the claim that a god being has always existed.
No explanation is ever offered by theists as to why they are unable to be satisfied by “the universe did not need to be created,” but are wholly satisfied by “god did not need to be created.”
exactly!
Alan Guth said in an interview in Scientific American that he believes that the universe does not have a beginning:
"What was there before inflation started?
That is something I have been thinking about in the context of a paper that I’m writing with Sean Carroll [at Caltech]. *The idea is that the universe is actually eternal. It existed at all times, so there is no beginning to explain.*"
A reasonable defense of the faith with well-offered evidence
He didn't offer any direct empirical evidence. He presented entirely conceptual arguments and argument from ignorance fallacies. This is more obvious when he debates real scientists.
His fine-tuning theory presupposes that the sole purpose of the universe is to foster life. There is no reason to make that leap. If the universe weren't able to support life, it wouldn't care.
Let's keep in mind when ever we are exposed to information we have a tendency to lean to a bias perception of how we interpret the information we receive. It's all about level of conciousness.
I would love to see a debate between his former student John Loftus and himself.
Am I nuts, arrogant or faithless to find this compelling and irresistible?
What I, as a muslim, do not like is the behaviour of athiests towards WLC. He is a genuinely nice guy who speaks logically and kindly yet you call him such things that he would never say. May Allah guide us all to the truth.
you are quite correct Sagat. WLCs arguments on this video are valid and logical and WLC is a genuinely nice guy. The fact that atheists denigrate a man with masters degrees summa cum laude and doctorates under the leading philosopher of religion of the 20th century perhaps and one of the top theologians of the 20th century only serves to show the inferiority of atheists to Muslims like yourself. Of course objective criteria such as degrees, results, technical papers published are all irrelevant to many atheists. Not all of course. The website Commonsense atheism admits that WLC is slaughtering his atheist opponents. You should check out WLCs debate with Richard Carrier. Even Carrier admitted afterwards that he couldnt cope with WLCs responses! God bless you Segat!
bruh.. triggered?
Yekkt and you are an astronaut.
Greatest apologist alive.
When a person dies, the brain can remain active for around 5 minutes. After that, nobody knows what would happen. But when the brain dies, there is no reason to believe that your personality will live on. In fact, there is good reason to believe that when the brain dies, everything about you will also die. It's a sad thought but at least it's true. William Lane Craig always does this; he subtly says that Atheism is depressing and this persuades a lot of emotional people.
On second thoughts, we don't actually need to buy the book.
He's already told us what's in it.
Excellent Work, WLC!
well the cosmological argument was pretty logical and authentic
No. Being maximally great is typically defined as the greatest thing logically conceivable having necessary existence. That would preclude things like the ability to create rocks too heavy for him to lift, becoming non-existent or making itself *not* maximally great, and generally performing any acts contradictory to its nature.
50:00
Morals is the best one.
Rape is always wrong no matter if the entire world says it's ok.
where did you get that it is wrong?
That's subjective. Animals don't seem to think there's anything wrong with it.
SpyWhoLovedHimself name one time when raping a human would be acceptable....
I don't mind his argument. He's definitely one of the best creationist philosophers. When people start arguing about the existence of "their" god is when shit goes haywire.
The problem with this comment is only one view can be the “truth”. So you need to research and see which seems to match the evidence we see around us, and which theology and teachings are without error. Christianity definitely blows every other religion out of the water in this regard. It even has over 200 supernatural prophecies that are verified to have been written 300-1000 years before they happened.
You clearly haven't actually understood the argument; claiming something does exist is not an explanation as to 'why' it exists.
Secondly, history does not disprove moral realism, we have since progressed in terms of morality, which is only possible if certain moral values are better (or ought to be valued) over another, in other words Objective morality is true.
Consciousness is not abstract. It is based in the physical world.
Now that we have enough evidence that God exists, we don't need to discuss it any more.
As Jesus once said, "It is finished" (John 19:30)
If God is by definition maximally great, as Craig is explaining, then there is nothing external dictating what his nature is.
Yes, and that is also God. You just hinted at the Christian concept of the Trinity.
When did David Lee Roth convert?
Even if we accept immaterialism, it does not necessarily equate the existence of the gods, it just shows that entities outside of physical matter, are present, but afterwards we fail to characterize these objects, due to the inevitable nature of testing them, via the natural sciences, that would require us to create a new methodology for such, and until we do so, nothing can really be said about these objects, but that they might exist.
It's unfortunately typical in the "new atheist" circles to simply appeal to ridicule and pretend you've made a substantive argument. And then they pretend to be intellectually superior. It's quite a sad display, actually.
wlc is one of the best out there,even credited by many athiests so I beg to differ with most of you on here. read hitchens comments on wlc right on you tube .
The problem with asserting that a God does exist, is if that God is involved with the physical world, which is within the fields of science. Anytime a God does any kind of intervention, you can explore this scientifically, rather it be with the historical sciences, or history itself. If a person wants to assert Deism, then there is not much to debate, as a God might have designed the observable universe, but to say it is a theistic god, then we can debate that concept.
People who want to propose the philosophy of immaterialism, they need to create a coherent theory about it, along with the ways to test it. If God wants us to believe in it, and to follow its guidelines, it would give us a method to explore its nature, and if that is immaterialism, then philosophers, theologians, etc., must provide a new model outside of faith, as faith is a belief, not a way to debate the nature of the universe.
You need to watch the next video in the Tour playlist "Can We Be Good Without God" because Craig deals with it there at length.
I understand that a lot of people act out in order to try to prove to themselves they'll never be judged and are God, because they were bullied as children.
Yes. He says it from 0:10:20 to 0:10:35. I'm simply saying that if he says that then his math must be weak, therefore I don't think he can fully understand the theories involving the bigbang. Neither do I, but anyone who tries to start a theory with that should at least understand it very well. Don't you agree?
The problem with arguing against most Ontological arguments is that they rely more on 'a priori' (knowledge) than empiricism. However it doesn't make their assumptions any less valid than any other argument that cannot be disproved. Many valid and logical arguments can lead to false conclusions but that reasoning does not make those arguments/conclusions false unto themselves by merely existing.
Well, anyway, the idea is not contradictory, but saying that this is a number is. The fact the he gets different results from different operations involving different quantities is not absurd. On the other hand, the concept of infinity as something that has no limits (being greater than anything we can think of) is fully in accordance with a limitless time in the past. By the way, not only infinity is just an idea in our minds, any number or concept in math exists just in our minds.
There is no such thing as unlimited as you described in mathematics. If you let a variable be a real number there is no upper limit to choose the biggest one. You can choose from (-oo, +oo). The variable you described is the limit(n) when n approaches infinity. So your calculations are wrong since you can't subtract infinities.
Agree +1
Well. What I mean is that he cannot say that he starts with identical numbers and subtracts identical numbers to reach diferent results in those two examples. He can't say that when he subtracts infinity and when he subtracts infinity minus three he's using the same number. Infinity is not a number in the first place. Infinity is a concept to represent not a determined number, but any number greater than any one you can think of. If I am wrong, no problem, just explain that to me, please. Thx.
He s not a creationist in the traditional definition of the word. He accepts evolution.
I never said I agreed with it. Dr Craig decided the criteria and you agreed to it. You picked and chose what it is to be maximal for your God. Great, good, bad ... all of these attributes are relative things. You have simply decided what your morality is, called it great and created a God to champion it because he 'must' agree with your morality.
Regarding his point on God being the source for objective morality, does Craig believe God wills this to be because it is objective or is it objective because God wills it to be.
It's a simple question I rarely get answered
Amazing
Let's begin with 0:09:20, he says “that means that the number of past events is infinite”. I think it means that he is taking infinite as a number. But that's not really the problem. It's just terminology. The problem is when he sees a problem with an unlimited quantity by reasoning that way. Actually, the real problem is saying he subtracted identical quantities from identical quantities because he used the same expression, infinite. They are both not limited (infinite) but not identical.
In the case of 3:00pm and 3:01pm, the infinite number of points get closer together. But what I mean is, an infinite number of equal sized units e.g. years, That cannot happen. If you have to go through an infinite number of years before reaching year X, then you won't reach year X. (i'm no mathematician and your maths is probably better than mine, but that's what it seems to me).
What do you mean how can you ever reach the present? If we have an infinite number of past events, where should we be now? In the future? In the past? Just as in the case of the coins, we could possibly be in the present as is the case. Taking all the time intervals from an unlimited length of time can be zero (taking all the coins). I think this is consistent, isn't it?
I agree that the modern physicists say the universe had a beginning but I think WLC has not enough math knowledge to fully understand what it means. Neither do I, of course. But I dare to say that the bigbang is not something that comes from a contradiction in the idea of infinity. On the contrary, they must have used this concept many times in their calculations to come to this conclusion.
Test is defined as the following:
"a critical examination, observation, or evaluation" -Merriam-Webster
The question is not if we can test the nature of God, but can we test the validity of claims mentioned about God. Just my view.
No go and test these claims. I have.
Moreover, use this same approach in relation to all, eg. Evolution, atheism, science in general, the things people say, what medicine claims, etc.
Question to the last argument: It seems that the student is adamant about the God of the Quran contains equal mercy to all humans regardless of their belief, but Dr. Craig claims that the God of the Quran only shows mercy to his believers, well, my questions lies which one correct in regard to the Islamic scriptures?
A $50 bottle of omnipresent, omniscient snake oil, anyone?
Not an argument
Were you going to address the other portions of my comment? What I mean by that statement is that God not being "able" to control his own nature wouldn't be a problem for a theist. Being maximally great (or having any of the "omni" qualities) does not entail the ability to perform logical absurdities, or anything else contrary to his nature (such as creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it, lying, etc.).
Because maximal greatness would be inherent and therefore unchangeable. You think I'm evading something. I'm not. The basis of your criticism is that there is something that God cannot do. You fail to see that this criticism does not do damage to God's existence, so you continue to hammer away at it, stating it in different ways and with different examples as if by doing so you will eventually refute God's existence. You are chasing your tail.
Rational people just say:
We don't know... rather than cite some improbable God
Hypocrites say I don't know, if you don't know , then how do you know that there is no God?
If you say "I DON'T KNOW" it means you have conceded that you do not know, why then turn around and say that God does not exist, or this wasn't from God ?
Rational person remains consistent, a hypocrite only appeals to a so called rationality when God is in the equation.
You can no longer hide behind "I don't know". If you don't know then don't argue. Period
samuel barry
Because God is self contradictory!
This Guy believes in the Holy Spirit...a product of his Brain not God...he should check his sources!
At 10:00 Craigs shows his weakness at mathematics. There is no such a number called infinity that can equals an infinity derived from another way. It simply goes like this:
let n be the number of coins and n can be bigger than any other number you can think of, (n is unlimited rather than infinite)
then n-n/2 = n/2 for any n
n-(n-3) = 3 also for any n
but n/2 ≠ n-3 except when n=6
So, no mathematician says that infinity/2 = (or ≠) infinity-3. The concept of unlimited is used not infinity.
..But if the present is the last event that happens,then an eternally into the future universe that goes on forever doesn't have that problem
It's so interesting to see to what extend a man is going to convince himself and then others with hour long complex explanations and twisting scientific facts for the single point of acting as if you can prove something that is just the product of the human imagination.
You are incorrect. According to the BGV, even in a multiverse scenario, the world ensemble itself has to have an absolute beginning.
Nature means inherent qualities. So if a being is necessary, its inherent qualities must be necessary. CoCo was objecting by saying that if God is maximally great, He must control his nature. I interjected and explained that If there is a maximally great being, then his nature can't be contingent, by definition, for his inherent qualities would be necessary.
"Intuitively, I think there should a moment one year before any moment. That's the concept behind limitless or infinity.?" i'm not sure what you mean here. Nobody disputes that given a universe that goes back eternally, there is a moment before any moment, and no first moment. And it's also true that if there is a beginning/first moment, then by definition, there is no moment before it. We don't know for sure which it is.
Wow! The students asked questions showing their shallow thinking and knowledge on the topic/field, making logical and philosophical errors, then the muslim student at the end with such a lack of theology and Christology! Get this man some David Wood! ;)
nathan watch , How is it all randomness when we see the laws of logic work around us. Also what would satisfy you to believe in a god ? It seems many people want a certain type of evidence that suits their pleasure or else their not satisfy.Then again no matter how much evidence the theist brings, it just not good enough.What people want has no faith involved.Need that 100% fool proof.Your only hope is wait and see when you pass way.Reality is we not going to find 100% of everything.So does that say we cant come to a conclusion based on the evidence we currently have ? If the non-believer did find evidence they accept as good for god existence, what now? Does He/She just move on to something else and go on with their business?
"he says that the concept of infinity leads to contradictions. I don't think it's right." I don't think he says that. He might say that infinity as a number would be contradictory no surprise since it's not a number. But where does he say infinity leads to contradictions? What's the exact quote? The thing about an infinite past being impossible? Well, his reasoning would be it'd mean an infinite number of past events - I suppose is impossible. How can you ever reach the present if that's so?
And you can show 2! Two is a magnitude and you can demonstrate that. You're trying to apply a property to 2 that by it's nature it doesn't have. It satisfies it's own criteria. The difference is you are making something real out of something that you cannot show to be real in anyway (that being God). By showing somebody 2 things you are showing them 2.
the desire to worship IS the desire to be an abject slave.
-Christopher Hitchens
That means everything. These things are real even if they are only thoughts or concepts. The number 2 exists in the real world, love does, the consciousness does, dreams do, fiction and ideas do too. All of it, exists in this universe that we share. That is what universe means afterall... 'all things'. Your God is just the same. He exists alright but simply as an idea in your mind.
The thing with WLC is that he uses logic and philosopy combined for his own personal believe which is christian. He should debate a atheist philospher and not scientist.
he has my goodness, many many times.
He does, as Bob Free says, and has done it so successfully that most fear him like the Germans feared Patton, to the point that some just run away and refuse to debate him at all, like Richard Dawkins. Now, granted, Dawkins is not exactly a professional philosopher and not even a good amateur philosopher, but the one that comes to mind who is a professor of philosophy is Kevin Scharp and it is on RUclips.
Yet another criticism just thrown out there in haste. What are the anti-theists going to tell us next? "Maybe Craig should write a book or two to prove he knows something"? Lol.
This man is so clever.
I do agree with you, i'm a very reasonable guy.. And you seem to be too. Just to clarify, do you "get me" in regard to my last argument? do you agree? or disagree? we're certainly making progress.
By definition, if we're supposing there was a first moment, then there cannot be a moment before a first moment, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about a first moment.Personally I think there may have been some kind of timelessness and then something happened and you had the first moment,beginning of time.What timelessness is/means we have no idea.How something can happen in timelessness is another thing I think we can't explain.How can anything move or change state!but maybe that started time
Any, and all claims are open to testability, regardless of what or who is the source of them. To test the nature of God, such as infinitude, is not acceptable, but to test a metaphysical claim about the nature of existence, which upon that God does exist, is open to a test based upon the claim which it makes, and typically many things said about God, are indeed within the limits of the scientific method, although not entirely explore, but enough to permit science as a method to test this.
In reply to the ontological argument
1. God is defined as perfect.
2. If a being is perfect, then all its actions must also be perfect.
3. Perfect actions are defined as actions than which no greater can be conceived.
4. If God created the universe, then a greater universe must be inconceivable.
5. A greater universe is conceivable - a universe without evil, death and disaster.
6. Therefore, God could not have created the universe.
When the universe was created by God it was without evil, death and disaster, it was perfect... but the man did not obey God and everything came down... Genesis 2:16-17: And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.
God is perfect, but God is also omnipotent. God even in being perfect, can freely choose to create something that may be imperfect, but, we are mere humans. This Universe could be perfect, and we just perceive this perfection differently than somebody as divine as God does. So, your argument is invalid, and your premises do not follow logically.
I didn't overlook the purpose of the Universe, as I do not insinuate a purpose. I don't understand what you're even saying, so I'm going to assume you were talking to somebody else, because everything you accuse what I'm assuming me of doing, I have not done. Good day, sir.
Premise 1 is false.God is not defined simply as perfect.He is defined by certain "great making" attributes.There is a difference,for example,God is not perfectly evil. Premise 2 and 3 falls down in the same way.I can conceive of a greater action than a perfectly evil action committed by a perfectly evil being,for example,a good action!
Premise 4 is false,because it assumes that God cannot or has not the ability to create another universe,you must explain why you believe this assumption.
Ironically,what you describe in premise 5 sounds a lot like how many christians would describe heaven.I say ironically,because what you say in premise 5 and 6 , in effect, is that because heaven (a greater universe or world without evil) is conceivable,then God is not the creator of this universe.
I would be interested in your feedback,and would urge you to not put too much into the other response to your comment.
Please enlighten us all and tell us exactly where "5. A greater universe is conceivable - a universe without evil, death and disaster." is, indeed prove it exists!
If you want to get into the multiverse theory (thought) as a way of defining your position, then you'll need to also prove "into what are those universes expanding", and by that I do mean empirical evidence of WHERE?
It can be both good and bad. If you have lived you should know this.
On Guard is an excellent book. Very sound reasoning.
This is a valid question. But I think the answer is rather simple. God's maximally great nature is necessary. For maximal greatness could not be contingent. If it was contingent, it would not be maximally great.
Therefore nothing dictates his nature. It would be logically impossible to dictate a maximally great nature.
So are you saying that I'm incorrect? My point is simple. A combination of biology & environment dictates morality. It can be perfectly reasoned and 100% explained as such. To simply brush that off as a fallacy and say that morality is proof of God's existence too absolute certainty is ridiculous - yes?
The problem here is semantics. My argument is simple. These things are physical and based in the real world. The consciousness can directly be affected in the real physical world. Call it what you will this is something of which you cannot argue. Therefore it exists in the real physical world.
Look at from 0:8:40 particularly 0:9:08 He argues clearly that an infinite number of things is absurd and therefore he believes cannot be. And when he's doing the maths he's showing how absurd it is and that it cannot be. As it leads to contradictions.
You seem to have lost this argument. We've resolved the argument to a point where God is an indemonstrable concept and exists only in that context.
There is strain in his voice that should be analyzed. I believe that it belies the claim that he believes what he says.
Grasping, aren't you?
All too often nonbelievers throw crap at believers that they need to provide evidence of God because, from their perspective God is all in our heads, but likewise so is the mult-verse and big-bang theory in heads of the atheists. Therefore they need to provide empirical proof to support their own "strawman" anti-theist theories.
Dr Craig always does a good job of destroying the atheist position, pity he wasn't more like Dawkins or Hitchens in his methodology, but he unlike those two is a gentleman.
Funny how instead of providing your evidence you are much more interested in shifting the burden of proof off yourself and your claim God exists onto scientific claims that really have nothing to do with God.
Every single one of his arguments is seriously flawed, he's not really a respected philosopher of religion.
Rubbish he is one of the most respected philosophers out there - AND Dawkins runs away from debates with him.
OK. But he says that the concept of infinity leads to contradictions. I don't think it's right. The concept still applies as any other math concept. What led to a contradiction was his weak math treatment. The idea of an infinite past simply mean that no matter how long you could imagine the beginning there would still be something before. That seemed perfect up to the modern theories.
maybe I removed it because there was a spelling mistake and I made an almost identical comment here straight after without the spelling mistake. Or a typo like of when I meant or. That's normally the case. Otherwise it was a mistake. You're welcome to post it if you think it's not here
He claims that to be all loving is the greatest, but that implies an equalisation of good and evil which jesus never supported, He told people they HAD to be RIGHTEOUS. Muslim guy at the end was cool ma sha Allah...
Imperial College still had Blackboard s 9 years ago. I wonder if they have had an update
No, you cant understand my point. If you think about what may happen when you die, you may see it if you are near death. If an atheist keeps thinking about the prospect of heaven being a place after death, they may see it when they get near death. If you think of something that may happen when you die, a near death experience may cause you to see it. This is supported by neuroscience.
Also, how would someone know what heaven looks like? People would see what they imagined a heaven to be.
There is nothing easier to debunk than the fine tuning argument by Graig:
Lets cite W.C.Craig: " The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design." at 20:05
Lets quickly remind ourselves, that science does not rule out any of the 3, since science also has no information to conclude in favour of any.
- Craig rules out physical necessity, as his god has created physics and is omnipotent, so his god simply wouldnt (have to) restrict himself into any necessities, because that would be just stupid and Craigs god is not that, as he is omniscient/infallible as well.
- Craig rules also out chance, because chance doesnt exist in his worldview anyways. With his god in control of everything, there cant be any chance. That also proposes the question, whether live can have free will, but lets not bother with that, as it is not relevant for this particular question, now. Its more important to realize, that for determining chance, one would need many examples of something happening, but we simply dont have any more universes at hand, than the one we live in. Thus from the logical standpoint, chance cannot be ruled out.
- Craig concludes then by (imagining of) having the other 2 options eliminated, that the only remaining one must be true. The process of eliminating all other options is a valid means of logic, however it comes with one or two necessities to be complete. Those are to proove a) the non-existence of any further options or b) to have the remaining option tested for elimination just like all others before. Craig fails to do b) (maybe he is afraid of doubting the existence of his god, maybe he thinks that this would be blasphemy? Idk) So we are left to go with either believing or thinking, that a) is met. Lets not go into a) any further and do his work at b) instead, as this is so much more fun:
An omnipotent god creating the universe especcially for his other creation, the humans, would create (or fine tune, if anyone wants to stick to that phrase) this universe perfectly right for them, in case this god is also infallible (which may be concluded directly from the claim, that Craig's god is also omniscient). Therefor no human could ever think of a better fitting/adopted/"fine tuned" universe, because Craig's god is both omnipotent and omniscent, so he doesnt make errors and a less fitting/adopted/"fine tuned" universe than any which can be imagined is just that: An error of god. Lets have a quick look at the universe starting with the earth and then zoom out just a little bit, as I understand that most believers dont have it with large numbers:
- A large portion of the earth is not habitable and has quite many diseases waiting for us, but maybe that was gods will (its a feature, not a bug!).
- The moon, fairly important to life on earth, is often used as an example for the fine tuning theory: "Our earth has it exactly as we need it, other planets dont, so the earth was fine tuned for us, voila!" But wait, the moon is not habitable, either. But we can imagine a habitable moon. Isnt therefore this universe not perfect as we can imagine a better one? On the other hand, we might not understand, that such a moon is a necessity for human life on earth? But if so, then god would not be omnipotent, as he has to overcome necessities by making compromises. Furthermore, why dont have other planets just exactly such a moon, arnt they all supposed to be "fine tuned" as part of a "fine tuned" universe?
- In fact, none of the other planets in our solar system is anywhere near beeing habitable either and going to them or even to other solar systems, where habitable planets could have formed (sorry, "been created" by this god "for us to find") is virtually impossible due to radiation. Well, travelling there can also be imagined easier.
- Why are there even a vast number of (please register my efforts to not bother anyone with these inconvenient numbers going far above the simple minds of most believers, who go for the fine tuning argument without having any understanding of the large numbers involved there) other planets, solar systems, galaxies, by all we know about them (in part by crunching these numbers) inhabitable and unreachable anyways? But we can imagine that they were suited for us and reachable quite easily.
Thus this universe is neither "fine tuned" nor created with humans in mind. So it either has come into existence without Graig's god as its creator or Graig's god has failed so hard to the point, that his actions are indistinguable from those of a god, that doesnt exist. Now, that would be chance or physical necessity or something we havent thought of, yet...
Yea. Another issue is that he assumes that the God he claims exists is the Christian God. From his idea, it could be Allah, but he doesn't mention that.
No. I'm sorry, I mean, I didn't understand what you meant. You said " If there were an infinite number of years going back, leading up to now, then let's pretend now hasn't happened, how would we ever reach 2012?" (maybe I didn't get it because of my bad english). "Let's pretend", does it mean "let's suppose"? But in short, I don't see why we couldn't reach any determined point in the time line. Do you mean just because we don't have any first moment?
Looks like you're misunderstanding him. 'cos he doesn't say that. On the contrary. Right at the start of what he says, he says the existence of an infinite number of things leads to absurdities. He is arguing that there cannot be an infinite number of things. There is such a thing as the law of contradiction. Suppose X, now see if that leads to a Contradiction, then that means that X is False. i.e. If X leads to absurdity or contradictions, then he's saying it's reason to believe not X.
i think there's a simple but big flaw in the ontological argument as he presented it. one could change the first premise to say that a max. being possibly doesn't exist. since there are possible worlds where a max. being exists, he can't exist in every world and therefore doesn't exist. is this an issue or am i not realizing something?
Let's suppose you are right. Let's do the same thing with the future then. Do you think there will be a last moment in the Universe? A moment when there will be no more future moments to expect? A last year. That may be the real case. But is it intuitive? Isn't that more problematic than admitting that there will always be a moment after any moment? It's the same reasoning. Intuitively, I think there should a moment one year before any moment. That's the concept behind limitless or infinity.
soo in your opinion if i think of new york city when i die is that what i'll see how long will this image last also in the documentary i saw the atheist said she not only saw heaven but spoke with family members but that was in a cnn documentary i saw in another documentary i saw the person died then came back and said what the operators were doing while she died
" Do you truly believe you can outwit God. You are a creature throwing his hands at the Creator. " This claim is irrelevant to my comment about this video.
God doesnt only hates sin, but also the sinner. God wants everyone to be saved but his love is only found on the cross, everyone else is a child of Satan and the wrath of God abideth over them.
God can also hate the sinner
(Mal 1:3) "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."
(Psa 5:5 KJV) "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."
(Psa 26:5 KJV) "I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked."
(Psa 11:5) "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."
(Lev 26:30) "And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor (totaly despise) you."
(Psa 5:6) "Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man."
(Hos 9:15) "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters."
If we dont trust in the cross and Jesus, is under Gods wrath
(Joh 3:36 KJV) "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
And Islam was created by the Roman-Catholic church to conquer Jerusalem for them. If Muhammad was a prophet then where are his fulfilled prophecies ?
Who uses his THUMB to symbolize “the first” of a list of things? That’s just weird.
That's a compelling argument
Nearly all Europeans I guess. I am surprised you find it odd.