Following a presentation of theistic arguments by William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett gives an impromptu appraisal. Enjoy. And don't forget to rate and subscribe.
Apparently there is an guy named Raphael Lataster that has been studying WLC and his arguments for 4-5 years and reckons he could beat him in a debate. When he challenged WLC to a debate he apparently didn't want to debate a person who didn't hold a doctorate....so now Raphael is finishing his thesis and attaining his doctorate so Craig will debate him (not insinuating that's the sole reason he is doing his doctorate). Will be interesting to see how WLC responds to his challenge! He is writing a book with Richard Carrier called 'Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists'.
Sounds hard for him to do so since he's writing a book holding a fringe position against the historian consensus that Jesus's existence is a historical fact
@@salz446 So what? Craig holds an infinitely more fringe position, factually and scientifically, in believing that this Jesus actually rose from the dead. Shouldn't stop a debate.
@@Bluesruse It is not scientifically nor factually more fringe to hold that Jesus rose from the dead. There are many more scholars that believe Jesus rose from the dead than there are scholars which believe Jesus didn't exist. Some of these are non-christian, even (Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes). Plus, it is easier to find an informed non-christian taking the evidence for the resurrection of Christ seriously (Antony Flew, Alex O'Connor etc.) than finding an informed non-christian taking mythicism seriously (look at what the atheist Tim O'Neil has to say about it, for example. Spoiler: it is not good). But in the end of the day, the resurrection is supported by the evidence and Jesus' mythicism goes against the evidence.
Craig gave me this inspiration: - God works in a way that can not be comprehended by humans - Craig is human - therefore: Craig has no clue what he's talking about with regards to god.
@Martin N what we can comprehend of the god of the bible we learn from the bible. That is enough to know that that god likely does not exist and if it does, it is powerless to intervene.
@@johnelliott5859 wow you have a black belt in ignorance! Have you not read the Book of Revelations? It seems this book flew over your head. Please take time to read Revelations and you will see how God will restore earth back to the time of the state of Garden of Eden and the Devil, Death and Sin is finally dealt with God's wrath and reward the righteous with eternal life.
@@rolandjosef7961 whose interpretation should I focus on? I have read revelations multiple times. However, I don't find the bible a divine authority. Too many errors and some heinous moral issues with the inspirer.
@@johnelliott5859 my friend just read the Bible for yourself. The bible does not sugar coat the evil history of man as it happened so it seems that the Bible heinous book especially when you read the old testament. With a Christian World-view, the history of man is not yet finished as God is giving chance for people to turn to Jesus. Evil will not go on but it will be dealt with at the right time when Jesus comes back the second time to judge all who does evil including all the fallen angels who rebelled and caused suffering on earth. Without God, good people like you has no basis to judge evil works as everything in Atheistic point of view is relative and subjective. Read the Bible and talk to a Christain friend to explain.
He distills cosmological theories into a philosophical framework that helps me understand. No snakes were injured or killed for oil as far as I'm aware.
For me Craig's arguments sound like this: - a lot of assumptions - more assumptions, while repeating words from before to sound deductive - end it with "therefore god"
Taxtro Maybe that has to do with you? Because there are not a single assumption made in any of his popular arguments. Most of his arguments relies on other scientific theories, like the fact that the universe has a beginning. However, that is not an assumption made out of thin air, as you seem to believe. It is very much an educated guess and arguably the most likely scenario given our contemporary knowledge of science. All his arguments are constructed by scientifically consented facts and logic between them. If you disagree, I challenge you to find an example that we can argue over. Since you are making the claim, you have the burden of bringing the evidence. Else, you are just making unfounded statements. Or should I say... Assumptions?
samuel mork bednarz You mean the first part of his Kalam Cosmological argument? "Everything that begins to exist has a cause..." That's not the case. It's merely an argument from intuition. What applies within the universe must not be true for the 'beginning' of said universe. Nonetheless I would be willing to yield that. The second part goes: "The universe began to exist..." Now that's a mere assumption. There is numerous cosmological models of an eternal universe without a beginning. So far it sounds intellectual, but after that he just goes completely bananas, claiming the cause of the universe must be a perfect, personal deity. It's basically passing the bucket; arguing from infinite regress and then stopping.
Taxtro *“"Everything that begins to exist has a cause..."* *That is not the case. It is merely an argument from intuition. What applies within the universe must not be true for the 'beginning' of said universe.”* That is silly. There is not a single example of something coming into existence without a cause. Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations at this in response to me but I hope we don’t have to argue about that because frankly my experience is that when people say that quantum fluctuations make particles “pop” out of nothing they generally have no idea what their talking about. Nonetheless. If you want to make that point, I am ready when you do. In addition, you are right. The argument certainly has an element of strong intuition. However, that is because it is completely logical. Nothing cannot create. Not only have we never seen that it can but in addition, it would be a logical contradiction of terms. If nothing created something, we would stop calling it nothing. Your right that the beginning conditions of the universe was vastly different then the current conditions. Natural laws probably do not apply. However, this is not a natural law. This is a matter of basic logic. Nothing = nothing. *“Nonetheless I would be willing to yield that.”* Fantastic. The second part goes: *“"The universe began to exist..."* *Now that is a mere assumption. There is numerous cosmological models of an eternal universe without a beginning.”* That is not an assumption. The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory. Edward Hubble measured the red shift, which proved that the universe is expanding from a beginning point. Even Einstein initially thought the universe was infinite but then Edward Hubble famously invited him to his telescope to show him the evidence. Following which Einstein made the famous quote “I now see the necessity of a beginning”, you claim that other models explain this. I want to know which? Because all the alternate models I know about have quite famously failed the task. Oscillating models(models in which the universe is expanding and contracting) are all unstable and non the less the BGV theorem proved that even oscillating models have to have a beginning point since no energy could account for it. *“So far it sounds intellectual, but after that he just goes completely bananas, claiming the cause of the universe must be a perfect, personal deity.”* That is not going bananas, he has some very serious, reasonable arguments to support that jump. His argument is based on logic that arrives when interacting with the given facts. If the universe is finite and nothing comes by nothing that means that: there was something prior to the universe that created it. 1:Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time, = space less and timeless. 2:It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent. 3:In addition, it had to be able to make a change in actions in order to derive a change to create a finite universe even when the effect that the change came from is infinite =whatever the “thing” is it had to be capable of making conscious decisions. These are not “assumptions” they all have reasonable grounding. Even if we are wrong. Even if William lane Craig is wrong and there is no god. You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense. Claiming that he argues on assumptions is just being unfair and irrational. It rather makes your bias seem obvious. Tbh.
samuel mork bednarz "That is silly. There is not a single example of something coming into existence without a cause." Yes, that's why I said it is intuitive. All this happens within the cosmos. "Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations" The 'big bang' probably happened by very similar mechanisms. The energy it needs to start our universe is exactly 0. "Nothing cannot create" It's another assumption, that true philosophical nothing even exists. "The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory." The big bang marks an expansion of space-time. Cosmology deals with a larger context. Our universe might only be one of many states of low entropy in a super space. "Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time" Then it cannot be a conscious being. "It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent" How is that? A universe needs no energy to be "created" and it is clearly not created with special care. "whatever the “thing” is it had to be capable of making conscious decisions" Which requires it to have time. "You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense" No, not at all. The argument from the "finely crafted universe" is bad as well, but much better than this one.
Taxtro *“"Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations"* *the 'big bang' probably happened by very similar mechanisms. The energy it needs to start our universe is exactly 0.”* not even close. Although virtual particles pop into existence from no prior material, they do so only, when there is a fluctuating sea of negative and positive energy present. That means that even if it turns out that the universe came about by quantum fluctuations the sea of energy cannot itself be eternal eater and by the same rules you would be reasonably justified in believing that the sea itself has a prior cause. Therefore, you only really pushed the question back. Which is why we say that whatever the base logos is. It has to be outside of time because nr1 it has to account for time nr2 if it is in time it has to be finite since you cannot have an infinite number of events meaning that any cause that is in time will itself have a case. (Unless we are talking potentiality, which we are not in the case of past infinities) conclusion? Every cause must have started by one cause that is outside of time. Thusly, we can also conclude. Quantum fluctuations is not a good explanation. *”"Nothing cannot create"* *It's another assumption, that true philosophical nothing even exists.”* I never said it does (currently). I am fully aware that we have very little to no examples of any kind of vacuum containing zero particles. However, the trial of logic is saying that if all things have a start there was a time when not all those same things existed. The question is. What did exist before the other things? Normally in nature things never appear, they just change state. Like a tree is changed into a chair by means of kinetic energy usually involving tools. However, quantum mechanics proved that although we do not have example of nothing in the philosophical sense things could have a start without needing prior material. Though the same line of quantum mechanics proved that even things that do appear without any prior material cannot do so on its own. This all accumulates to a very reasonable claim= nothing cannot make something. If you want to say, “well we don’t have any examples of ‘absolutely nothing” then that is a valid point but it hardly proves that “nothing”, when it is here, could make something. That is my point. If you can consent to that one hypothetical scenario then we can further the discussion to figure out if there actually ever was any “nothing” Furthermore, if our space-time has a start, then unless our space-time came about from another space-time then there had to be nothing prior to it. In the philosophical sense. I know you might want to say that we might have come from a past space-time. In addition, that is not an unreasonable statement but as I already argued. Even that space-time has to have had a beginning. Therefore, you would only push the question back, so at bottom you have not really explained anything. This means that the only two possibilities is that there exist an infinite number of past universes. Alternatively, that there exist a cause outside of time that made the universe out of nothing. To be frank both of these alternatives sound fucking insane. However, I have come to learn that when we get this deep into science most things does. Quantum mechanics sounds sketchy to. No matter how insane, one of these have to be true. As long as at least on of them is possible, it does not matter how insane it is. So which one is it? An infinite number of mother universes or a base creator? In think, we can agree that actual infinities are nothing but an idea and can’t actually exist unless time is constantly moving backwards and forwards at the same time. Which is completely insane all by itself. Alternatively, maybe time is a cube like on the b theory of time. Which means that time is actually not moving forward rather every time is all the time actual. Which is also insane. Alternatively, as I believe. Something is outside of time that like quantum fluctuations is capable of creating material from non-material but on a much larger scale. This Last one might sound equally crazy but it is just as reasonable as any other explanation and in my own opinion, it makes more sense since we can already test for these kind of properties and the alternative seems to rely on making time infinite in the past, which I am convinced, is actually impossible. We can argue all you want but claiming that I am making assumptions is a gross lack of knowledge about the complicated logic behind it. *"The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory."* *The big bang marks an expansion of space-time. Cosmology deals with a larger context. Our universe might only be one of many states of low entropy in a super space.* are you referring to some type of oscillating model? I already dealt with that. Do you want be to go into detail? *"Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time"* *Then it cannot be a conscious being.* why? Like you, yourself implied. We do not know about the state of things in the vacuum of nothing. (Nothing meaning the lack of time in addition to space) I am saying that according to our logic there had to be a conscious mind outside of time. Are you saying there is a contradiction? You should further detail your position so I can more effectively deal with it. Else, I am just shooting in the dark. *”"It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent"* *How is that? A universe needs no energy to be "created" and it is clearly not created with special care.”* I disagree, it clearly is created with special care, but that is an entirely different discussion. Now to your question, because the thing that created everything had to be able to create everything; else it would not have been able to create it, IA by definition Omnipotent. Regardless of how much energy he/she/it had to use to create it (which is probably zero since there could not have been any preexisting material. So your probably right about the energy input) *"You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense"* *No, not at all. The argument from the "finely crafted universe" is bad as well, but much better than this one.* I think your underestimating the argument. I hold my opinion. You have to be able to at least admit that this argument is well thought through and deserves our research. If not then I find it hard to take you seriously.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Ha, hardly. He is much more combative and much more of a gamesman; using rhetorical technique and a debating prowess to try and "win." Dan just has a kind hearted good faith conversation. Actually, the fact that you think Craig does the same makes me think you havent watched very much of his content or if you have then you arent being very objective. Craig is a first rate debater, in the event you think they make great conversationalists go try his techniques at your next dinner party and see how many friends you make.
"He distills cosmological theories into a philosophical framework that helps me understand." His Kalam argument is built on false premises and makes illogical leaps. It is a fallacy, not a framework, not a theory. It doesn't help you understand anything. He uses word games to mislead you. He robs you of understanding. "No snakes were injured or killed for oil as far as I'm aware." Yeah, that's the point of snake oil. It isn't actually snake oil. Hence, the scam.
The problem with debates like these is that I believe that most of Craig's fans are fairly hard core Christians, most of whom, I believe are not good enough critical thinkers to understand either argument. So what they hear is two highly educated men spewing complex philosophical ideas, and simply like the sound of one better than the other.
Depressingly plausible. I can't help but wonder how many Craig fans stopped listening to him when he started saying that killing children and infants was actually a good thing. Consider the stereotype that many of his fans are those who are easily emotionally manipulated, then consider the big red button that is 'kill kids for god'. There had to have been some backlash over that. I also wonder what it says about those who continue to support him and where they fall on the emotion-rationality scale.
@@tehspamgozehere They are SO good at rationalizing though. My favorite uncle was a very devout, and also a very smart man, but when it comes to topics like this, he can twist himself in knots trying to figure out how to justify it.
William Lane Craig is the most arrogant pseudo-intellectual I’ve ever read. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how he gained the respect he enjoys.
What Daniel means to say is that William merely presents arguments that to his audience seem the most intuitive and likely. He always leads the audience like "everyone knows this" or "this is just common sense". Ie: he is a wonderful orator. Unfortunately the majority of his arguments when actually tested are devoid of any merit and at best lead to a deist view and the theist view he is shooting for (this is the example Daniel gave)
If true, then why does he appear to win most of the debates? If everyone on youtube is aware of all these obvious "flaws" then why do the debtors never seem to be prepared for them? Craig's been using pretty much the same debate and structure for over 20 years. Kalam's refutations have not held up in a debate, only on kiddos youtube response videos.
" If everyone on youtube is aware of all these obvious "flaws" then why do the debtors never seem to be prepared for them?" - They are, and in most of these debates I get linked of WLC "owning" his opponent the person did refute every argument quite well, but only the good ones can communicate it in a well enough fashion where the audience that is already on WLC's side sees it as anything except being on the defensive. There has been much debate (ironic) as to whether these debates even matter or if they even counterproductive since who reasons the best is not often the winner of the debate and instead of making people think about what they believe they usually make people 'double down' on their opinion and believe it even harder.
This is probably a bad idea, but I'll indulge it a bit. I don't generally debate people on youtube because it's a) a waste of time, b) mob mentality and the lowest common denominator tends to come out and C) I doubt anyone is actually interested in exploring the topic, just want to sound clever with cut and paste from how to argue with Christian/Athiests websites. Don't take it personally, I don't know you and have nothing against you. Having a claim against an argument is not a refutation. WLC has been a very willing player for a lot of arguments against Kalam, and made concessions throughout his career where necessary. When challenged appropriately, he concedes (not during the debate) and modifies his arguments. For example, he backed off claims against mass hallucinations when presented with evidence. There are others, this one just comes to mind first. Most simply put, WLC may be a genius, but he has a lot of people helping him test and refine his approach. He's not a singular mind. He's not actually even trying to prove God through syllogisms like Thomas Aquinas failed at. The purpose is more to show that there is compatibility with science and faith, and that one does not need to "turn off the brain" to believe in God. So, in that vein, the debates are good. Saying people only "believe it harder" only helps demonstrate it is not an intellectual matter. Belief is fundamentally a moral choice. As Anthony Flew (atheist at the time) says, Christians believe because they want to, Atheists don't believe because they don't want to. So, for us Christians, the debates are not a matter of proving God or no God, but making the sure people understand that the choice of a God is acceptable to the rational mind. To be honest, God, to us, is not a matter of the mind as much as it is of the heart.
"Don't take it personally, I don't know you and have nothing against you." - Never would. I understand the same pitfalls of communication on RUclips. I always strive to behave differently and stick to the issues and not let things devolve into some back and forth mud fight. "The purpose is more to show that there is compatibility with science and faith, and that one does not need to "turn off the brain" to believe in God. So, in that vein, the debates are good." - On one level I can respect this approach, on another I think it's a bit of a sellout. A discussion about the concept of a theistic being in the universe not being in absolute contention with 'science' or the scientific method is one thing. To say that "faith" and science can mix doesn't work though when you start talking about specific faith beliefs and the person is unwilling to move that belief in the face of evidence showing that belief to be false. There is a very good reason WLC rarely talks about his faith specifically; he can give arguments that are in actuality arguing for at most some vague often deistic and not even theistic concept and the audience can then hear that argument and take it as a sound argument for their faith beliefs and God when they are not. WLC has furthermore said of his personal faith that he does not value scientific evidence very highly. "Saying people only "believe it harder" only helps demonstrate it is not an intellectual matter." - That I would be in total agreement with. The two sides are fundamentally fighting different fights. The fact that an audience member can hear something from the other side that should be contradictory to their belief and make them think instead usually makes people anchor their belief in even deeper is because both sides are looking for something different in the debate. If I'm moved by moral claims, by faith claims, then scientific concepts and reasoning are not likely to phase me and visa versa. As far as people identifying as a member of a particular religion or identifying as non-religious I try not to let that factor into my judgment of a person because there are great people (smart, moral, list off the good things) on all sides of that divide, as well was people that I wouldn't associate with for that matter.
Anthony Landrum "To say that "faith" and science can mix doesn't work though when you start talking about specific faith beliefs and the person is unwilling to move that belief in the face of evidence showing that belief to be false." So science can prove the existence of God. Which is what this statement means. For in order to prove a belief false, the process has to be able to prove the belief true also. The most common belief, let's say young "Earthers", you (or someone) claims science proves this false. Well sir, you are just flat out wrong. Anything using time as a factor is only accomplished through non-provable relationships based on an assumption of "conceptual measurements". There is absolutely not one person on this planet that has observed the Earth making 4.5 billion revolutions around the sun. There is absolutely not one scientist on this planet that has predated something using carbon 14,13 or radioactive isotopes and then observed those processes for millions of years to prove the claimed outcome. Which, direct observation is necessary for it to be science. There are approximately 30 different "scientific" measurements within nature that contradict each other in regards to when this planet was capable of sustaining life. One example is the increasing amount of helium in the Earths atmosphere due to radioactive decay. The age of the Earth;s atmosphere is a point of contention in regards to the accuracy of other claimed sciences concerning this topic.The helium we observe in today’s atmosphere is a function of its initial concentration when the atmosphere was formed and a balance between the flux in and the flux out. The differential equation for this situation is: dn dt = − c c 1 2n Assuming c1 = 2 × 106 atoms cm-2/sec-1 and c2 = 4.54 × 10-16sec-1, the time required to reach the helium concentration of today’s atmosphere would be 1.76 million years. This period is over 2,500 times shorter than the generally assumed age of the earth. If on the other hand, N(o) was not zero, but half of today’s concentration, the time would drop to 890,000 years. If n(o) was 9/10 of today’s concentration, the time would only be 180,000 years. An alternative to the long-age model, and one which runs counter to the basic assumption of the evolutionary/uniformitarian model, is that the earth’s atmosphere is relatively young (less than 10,000 years). Under this assumption, the helium content of today’s atmosphere would be almost completely primordial. During the 10,000 years or so since its creation, less than 1% of today’s helium would have been added by the decay of radioactive materials in the crust. The recent discoveries of helium coming through the crust from the mantle where no radioactive decay process is known to produce helium, has led to the statement that primordial helium exists in the mantle. Why then, is it so hard to believe that primordial helium also exists in the atmosphere? The lack of an escape mechanism and the likelihood that, the helium we observe in the atmosphere is primordial provides evidence that the earth’s atmosphere is quite young. I have merely posted the summary prior to the conclusion that was at the end of a very long scientific publication. refs. Bates, D. R. & McDowell, M. R. C. (1957). Atmospheric helium. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 11, 200-208. Mayne, I. E. (1956). Terrestrial helium. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 9, 174-182. Nicolet, M. (1957). The aeronomic problem of helium. Annals de Geophysique, Tome 13, Fascicule 1, 1-21. Nicolet, M. (1961). Helium, an important constituent in the lower exosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 66(7), 2263-2264. Turekian, K. K. (1959). The terrestrial economy of helium and argon. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 17, 37-43. Larry Vardiman PhD.
Craig admits that logic aside he will believe in the mythical Jesus no matter what because Craig had a feeling in his heart. That just shows that his arguments are a smokescreen for subjective arbitrary belief. Is the heart a cognitive organ? Or does he mean that he has superior emotional experiences which trump facts and reality? So reason be damned. Jesus communicated with him and that's good enough for him.
Even if Craig's perfectly valid arguments are the smokescreen for a feeling in his heart, the fact remains: his arguments are perfectly valid. I'll explain. First, it's a law of logic called the principle of sufficient reason which states that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Secondly, Alexander Vilenkin has gone on the record stating, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” That means that the first law of logic, when compounded with the BGV theorem, predicts - necessarily - a cosmic cause. C=A+B if and only if A+B does = C; therefore C= A+B. The logic is as inescapable as the math used to calculate the rate of cosmic expansion. The universe had a beginning, and everything that begins also has a cause. What, then, is the nature of this cause? Dr. Craig then proposes that the cause of the universe must've been either due to physical necessity, chance or God. He demonstrates precisely why physical necessity and chance cannot be considered plausible candidates for the universe. Physical necessity can't explain such an outcome because nothing physically exists prior to the cosmic beginning, and chance can't explain the outcome because the odds of the universe coming into being within life-permitting parameters are 1 in 10 to the 500th' power. And since it's completely implausible to believe the universe is a consequence of physical necessity or chance, that means the universe must be the consequence of God. In other words, his argument goes like this. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause of the universe is either physical necessity, chance, or God. The cause of the universe is neither physical nor chance. Therefore, the cause of the universe is God."
" The cause of the universe is either physical necessity, chance, or God." As my good buddy Father Guido would say, you have proof of this? Could be universe farting pixies. After all, if "the odds of the universe coming into being within life-permitting parameters are 1 in 10 to the 500th' power," then there ya go 'cause here we are. As my dear friend and confidant Sally Bowles puts it, "It's gotta happen, happen sometime."
Proof is not evidence. Proof is a logical process of checking the logic. By falsifying necessity and chance, God is proven by law of logical consequence.
First, you haven't shown that necessity, chance, or some god are the only choices. For all we know, there could be some timeless quantum field we haven't figured out yet that makes our being here now the cause of the universe coming into being then. Second, if a god, which god? There are a few thousand, you know. And third, your god is proven by logical consequence? Please. The only logical answer at this point in our explorations is "We don't know, but we're working on it."
It's actually quite simple. The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic which states any principle which contradicts itself must be false. In this case, your search for a NATURAL reason for the universe that ISN'T causally rationalizable is a contradiction in terms. Thus there can be no NATURAL reason for the cause of the universe in terms of natural causality that isn't self-refuting. Secondly, your search for a NATURAL reason which ISN'T government by mathematical possibilities is a contradiction in terms. In this case, your search for a NATURAL reason for the universe that isn't statistically rationalizable is a contradiction in terms. Thus there can be no NATURAL reason for the cause of the universe in terms of natural causality that isn't self-refuting. As for third options other than God? That's the logical fallacy of moving the goal post - the error of logic of inventing new conditions to avoid having to admit a conclusion when the conclusion has satisfied the initial conditions. Your demand that we invent a third option to avoid having to admit God's existence is logically fallacious and unjustified. Furthermore, it's a contradiction in terms: the search for a natural reason for the universe that isn't rationalizable in terms of reason itself, which deals solely in either statistics or causality in so far as rational causation is concerned. So here's what we know. It's a contradiction to claim the universe itself was caused by necessity, and it's a contradiction in terms to claim the universe itself was caused by statistical fortune. The existence of a third, unknown option is logically fallacious to propose in terms that aren't either governed by logical laws of cause and effect or statistical chance. It is also self-contradictory. Therefore, we've shown that necessity and chance are the only logically possible alternatives to God. You're argument is refuted.
Hucksters have a true talent, or skill, that most of us don't have, and this is why they excel at public debates. Most of us aren't adept at "thinking on our feet" when confronted; our brains don't work that way. We may be capable of thinking wonderfully complex and abstract thoughts when we have time to process, uninterrupted. We may be able to concentrate on logic and reason when we're not distracted. We may be able to easily refute ridiculous assertions in the comfort of our living rooms. But in the moment, or in public, most of us freeze, or react instinctively with thoughtless "fight or flight" . . . or are distracted by noise or flash or motion or emotion. Hucksters have no such issues, and they are masters of taking advantage of our instinctive emotional avoidance of conflict. So I acknowledge their talent . . . but they are still liars, still despicable, and still wrong. Most of us know better, but we don't trust our own thoughts, because the hucksters seem so comfortable and confident in their lies. Trust yourself. Take your time. Craig is a confident huckster.
Wow, at around 2:30 mins I had to pause and address his obvious bait and switch, he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's and even admits that on the Quantum level, there is so much unknown that it is mind boggling, therefore all he did was spew out a huge line of pretentious talk to butter up a simple statement of "I don't know therefore WLC is wrong" I actually became embarrassed for him when he said that abstract objects can cause things to happen and his example of adding a support wedge to ones outside wall, is not even close to showing that to be true, as the triangle can not do anything by itself, it cant create itself, nor put itself to good use as a support system, something else has to provide the input for it to happen so in no way shape or form did he prove that an abstract object can cause anything to happen on it's own. I don't even think a support wedge can even be considered an abstract object in the first place. Considering he said that though, he just made a huge idiot of himself and was he actually trying to suggest that an apple is an abstract object as well? He completely lost me on that one.
+parodyisms "Wow, at around 2:30 mins I had to pause and address his obvious bait and switch, he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's and even admits that on the Quantum level, there is so much unknown that it is mind boggling, therefore all he did was spew out a huge line of pretentious talk to butter up a simple statement of "I don't know therefore WLC is wrong" " No. He made the point that WLC uses folk intuitions about reality that are predicated on our everyday experience to talk about creation, thereby extrapolating from extrapolations, themselves extrapolated from daily experience. Dennett then pointed to the fact that you don't get to QM by multiple abstractions on anecdotal evidence, but QM, what grasp we have on it, does explain our existence, and consistently makes accurate predictions about things, i.e. the quantum tunnelling that our computer chips rely on. That's not a bait and switch, that's pointing out that WLC uses comforting and tractable ideas from the everyday to support his conception of God, but our everyday doesn't involve interaction directly with quarks or neutrinos or spooky action, despite the fact that our world is described by exactly these things. What's ironic is that WLC's doing this merely supports the hypothesis that man created God in his own image to explain the universe in a manner that is tractable and familiar. How would you get to the idea of quantum tunnelling by abstracting from everyday ideas... unless you had the idea of quantum tunnelling first, and retrofitted a folksy "explanation" post hoc?
parodyisms I do, but as you apparently don't (but think you do), here's a link to clarify... www.issuepedia.org/Semantic_bait-and-switch "...he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's..." WLC's "arguments" are themselves a bait and switch. It hinges on the use of words like universe or creation, in one sense it is the materialistic, natural universe, in the other it is the non-material, supernatural chimera of WLC's imagination (based in some part on Biblical cosmology). Dennett is not engaging in a bait and switch, he is attempting to undo WLC's by pointing out that you can't abstract and abstract and abstract from personal experience, and then somehow use the outcome to supersede quantum mechanics. The irony here being that it's WLC that tells us that abstract objects have no causal power.
Dr. Dennett, if personal causation breaks down to scientific causation than your ideas used to vigorously defend against Harris, and his disregard for the notions freewills existence, are at odds with this claim. Are you a Determinist when debating Craig but then an advocate of freewill up until then? Flip flopping your own intellectual consistency, your state of thought depending on your need to defeat the Theist or on remaining consistent and coherent in your interpretation of reality?
Dennett is a compatabilist. He thinks both free will and determinism are true. I believe his basic position is that higher-level organisms with consciousness (humans, monkeys, dolphins, etc.) have more "freedom" to choose different paths than a beetle, for example, because of their highly developed brains. At the same time, however, environmental factors will always influence which options are available, and often the brain will pick one at random _or_ the environment will force a decision. Either way, it's always the brain and its materialist functions that determine human behavior, _not_ anything spiritual or superstitious like a "soul." Because he thinks both are true to some extent, he is at odds with both Craig (who believes solely in free will) _and_ Harris (who is convinced that pure determinism is accurate).
Ok so here Is Dennett's talk in a nutshell: The premises of the argument sound reasonable, the logic seems to be valid. I cant find a fallacy here. But i dont like the conclusion of the argument so let me just babble about random stuff that is, at best, irrelevant, at worst, stupid. So, quantum mechanics is complicated and weird maybe the idea of an apple is the cause of the universe maybe the square root of seven is the cause of the universe maybe euclidean geometry causes things contemporary cosmology is also complicated i wished Vilenkin and Guth were here to save my ass the trouble with a changeless God is that it is changeless Maybe it would have been better to have Christopher Hitchens there to refute the argument by explaining why Mother Teresa was evil...
I'm a little confused at your argument, please clarify. I didn't say the force has a reason for being. I said that the observable, physical world shows that matter cannot appear from nothing and since we can only observe the physical world, we cannot scientifically or logically break that physical world down to explain where the physical world came from. It is not more scientific or logical to say that it just appeared or it was always there than it is to say something supernatural made it so.
What is missing from all these debates about the existence of the god is how is god universally defined by all Christians. Once god is defined in Christian terms, then you can proceed to debate on the existence of the Christian god.
@@lawrence1318 That is not universal definition of the christian god. Furthermore, there is no agreement as to who jesus was and if there was an actual jesus with divine powers. You are using statements from the bible to prove that statements from the bible are true. That is circular reasoning.
@@UCVOmXnVB724jCE5iNcl No it is not circular. Jesus Christ existed as a man on earth and defined God by His activities: He showed what God was like and what God's standards are and how God thinks. So God is defined by Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is also God. So we understand by this that only God can reveal what God is like. He did this in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son and who is therefore God, for God the Son is God just as much as God the Father is God. God is a trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. God the Son became flesh and dwelt among men and revealed who God was by what He said and how He lived and how He died and how He rose again. Now ... off you go to read your New Testament instead of hearing bits and pieces on the internet.
You must be jesting. I think Craig's debate with Sam Harris is very telling, he basically picks him apart with pure logic. It's actually quite beautiful.
I fundamentally disagree. I worked in IT for many years and experienced none of what you describe. Let's not forget the many many benefits IT has given to society, and will continue to. Theocracy is another matter, but even theocracy cannot deny what IT has done for modern society.
People don't generally "get over" atheism, but they often get sick of arguing with thick headed people who care nothing about facts or logic, so they finally give up on those people.
I find everyone's amazement at WLC's version of the Kalam Cosmological argument mindboggling. Hearing Daniel Dennett say that he finds WLC's premises plausible is exceptional. I can stomp his argument into the ground in +-40 sentences, and I havent even tried to condense it yet, i'm pretty sure I can reduce it to 20 or less: The Kalam Cosmological argument falls apart at every possible turn. It starts with: "The Universe must have had a cause, and since time and space came into being together with the Universe, the cause must have been timeless and spaceless" The first problem here is that this is simply an assertion on Craig's part. It is only OUR Time and Space that came into being, it's completely possible for there to have been a precursory Space/Time, wich is also far more likely since we actually have an example of a Space/Time and we have no examples of a 'Spaceless/Timeless something' Then there is the problem of existance, since existance is defined as either being Space/Time, or within Space/time, it follows that whatever is Spaceless/Timeless doesnt exist. It's like asking 'What existed before existance existed?' it's as nonsensical as it gets. The argument is buried right here, but let's assume something Spaceless/Timeless can indeed exist, however insane, and let's assume that is what is required for the cause of the Universe. He goes on by saying: 'the only possible candidates for such a cause are either Abstractions like numbers, or Minds' Well this is nothing more then a logical fallacy, it's an argument from personal incredulity. Since HE doesnt know of anything else that fits the bill, it MUST therefore be one of these two options. But again, let's suppose there is something here worth adressing. The first problem is that Ideas/Concepts like numbers, are physical in the sense that I have 4 marbles on my table, or physical in the sense that the Idea/Concept wich they represent in my brain, are at the molecular/atomic level also physical. The second problem is that Minds are dependant upon brains, and brains are physical, we have no examples of a non-physical mind. We dont have an example of non-physicality period. The Universe is made up of Two things: Space/Time, and Energy/Matter. Space/Time might at first glance seem non-physical, but this is not true, Both have physical properties, Both can be Manipulated, measured, Stretched and curved. And both are in my view Quantized (i.e. Not Infinitely divisible) Because if Space/Time could be infinitely divided, one could Imagine an Infinite amount of 'waypoint markers' in between a given point A and B If any object wishes to traverse from Point A to point B, It would have to travel through an infinite amount of waypoints, causing it to never arrive anywhere. But we know that objects are indeed able to travel from A to B, I can get up from my seat, and walk to the bathroom. So since we know that movement between places is possible, it follows that Space/Time must be Quantized and not infinitely divisible. So everything is physical, there is no such thing as NON-physical. Even Ideas and concepts are physical, If I think of an Idea, that is at some level represented by physical structures in my brain, if I choose to write my idea down, now the idea is physical in the form of Ink on paper. Many people here get confused by the term Information, they argue that just ink on paper isnt Information, and that the Information an idea contains is non-physical. Well this makes no sense, The slip of paper with my idea in an empty room is just that, a physical piece of paper with physical ink, no information there. If I enter the room, and am able to deduce information from this Ink, What allows me to deduce that information is the physical structures in my brain. I then create whatever 'information' I deduce from the slip of paper as yet more physical structures in my brain. There is no 'real' non-physical space in between the slip of paper and the physical structures that represent ideas in my brain for an idea to occupy. The non-physical simply equates to non-existant. - And herein lies WLC's hucksterism, He believes minds are non-physical, why? Well apart from alot of confusion on the subject of physics and philosphy, it's because he believes in Souls. And why does he believe in Souls? Well because the bible says so. Craig's argument is just a very long, drawn out "its true because the bible says its true" - nothing more. is this really thát hard to see? I Agree that in many of his debates he doesnt get floored as hard as he should be, but why this doesnt happen confuses me immensely. His argument can be boiled down to "the bible says so" in about 40 sentences or so. It's really not that difficult, I just did it.
Congratulations, this does makes sense. I also do find WLC's arguments boil down to "the Bible says so". I'm astonished too that he didn't get floored until now.But also, I think Sean Caroll laid the ultimate smack down on WLC's ass. So, are you a philosopher,friend?
Atheists find it hard to argue with Craig because ... well... it's hard to argue with Craig. So they have to make these subtle ad hominem attacks instead. Disagree with Craig on almost every issue, but to dismiss him as a dialectical acrobat is unfair.
nicksum29 This. I have never seen a response to WLC's arguments that wasn't either Ad Hominem or a complete strawman, with the exception of 2 atheists, Graham Oppy and Quentin Smith. Those are the only 2 atheists that I think have anything worthwhile to say. Also, Peter Millican is a cool guy. Other than that, the new atheists are a bunch of sophists calling other people sophists, for all I can see.
Endeavor I wouldn't call the new atheists "new". They contribute very little new material, and that which they do contribute is usually so riddled with patchwork references that one statement contradicts the other. Much like reading the Gospels, ironically enough.
nicksum29 The main difference between a 'new' atheist and the traditional atheist is that the catholic church is not allowed to burn them at the stake anymore.
It wasn't terribly persuasive, but it did offer me some new insights. I also appreciated that his tone felt open, and thought-provoking, as opposed to antagonistic.
Mr. Dennett challenges the notion that the abstraction of things can't cause things (6:53), going further to provide an example where Euclidean geometry (an abstraction) can be used to stabilize a structure. This is a poor example in my opinion, because he attributes agency to abstraction rather than to the house owner who appreciates both the abstraction and its practical application. The agency, the cause, belongs to the house owner, not the abstraction. Mere abstraction has no agency, per se.
@@SC-zq6cu The example of triangulation that Mr. Dennett offers as an example of abstraction effect cause is deflective because he ignores in his own reference to the abstract principle of triangulation the workman who exploits the principle to cause his house to become stable. Cause does not always require agency. True. Sometimes cause is itself just a link in a chain of determinate events. Other times it be a statistical fluctuation. Either of these models is built upon abstract models, which may lead one to ask: Where do the abstractions come from? Why is there a Golden Ratio that is found in so many places? Why is the ratio of the circumference of circle to its diameter pi? Why does one plus one equal two? After all the only reason we say it does so is because it's always seen to be so... It is the agency behind abstraction in its formulation and application that is being posited here.
I have a lot of respect for Dennett, but I he's completely wrong about Craig. Craig's most common arguments have *more holes than substance*, so they are very easy to tear down. One example: morality *1)* Craig likes to use the term "objective morality", but that's an *oxymoron*. He is confusing *ad populum* / commonly agreed upon social norms (resulting from humans evolving in groups) with *objectivity*. Or, he doesn't know the meaning of the word "objective": From Merriam-Webster: *Objective* - adjective 1: based on *facts* rather than *feelings* or *opinions* : *not* influenced by feelings 2: philosophy : existing *outside of the mind* : existing in the real world Morality originates from and only exists in *minds*, so "objective morality" is an *oxymoron*, like "dry liquid" (dryness = an *absence* of liquids). *2)* Anyone who claims that religious morality is superior, clearly hasn't read the horrible ideas in the Old Testament or the Quoran, or is in *denial*. (child sacrifice, genocide, infanticide, slavery, stoning for minor offenses and the whole infinite punishment for finitie crimes idea (hell), all committed and condoned by god). In fact, secular morality is *inherently superior*: When an atheist helps a less fortunate person, it's truly selfless because he's *not expecting anything* in return. When a religious person does it, there are strings attached (preaching/converting) and/or he's expecting a "payment" (heaven). That's not charity. It's a *business transaction*. *3)* The origin and variety of morals is a lot more consistent with evolution. We evolved in groups: flocks, packs, tribes etc. Tribes that allowed eating babies and murder died out (duh!). It's that simple. No need for gods, leprechauns etc. *4)* Craig has no good answer to the Euthyphro dilemma: Is an idea fundamentally moral just because god said it, or is there an inherent morality and god is just a messenger? If the former is true, anything god says goes (again, see the Old Testament etc.). If the latter is true, then there is no need for god for morals. If you don't have morals on your own, how do you know that god is the good guy and the devil is the bad guy? You had to reach that conclusion somehow! Christians will say that "god wrote this into people's heart". Well, first of all, the hart is a pump..., but: So, god programmed us to think that he's the good guy? Well, that's exactly what a villain would do, so that does not answer anything. *5)* Can you even call god moral? Just consider the idea of hell: If you're a parent, would torture your children for eternity, simply for not loving you? Hopefully, your answer is along the lines of "hell no" (excuse the pun). Congratulations! You are more moral than god! That's just one of Craigs favorite topics, his other ones are just as easy to debunk, but I don't want to take up the whole thread.
***** Very true. It's baffling how theists convinced themselves that faith without evidence is a good thing. But faith without evidence = *gullibility*. Otherwise, they should just send their money to those Nigerian princes with the emails... At least, they would be *consistent* with the whole not needing evidence thing... Gabor's first rule comes to mind: "Without evidence, a sack of claims is worth the sack." And that's all religions are...
Oh my gosh... You are saying Craig doesn't know what objective means!? He is a doctor of philosophy and doesn't know what objective means!? You learn that in intro to philosophy courses!!! Shut up!!!
***** Exactly! Apparently, Craig (and you) can not read the friggin' *dictionary*! From Merriam-Webster: *objective*, noun: *1)* based on *facts* rather than *feelings* or opinions : *not* influenced by feelings *2)* *philosophy* : existing *outside of the mind* : existing in the real world Morals are *feelings*. They are *software* running on computers, called *human brains*. Morals can *only* exist in minds. They can *not* exist *without* minds. *Objects*, like rocks *don't have morals*. Ever notice the *root* of the word "objective": *object*? Only *subjects* have morals, so *by definition*, morals are *subjective*. Ever notice the *root* of the word "subjective": *subject*? So, "objective morals" is an *oxymoron*! Look at *2*! The official definition in *philosophy*, *Craig's own field*, disagrees with him! And don't make me laugh! A "doctor of philosophy" is like a "doctor of religious studies". It's a useless, *bullshit degree*, with highly *subjective* standards. No wonder, Craig doesn't have a *real* job! On the other hand, look at the most vocal atheists: They are *scientists*. People who actually *know* what the hell they are talking about, regarding the universe and human minds / biology. Unlike philosoply, when you get a doctorate in science, you actually have to *prove* with *hard evidence* that your shit *works*. Einstein, Feynman, Weinberg: Nobel prize-winning physicists Harris: accomplished neuroscientist. Dawkins: accomplished biologist. Tyson: accomplished astrophysicist. Krauss: accomplished astrophysicist.
***** This is why philosophy is *obsolete*. A philosopher is just a scientist-wanna-be, without the *lab* and the *equipment*. He's trying to understand the universe from his arm-chair, using his *human* intuition. This kind of worked until about a 100 years ago, when we discovered quantum mechanics and the expanding universe. And we needed *instruments* do do it! They are both so unintuitive (especially QM), that they made us realize, we can *not* understand the universe, by *only* relying on our intuition. Our primitive intuition evolved in the African savannah, to avoid lions and to make babies. It's a nice side-effect that we can understand the universe, but *only* with strict, scientific standards and by carefully avoiding the limitations of the brain. This is why people who don't have such strict standards, believe in nonsense, like gods and unicorns.
***** I'm not lumping them all together. As you say, the kind of philosophy theists push, is pretty much complete BS, built on logical fallacies, double standards and *dishonesty*. The rest of philosophy, while mostly *honest*, has just become (mostly) obsolete because of the reasons I mentioned. Sure, it may be *interesting* to contemplate the universe from our arm chairs, but it's *not sufficient any more*. Human "common sense" and "intuition" alone, can *not* discover *new information* about the universe. You need (often expensive) equipment for that. If we could just intuit the nature of the universe, we wouldn't need to spend hundreds of billions on experiments, satellites with cutting-edge instruments and so forth. Philosophy can be useful for helping out science with posing the right questions, but even that requires knowledge of the latest observations (with the mentioned equipment), so it's not "pure" arm-chair philosophy any more...
For a guy who claims to be a Philosopher, Daniel Dennet sure didn't have much to say in response to WLC. He's trying to respond with bamboozlement, very artfully put. He appears to know nothing about either science OR philosophy.
"For a guy who claims to be a Philosopher," > It's not a claim. He IS a philosopher like it or not. Daniel Dennet sure didn't have much to say in response to WLC. > So we've just been listening to almost 11 minutes of silence have we? I think not. It would be very interesting if you could supply an accurate synopsis of the main points Dennett has made here... or if you'd decline or simply provide a straw man instead. Feel free to surprise me because I'm expecting you to decline this request. - Am I wrong? If so let's hear it... He's trying to respond with bamboozlement, very artfully put. > Please explain how can a saying "I'm not convinced there's a god" or words to that effect be 'bamboozlement' when it's not even a claim? He appears to know nothing about either science OR philosophy. > But appearances can be deceptive. 'Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Albert Einstein
So basically, Dennett's response to all of Craig's arguments is, "Well the explanation is going to be mind-boggling, contrary to common sense, and we just don't know what the explanation is yet." Craig's case, however, attempts to show that one explanation is *less* "mind-boggling", *more* sensible, and more plausible. I'm sorry, but Dennett's response is all attitude no substance.
Vic 2.0 Yet, to assert a scientifically unverifiable god is? Craig's explanation is more or less a sophisticated argument of the god of the gaps. While Dennett is conceding the possibility of WLC's assertion, he's not committing to it because he's not that arrogant. I would grant you that guys like John Lennox could raise some questions about the possibilities of a prime mover, but you still have the arduous task of connecting this god to a religion (in most cases Christianity, Muslims), which then leaves you with an even greater task of justifying the immoral actions of this god. FYI - divine command theory is not an acceptable response. If you impose regions laws on people, giving this deity of yours a pass in abiding these laws is morally dishonest and hypocritical. In short, it's far reaching, lacks critical thinking and a compromise to one's innate morals to reach that conclusion. But hey, if it brings you purpose and comfort, have at it. Just keep that to yourself and out of the schools and government.
Francis Dakis Actually, Craig's arguments follow what we *do* know and reasoning, to arrive at their conclusions. It's not "god of the gaps" at all. And I certainly never implied that because Dennett's arguments are weak, that that somehow proves theism! I'm an atheist myself. But that doesn't preclude me from admitting when a theist's arguments are better than an atheist's. "but you still have the arduous task of connecting this god to a religion (in most cases Christianity, Muslims)," Craig does attempt to do this, with his resurrection argument. "which then leaves you with an even greater task of justifying the immoral actions of this god." That's circular reasoning. If you start off with "The actions are immoral", then that means they *can't* be justified. However, if you state it more factually (e.g., "God decides not to value people's time on Earth", "God makes people suffer on Earth", etc.), then it's not very difficult to "justify" these things. One would simply point out that part of the story is the afterlife, and there's no logic in emphasizing a temporary phase over the eternal era. This, of course, does lead one immediately to challenging the hell doctrine. And they're right to do so; even about 25% of Christians reject it on moral, logical, and even biblical grounds. "If you impose regions laws on people, giving this deity of yours a pass in abiding these laws is morally dishonest and hypocritical." I don't see how it follows logically, to say that the embodiment of goodness/rightness can't do certain things to bring about eternal bliss for all in heaven, even if those things are things we ourselves cannot do (because we don't know what the end consequences will be). "In short, it's far reaching, lacks critical thinking and a compromise to one's innate morals to reach that conclusion." On the contrary, it's the appeal to our "innate morals" alone that lacks critical thinking, as do many of the responses I've gotten from other atheists on RUclips already. "But hey, if it brings you purpose and comfort, have at it. Just keep that to yourself and out of the schools and government." I agree that religion shouldn't be promoted or taught in our government and public schools. But not that Christians should have to "keep it to themselves".
Vic 2.0 There's a lot to unpack here, many which I disagree, but I'll do my best to summarize my on views on the subject and keep this from being a too lengthy. - I reject supernatural claims, biblical or otherwise. - While thoughtful, sophisticated answers given by the apologists the likes of Craig, these claims/assertions are still missing the most critical component, which is evidence. Therein lies, "the god of the gaps" or what I like to call "connecting the dots to assert an unseen and unverifiable celestial deity". - Innate morals, in my view are more or less the human solidarity that exist in each human. Within this framework exists universally within our specie, the "golden rule". Moreover, the consensus with secularists/atheists is morality is subjective while believers use the bible as a source of ultimate/objective morality. - As a self-proclaimed atheists I'm a bit surprised at your undercurrent views in defense of WLC and theism. In the words of my intellectual hero and late great Christopher Hitchens: "We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."
Francis Dakis "I reject supernatural claims, biblical or otherwise." Understood. "While thoughtful, sophisticated answers given by the apologists the likes of Craig, these claims/assertions are still missing the most critical component, which is evidence." The claims and assertions are supported by *arguments* which, if true, just *are* the evidence. And so to show that there is no evidence, for example, for the claim/assertion "The universe plausibly had a cause", you would have to show either that the logic of the argument is invalid or that one (or both) of the premises is untrue. "Therein lies, "the god of the gaps" or what I like to call "connecting the dots to assert an unseen and unverifiable celestial deity"." Except that, again, the conclusions are arrived at via deductive arguments the premises are which are based on what we *do* know, or at least what can be reasoned without refutation. For example, if it's true that 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause and also that 2. The universe began to exist, it follows logically and inescapably that 3. The universe has a cause. "Innate morals, in my view are more or less the human solidarity that exist in each human. Within this framework exists universally within our specie, the "golden rule". Moreover, the consensus with secularists/atheists is morality is subjective" That's blatantly false. Craig himself has debated atheists who believe in objective morality (e.g. Louis Antony and Shelly Kagan). And I'm *also* an atheist who believes morality is objective. "while believers use the bible as a source of ultimate/objective morality." That's actually incoherent, when you understand what "objective" means here. It simply means that something can be morally right or wrong independent of human opinion. Craig's example of Nazi Germany is a good one: To say that the holocaust was objectively morally wrong, is to say that it was wrong and would still *be* wrong, even if the Nazis had succeeded in conquering the world and brainwashing or killing everyone who thought it was wrong, so that literally everyone thought it was *right.* It would still be wrong, because its wrongness/rightness is not dependent on any opinion. "As a self-proclaimed atheists I'm a bit surprised at your undercurrent views in defense of WLC and theism." Well my ultimate target is anti-theism. I have no issues with those who reject theism or even believe "There is no god". But I'm somewhat annoyed by people on both sides who claim to *know* the answer to the god question, and frankly intolerant of those who *oppose* atheism/theism. And I agree with that quote from Hitchens, but I don't think the New Atheists (anti-theists) practice what is preached there. I think *all* of the arguments against theism "outrage reason".
Vic 2.0 For the record, I'm enjoying this exchange. Too often there's hostility and outright insults when people have counterviews on the subject. In the same debate that you refer to, Harris has a 10 min segment where he discusses the WLC notion of "divine command theory", which by definition absolves god from acts that would be generally described as an immoral act. To quote Sam Harris: "There is absolutely nothing that Dr. Craig can say against their behavior, in moral terms, apart from his own faith-based claim that they’re praying to the wrong God. If they had the right God, what they were doing would be good, on Divine Command theory. “Now, I’m obviously not saying that all that Dr. Craig, or all religious people, are psychopaths and psychotics, but this to me is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own.” He also closes in the same speech: "On the other hand, on Dr. Craig’s account, your run-of-the-mill serial killer in America, who spent his life raping and torturing children, need only come to God, come to Jesus on death row, and after a final meal fried chicken, he's going to spend eternity in heaven after death. Ok-one thing should be crystal clear to you: this vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability. And please notice the double standard that people like Dr. Craig use to exonerate god from all this evil. We’re told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good." For the record, I think you have a slight misrepresentation of views of an atheist - the claim is NOT, "there is no god", rather "We have no reason to believe in one". I'm not an anti-theist (like Hitch). heck, I don't even like the "atheist" label because of the negative connotations attached to it. As I'm sure you've heard, there are no a-unicornist, a-bigfoot. More importantly, I DON'T KNOW how conscience comes to existence (it's one of the things that even Hitch admitted is fascinating to him), I don't know if there is an afterlife, I don't know if a god exists, BUT I do reject the version of man-made gods that have been created over thousands of years.
Dennett's (eventual) attempt at refutation is probably the worst I've ever heard. Abstract objects by *definition* have no causal powers; only concrete objects can actually affect things in the world. As for "the principle of triangulation", it should be obvious to everyone from his explanation that it wasn't a principle that did the causing, but instead a solid object.
I haven’t seen the full video so I don’t know if there’s relevant context to which you’re referring that I’m unaware of, but I see no reason to accept that abstract objects do not have causal power; and that only concrete objects do. Are you suggesting that thoughts don’t have causal power? How about intentions? You’re really saying that a person’s intentions have no causal power, even though if the intention was changed the behavior and outcomes in the world would be totally different? Or are you suggesting that intentions and other thoughts are “concrete objects”?
I am shocked by what this man said. He truly didn’t say nothing. He actually aknowledge “very plausible” premisses but then said “just no, because i don’t like this conclusion, or we can not know it”
I have listened to Craig dozens of times and all I seem to hear is a string of words that grammatically are correct but that's it. Yes, he sounds convinced that his logic works and that his conclusions are well supported but just because your tone of voice mirrors that used by someone presenting a well thought through argument does not mean that your own argument is similarly well structured; it just sounds like it is.
@@armandoc.3150 apparently not also idk what that guy is talking about but Craig is not just well articulate and extremely sharp, but his arguments are stronger than any of the atheists he has debated.
@@asdqwe4468 can maths help you prove the exostence of God? I dont think so. Just like physics and maths can not help you measure love. it is simply not important to talk about them when bringing up a subject like the existence of God or morality. About your argument that Craig never backs up his claim that morality is objective, next time try and actually listen to what he says. About your claim on the causation of everything, how else could you explain that time had a beginning but without a cause? Do you know of anything that has no cause? For there to be a cause to everything you simply have to have an uncaused timeless and immaterial outside factor to be able to cause time to start. Also by claiming "how do you know everything has a cause" you are implying that there exist something that has no cause so please back up your claim before speaking nonesense. Also you say that Craig has not improved our lives one bit, well can you walk me through how you improved our life one bit? Other than your own worthlessness, you are very wrong to say that Craig has not helped anyone. Preaching and spreading the truth of this word, the pathway to salvation and the path to heaven has and will help kany people. You see there is this personal experience to God and Jesus and the holy spirit, they bring peace to your life and actually help you. So I would say Craig has helped many people.
Best summary of William Lane Craig's entire argument strategy: 1. Meaningless logical semantics games which pose questions about the most elementary philosophical ideas, which he offers as serious rebuttals or arguments (or as Sam Harris calls it, "hitting philosophical bedrock with the shovel of stupid questions") 2. "I can't believe that science could ever explain this, therefore godditit!" (Fallacious arguments from incredulity in order to fit god into the gaps of our scientific knowledge.)
***** School me? If you used those tactics over and over you would never "school" anyone. The only people who fall for his Bullshit and think he's a good debater are the idiots who don't see how fallacious his arguments are.
***** you don't want to learn a damned thing. That's fairly obvious. If you honestly wanted to learn anything then you would presumably leave all the snark and sarcasm out of it. Don't waste my time.
***** you want an answer? Fine. The common anscestor of all life on earth is known by the acronym LUCA for "Last Universal Common Ancestor", given what we know of genetics and biology, it was most likely a very simple single celled organism, very much similar to modern Bacteria, possessing no nucleus and having been descended from simpler, self-replicating chains of proteins. There is no Nobel Laureate for abiogensis because we haven't yet discovered the principle method by which it occurred, although there are a variety of theories, based on what we know about DNA and RNA, in the future, with more evidence and further research, we should be able to discover which theory is the most correct. If you think that somehow the scientific uncertainty concerning this topic is at all discrediting of the whole enterprise of science, you are dead wrong. This is _how science works,_ when we don't know something we don't just throw our hands in the air and say "SCIENCE DOESNT KNOW! GODDIDIT!!" because if we had, we'd still believe to this day that hurricanes were caused by Poseidon having a bad temper and lightning was Zues' anger. I have a particular disdain for those people who latch onto any area that science hasn't been able to solve yet and say "See? Science can't answer that! God is the only way!" Their certainty will only make them look like fools when we discover the true causes. Science isn't afraid of uncertainty, it thrives in it.
***** any cause is a possible cause. But some causes are more probable than others. No one simply dismisses God, but so far, everything we know about science shows that the god hypothesis isn't necessary to explain reality. Almost anything is possible, but we must be guided by logic and empirical evidence, never give up and say it was god or aliens or this or that....always seek to refine your knowledge, and be ready to throw out long held assumptions if the evidence makes them untenable.
Truthus Maximus Craig is wilfully ignorant and not open to changing his views at all. He actually said that even concrete evidence would not alter his opinions because he knows the truth of god and the scapegoat jesus. Atheists only get frustrated by stupidity so replying to you is causing me a shit load of frustration.
Daniel, trim the bottom of your mustache.Why do men like you insist on having a mustache that looks like bits of hay hanging over your lip.It takes about 30 seconds to do.Even Einstein trimmed his mustache somewhat. I refuse to listen to this guy ,when he can't even figure out how to do a simple thing like this.
I don't think Craig is a joke. He's very good at his craft. He inevitably gets to some sort of jackoffery like, "You can't examine Jesus' resurrection by natural means because it was a supernatural occurrence." And presupposes "intelligence" in his Kalam argument. But overall, he is probably the best we have at justifying an unjustifiable position. But, yea, Lenox is joke. He defaults into a sermon in no time.
YukonBloamie For those of you have an interest in actual academic philosophy, Craig is actually not the most impressive Christian apologist alive ( eminent philosophers do not take Craig seriously), there is however a guy named "Alvin Plantinga" who did made significant contribution in many areas of analytic philosophy, who has a far more sophisticated and philosophically interesting argument for theism (though ultimately flawed), his work is widely acknowledged by philosophers.
hao zi Plantinga is pretty technical, and an effort to understand. He's kind of Kantish in that way. I suppose anything regarding epistemology is in that category of understanding. Craig is more for the church going evangelical type.
In my mind, I've boiled it down to ; preachers confuse the sheeple with intellectual sounding bullshit, then, offer them a simple answer. Simple minds cling to simple answers... PEACE!
At the same time people often times do make things way more complicated then they need to be only causing themselves more confusion. Humans are fallible after all.
Ha. You make it sound like I've got some hidden agenda, keeping you from hearing the indestructible arguments of William Lane Craig! Truth is, I would have posted the whole conference (it wasn't a debate, nor was Dennett's response planned, hence the use of the word 'impromptu' in the description) but for the 10 minute 59 second limit on non-partner videos back in the day. Besides, Dr. Craig didn't present anything different to the 1000 other times he has presented his arguments. You must be new to the God debate if you have to reserve judgment on what Dennett says here. But, for the pathologically suspicious, here is the link to the full video: Evidence For God's Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath)
I have watched WLC debate. Where I wouldn't say he WON, I'd say there was a tie, never a case where an atheist beat him. That's because (despite him coming with the same arguments time and time again), they usually only come prepared to refute one or two of his arguments and give rather weak counters (if any) for the rest. That would be fine, of course, if they didn't bring unfounded arguments of their own (Hitchens' and Carroll's non sequiturs on what one "would expect under theism", for example), or if they at least understood what Craig was saying before attempting to counter (his objective morality argument has been the embarrassment of practically every atheist he's debated, with them confusing it for moral absolutism or, like in Krauss' case, even going so far as to say that science can help establish moral values). Tell me this, at least. Tell me that Dennett understood the objective morality argument (assuming it was given).
Vic 2.0 The debates can be entertaining, and WLC is certainly skilled at it, but there is rarely the time to tease out all the issues, nor is the audience usually one that has the requisite background knowledge to understand them anyway, which is why it often appears to be a tie. That being said, I think Shelley Kagan soundly trounced him on the topic of morality. I think there are difficulties in discussing what one "would expect under theism", but it seems unavoidable to posit some expectations if one is to discuss the scientific and empirical evidence for a God. Often theists, Craig among them, use inference to the best explanation when presenting, say, the teleological argument, but move to skepticism about our ability to decide what one "would expect" when presented with the argument from evil. I can't say whether Dennett understood the moral argument. It wasn't presented, but even if it were, it was not addressed here. Do you really think the moral argument has much persuasive force to anyone who is not already a theist? It seems to me the opening move against it would be the Euthyphro dilemma, to which the response would be an identification of moral values with God's nature - God _is_ the moral standard. The Euthyphro can be reformulated to again present the theist with a dilemma. If God's nature were cruel, would cruelty be good? If yes, then it seems to be an arbitrary identification. If no, then God is not the standard. I think a stronger, though related, objection is that if God is the standard, and a person, to the degree that they resemble God in some respect - e.g. they are just, or loving or generous - is good, then the theist seems committed to saying that these attributes are good-making _only_ in virtue of them being attributes that God has. But this seems highly implausible. Would a person who has these attributes not be good if God did not exist? - especially since it looks like God doesn't have much of a role to play in this accounting, and justice, love and generosity seem to be doing all the lifting. So I think that the theist has some work to do for the moral argument to go through, even to convince an atheist who already accepts objective moral values exist - show first that God works as a foundation, and second that God is the only possible foundation. Nothing I've seen compels me to accept either.
riversonthemoon IIRC, Kagan also believes in objective morality and also didn't understand Craig's argument about how theism provides a better foundation (not PROOF, mind you) for that belief. It would fall upon the ATHEIST to present an alternative foundation, and no one that I know of (including Kagan) has done so. They always start with the assumption that human beings are morally significant. But since we (humans!) are the only ones saying that, by what logic do we conclude there is a definite right or wrong and it necessarily means we should flourish? Maybe we SHOULDN'T flourish. Maybe the insects, the germs, or the ozone layer are the real morally significant parts of this universe. If the only party saying otherwise, is the party that would benefit FROM saying otherwise, where does the objective part come in? Conversely, theism holds that there is a separate intelligent entity that not only AGREES we are morally valuable (because that could still be subjective), but KNOWS (because he is omniscient). If morality is a fact - that is, if it's an objective reality, god's saying we are morally significant would necessarily mean that we are (because he is all-knowing and doesn't lie, according to the Christian bible). The "problem of evil" argument is another one that SOUNDS strong but is actually weak. First, one must define "omnibenevolence" and understand that one definition is in the bible (as is therefore part of Christian doctrine) while the other is not. "Always kind/charitable" is not in the bible, whereas "always good" IS. But then, "good" is a subjective judgment call over which no objective arguments can be made. Further, some point to the verse that says "god is love" and try to build an argument from there. But the problem here is similar. One might reason that the meaning of "love" in biblical times wasn't as "soft" as our modern-day definition, but we can go ahead and use our modern-day definition anyway because if you look the word up, you find that "love" is primarily defined as a fondness/attraction and only a minority of the definitions entail the inclination to help or take care of something. But even if we nevermind all of THAT, there is one more obstacle to get through, and that's justifying the implied definition of "love" that is "preventing foreseeable suffering to the best of one's ability" in the context of debating with theists, when we don't REALLY believe that's the definition in OTHER situations. What do I mean by this. Consider the average parent. Do they not KNOW their child will suffer (and cause suffering to some degree) before creating them? Do they not have all the POWER they need to prevent this suffering (by simply not procreating)? Yes, and yes, but they create children anyway, mostly for selfish reasons. So how can we say any parent loves their child? Simple. The parent believes there is enough good in life to make the bad seem insignificant, sooner or later. The same goes for the Christian god, who if he were real would hold the tickets to eternal ecstasy and bliss. Admittedly, this argument would only help Christians who do not believe in Hell, which is unfortunately a minority. But they are out there, and I've read coherent and biblical arguments to say that Hell is not biblical after all. I chalk it up to the necessary evolution Christianity has undertaken, seeing as how their numbers grow smaller every year.
Vic 2.0 How does theism provide a better foundation? I presented reasons for why it doesn't in my last post. And I don't see how atheists being able to provide a foundation or not has anything to do with whether the theistic foundation works or not. You are doing the same thing that Craig often points out in his debate opponents of confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. How humans come to know moral values is another conversation. If we are objectively valuable, then that is the case (or not) whether we know of it or not. That's part of what it means to be objective. I think the same is true whether there is a God to know it or not, too. I can reformulate the Euthyphro to clarify. You said that if God says we are morally significant then it must be true because he knows everything and doesn't lie. Is it true because he says it is, or does he say it because it is true? You seem to be implying the latter. But then, it would still be true if God were not around to say it. Your criticism of the argument from evil is interesting. You are skeptical of our ability to know what 'good' means well enough to have the argument go through, which is essentially the skeptical theist position. God is 'good', though it may not seem so to us because we don't have the kind of handle on the words 'good' and 'love' that he does. This seems to undercut your reasoning about God not lying. For all we know, he might have good reasons for deceiving us, just as he has good reasons for allowing evil. And to go back to your doubt about atheists moral epistemology - if you are right about us not knowing what 'good' is, then we seem to be in far worse shape under theism. Maybe we should walk away when we see someone getting raped because for all we know that might be 'good'. Certainly, whatever justifies God not intervening would justify our inaction, too, though we may not appreciate what that justification is. You then move on to a theodicy about God allowing evil because, on balance, there is more good than evil in the end. You're right about those that believe in hell having a difficult time reconciling it with this idea of greater good. But ignoring that, I think it doesn't really explain _why_ we need evil in the first place. In fact, it calls its necessity even more into question. If heaven is a possible world, then why couldn't God have simply created _that_ world instead of this one? Why all the drama?
Yes, my phrasing was bad English, but I think it was pretty clear my intent. And I didn't notice the "Sort by thread" option so it has been hard to track down where your responses to me were.
"Colin"...I can't speak for all people who believe in god. I am saying it is the "best explanation" I have heard. I am waiting for a better explanation if you have one.
J Scott Upton *"I am saying it is the "best explanation" I have heard"* So you accept explanations that either have not or possibly cannot be confirmed to hold to reality?
"Colin"...by "accept explanations" I assume you mean the way that Newtonian physics was "accepted" until it was replaced by another explanation that fit the facts better? The idea of god is one explanation of some questions like "why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't hear any theoretical physicists advocating theories that even come close to answering that question in a "better" way than the god explanation. My favorite "non god" explanation amounted to "the universe created itself". Neat trick. But I am certainly open to new arguments.
J Scott Upton Two things: 1) Scientists are able to say and accept something that you seem unable to: "We don't know" 2) You never even attempted to answer the question and instead danced around it
If you watch as many debates as I have, and still do, you'll begin to see that Craig has his one story. And by god, he's sticking to it. He demonstrates no flexibility in his thinking. He simply repeats the same talking points over and over. It's just a job to him. A way to make money. It's all so boring.
Kevin Craighead, if the opposing team knows exactly what play you are going to run and are never able to stop you then I think that is a good indicator of which team has the superior playbook.
Vic, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kalām_Cosmological_Argument 1) We can't know that everything had an ultimate beginning. 2) There is no reason we can't have an infinite past as WLC assumes his god has an infinite past. 3) You and WLC assume a super mind without a brain always existed then willed/thought material into existence despite the fact every mind you know has a brain. If god has existed eternally then existence would be eternal. 4) Nothing WLC demonstates his god did anything anymore than magical pixies did anything.
I won't go on a wild goose chase, especially after so many videos/articles have failed me. But I will respond to what you provide here... "1) We can't know that everything had an ultimate beginning." Nor does the argument *say* that. It says that everything that *does* begin to exist has a cause. "2) There is no reason we can't have an infinite past as WLC assumes his god has an infinite past." a. Craig gives arguments against the possibility of actual infinites. b. God is not understood to have existed for an infinite time, but rather as a timeless being "outside" of time. c. The philosophical arguments are not all. A lot of *physicists* are saying the universe (meaning all of contiguous spacetime, space and time itself) had a beginning. "3) ...despite the fact every mind you know has a brain." But that doesn't mean that minds require a brain for them to *exist.* It could just as easily be that minds exist and the brain is the medium through which they interact with the physical world. Besides which, the KCA is an argument *for* the existence of an unembodied mind. "4) Nothing WLC demonstates his god did anything anymore than magical pixies did anything." Well you would need to redefine "pixies", it seems, for them to be the cause of spacetime. To my understanding, they are physical (if magical) beings and have never been described as "timeless". Doing so for this argument's sake makes your hypothesis obviously more ad hoc than theism. Moreover, the KCA is part of a cumulative case, usually concluded with Craig's *resurrection* argument, which of course wouldn't support your pixie theory.
@Davidson 1 It's religion that paints God's mind as like our own; if God has no physical body nor a mind like ours, then in what way can a Christian claim we are made in God's image? The Bible describes God with emotions, making decisions, even examples (or at least one from memory) where a human changes God's mind through persistence. God seems to flip flop between deeply personal and wholly alien and unknowable whenever convenient.
@Davidson 1 that still doesnt change, that god changed his mind, according to Bible. If god is not bound by anything, then why is he described with emotions like anger, saddness, even with Jesus aside?
“You get a guy like Daniel Dennett, whose greatest intellectual achievement was growing that stupid beard of his, masquerading as a scientific expert on Darwinian Theory staring at the camera and no one is dousing him with a bucket of water. It’s incredible to me.” David Berlinski
Actually, LOTS of people reject philosophy as a method for finding verifiable truth. In fact, I suspect that nearly all scientists would reject that idea. Philosophy as a useful tool for thought is not even rejected by Dawkins. But Philosophy (by itself) can never ever prove anything because it lacks any mechanism to do so. That is why philosophy can never be anything more than a springboard for scientific inquiry. That is likely its highest use in terms of gaining knowledge.
@@honeysucklecat his only goal is to "win" whatever debate he is in, which is counter productive because it won't help actually prove his christianity. He will ignore a valid point because it's "not what this debate is about" how about these apologists debate they're actual views instead of these vague topics like is there evidence for god. Well regardless if you can show evidence for god in general how about proof that it is THE god from the bible you actually believe in and say is true
No, the reason you shouldn't call WLC o professor is because his 'degree' came from a completely unaccredited school. He's a phony whose degree came off a Xerox machine in a double wide trailer in some park. He Has No Real Education. Got It?
Hany Moussa Please bare in mind I don't like him myself. His arguments are flawed and he is intellectually dishonest and in some cases I've seen him say quite immoral stuff
To @mrthebillman you wrote: "Calling WLC a 'Professor' is like calling GODZILLA a Ballet Dancer" You mean getting Phd's from the University of Birmingham and the University of Munich in Philosophy and Theology respectively is not valid? Then daring to teach in those disciplines is clumsy and oafish?
Oh wow, Daniel Dennett expresses my thoughts on the subject exactly!! The truth, whatever it may be, is bound to be so mindbogglingly counterintuitive that none of our ideas will be even remotely able to express it, if and when we are ever able to discover and/or understand it. I've always been a "soft" atheist, and Daniel Dennett has justified me in continuing to be one.
Why would that make you an atheist? Wouldn't God fit into that category of mind-boggling and counter intuitive? Ruling the idea completely out seems foolish in a sense, specially as a philosopher who's suppose to be open minded on all subject and even the reality itself at times.
@@StallionFernando God counterintuitive, you say? No, God is anything but counterintuitive. The notion of God, as developed by almost all mainstream monotheisms, is that he is all powerful, all knowing and all good. Far from being counterintuitive, these qualities, such as most Christians, Muslims and Jews ascribe to him, are starkly simplistic and childishly concrete - anything but subtle or ineffable.
@@laurameszaros9547 it's counterintuitive and mind boggling too think that such a being too exist, how could a being be so powerful, limitless, ageless, perfect, personal yet so distant and vague, All knowing and Omnipresent? It sounds illogical too think that such a being could exist. He's simple enough too know that even a child can, yet vague and complex enough too never be fully understood in our limited human mind. A paradox and an enigma.
@@trevorandthegunrunners4166 Not nearly so weak a sauce as assuming that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent without a shred of evidence to that effect, as the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have imagined.
WLC uses the Kalam argument to prove the universe had a beginning and/or a cause. That is as far as he can logically go. When he continues to try to prove that the cause must be the christian god, he loses his footing.
@@butlerbros.9370 you can’t prove or disprove how the universe began. There is no evidence from that event. Craig says that a creator must be responsible. One can’t say if that is right or not. So I can grant the possibility. However, to ascribe all the perfect characteristics of the supreme christian god doesn’t match our experience. The world kills thousands indiscriminately every day.
For someone who is quite familiar with Daniel Dennett's writings, his accusations against W.L.C. are stunningly ironic. Virtually everything he accuses his opponent of, he is, in fact, guilty of. Dennett is not so much a philosopher as he is an ideologue who has chosen a particularly weak ideological position, materialism, though he would certainly quibble that that is what he holds and he makes some ridiculous arguments that even his fellow ideological atheists, if they have any philosophical integrity, reject. I don't agree with everything that W.L.C. says or concludes but, of the two, he is a far better philosopher than Dennett.
It's called reading what he's written. Or you could listen to his nonsense at Sean Carroll's Moving Naturalism, as a philosopher Dennett is a pudding headed lightweight.
Anthony McCarthy So that's a 'no' on the evidence then? Thought so. You might know this phrase: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." C. Hitchens.
Atheists always demand "evidence" and no matter how much of it you present to them, they will insist it isn't enough. I've read Daniel Dennett, his supporters and his critics. The man is a philosophical lightweight, a man who has survived on the tenure track and the fact that he pushes the ideology of most of the bully boys of academia, atheism. If he ever went up against William Lane Craig he would be as reduced to blithering inanity as Richard Dawkins knew he would be. About the only atheist I've seen go up against him and just hold his own was Sean Carroll and Carroll couldn't do it. I don't agree with everything Craig says or thinks but he is a first rate philosopher and a good enough debater to master the arguments of his opponents and to have found their weakenesses and what arguments can defeat them. If he had to go up against Dennett on something he wrote about such as Dennett's extension of natural selection outside of biology, it would be child's play to tear him to shreds on the basis of his own words in his own books. H. Allen Orr, and such atheists as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewonton have done that. As I said, go read Dennett and those who have dealt with his writing critically, the man is a philosophical lightweight.
Anthony McCarthy Yes. There's a reason for that. Because the likes of you, have none. (evidence) Seriously, i ask for evidence of god, and they say 'creation exists. Proof of god.' how? Which god? They say fulfilled 'biblical prophecies' and ignore the total failure of them. they say 'jesus is a historical figure' yet there's no evidence that any cult leader called jesus was around at the time, let alone doing miracles. The reason you can't convince your typical atheist/skeptic, is that we know about standards of evidence. And the folks on your side either don't, or have a mental block stopping them from applying it to the 'evidence' for god. What standards of evidence would you accept from a hindu that wanted to convince you that Shiva was the lord of the universe? That's what we are looking for. Visions? They have them. Supposedly answered prayers? Miracles? Fulfilled prophecy? They all have them. So, present some evidence, and we'll go over it.
I don't see how the hypothesis that we're not alone in the galaxy is mind boggling; It's a statistical impossibility that there isn't life elsewhere in the galaxy. The hard part is finding it, but that's not mind boggling.
It honestly should be very easy to answer, of course we're not alone, i mean have you seen the scale of how big it all is, too many possibilities. It's only a matter of when
So, in other words, "Craig is brilliant, but since his conclusion can't be right, there must be something wrong with his premise, even though we don't know what that is."
I'm glad you are interested in what scripture has to say. The context of that passage is one in which Paul is trying to encourage the Christians in Thessaloniaca who were being persecuted by the state and by the cult of Jewish Pharisees. In it Paul teaches about judgment day. I'm sorry if the reality of God's judgment for those who reject Christ troubles you. The Bible also teaches that there is the Rock on which we stumble and are broken but which falls on some and they are destroyed.
"Do you believe in magic? I don't." If you believe that God snapped his fingers and spoke everything into existence then magic is precisely what you believe in.
$40 a month, is that all it costs to join? I am so glad you brought this up, can you send the link with the membership application please? By the way: "that is what I though" is not proper English. It's actually more correct to say "that is what I thought". Are you capable of THOUGHT? Probably Not. Back to more urgent issues, do you THINK, now that I have asked you TEN times, you might get round to answering my original question posted several days ago, at the same time as sending that link?
"Most of his evidence is based on faith." The Kalam cosmological argument is based on logic and premises, not faith. The teleological argument is based on empirical evidence, not faith. Craig has used historical secular evidence to support the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not faith. Where does your logic come from? Mine comes from God, who is my Authority.
"He came to make dead people alive." "He came to make dead people alive." "He came to make dead people alive." "He came to make dead people alive." "He came to make dead people alive." How many times do you have to say that to yourself before you're convinced it's true? I'm deluded, aren't I? I think that science is true and your stuff is stories? How could I be so deluded? So long - I'm sticking with research and science - fool that I am.
So evolution is a thesis or hypothesis if you like, one that says that all species "evolved" from a common ancestor. Keep in mind that when we say "all life" we mean everything: Grass, Jellyfish, bacteria, etc--they are all related according to the theory. The problem is that this "thesis" (evolution) is not observed to be doing what it claims. And, for example, natural selection as it is tested with species that create many generations, is shown to NOT have the creative power attributed to it.
Why is it every time an anti-theist can't refute William Lane Craig's arguments he goes on a rant about WLC's style of debate, general demeanor, etc.? Why can't they just stick to the topic and stop with all the BS? In this speech, Dennett doesn't bother to explain *why* if the premises are true and the logic is sound, the conclusion is still somehow implausible. He just asserts that some vague something must be wrong. David Lewis said "I cannot refute an incredulous stare". Well this is mighty close to being exactly that! When Dennett finally *does* try to focus on the argument, he still ignores Craig's reasoning in getting from a "cause of the universe" to a god. He foolishly questions the statement "abstract objects (like numbers) can't cause anything", letting the world know he's willing to dig in his heels at just about every logical step WLC outlines. Hell, Dennett, you might as well go all the way back to "But is the universe real?" if *that's* the game you're gonna play. And is he serious? A physical object that can be attached to a house is *not* an abstract object. Also, I love how he just asserts that Vilenkin wouldn't agree with what WLC is saying about the theorem, completely oblivious to the fact that Vilenkin has already confirmed that Craig represented the theorem quite well! Oops! And Dennett admits he doesn't understand what the fuck Craig and Vilenkin are even talking about but feels the need to say Craig's wrong anyway. What. The. Hell. He does try to say that if god is changeless it means that he won't answer prayers. But that's demonstrating a lack of understanding of a god existing outside of time, clearly. And he closes with suggesting that theists not educate themselves on matters of cosmology. Could that be because when they do, they become a force to be reckoned with in debate like WLC? :P
One of my favorite arguments against Kalam is actually done by Theoretical Bullshit watch?v=gYpfkdQ32Io Really heavy into philosophical terms but a fun listen none the less.
Basically an argument against philosophy more than it is really against WLC. Scientists usually make poor philosophers. Dennett demonstrates he does not understand some philosophical ideas very well. For example his understanding of immutability is poor. He shows that he does not understand the basics of what most Christians has meant by immutability.
You realize that Dennet isn't a scientist right? He has a doctorate in philosophy. Edit: "He shows that he does not understand the basics of what most Christians has meant by immutability. " That seems to be more in the realm of theology than philosophy, similar but not the same.
Colin Barr That makes it even worse. Immutability crosses in between both Philosophy and theology. Some would say it is part of how philosophy influenced theology. But this is something he should understand if he is commenting on Christian apologetics.
Carl Peterson Well considering I am a layman in philosophy and have not seen the tern immutability before in that sense, I have no comment on that actual subject matter. I only know the context of immutability from other contexts (ie computer science)
Carl Peterson "God"s immutability proves "God" cannot exist. Not in the way "he" is portrayed by Christianity, at least. "God" cannot be omniscient AND have "free will". If "God" knows the future then "he" knows in advance what "he" will be doing and therefore can't have the "free will" to change. An unchanging "God" CANNOT have "free will", and therefore is NOT a "God" QED.
Sorry, I'm getting two different conversations confused. I hate using RUclips as a forum. However, you previous message stated " i presumed that it could be that inferring a cause is unnecessary". Maybe, but it can just as validly be presumed that inferring a cause is of the utmost necessity and by using what we know of the scientific method, it indicates that cause is more likely.
If you try to pay your light bill with something that is timeless, spaceless, causeless, immaterial, and transcendent...they tell you that you didn't pay it.
Isn't that interesting. The very argument that he is placing against Dr. Craig is the very argument that atheists make their case with. Example: If I said that nothing created man in the last hour. Your mind would say, "no way". If I said that nothing created man in the last week. Your mind would say, "no way". If I said that nothing created man in the last month. Your mind would say, "no way". If I said that nothing created man in the last year. Your mind would say, "no way". If I said that nothing created man in the last thousand years. Your mind would say, "no way". If I said that nothing created man in the last 100 thousand years. Your mind would say, "not likely". If I said that nothing created man in the last 100 million years. Your mind would say, "well, maybe". If I said that nothing created man in the last 100 Billion years. Your mind would say, "sure". All the atheist does, is simply keep backing up his argument until your finite mind disengages. It does so because our mind is incapable of thinking in the eternal. So your brain shuts down and doesn't question it.
Can you point me to anywhere where an atheist has made this case? 'Nothing' isn't a state of affairs that led to the universe. A state of affairs would be 'something'. The first state of affairs would have to be uncaused (by definition), and as a theist I think you would agree with this since God sans the universe would be a state of affairs. The atheist just thinks that this first state of affairs, if there was one, didn't involve a God. And would also usually believe that positing one doesn't improve your problem situation as you are still left with something brute and unexplained. The argument you ascribe to atheists seems to me a very theist projection. You keep the idea that the universe was created, and wonder how atheists could possibly make sense of this without an agent to do the creating. (I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant the universe rather than man as you can't seriously think that atheists believe man was created by, or came about through, nothing.) Also, that argument, if it can be called one, reads like a theist argument in that it leans on intuitions, or the supposed baulking of them. Most atheists I think, believe that the question of how the universe came about is an empirical one and will defer to our best scientific understanding when trying to answer it.
***** *"There has been sooo much time that it blows the mind so, clearly, God does not exist."* I don't see any atheists claiming this non-sequitur either. One infers the age of the universe from available scientific evidence. Nobody I've heard of then goes on to say that because the universe is so old God does not exist. Clearly, there are many theists who believe in an old universe, and I can't imagine an atheist finding a reason to think this is inconsistent with a belief in God. Are there other arguments you have in mind? *"It is incorrect to say that God is the first state of affairs. A state of affairs only makes sense once the physical universe exists and time exists. Then you cam have a state of affairs."* A 'state of affairs' in the philosophical sense is the obtaining of a true proposition. It is a truth-maker. 'God exists.' cannot be a true proposition unless there is a state of affairs where in fact, God exists. I chose to use 'state of affairs' because I wanted to be as broad as possible and didn't want to conflate the beginning of all things with the beginning of the space-time we find ourselves in and digress into a discussion about the big bang. 'State of affairs' also allows the discussion to proceed while bracketing questions about time, first moments, or even physicalism, on which there are varying opinions. Given this clarification, as a theist, do you still think that God was not the first state of affairs? Positing God does not solve or improve the problem of having to imagine an initial state of affairs that is not, to some degree, brute and unexplained. All the atheist is committed to is that the initial state of affairs was unique and different to the states of affairs that followed it (as is the theist) and he does not have to make claims about something coming from literally nothing since it is incoherent to speak of the first state of affairs being preceded by anything from which it could come. This would be akin to asking a theist where God comes from. It's the wrong question to ask, as the theist believes that God is primary. The atheist believes that existence (ultimately) is primary and could not have a cause. *"You have two choices as an atheist given the scientific evidence: 1. Either matter and time came into being from nothing and by nothing. or 2. There was an anent that was the "first mover" that caused physical matter and time to come into existence."* Your first option insists that 'nothing' is a state of affairs. See my discussion above. An atheist might take an option that sounds like this, but say rather that the existence of the universe (our space-time) is uncaused, which would be a stronger claim than the one I made above. Your second option is available to the atheist, but I see no reason to think that there has to be anything personal about such a cause for the universe. As Dennett says in the video, "What do we know about non-physical causation? Absolutely nothing." Assuming that there is such a thing as non-physical causation, a non-physical impersonal cause seems to me as likely as a personal one. More likely, in fact. *"This agent would be immaterial, timeless, space-less, and immensely powerful. Much like God."* If it is not personal, it is not at all like the God of theism.
***** The earth is ~4.7 billion years old, evolution by natural selection is one of the most tested and most confirmed theories in science. But what on earth does this have to do with the existence of the universe?
***** *"The fine-tuning arguments are rejected, for the most part, because the view is that there is enough time for life to have evolved. It is just assumed in Darwinian Evolution that there is enough time."* You're confusing two different topics. The fine-tuning argument is about physical constants taking on an improbable combination of values that allow for conditions where life is possible. These conditions are the laws of physics and are a _given_ in the theory of evolution. Can you point out someone who argues that the age of the universe addresses the fine-tuning argument? What would the age of the universe have to do with these constants, since whatever determined these constants was prior to the time period in question? If you could provide a link, that would be helpful. And the age of the universe is calculated using measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or extrapolating backwards using the expansion rate, and the age of the Earth can be calculated using radiometric dating - entirely independent of the theory of evolution. If evolution needs time, cosmology and physics have provided it. *"Talking about God as part of a state of affairs makes God a part of the physical world."* I told you what I meant by 'state of affairs'. If you need some more clarification, wikipedia should be adequate, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_affairs_(philosophy) or if you want more information, try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link at the bottom of that page. For a theist to say that God's existence, prior to the universe, was not a state of affairs is incoherent. *"So while your trying to build some philosophical basis to avoid that "prime mover" your not taking into account the world as it is."* I'm not trying to build a philosophical basis to avoid anything. I am trying to correct a misapprehension about what atheists think, or have available to them, and what they can say consistently about a first state of affairs. *"Is time eternal in the past?"* I don't know. I've heard Craig's arguments against it, though I don't think they succeed. In my discussion above I think I have assumed that it isn't, by speaking of a first state of affairs. I think the big bang happened a finite time ago. Whether there was something 'before' the big bang (if 'before' has any meaning at all in this context), I think we may never know. Doesn't mean we can't say anything about what there could possibly or probably be, or even, with good enough evidence and arguments, what necessarily must be. *"Has matter always existed?*" If you construe matter more broadly to include physical things, and by 'always existed' you mean 'existing for all time' (whether time is finite or not) then the answer is yes. I am a physicalist. At least in spirit. :-)
The results which are found in the fossil record (fully formed species and body types, totally distinct morphologies) does not strongly suggest that a process like evolution made them. Darwin predicted that future paleontologist would find all the peculiar transitional fossils showing the slow morphological changes from early types into new types. This has not really been the case in 150 years of paleontology. Keep in mind that the scientists of Darwin's era had NO IDEA how complex a cell was.
What we mean by God? In most cases we think about God who care about us, who created haven etc.? There is more possibilities for things which we would never called as God - like gravity for example... Even if we stick to God we have infinite possibilities - we know nothing, and the probability that we can guess what is his nature etc = 0% So even if he exist/existed it's irrelevant for us...
Ad hominem is a direct attack on an arguer instead of the argument. Your statement is a red herring and a misrepresentation of a fallacy. Daniel does a great job here.
When Dennett says that the hypothesis that we're alone in the universe is mind-boggling, he is essentially framing his premise as argument. It is only mind-boggling if you accept the idea that there is no God who created us. But there is a God who created us. So it isn't mind-boggling that we're alone.
Actually it would only be very mind boggling if a god created us and all of the universe and we are alone. If we're not alone it really wouldn't be mind boggling at all.
I was not making an argument. I was making a suggestion. Learn the difference. I tend not to make proper arguments in the comment section because I have a habit of writing long handed paragraphs and the character limit cannot facilitate my requirements to make a the argument. If you really want a debate you can pm me, but that's all you're getting. Again, please learn to identify the difference between a suggestion and an argument. I even pointed it out when I wrote "Here's a suggestion".
John Frantz - 2nd halfway reply. We do not need a god to tell us if gay marriage is right or wrong - we can intuitively see that recognising the love of two adults is a fair thing, as we allow other pairings of adults to show their love. I use this example because many religions are on the wrong side of this debate - not to argue that god does not exist, but to argue that my own feeling of objective right and wrong does not rely on a god. I don't need a god to show me how to behave.
Science, The Universe & The God Question I wanna see Dr. William Lane Craig & Dr. John Lennox debate Dr. Peter Atkins & Daniel Dennett at Rice University
Well, Daniel Dennett, I suppose for one to understand Quantum Mechanics better, one should go to the originator of Quantum Theory, Max Plank. You know, the Christian man whose name was used for the Plank measurement. "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Plank
How is Euclidean geometry the cause of stabilizing the house? A triangle is involved, and physical forces are at work. How about Euclidean geometry without a triangle. Will that stabilize the house? It doesn't seem like necessary mathematical properties themselves are causes. They are properties, it seems, and I don't see that properties and causes are identical things. Maybe I'm incorrect, but Dennett did not give a satisfactory answer.
Hey, MrStripey, me again, do you think that "multiple lies about id" is the same as not telling the truth on your passport? Just wondered - it's kinda hard to follow Kirk's logic at the best of times.
Saying that "clearly a movement existed" is like saying "clearly Warren Buffet bought Berkshire Hathaway". It was not just a movement. It was a counter cultural move of persons across classes to live lives in high contrast from those lived around them. "The Triumph of Christianity" will elucidate at length. One example was the emergence of Christian compassion. When plagues would come through Rome it was the Christians who would go and fetch the ailing out of the city sewer, take & care for them
+richard clark "The supernatural has not been shown to exist." But arguments (such as Craig's) have been given to try and show that at least one supernatural entity *plausibly* exists. It's not enough to argue, "Where's the video footage of god?" or some such. This is a metaphysical proposition, it's going to largely depend on metaphysical arguments and considerations. "Which goes to ghost and goblins as these are all beasties of the supernatural. If you claim that gods are supernatural then you have to also deal with if these beasties are real or not. If they are not real why is god? " Obviously, each proposition will have to be assessed on the basis of its own evidences/arguments. "Predictive capabilities, Does it forecast the weather? Does it provide for any medical cures? Does it do anything that the Elks do not? " I would say these are misplaced or ill-founded expectations. God is a proposed creator of the universe. So you should be asking questions like "Did the universe begin to exist?" or "Is god a good explanation for the beginning of spacetime?", etc. "Has faith made any difference? To many people the find solace but tell why good therapy would not do the same." That's impossible for me and you to know for sure, what other people need and what would/would not benefit them spiritually, emotionally, etc. "And tell this to the people of Ireland, and the Balkans and people around the world that are killed in the name of the gods. " Obviously, it's not theism doing that, it's the specific belief that god wants you to kill others (Thankfully, the vast majority of theists, especially Christians, do not adopt this belief). "Cause harm? The war on gender and the LGBT citizens of the US by the US religious crazies. The lies of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and their likes. David Barton and his crap about the US being Christian Nation. Brian Fisher and his hate filled ministry. Pat Robertson, Liberty University, Bob Jones, Christian Identity this list goes on and on." And it's an appeal to the availability heuristic. We can also name many plane crashes or collect reports of shark attacks, neither of which are to be confused with reason to think these are common results of flying in a plane or swimming in the ocean. "Yes some folks do good, but look the other side. Why? People seem to be very able to perform good and bad all on their own. Religion is not necessary." I would agree with that last part. And I think both the Christians and anti-theists have been guilty of granting "This good/bad thing is because of belief in god" but not granting the opposite, equally credible, statement.
Hey, MrStripeyDog, has your phone been tapped? Apparently Kirk now is able to hear your voice and deduce you are panic stricken. Any idea how he manages that?
I'm referring to "miracles". No "miracle" has ever been repeatable in a peer-reviewed environment. If you want to believe in all the NT miracle stories because the "text says so" that's your prerogative. Paul says that if Jesus didn't rise, then we're wasting our time. I disagree. Unconditional love does not stand or fall because of supernatural events. Real love isn't about going to heaven - it's about sacrificing everything for others, including enemies, without expecting some reward.
I think Craig argues that an abstract concept like gravity can affect things but cannot do things independently... Thus, if there is nothing, there is no gravity, no abstractions that can cause things from a Physical point of view. If there is nothing physical, the abstract physical laws cannot operate, and scientists believe that the big bang began from nothing. Thus, we are left with a mind or something conscious that can create the universe because it has the independent ability to do so.
Craig 20 - Dennet 0. Sound arguments vs "who knows...". Epistemic skeptisism undermine itself. If we rely on REASON, Craig's conclusions are unescapable. Dennet also relies on reason, until it goes against his atheistic conclusions, then reason works no more... "who knows..." Wow, what a coherent mind... Craig for life! Christianity is true
What I will assert, with confidence, is that the Nobel Committy takes a broader consensus than any other Prize. That biochemisatry supports evolution is universally accepted in the science community.
In reality professors keep their mouths shut about questioning Darwinism because they know what happens to people who go public. I do know personally a biologist teaching at an Ivy League school who tells his students that he does not believe that Darwinism is a good theoretical framework. But his is rare honesty. There are lots of articles, books and papers that have come out which are significant to the change in paradigm going on re: Darwinism It just doesn't make sense of the data.
Apparently there is an guy named Raphael Lataster that has been studying WLC and his arguments for 4-5 years and reckons he could beat him in a debate. When he challenged WLC to a debate he apparently didn't want to debate a person who didn't hold a doctorate....so now Raphael is finishing his thesis and attaining his doctorate so Craig will debate him (not insinuating that's the sole reason he is doing his doctorate). Will be interesting to see how WLC responds to his challenge! He is writing a book with Richard Carrier called 'Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists'.
He debated Trent Horn a while ago and didn't do well at all
Craig dodged a debate with Dr. Jaco Gericke over the specific existence of Yahweh.
Sounds hard for him to do so since he's writing a book holding a fringe position against the historian consensus that Jesus's existence is a historical fact
@@salz446 So what? Craig holds an infinitely more fringe position, factually and scientifically, in believing that this Jesus actually rose from the dead. Shouldn't stop a debate.
@@Bluesruse It is not scientifically nor factually more fringe to hold that Jesus rose from the dead. There are many more scholars that believe Jesus rose from the dead than there are scholars which believe Jesus didn't exist. Some of these are non-christian, even (Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes). Plus, it is easier to find an informed non-christian taking the evidence for the resurrection of Christ seriously (Antony Flew, Alex O'Connor etc.) than finding an informed non-christian taking mythicism seriously (look at what the atheist Tim O'Neil has to say about it, for example. Spoiler: it is not good).
But in the end of the day, the resurrection is supported by the evidence and Jesus' mythicism goes against the evidence.
They told me Santa Claus wasn’t real. I grow up only to realize he’s a philosopher.
@Davidson 1 you have problems.
@@davidson1807 please tell me ye are being ironic and not seriousm
@@davidson1807 well the main joke was about daniel dennett resemebling santa clause a hell lot :)))
Craig gave me this inspiration:
- God works in a way that can not be comprehended by humans
- Craig is human
- therefore: Craig has no clue what he's talking about with regards to god.
@Martin N the joke flew over your head, it seems
@Martin N what we can comprehend of the god of the bible we learn from the bible. That is enough to know that that god likely does not exist and if it does, it is powerless to intervene.
@@johnelliott5859 wow you have a black belt in ignorance! Have you not read the Book of Revelations? It seems this book flew over your head. Please take time to read Revelations and you will see how God will restore earth back to the time of the state of Garden of Eden and the Devil, Death and Sin is finally dealt with God's wrath and reward the righteous with eternal life.
@@rolandjosef7961 whose interpretation should I focus on? I have read revelations multiple times. However, I don't find the bible a divine authority. Too many errors and some heinous moral issues with the inspirer.
@@johnelliott5859 my friend just read the Bible for yourself. The bible does not sugar coat the evil history of man as it happened so it seems that the Bible heinous book especially when you read the old testament. With a Christian World-view, the history of man is not yet finished as God is giving chance for people to turn to Jesus. Evil will not go on but it will be dealt with at the right time when Jesus comes back the second time to judge all who does evil including all the fallen angels who rebelled and caused suffering on earth. Without God, good people like you has no basis to judge evil works as everything in Atheistic point of view is relative and subjective. Read the Bible and talk to a Christain friend to explain.
Craig has all the earnestness , charm and sincerity of a 2nd hand car salesman.
This car has done 200.000 miles. It's a car that has proven itself enough.
Therefore you should buy this car and pay me lots of money for it.
Ain't that the truth!
Rather vacant that critique
@@KayMarie-623 Craig has only as much power as low iq people grant him.
@@KayMarie-623 Your objection, equally vacant.
He distills cosmological theories into a philosophical framework that helps me understand. No snakes were injured or killed for oil as far as I'm aware.
Lol
For me Craig's arguments sound like this:
- a lot of assumptions
- more assumptions, while repeating words from before to sound deductive
- end it with "therefore god"
Taxtro
Maybe that has to do with you?
Because there are not a single assumption made in any of his popular arguments.
Most of his arguments relies on other scientific theories, like the fact that
the universe has a beginning. However, that is not an assumption made out of thin air, as you seem to believe. It is very much an educated guess and arguably the most likely scenario given our contemporary knowledge of science. All his arguments are constructed by scientifically consented facts and logic between them. If you disagree, I challenge you to find an example that we can argue over.
Since you are making the claim, you have the burden of bringing the evidence. Else, you are just making unfounded statements. Or should I say... Assumptions?
samuel mork bednarz
You mean the first part of his Kalam Cosmological argument?
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause..."
That's not the case. It's merely an argument from intuition. What applies within the universe must not be true for the 'beginning' of said universe.
Nonetheless I would be willing to yield that.
The second part goes:
"The universe began to exist..."
Now that's a mere assumption. There is numerous cosmological models of an eternal universe without a beginning.
So far it sounds intellectual, but after that he just goes completely bananas, claiming the cause of the universe must be a perfect, personal deity.
It's basically passing the bucket; arguing from infinite regress and then stopping.
Taxtro
*“"Everything that begins to exist has a cause..."*
*That is not the case. It is merely an argument from intuition. What applies within the universe must not be true for the 'beginning' of said universe.”*
That is silly. There is not a single example of something coming into existence without a cause. Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations at this in response to me but I hope we don’t have to argue about that because frankly my experience is that when people say that quantum fluctuations make particles “pop” out of nothing they generally have no idea what their talking about. Nonetheless. If you want to make that point, I am ready when you do.
In addition, you are right. The argument certainly has an element of strong intuition. However, that is because it is completely logical. Nothing cannot create. Not only have we never seen that it can but in addition, it would be a logical contradiction of terms. If nothing created something, we would stop calling it nothing. Your right that the beginning conditions of the universe was vastly different then the current conditions. Natural laws probably do not apply. However, this is not a natural law. This is a matter of basic logic. Nothing = nothing.
*“Nonetheless I would be willing to yield that.”* Fantastic.
The second part goes:
*“"The universe began to exist..."*
*Now that is a mere assumption. There is numerous cosmological models of an eternal universe without a beginning.”*
That is not an assumption. The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory. Edward Hubble measured the red shift, which proved that the universe is expanding from a beginning point. Even Einstein initially thought the universe was infinite but then Edward Hubble famously invited him to his telescope to show him the evidence. Following which Einstein made the famous quote “I now see the necessity of a beginning”,
you claim that other models explain this. I want to know which? Because all the alternate models I know about have quite famously failed the task. Oscillating models(models in which the universe is expanding and contracting) are all unstable and non the less the BGV theorem proved that even oscillating models have to have a beginning point since no energy could account for it.
*“So far it sounds intellectual, but after that he just goes completely bananas, claiming the cause of the universe must be a perfect, personal deity.”*
That is not going bananas, he has some very serious, reasonable arguments to support that jump. His argument is based on logic that arrives when interacting with the given facts. If the universe is finite and nothing comes by nothing that means that: there was something prior to the universe that created it.
1:Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time, = space less and timeless.
2:It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent.
3:In addition, it had to be able to make a change in actions in order to derive a change to create a finite universe even when the effect that the change came from is infinite =whatever the “thing” is it had to be capable of making conscious decisions.
These are not “assumptions” they all have reasonable grounding. Even if we are wrong. Even if William lane Craig is wrong and there is no god. You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense. Claiming that he argues on assumptions is just being unfair and irrational. It rather makes your bias seem obvious. Tbh.
samuel mork bednarz
"That is silly. There is not a single example of something coming into existence without a cause."
Yes, that's why I said it is intuitive.
All this happens within the cosmos.
"Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations"
The 'big bang' probably happened by very similar mechanisms. The energy it needs to start our universe is exactly 0.
"Nothing cannot create"
It's another assumption, that true philosophical nothing even exists.
"The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory."
The big bang marks an expansion of space-time. Cosmology deals with a larger context. Our universe might only be one of many states of low entropy in a super space.
"Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time"
Then it cannot be a conscious being.
"It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent"
How is that? A universe needs no energy to be "created" and it is clearly not created with special care.
"whatever the “thing” is it had to be capable of making conscious decisions"
Which requires it to have time.
"You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense"
No, not at all. The argument from the "finely crafted universe" is bad as well, but much better than this one.
Taxtro
*“"Some people would raise the case of quantum fluctuations"*
*the 'big bang' probably happened by very similar mechanisms. The energy it needs to start our universe is exactly 0.”*
not even close. Although virtual particles pop into existence from no prior material, they do so only, when there is a fluctuating sea of negative and positive energy present. That means that even if it turns out that the universe came about by quantum fluctuations the sea of energy cannot itself be eternal eater and by the same rules you would be reasonably justified in believing that the sea itself has a prior cause. Therefore, you only really pushed the question back. Which is why we say that whatever the base logos is. It has to be outside of time because nr1 it has to account for time nr2 if it is in time it has to be finite since you cannot have an infinite number of events meaning that any cause that is in time will itself have a case. (Unless we are talking potentiality, which we are not in the case of past infinities)
conclusion? Every cause must have started by one cause that is outside of time. Thusly, we can also conclude. Quantum fluctuations is not a good explanation.
*”"Nothing cannot create"*
*It's another assumption, that true philosophical nothing even exists.”*
I never said it does (currently). I am fully aware that we have very little to no examples of any kind of vacuum containing zero particles. However, the trial of logic is saying that if all things have a start there was a time when not all those same things existed. The question is. What did exist before the other things? Normally in nature things never appear, they just change state. Like a tree is changed into a chair by means of kinetic energy usually involving tools.
However, quantum mechanics proved that although we do not have example of nothing in the philosophical sense things could have a start without needing prior material. Though the same line of quantum mechanics proved that even things that do appear without any prior material cannot do so on its own. This all accumulates to a very reasonable claim= nothing cannot make something. If you want to say, “well we don’t have any examples of ‘absolutely nothing” then that is a valid point but it hardly proves that “nothing”, when it is here, could make something. That is my point. If you can consent to that one hypothetical scenario then we can further the discussion to figure out if there actually ever was any “nothing” Furthermore, if our space-time has a start, then unless our space-time came about from another space-time then there had to be nothing prior to it. In the philosophical sense.
I know you might want to say that we might have come from a past space-time. In addition, that is not an unreasonable statement but as I already argued. Even that space-time has to have had a beginning. Therefore, you would only push the question back, so at bottom you have not really explained anything. This means that the only two possibilities is that there exist an infinite number of past universes. Alternatively, that there exist a cause outside of time that made the universe out of nothing.
To be frank both of these alternatives sound fucking insane. However, I have come to learn that when we get this deep into science most things does. Quantum mechanics sounds sketchy to. No matter how insane, one of these have to be true. As long as at least on of them is possible, it does not matter how insane it is. So which one is it? An infinite number of mother universes or a base creator?
In think, we can agree that actual infinities are nothing but an idea and can’t actually exist unless time is constantly moving backwards and forwards at the same time. Which is completely insane all by itself. Alternatively, maybe time is a cube like on the b theory of time. Which means that time is actually not moving forward rather every time is all the time actual. Which is also insane.
Alternatively, as I believe. Something is outside of time that like quantum fluctuations is capable of creating material from non-material but on a much larger scale. This Last one might sound equally crazy but it is just as reasonable as any other explanation and in my own opinion, it makes more sense since we can already test for these kind of properties and the alternative seems to rely on making time infinite in the past, which I am convinced, is actually impossible.
We can argue all you want but claiming that I am making assumptions is a gross lack of knowledge about the complicated logic behind it.
*"The entire big bang theory is manly focused on this one theory."*
*The big bang marks an expansion of space-time. Cosmology deals with a larger context. Our universe might only be one of many states of low entropy in a super space.*
are you referring to some type of oscillating model? I already dealt with that. Do you want be to go into detail?
*"Since the space-time universe is all space and time that means whatever that thing was it had to be without space and out of time"*
*Then it cannot be a conscious being.*
why? Like you, yourself implied. We do not know about the state of things in the vacuum of nothing. (Nothing meaning the lack of time in addition to space) I am saying that according to our logic there had to be a conscious mind outside of time. Are you saying there is a contradiction? You should further detail your position so I can more effectively deal with it. Else, I am just shooting in the dark.
*”"It had to be able to create universes= omnipotent"*
*How is that? A universe needs no energy to be "created" and it is clearly not created with special care.”*
I disagree, it clearly is created with special care, but that is an entirely different discussion. Now to your question, because the thing that created everything had to be able to create everything; else it would not have been able to create it, IA by definition Omnipotent. Regardless of how much energy he/she/it had to use to create it (which is probably zero since there could not have been any preexisting material. So your probably right about the energy input)
*"You still have to agree that this argument makes allot of sense"*
*No, not at all. The argument from the "finely crafted universe" is bad as well, but much better than this one.*
I think your underestimating the argument. I hold my opinion. You have to be able to at least admit that this argument is well thought through and deserves our research. If not then I find it hard to take you seriously.
The Glory, the Power, and the MONEY unto Craig
I really like how Dennett here embodies the intellectual humility lacking in William Lane Craig's ludicrous forays into cosmology.
Damn, Dennett is so modest and diplomatic. A real gentleman.
Such courtesy, he is a generous man..
Caveat emptor.
So is Craig.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Ha, hardly. He is much more combative and much more of a gamesman; using rhetorical technique and a debating prowess to try and "win." Dan just has a kind hearted good faith conversation. Actually, the fact that you think Craig does the same makes me think you havent watched very much of his content or if you have then you arent being very objective. Craig is a first rate debater, in the event you think they make great conversationalists go try his techniques at your next dinner party and see how many friends you make.
@@davidcline471 also Craig insists on "not" understanding İslam, as far as I see.
"He distills cosmological theories into a philosophical framework that helps me understand."
His Kalam argument is built on false premises and makes illogical leaps. It is a fallacy, not a framework, not a theory. It doesn't help you understand anything. He uses word games to mislead you. He robs you of understanding.
"No snakes were injured or killed for oil as far as I'm aware."
Yeah, that's the point of snake oil. It isn't actually snake oil. Hence, the scam.
A pathetic attempt, and a pathetic comment, you are cringe inducing.
@@NationalPK Please address the points in the comment, offer a rebuttal to each.
The problem with debates like these is that I believe that most of Craig's fans are fairly hard core Christians, most of whom, I believe are not good enough critical thinkers to understand either argument. So what they hear is two highly educated men spewing complex philosophical ideas, and simply like the sound of one better than the other.
Don't project your inability to comprehend their debate to Christians
Absolutely not I'm a craig fan (barring some of his moral arguments) and definitely still making up my mind
Depressingly plausible. I can't help but wonder how many Craig fans stopped listening to him when he started saying that killing children and infants was actually a good thing. Consider the stereotype that many of his fans are those who are easily emotionally manipulated, then consider the big red button that is 'kill kids for god'. There had to have been some backlash over that. I also wonder what it says about those who continue to support him and where they fall on the emotion-rationality scale.
@@tehspamgozehere
They are SO good at rationalizing though. My favorite uncle was a very devout, and also a very smart man, but when it comes to topics like this, he can twist himself in knots trying to figure out how to justify it.
William Lane Craig is the most arrogant pseudo-intellectual I’ve ever read. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how he gained the respect he enjoys.
What Daniel means to say is that William merely presents arguments that to his audience seem the most intuitive and likely. He always leads the audience like "everyone knows this" or "this is just common sense". Ie: he is a wonderful orator. Unfortunately the majority of his arguments when actually tested are devoid of any merit and at best lead to a deist view and the theist view he is shooting for (this is the example Daniel gave)
If true, then why does he appear to win most of the debates? If everyone on youtube is aware of all these obvious "flaws" then why do the debtors never seem to be prepared for them?
Craig's been using pretty much the same debate and structure for over 20 years. Kalam's refutations have not held up in a debate, only on kiddos youtube response videos.
" If everyone on youtube is aware of all these obvious "flaws" then why do the debtors never seem to be prepared for them?" - They are, and in most of these debates I get linked of WLC "owning" his opponent the person did refute every argument quite well, but only the good ones can communicate it in a well enough fashion where the audience that is already on WLC's side sees it as anything except being on the defensive.
There has been much debate (ironic) as to whether these debates even matter or if they even counterproductive since who reasons the best is not often the winner of the debate and instead of making people think about what they believe they usually make people 'double down' on their opinion and believe it even harder.
This is probably a bad idea, but I'll indulge it a bit. I don't generally debate people on youtube because it's a) a waste of time, b) mob mentality and the lowest common denominator tends to come out and C) I doubt anyone is actually interested in exploring the topic, just want to sound clever with cut and paste from how to argue with Christian/Athiests websites. Don't take it personally, I don't know you and have nothing against you.
Having a claim against an argument is not a refutation. WLC has been a very willing player for a lot of arguments against Kalam, and made concessions throughout his career where necessary. When challenged appropriately, he concedes (not during the debate) and modifies his arguments.
For example, he backed off claims against mass hallucinations when presented with evidence. There are others, this one just comes to mind first.
Most simply put, WLC may be a genius, but he has a lot of people helping him test and refine his approach. He's not a singular mind. He's not actually even trying to prove God through syllogisms like Thomas Aquinas failed at.
The purpose is more to show that there is compatibility with science and faith, and that one does not need to "turn off the brain" to believe in God. So, in that vein, the debates are good.
Saying people only "believe it harder" only helps demonstrate it is not an intellectual matter. Belief is fundamentally a moral choice. As Anthony Flew (atheist at the time) says, Christians believe because they want to, Atheists don't believe because they don't want to.
So, for us Christians, the debates are not a matter of proving God or no God, but making the sure people understand that the choice of a God is acceptable to the rational mind. To be honest, God, to us, is not a matter of the mind as much as it is of the heart.
"Don't take it personally, I don't know you and have nothing against you." - Never would. I understand the same pitfalls of communication on RUclips. I always strive to behave differently and stick to the issues and not let things devolve into some back and forth mud fight.
"The purpose is more to show that there is compatibility with science and faith, and that one does not need to "turn off the brain" to believe in God. So, in that vein, the debates are good." - On one level I can respect this approach, on another I think it's a bit of a sellout. A discussion about the concept of a theistic being in the universe not being in absolute contention with 'science' or the scientific method is one thing. To say that "faith" and science can mix doesn't work though when you start talking about specific faith beliefs and the person is unwilling to move that belief in the face of evidence showing that belief to be false. There is a very good reason WLC rarely talks about his faith specifically; he can give arguments that are in actuality arguing for at most some vague often deistic and not even theistic concept and the audience can then hear that argument and take it as a sound argument for their faith beliefs and God when they are not. WLC has furthermore said of his personal faith that he does not value scientific evidence very highly.
"Saying people only "believe it harder" only helps demonstrate it is not an intellectual matter." - That I would be in total agreement with. The two sides are fundamentally fighting different fights. The fact that an audience member can hear something from the other side that should be contradictory to their belief and make them think instead usually makes people anchor their belief in even deeper is because both sides are looking for something different in the debate. If I'm moved by moral claims, by faith claims, then scientific concepts and reasoning are not likely to phase me and visa versa.
As far as people identifying as a member of a particular religion or identifying as non-religious I try not to let that factor into my judgment of a person because there are great people (smart, moral, list off the good things) on all sides of that divide, as well was people that I wouldn't associate with for that matter.
Anthony Landrum "To say that "faith" and science can mix doesn't work though when you start talking about specific faith beliefs and the person is unwilling to move that belief in the face of evidence showing that belief to be false."
So science can prove the existence of God. Which is what this statement means. For in order to prove a belief false, the process has to be able to prove the belief true also. The most common belief, let's say young "Earthers", you (or someone) claims science proves this false. Well sir, you are just flat out wrong. Anything using time as a factor is only accomplished through non-provable relationships based on an assumption of "conceptual measurements". There is absolutely not one person on this planet that has observed the Earth making 4.5 billion revolutions around the sun. There is absolutely not one scientist on this planet that has predated something using carbon 14,13 or radioactive isotopes and then observed those processes for millions of years to prove the claimed outcome. Which, direct observation is necessary for it to be science. There are approximately 30 different "scientific" measurements within nature that contradict each other in regards to when this planet was capable of sustaining life. One example is the increasing amount of helium in the Earths atmosphere due to radioactive decay. The age of the Earth;s atmosphere is a point of contention in regards to the accuracy of other claimed sciences concerning this topic.The helium we observe in today’s atmosphere
is a function of its initial concentration when the
atmosphere was formed and a balance between the
flux in and the flux out. The differential equation for
this situation is:
dn
dt = − c c 1 2n
Assuming c1
= 2 × 106
atoms cm-2/sec-1 and
c2
= 4.54 × 10-16sec-1, the time required to reach the
helium concentration of today’s atmosphere would
be 1.76 million years. This period is over 2,500 times
shorter than the generally assumed age of the earth.
If on the other hand, N(o)
was not zero, but half of today’s
concentration, the time would drop to 890,000 years.
If n(o)
was 9/10 of today’s concentration, the time would
only be 180,000 years.
An alternative to the long-age model, and one
which runs counter to the basic assumption of the
evolutionary/uniformitarian model, is that the earth’s
atmosphere is relatively young (less than 10,000 years).
Under this assumption, the helium content of today’s
atmosphere would be almost completely primordial.
During the 10,000 years or so since its creation, less
than 1% of today’s helium would have been added by
the decay of radioactive materials in the crust.
The recent discoveries of helium coming through
the crust from the mantle where no radioactive decay
process is known to produce helium, has led to the
statement that primordial helium exists in the mantle.
Why then, is it so hard to believe that primordial
helium also exists in the atmosphere? The lack of an
escape mechanism and the likelihood that, the helium
we observe in the atmosphere is primordial provides
evidence that the earth’s atmosphere is quite young.
I have merely posted the summary prior to the conclusion that was at the end of a very long scientific publication.
refs.
Bates, D. R. & McDowell, M. R. C. (1957). Atmospheric helium.
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 11,
200-208.
Mayne, I. E. (1956). Terrestrial helium. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 9, 174-182.
Nicolet, M. (1957). The aeronomic problem of helium. Annals
de Geophysique, Tome 13, Fascicule 1, 1-21.
Nicolet, M. (1961). Helium, an important constituent in the
lower exosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 66(7),
2263-2264.
Turekian, K. K. (1959). The terrestrial economy of helium and
argon. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 17, 37-43.
Larry Vardiman PhD.
Craig admits that logic aside he will believe in the mythical Jesus no matter what because Craig had a feeling in his heart. That just shows that his arguments are a smokescreen for subjective arbitrary belief. Is the heart a cognitive organ? Or does he mean that he has superior emotional experiences which trump facts and reality? So reason be damned. Jesus communicated with him and that's good enough for him.
Even if Craig's perfectly valid arguments are the smokescreen for a feeling in his heart, the fact remains: his arguments are perfectly valid. I'll explain.
First, it's a law of logic called the principle of sufficient reason which states that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Secondly, Alexander Vilenkin has gone on the record stating, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” That means that the first law of logic, when compounded with the BGV theorem, predicts - necessarily - a cosmic cause. C=A+B if and only if A+B does = C; therefore C= A+B. The logic is as inescapable as the math used to calculate the rate of cosmic expansion. The universe had a beginning, and everything that begins also has a cause. What, then, is the nature of this cause?
Dr. Craig then proposes that the cause of the universe must've been either due to physical necessity, chance or God. He demonstrates precisely why physical necessity and chance cannot be considered plausible candidates for the universe.
Physical necessity can't explain such an outcome because nothing physically exists prior to the cosmic beginning, and chance can't explain the outcome because the odds of the universe coming into being within life-permitting parameters are 1 in 10 to the 500th' power. And since it's completely implausible to believe the universe is a consequence of physical necessity or chance, that means the universe must be the consequence of God.
In other words, his argument goes like this. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause of the universe is either physical necessity, chance, or God. The cause of the universe is neither physical nor chance. Therefore, the cause of the universe is God."
" The cause of the universe is either physical necessity, chance, or God." As my good buddy Father Guido would say, you have proof of this? Could be universe farting pixies. After all, if "the odds of the universe coming into being within life-permitting parameters are 1 in 10 to the 500th' power," then there ya go 'cause here we are. As my dear friend and confidant Sally Bowles puts it, "It's gotta happen, happen sometime."
Proof is not evidence. Proof is a logical process of checking the logic. By falsifying necessity and chance, God is proven by law of logical consequence.
First, you haven't shown that necessity, chance, or some god are the only choices. For all we know, there could be some timeless quantum field we haven't figured out yet that makes our being here now the cause of the universe coming into being then. Second, if a god, which god? There are a few thousand, you know. And third, your god is proven by logical consequence? Please. The only logical answer at this point in our explorations is "We don't know, but we're working on it."
It's actually quite simple. The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic which states any principle which contradicts itself must be false. In this case, your search for a NATURAL reason for the universe that ISN'T causally rationalizable is a contradiction in terms. Thus there can be no NATURAL reason for the cause of the universe in terms of natural causality that isn't self-refuting.
Secondly, your search for a NATURAL reason which ISN'T government by mathematical possibilities is a contradiction in terms. In this case, your search for a NATURAL reason for the universe that isn't statistically rationalizable is a contradiction in terms. Thus there can be no NATURAL reason for the cause of the universe in terms of natural causality that isn't self-refuting.
As for third options other than God? That's the logical fallacy of moving the goal post - the error of logic of inventing new conditions to avoid having to admit a conclusion when the conclusion has satisfied the initial conditions. Your demand that we invent a third option to avoid having to admit God's existence is logically fallacious and unjustified. Furthermore, it's a contradiction in terms: the search for a natural reason for the universe that isn't rationalizable in terms of reason itself, which deals solely in either statistics or causality in so far as rational causation is concerned.
So here's what we know. It's a contradiction to claim the universe itself was caused by necessity, and it's a contradiction in terms to claim the universe itself was caused by statistical fortune. The existence of a third, unknown option is logically fallacious to propose in terms that aren't either governed by logical laws of cause and effect or statistical chance. It is also self-contradictory. Therefore, we've shown that necessity and chance are the only logically possible alternatives to God.
You're argument is refuted.
Hucksters have a true talent, or skill, that most of us don't have, and this is why they excel at public debates. Most of us aren't adept at "thinking on our feet" when confronted; our brains don't work that way. We may be capable of thinking wonderfully complex and abstract thoughts when we have time to process, uninterrupted. We may be able to concentrate on logic and reason when we're not distracted. We may be able to easily refute ridiculous assertions in the comfort of our living rooms. But in the moment, or in public, most of us freeze, or react instinctively with thoughtless "fight or flight" . . . or are distracted by noise or flash or motion or emotion. Hucksters have no such issues, and they are masters of taking advantage of our instinctive emotional avoidance of conflict. So I acknowledge their talent . . . but they are still liars, still despicable, and still wrong. Most of us know better, but we don't trust our own thoughts, because the hucksters seem so comfortable and confident in their lies. Trust yourself. Take your time. Craig is a confident huckster.
Wow, at around 2:30 mins I had to pause and address his obvious bait and switch, he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's and even admits that on the Quantum level, there is so much unknown that it is mind boggling, therefore all he did was spew out a huge line of pretentious talk to butter up a simple statement of "I don't know therefore WLC is wrong"
I actually became embarrassed for him when he said that abstract objects can cause things to happen and his example of adding a support wedge to ones outside wall, is not even close to showing that to be true, as the triangle can not do anything by itself, it cant create itself, nor put itself to good use as a support system, something else has to provide the input for it to happen so in no way shape or form did he prove that an abstract object can cause anything to happen on it's own.
I don't even think a support wedge can even be considered an abstract object in the first place.
Considering he said that though, he just made a huge idiot of himself and was he actually trying to suggest that an apple is an abstract object as well?
He completely lost me on that one.
+parodyisms "Wow, at around 2:30 mins I had to pause and address his obvious bait and switch, he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's and even admits that on the Quantum level, there is so much unknown that it is mind boggling, therefore all he did was spew out a huge line of pretentious talk to butter up a simple statement of "I don't know therefore WLC is wrong" "
No. He made the point that WLC uses folk intuitions about reality that are predicated on our everyday experience to talk about creation, thereby extrapolating from extrapolations, themselves extrapolated from daily experience.
Dennett then pointed to the fact that you don't get to QM by multiple abstractions on anecdotal evidence, but QM, what grasp we have on it, does explain our existence, and consistently makes accurate predictions about things, i.e. the quantum tunnelling that our computer chips rely on.
That's not a bait and switch, that's pointing out that WLC uses comforting and tractable ideas from the everyday to support his conception of God, but our everyday doesn't involve interaction directly with quarks or neutrinos or spooky action, despite the fact that our world is described by exactly these things. What's ironic is that WLC's doing this merely supports the hypothesis that man created God in his own image to explain the universe in a manner that is tractable and familiar.
How would you get to the idea of quantum tunnelling by abstracting from everyday ideas... unless you had the idea of quantum tunnelling first, and retrofitted a folksy "explanation" post hoc?
COEXISTential He bait and switched.
parodyisms Oh, I see! Yes, of course. How silly of me.
No. He didn't, and I've explained why he didn't. Clearly you don't get it.
COEXISTential opinions opinions opinions, you hear what you want to hear and obviously do not know what a bait and switch is and exactly what he did.
parodyisms I do, but as you apparently don't (but think you do), here's a link to clarify...
www.issuepedia.org/Semantic_bait-and-switch
"...he went from first addressing WLC's arguments, never even tried to refute them, then started talking about QM..which has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with WLC's argument's..."
WLC's "arguments" are themselves a bait and switch. It hinges on the use of words like universe or creation, in one sense it is the materialistic, natural universe, in the other it is the non-material, supernatural chimera of WLC's imagination (based in some part on Biblical cosmology).
Dennett is not engaging in a bait and switch, he is attempting to undo WLC's by pointing out that you can't abstract and abstract and abstract from personal experience, and then somehow use the outcome to supersede quantum mechanics. The irony here being that it's WLC that tells us that abstract objects have no causal power.
Man Oh Man, your posts surely brighten my day.
You have several people on your case now, and you still won't give up.
Full marks for tenacity!
Dr. Dennett, if personal causation breaks down to scientific causation than your ideas used to vigorously defend against Harris, and his disregard for the notions freewills existence, are at odds with this claim.
Are you a Determinist when debating Craig but then an advocate of freewill up until then? Flip flopping your own intellectual consistency, your state of thought depending on your need to defeat the Theist or on remaining consistent and coherent in your interpretation of reality?
Dennett is a compatabilist. He thinks both free will and determinism are true. I believe his basic position is that higher-level organisms with consciousness (humans, monkeys, dolphins, etc.) have more "freedom" to choose different paths than a beetle, for example, because of their highly developed brains. At the same time, however, environmental factors will always influence which options are available, and often the brain will pick one at random _or_ the environment will force a decision. Either way, it's always the brain and its materialist functions that determine human behavior, _not_ anything spiritual or superstitious like a "soul." Because he thinks both are true to some extent, he is at odds with both Craig (who believes solely in free will) _and_ Harris (who is convinced that pure determinism is accurate).
Ok so here Is Dennett's talk in a nutshell:
The premises of the argument sound reasonable, the logic seems to be valid. I cant find a fallacy here.
But i dont like the conclusion of the argument so let me just babble about random stuff that is, at best, irrelevant, at worst, stupid.
So, quantum mechanics is complicated and weird
maybe the idea of an apple is the cause of the universe
maybe the square root of seven is the cause of the universe
maybe euclidean geometry causes things
contemporary cosmology is also complicated
i wished Vilenkin and Guth were here to save my ass
the trouble with a changeless God is that it is changeless
Maybe it would have been better to have Christopher Hitchens there to refute the argument by explaining why Mother Teresa was evil...
+nas lost Dennett makes me think that they must hand out those Oxford philosophy degrees like Trick-Or-Treat candy.
+Terence Francis Oh that's so clever. Did you steal that line from a book?
I'm a little confused at your argument, please clarify. I didn't say the force has a reason for being. I said that the observable, physical world shows that matter cannot appear from nothing and since we can only observe the physical world, we cannot scientifically or logically break that physical world down to explain where the physical world came from. It is not more scientific or logical to say that it just appeared or it was always there than it is to say something supernatural made it so.
What is missing from all these debates about the existence of the god is how is god universally defined by all Christians. Once god is defined in Christian terms, then you can proceed to debate on the existence of the Christian god.
God is defined by Jesus Christ. So when we read Jesus' words and see what He did, that's what God is like. For Jesus Christ is God.
@@lawrence1318 That is not universal definition of the christian god. Furthermore, there is no agreement as to who jesus was and if there was an actual jesus with divine powers. You are using statements from the bible to prove that statements from the bible are true. That is circular reasoning.
@@UCVOmXnVB724jCE5iNcl You wouldn't know circular reasoning if you fell over it. What I have said is correct: God is defined by Jesus Christ.
@@lawrence1318 Oh the irony of your statement. Based on your beliefs, you are basically saying god is defined by god. (Christian circular logic)
@@UCVOmXnVB724jCE5iNcl No it is not circular. Jesus Christ existed as a man on earth and defined God by His activities: He showed what God was like and what God's standards are and how God thinks.
So God is defined by Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is also God. So we understand by this that only God can reveal what God is like. He did this in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son and who is therefore God, for God the Son is God just as much as God the Father is God.
God is a trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. God the Son became flesh and dwelt among men and revealed who God was by what He said and how He lived and how He died and how He rose again.
Now ... off you go to read your New Testament instead of hearing bits and pieces on the internet.
Dennet sounds like a sore loser. Craig crushes his arguments.
Its not hard to crush the truth with lies
LattiMonstaaa whaa??
You must be jesting. I think Craig's debate with Sam Harris is very telling, he basically picks him apart with pure logic. It's actually quite beautiful.
Hahahahaha. Craig can't stand on the same stage as Dennett.
devourerofbabies True, Craig has a rock solid foundation to stand on, Jesus Christ. Dennet has only sinking sand.
I fundamentally disagree. I worked in IT for many years and experienced none of what you describe.
Let's not forget the many many benefits IT has given to society, and will continue to.
Theocracy is another matter, but even theocracy cannot deny what IT has done for modern society.
People don't generally "get over" atheism, but they often get sick of arguing with thick headed people who care nothing about facts or logic, so they finally give up on those people.
I find everyone's amazement at WLC's version of the Kalam Cosmological argument mindboggling. Hearing Daniel Dennett say that he finds WLC's premises plausible is exceptional.
I can stomp his argument into the ground in +-40 sentences, and I havent even tried to condense it yet, i'm pretty sure I can reduce it to 20 or less:
The Kalam Cosmological argument falls apart at every possible turn.
It starts with:
"The Universe must have had a cause, and since time and space came into being together with the Universe, the cause must have been timeless and spaceless"
The first problem here is that this is simply an assertion on Craig's part.
It is only OUR Time and Space that came into being, it's completely possible for there to have been a precursory Space/Time,
wich is also far more likely since we actually have an example of a Space/Time and we have no examples of a 'Spaceless/Timeless something'
Then there is the problem of existance, since existance is defined as either being Space/Time,
or within Space/time, it follows that whatever is Spaceless/Timeless doesnt exist.
It's like asking 'What existed before existance existed?' it's as nonsensical as it gets.
The argument is buried right here, but let's assume something Spaceless/Timeless can indeed exist, however insane,
and let's assume that is what is required for the cause of the Universe.
He goes on by saying:
'the only possible candidates for such a cause are either Abstractions like numbers, or Minds'
Well this is nothing more then a logical fallacy, it's an argument from personal incredulity.
Since HE doesnt know of anything else that fits the bill, it MUST therefore be one of these two options.
But again, let's suppose there is something here worth adressing.
The first problem is that Ideas/Concepts like numbers,
are physical in the sense that I have 4 marbles on my table,
or physical in the sense that the Idea/Concept wich they represent in my brain, are at the molecular/atomic level also physical.
The second problem is that Minds are dependant upon brains, and brains are physical, we have no examples of a non-physical mind.
We dont have an example of non-physicality period. The Universe is made up of Two things: Space/Time, and Energy/Matter.
Space/Time might at first glance seem non-physical, but this is not true,
Both have physical properties, Both can be Manipulated, measured, Stretched and curved.
And both are in my view Quantized (i.e. Not Infinitely divisible)
Because if Space/Time could be infinitely divided, one could Imagine an Infinite amount of 'waypoint markers' in between a given point A and B
If any object wishes to traverse from Point A to point B, It would have to travel through an infinite amount of waypoints, causing it to never
arrive anywhere.
But we know that objects are indeed able to travel from A to B, I can get up from my seat, and walk to the bathroom.
So since we know that movement between places is possible, it follows that Space/Time must be Quantized and not infinitely divisible.
So everything is physical, there is no such thing as NON-physical. Even Ideas and concepts are physical, If I think of an Idea, that is at some level
represented by physical structures in my brain, if I choose to write my idea down, now the idea is physical in the form of Ink on paper.
Many people here get confused by the term Information, they argue that just ink on paper isnt Information, and that the Information an idea contains is
non-physical.
Well this makes no sense, The slip of paper with my idea in an empty room is just that, a physical piece of paper with physical ink, no information there.
If I enter the room, and am able to deduce information from this Ink, What allows me to deduce that information is the physical structures in my brain.
I then create whatever 'information' I deduce from the slip of paper as yet more physical structures in my brain.
There is no 'real' non-physical space in between the slip of paper and the physical structures that represent ideas in my brain for an idea to occupy.
The non-physical simply equates to non-existant.
- And herein lies WLC's hucksterism, He believes minds are non-physical, why? Well apart from alot of confusion on the subject of physics and philosphy,
it's because he believes in Souls. And why does he believe in Souls?
Well because the bible says so.
Craig's argument is just a very long, drawn out "its true because the bible says its true" - nothing more.
is this really thát hard to see?
I Agree that in many of his debates he doesnt get floored as hard as he should be, but why this doesnt happen confuses me immensely.
His argument can be boiled down to "the bible says so" in about 40 sentences or so. It's really not that difficult, I just did it.
Congratulations, this does makes sense. I also do find WLC's arguments boil down to "the Bible says so". I'm astonished too that he didn't get floored until now.But also, I think Sean Caroll laid the ultimate smack down on WLC's ass. So, are you a philosopher,friend?
Great comment. Thank you.
Atheists find it hard to argue with Craig because ... well... it's hard to argue with Craig. So they have to make these subtle ad hominem attacks instead. Disagree with Craig on almost every issue, but to dismiss him as a dialectical acrobat is unfair.
nicksum29 This. I have never seen a response to WLC's arguments that wasn't either Ad Hominem or a complete strawman, with the exception of 2 atheists, Graham Oppy and Quentin Smith. Those are the only 2 atheists that I think have anything worthwhile to say.
Also, Peter Millican is a cool guy. Other than that, the new atheists are a bunch of sophists calling other people sophists, for all I can see.
Endeavor I wouldn't call the new atheists "new". They contribute very little new material, and that which they do contribute is usually so riddled with patchwork references that one statement contradicts the other. Much like reading the Gospels, ironically enough.
nicksum29
The main difference between a 'new' atheist and the traditional atheist is
that the catholic church is not allowed to burn them at the stake anymore.
nicksum29 you sound mad
nicksum29 Sean Carroll already defeated Craig in a debate.
This is a really poor attempt from Dennet. The more I look into the New Atheists, the less impressed I am.
Aren't the new atheists a reaction to the problems of the classical atheists?
No, its just a stupid name apologists invented.
I agree. But Dennet can't be as crude as he should. He does not want to resort to non-academic behavior.
InterestingName that's merely a result of your preconceived notion of who is correct, whom you agree with...
It wasn't terribly persuasive, but it did offer me some new insights. I also appreciated that his tone felt open, and thought-provoking, as opposed to antagonistic.
The science points to an intelligent designer. Man has a choice to acknowledge it or not.
exactly
I notice theists always start with the claim Never with the proof.....
Mr. Dennett challenges the notion that the abstraction of things can't cause things (6:53), going further to provide an example where Euclidean geometry (an abstraction) can be used to stabilize a structure. This is a poor example in my opinion, because he attributes agency to abstraction rather than to the house owner who appreciates both the abstraction and its practical application. The agency, the cause, belongs to the house owner, not the abstraction. Mere abstraction has no agency, per se.
Thank you!
Cause doesn't require agency to be a cause.
@@SC-zq6cu The example of triangulation that Mr. Dennett offers as an example of abstraction effect cause is deflective because he ignores in his own reference to the abstract principle of triangulation the workman who exploits the principle to cause his house to become stable.
Cause does not always require agency. True. Sometimes cause is itself just a link in a chain of determinate events. Other times it be a statistical fluctuation. Either of these models is built upon abstract models, which may lead one to ask: Where do the abstractions come from? Why is there a Golden Ratio that is found in so many places? Why is the ratio of the circumference of circle to its diameter pi? Why does one plus one equal two? After all the only reason we say it does so is because it's always seen to be so...
It is the agency behind abstraction in its formulation and application that is being posited here.
I have a lot of respect for Dennett, but I he's completely wrong about Craig.
Craig's most common arguments have *more holes than substance*, so they are very easy to tear down. One example: morality
*1)* Craig likes to use the term "objective morality", but that's an *oxymoron*. He is confusing *ad populum* / commonly agreed upon social norms (resulting from humans evolving in groups) with *objectivity*.
Or, he doesn't know the meaning of the word "objective": From Merriam-Webster:
*Objective* - adjective
1: based on *facts* rather than *feelings* or *opinions* : *not* influenced by feelings
2: philosophy : existing *outside of the mind* : existing in the real world
Morality originates from and only exists in *minds*, so "objective morality" is an *oxymoron*, like "dry liquid" (dryness = an *absence* of liquids).
*2)* Anyone who claims that religious morality is superior, clearly hasn't read the horrible ideas in the Old Testament or the Quoran, or is in *denial*.
(child sacrifice, genocide, infanticide, slavery, stoning for minor offenses and the whole infinite punishment for finitie crimes idea (hell), all committed and condoned by god).
In fact, secular morality is *inherently superior*:
When an atheist helps a less fortunate person, it's truly selfless because he's *not expecting anything* in return.
When a religious person does it, there are strings attached (preaching/converting) and/or he's expecting a "payment" (heaven).
That's not charity. It's a *business transaction*.
*3)* The origin and variety of morals is a lot more consistent with evolution.
We evolved in groups: flocks, packs, tribes etc.
Tribes that allowed eating babies and murder died out (duh!).
It's that simple. No need for gods, leprechauns etc.
*4)* Craig has no good answer to the Euthyphro dilemma:
Is an idea fundamentally moral just because god said it, or is there an inherent morality and god is just a messenger?
If the former is true, anything god says goes (again, see the Old Testament etc.).
If the latter is true, then there is no need for god for morals.
If you don't have morals on your own, how do you know that god is the good guy and the devil is the bad guy?
You had to reach that conclusion somehow!
Christians will say that "god wrote this into people's heart".
Well, first of all, the hart is a pump..., but:
So, god programmed us to think that he's the good guy?
Well, that's exactly what a villain would do, so that does not answer anything.
*5)* Can you even call god moral?
Just consider the idea of hell:
If you're a parent, would torture your children for eternity, simply for not loving you?
Hopefully, your answer is along the lines of "hell no" (excuse the pun).
Congratulations!
You are more moral than god!
That's just one of Craigs favorite topics, his other ones are just as easy to debunk, but I don't want to take up the whole thread.
***** Very true. It's baffling how theists convinced themselves that faith without evidence is a good thing.
But faith without evidence = *gullibility*. Otherwise, they should just send their money to those Nigerian princes with the emails...
At least, they would be *consistent* with the whole not needing evidence thing...
Gabor's first rule comes to mind:
"Without evidence, a sack of claims is worth the sack."
And that's all religions are...
Oh my gosh... You are saying Craig doesn't know what objective means!? He is a doctor of philosophy and doesn't know what objective means!? You learn that in intro to philosophy courses!!! Shut up!!!
***** Exactly! Apparently, Craig (and you) can not read the friggin' *dictionary*!
From Merriam-Webster:
*objective*, noun:
*1)* based on *facts* rather than *feelings* or opinions : *not* influenced by feelings
*2)* *philosophy* : existing *outside of the mind* : existing in the real world
Morals are *feelings*. They are *software* running on computers, called *human brains*. Morals can *only* exist in minds. They can *not* exist *without* minds.
*Objects*, like rocks *don't have morals*. Ever notice the *root* of the word "objective": *object*?
Only *subjects* have morals, so *by definition*, morals are *subjective*. Ever notice the *root* of the word "subjective": *subject*?
So, "objective morals" is an *oxymoron*!
Look at *2*! The official definition in *philosophy*, *Craig's own field*, disagrees with him!
And don't make me laugh! A "doctor of philosophy" is like a "doctor of religious studies". It's a useless, *bullshit degree*, with highly *subjective* standards. No wonder, Craig doesn't have a *real* job!
On the other hand, look at the most vocal atheists:
They are *scientists*. People who actually *know* what the hell they are talking about, regarding the universe and human minds / biology. Unlike philosoply, when you get a doctorate in science, you actually have to *prove* with *hard evidence* that your shit *works*.
Einstein, Feynman, Weinberg: Nobel prize-winning physicists
Harris: accomplished neuroscientist.
Dawkins: accomplished biologist.
Tyson: accomplished astrophysicist.
Krauss: accomplished astrophysicist.
***** This is why philosophy is *obsolete*. A philosopher is just a scientist-wanna-be, without the *lab* and the *equipment*. He's trying to understand the universe from his arm-chair, using his *human* intuition. This kind of worked until about a 100 years ago, when we discovered quantum mechanics and the expanding universe.
And we needed *instruments* do do it! They are both so unintuitive (especially QM), that they made us realize, we can *not* understand the universe, by *only* relying on our intuition.
Our primitive intuition evolved in the African savannah, to avoid lions and to make babies.
It's a nice side-effect that we can understand the universe, but *only* with strict, scientific standards and by carefully avoiding the limitations of the brain.
This is why people who don't have such strict standards, believe in nonsense, like gods and unicorns.
***** I'm not lumping them all together. As you say, the kind of philosophy theists push, is pretty much complete BS, built on logical fallacies, double standards and *dishonesty*.
The rest of philosophy, while mostly *honest*, has just become (mostly) obsolete because of the reasons I mentioned.
Sure, it may be *interesting* to contemplate the universe from our arm chairs, but it's *not sufficient any more*.
Human "common sense" and "intuition" alone, can *not* discover *new information* about the universe. You need (often expensive) equipment for that.
If we could just intuit the nature of the universe, we wouldn't need to spend hundreds of billions on experiments, satellites with cutting-edge instruments and so forth.
Philosophy can be useful for helping out science with posing the right questions, but even that requires knowledge of the latest observations (with the mentioned equipment), so it's not "pure" arm-chair philosophy any more...
For a guy who claims to be a Philosopher, Daniel Dennet sure didn't have much to say in response to WLC. He's trying to respond with bamboozlement, very artfully put. He appears to know nothing about either science OR philosophy.
"For a guy who claims to be a Philosopher,"
> It's not a claim. He IS a philosopher like it or not.
Daniel Dennet sure didn't have much to say in response to WLC.
> So we've just been listening to almost 11 minutes of silence have we? I think not. It would be very interesting if you could supply an accurate synopsis of the main points Dennett has made here... or if you'd decline or simply provide a straw man instead. Feel free to surprise me because I'm expecting you to decline this request. - Am I wrong? If so let's hear it...
He's trying to respond with bamboozlement, very artfully put.
> Please explain how can a saying "I'm not convinced there's a god" or words to that effect be 'bamboozlement' when it's not even a claim?
He appears to know nothing about either science OR philosophy.
> But appearances can be deceptive. 'Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Albert Einstein
So En prove that assertion, I doubt you will be able to.
Believing in God is believing in the supernatural. Is that different from believing in a big bang? Which argument is more plausible?
So basically, Dennett's response to all of Craig's arguments is, "Well the explanation is going to be mind-boggling, contrary to common sense, and we just don't know what the explanation is yet." Craig's case, however, attempts to show that one explanation is *less* "mind-boggling", *more* sensible, and more plausible. I'm sorry, but Dennett's response is all attitude no substance.
Vic 2.0 Yet, to assert a scientifically unverifiable god is? Craig's explanation is more or less a sophisticated argument of the god of the gaps.
While Dennett is conceding the possibility of WLC's assertion, he's not committing to it because he's not that arrogant.
I would grant you that guys like John Lennox could raise some questions about the possibilities of a prime mover, but you still have the arduous task of connecting this god to a religion (in most cases Christianity, Muslims), which then leaves you with an even greater task of justifying the immoral actions of this god. FYI - divine command theory is not an acceptable response. If you impose regions laws on people, giving this deity of yours a pass in abiding these laws is morally dishonest and hypocritical.
In short, it's far reaching, lacks critical thinking and a compromise to one's innate morals to reach that conclusion.
But hey, if it brings you purpose and comfort, have at it. Just keep that to yourself and out of the schools and government.
Francis Dakis Actually, Craig's arguments follow what we *do* know and reasoning, to arrive at their conclusions. It's not "god of the gaps" at all. And I certainly never implied that because Dennett's arguments are weak, that that somehow proves theism! I'm an atheist myself. But that doesn't preclude me from admitting when a theist's arguments are better than an atheist's.
"but you still have the arduous task of connecting this god to a religion (in most cases Christianity, Muslims),"
Craig does attempt to do this, with his resurrection argument.
"which then leaves you with an even greater task of justifying the immoral actions of this god."
That's circular reasoning. If you start off with "The actions are immoral", then that means they *can't* be justified. However, if you state it more factually (e.g., "God decides not to value people's time on Earth", "God makes people suffer on Earth", etc.), then it's not very difficult to "justify" these things. One would simply point out that part of the story is the afterlife, and there's no logic in emphasizing a temporary phase over the eternal era.
This, of course, does lead one immediately to challenging the hell doctrine. And they're right to do so; even about 25% of Christians reject it on moral, logical, and even biblical grounds.
"If you impose regions laws on people, giving this deity of yours a pass in abiding these laws is morally dishonest and hypocritical."
I don't see how it follows logically, to say that the embodiment of goodness/rightness can't do certain things to bring about eternal bliss for all in heaven, even if those things are things we ourselves cannot do (because we don't know what the end consequences will be).
"In short, it's far reaching, lacks critical thinking and a compromise to one's innate morals to reach that conclusion."
On the contrary, it's the appeal to our "innate morals" alone that lacks critical thinking, as do many of the responses I've gotten from other atheists on RUclips already.
"But hey, if it brings you purpose and comfort, have at it. Just keep that to yourself and out of the schools and government."
I agree that religion shouldn't be promoted or taught in our government and public schools. But not that Christians should have to "keep it to themselves".
Vic 2.0 There's a lot to unpack here, many which I disagree, but I'll do my best to summarize my on views on the subject and keep this from being a too lengthy.
- I reject supernatural claims, biblical or otherwise.
- While thoughtful, sophisticated answers given by the apologists the likes of Craig, these claims/assertions are still missing the most critical component, which is evidence. Therein lies, "the god of the gaps" or what I like to call "connecting the dots to assert an unseen and unverifiable celestial deity".
- Innate morals, in my view are more or less the human solidarity that exist in each human. Within this framework exists universally within our specie, the "golden rule". Moreover, the consensus with secularists/atheists is morality is subjective while believers use the bible as a source of ultimate/objective morality.
- As a self-proclaimed atheists I'm a bit surprised at your undercurrent views in defense of WLC and theism.
In the words of my intellectual hero and late great Christopher Hitchens:
"We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."
Francis Dakis "I reject supernatural claims, biblical or otherwise."
Understood.
"While thoughtful, sophisticated answers given by the apologists the likes of Craig, these claims/assertions are still missing the most critical component, which is evidence."
The claims and assertions are supported by *arguments* which, if true, just *are* the evidence. And so to show that there is no evidence, for example, for the claim/assertion "The universe plausibly had a cause", you would have to show either that the logic of the argument is invalid or that one (or both) of the premises is untrue.
"Therein lies, "the god of the gaps" or what I like to call "connecting the dots to assert an unseen and unverifiable celestial deity"."
Except that, again, the conclusions are arrived at via deductive arguments the premises are which are based on what we *do* know, or at least what can be reasoned without refutation. For example, if it's true that 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause and also that 2. The universe began to exist, it follows logically and inescapably that 3. The universe has a cause.
"Innate morals, in my view are more or less the human solidarity that exist in each human. Within this framework exists universally within our specie, the "golden rule". Moreover, the consensus with secularists/atheists is morality is subjective"
That's blatantly false. Craig himself has debated atheists who believe in objective morality (e.g. Louis Antony and Shelly Kagan). And I'm *also* an atheist who believes morality is objective.
"while believers use the bible as a source of ultimate/objective morality."
That's actually incoherent, when you understand what "objective" means here. It simply means that something can be morally right or wrong independent of human opinion. Craig's example of Nazi Germany is a good one: To say that the holocaust was objectively morally wrong, is to say that it was wrong and would still *be* wrong, even if the Nazis had succeeded in conquering the world and brainwashing or killing everyone who thought it was wrong, so that literally everyone thought it was *right.* It would still be wrong, because its wrongness/rightness is not dependent on any opinion.
"As a self-proclaimed atheists I'm a bit surprised at your undercurrent views in defense of WLC and theism."
Well my ultimate target is anti-theism. I have no issues with those who reject theism or even believe "There is no god". But I'm somewhat annoyed by people on both sides who claim to *know* the answer to the god question, and frankly intolerant of those who *oppose* atheism/theism.
And I agree with that quote from Hitchens, but I don't think the New Atheists (anti-theists) practice what is preached there. I think *all* of the arguments against theism "outrage reason".
Vic 2.0 For the record, I'm enjoying this exchange. Too often there's hostility and outright insults when people have counterviews on the subject.
In the same debate that you refer to, Harris has a 10 min segment where he discusses the WLC notion of "divine command theory", which by definition absolves god from acts that would be generally described as an immoral act. To quote Sam Harris:
"There is absolutely nothing that Dr. Craig can say against their behavior, in moral terms, apart from his own faith-based claim that they’re praying to the wrong God. If they had the right God, what they were doing would be good, on Divine Command theory.
“Now, I’m obviously not saying that all that Dr. Craig, or all religious people, are psychopaths and psychotics, but this to me is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own.”
He also closes in the same speech:
"On the other hand, on Dr. Craig’s account, your run-of-the-mill serial killer in America, who spent his life raping and torturing children, need only come to God, come to Jesus on death row, and after a final meal fried chicken, he's going to spend eternity in heaven after death. Ok-one thing should be crystal clear to you: this vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability. And please notice the double standard that people like Dr. Craig use to
exonerate god from all this evil. We’re told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good."
For the record, I think you have a slight misrepresentation of views of an atheist - the claim is NOT, "there is no god", rather "We have no reason to believe in one". I'm not an anti-theist (like Hitch). heck, I don't even like the "atheist" label because of the negative connotations attached to it. As I'm sure you've heard, there are no a-unicornist, a-bigfoot. More importantly, I DON'T KNOW how conscience comes to existence (it's one of the things that even Hitch admitted is fascinating to him), I don't know if there is an afterlife, I don't know if a god exists, BUT I do reject the version of man-made gods that have been created over thousands of years.
Dennett's (eventual) attempt at refutation is probably the worst I've ever heard. Abstract objects by *definition* have no causal powers; only concrete objects can actually affect things in the world. As for "the principle of triangulation", it should be obvious to everyone from his explanation that it wasn't a principle that did the causing, but instead a solid object.
Hmmm. I wonder, then, why he is a well-known and beloved figure, and we have not heard of you.
@@phoebeflanders Because rhetoric, however empty, can make a person famous.
Thank you for subjecting us to that mindless babble; I needed a good refresher of what a pseudo-intellectual RUclipsr sounded like.
@@rslider00 So you didn't understand it. No problem, which part do you need explained?
I haven’t seen the full video so I don’t know if there’s relevant context to which you’re referring that I’m unaware of, but I see no reason to accept that abstract objects do not have causal power; and that only concrete objects do. Are you suggesting that thoughts don’t have causal power? How about intentions? You’re really saying that a person’s intentions have no causal power, even though if the intention was changed the behavior and outcomes in the world would be totally different? Or are you suggesting that intentions and other thoughts are “concrete objects”?
I am shocked by what this man said. He truly didn’t say nothing. He actually aknowledge “very plausible” premisses but then said “just no, because i don’t like this conclusion, or we can not know it”
I have listened to Craig dozens of times and all I seem to hear is a string of words that grammatically are correct but that's it. Yes, he sounds convinced that his logic works and that his conclusions are well supported but just because your tone of voice mirrors that used by someone presenting a well thought through argument does not mean that your own argument is similarly well structured; it just sounds like it is.
Do you know how philosophy works?
@@armandoc.3150 apparently not also idk what that guy is talking about but Craig is not just well articulate and extremely sharp, but his arguments are stronger than any of the atheists he has debated.
@@arandompanda1349 Christopher Hitchens mopped the floor with him.
@@grantfoster8833 okay so you surely did not watch the debate well. You probably were only listening to Hitchens arguments.
@@asdqwe4468 can maths help you prove the exostence of God?
I dont think so.
Just like physics and maths can not help you measure love. it is simply not important to talk about them when bringing up a subject like the existence of God or morality.
About your argument that Craig never backs up his claim that morality is objective, next time try and actually listen to what he says. About your claim on the causation of everything, how else could you explain that time had a beginning but without a cause?
Do you know of anything that has no cause?
For there to be a cause to everything you simply have to have an uncaused timeless and immaterial outside factor to be able to cause time to start.
Also by claiming "how do you know everything has a cause" you are implying that there exist something that has no cause so please back up your claim before speaking nonesense.
Also you say that Craig has not improved our lives one bit, well can you walk me through how you improved our life one bit?
Other than your own worthlessness, you are very wrong to say that Craig has not helped anyone. Preaching and spreading the truth of this word, the pathway to salvation and the path to heaven has and will help kany people.
You see there is this personal experience to God and Jesus and the holy spirit, they bring peace to your life and actually help you.
So I would say Craig has helped many people.
Best summary of William Lane Craig's entire argument strategy:
1. Meaningless logical semantics games which pose questions about the most elementary philosophical ideas, which he offers as serious rebuttals or arguments (or as Sam Harris calls it, "hitting philosophical bedrock with the shovel of stupid questions")
2. "I can't believe that science could ever explain this, therefore godditit!" (Fallacious arguments from incredulity in order to fit god into the gaps of our scientific knowledge.)
***** School me? If you used those tactics over and over you would never "school" anyone. The only people who fall for his Bullshit and think he's a good debater are the idiots who don't see how fallacious his arguments are.
***** you don't want to learn a damned thing. That's fairly obvious. If you honestly wanted to learn anything then you would presumably leave all the snark and sarcasm out of it. Don't waste my time.
***** you want an answer? Fine. The common anscestor of all life on earth is known by the acronym LUCA for "Last Universal Common Ancestor", given what we know of genetics and biology, it was most likely a very simple single celled organism, very much similar to modern Bacteria, possessing no nucleus and having been descended from simpler, self-replicating chains of proteins. There is no Nobel Laureate for abiogensis because we haven't yet discovered the principle method by which it occurred, although there are a variety of theories, based on what we know about DNA and RNA, in the future, with more evidence and further research, we should be able to discover which theory is the most correct.
If you think that somehow the scientific uncertainty concerning this topic is at all discrediting of the whole enterprise of science, you are dead wrong. This is _how science works,_ when we don't know something we don't just throw our hands in the air and say "SCIENCE DOESNT KNOW! GODDIDIT!!" because if we had, we'd still believe to this day that hurricanes were caused by Poseidon having a bad temper and lightning was Zues' anger.
I have a particular disdain for those people who latch onto any area that science hasn't been able to solve yet and say "See? Science can't answer that! God is the only way!"
Their certainty will only make them look like fools when we discover the true causes.
Science isn't afraid of uncertainty, it thrives in it.
***** any cause is a possible cause. But some causes are more probable than others. No one simply dismisses God, but so far, everything we know about science shows that the god hypothesis isn't necessary to explain reality. Almost anything is possible, but we must be guided by logic and empirical evidence, never give up and say it was god or aliens or this or that....always seek to refine your knowledge, and be ready to throw out long held assumptions if the evidence makes them untenable.
Truthus Maximus Craig is wilfully ignorant and not open to changing his views at all. He actually said that even concrete evidence would not alter his opinions because he knows the truth of god and the scapegoat jesus. Atheists only get frustrated by stupidity so replying to you is causing me a shit load of frustration.
Daniel, trim the bottom of your mustache.Why do men like you insist on having a mustache that looks like bits of hay hanging over your lip.It takes about 30 seconds to do.Even Einstein trimmed his mustache somewhat. I refuse to listen to this guy ,when he can't even figure out how to do a simple thing like this.
Phelan No.
He says Craig is choosing sides intrepidly when speaking about much smarter cosmologists. Also Dennett, chooses sides in virtue of cosmology.
Thank you Dennet. Craig is a joke, but nothing compared to Lenox.
I don't think Craig is a joke. He's very good at his craft. He inevitably gets to some sort of jackoffery like, "You can't examine Jesus' resurrection by natural means because it was a supernatural occurrence." And presupposes "intelligence" in his Kalam argument. But overall, he is probably the best we have at justifying an unjustifiable position.
But, yea, Lenox is joke. He defaults into a sermon in no time.
YukonBloamie For those of you have an interest in actual academic philosophy, Craig is actually not the most impressive Christian apologist alive ( eminent philosophers do not take Craig seriously), there is however a guy named "Alvin Plantinga" who did made significant contribution in many areas of analytic philosophy, who has a far more sophisticated and philosophically interesting argument for theism (though ultimately flawed), his work is widely acknowledged by philosophers.
hao zi
Plantinga is pretty technical, and an effort to understand. He's kind of Kantish in that way. I suppose anything regarding epistemology is in that category of understanding. Craig is more for the church going evangelical type.
@@haozi2978 "ultimately flawed" how?
In my mind, I've boiled it down to ; preachers confuse the sheeple with intellectual sounding bullshit, then, offer them a simple answer. Simple minds cling to simple answers...
PEACE!
At the same time people often times do make things way more complicated then they need to be only causing themselves more confusion. Humans are fallible after all.
I thought that’s what dennet was doing with his whole triangle thing... I don’t think Christianity is that simple either.
I'll reserve judgment until I see the WHOLE debate, not just what a poster on RUclips WANTS me to see/hear.
Ha. You make it sound like I've got some hidden agenda, keeping you from hearing the indestructible arguments of William Lane Craig! Truth is, I would have posted the whole conference (it wasn't a debate, nor was Dennett's response planned, hence the use of the word 'impromptu' in the description) but for the 10 minute 59 second limit on non-partner videos back in the day. Besides, Dr. Craig didn't present anything different to the 1000 other times he has presented his arguments. You must be new to the God debate if you have to reserve judgment on what Dennett says here.
But, for the pathologically suspicious, here is the link to the full video:
Evidence For God's Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath)
I have watched WLC debate. Where I wouldn't say he WON, I'd say there was a tie, never a case where an atheist beat him. That's because (despite him coming with the same arguments time and time again), they usually only come prepared to refute one or two of his arguments and give rather weak counters (if any) for the rest. That would be fine, of course, if they didn't bring unfounded arguments of their own (Hitchens' and Carroll's non sequiturs on what one "would expect under theism", for example), or if they at least understood what Craig was saying before attempting to counter (his objective morality argument has been the embarrassment of practically every atheist he's debated, with them confusing it for moral absolutism or, like in Krauss' case, even going so far as to say that science can help establish moral values).
Tell me this, at least. Tell me that Dennett understood the objective morality argument (assuming it was given).
Vic 2.0 The debates can be entertaining, and WLC is certainly skilled at it, but there is rarely the time to tease out all the issues, nor is the audience usually one that has the requisite background knowledge to understand them anyway, which is why it often appears to be a tie.
That being said, I think Shelley Kagan soundly trounced him on the topic of morality.
I think there are difficulties in discussing what one "would expect under theism", but it seems unavoidable to posit some expectations if one is to discuss the scientific and empirical evidence for a God. Often theists, Craig among them, use inference to the best explanation when presenting, say, the teleological argument, but move to skepticism about our ability to decide what one "would expect" when presented with the argument from evil.
I can't say whether Dennett understood the moral argument. It wasn't presented, but even if it were, it was not addressed here.
Do you really think the moral argument has much persuasive force to anyone who is not already a theist? It seems to me the opening move against it would be the Euthyphro dilemma, to which the response would be an identification of moral values with God's nature - God _is_ the moral standard. The Euthyphro can be reformulated to again present the theist with a dilemma. If God's nature were cruel, would cruelty be good? If yes, then it seems to be an arbitrary identification. If no, then God is not the standard. I think a stronger, though related, objection is that if God is the standard, and a person, to the degree that they resemble God in some respect - e.g. they are just, or loving or generous - is good, then the theist seems committed to saying that these attributes are good-making _only_ in virtue of them being attributes that God has. But this seems highly implausible. Would a person who has these attributes not be good if God did not exist? - especially since it looks like God doesn't have much of a role to play in this accounting, and justice, love and generosity seem to be doing all the lifting.
So I think that the theist has some work to do for the moral argument to go through, even to convince an atheist who already accepts objective moral values exist - show first that God works as a foundation, and second that God is the only possible foundation. Nothing I've seen compels me to accept either.
riversonthemoon IIRC, Kagan also believes in objective morality and also didn't understand Craig's argument about how theism provides a better foundation (not PROOF, mind you) for that belief. It would fall upon the ATHEIST to present an alternative foundation, and no one that I know of (including Kagan) has done so. They always start with the assumption that human beings are morally significant. But since we (humans!) are the only ones saying that, by what logic do we conclude there is a definite right or wrong and it necessarily means we should flourish? Maybe we SHOULDN'T flourish. Maybe the insects, the germs, or the ozone layer are the real morally significant parts of this universe. If the only party saying otherwise, is the party that would benefit FROM saying otherwise, where does the objective part come in? Conversely, theism holds that there is a separate intelligent entity that not only AGREES we are morally valuable (because that could still be subjective), but KNOWS (because he is omniscient). If morality is a fact - that is, if it's an objective reality, god's saying we are morally significant would necessarily mean that we are (because he is all-knowing and doesn't lie, according to the Christian bible).
The "problem of evil" argument is another one that SOUNDS strong but is actually weak. First, one must define "omnibenevolence" and understand that one definition is in the bible (as is therefore part of Christian doctrine) while the other is not. "Always kind/charitable" is not in the bible, whereas "always good" IS. But then, "good" is a subjective judgment call over which no objective arguments can be made. Further, some point to the verse that says "god is love" and try to build an argument from there. But the problem here is similar. One might reason that the meaning of "love" in biblical times wasn't as "soft" as our modern-day definition, but we can go ahead and use our modern-day definition anyway because if you look the word up, you find that "love" is primarily defined as a fondness/attraction and only a minority of the definitions entail the inclination to help or take care of something.
But even if we nevermind all of THAT, there is one more obstacle to get through, and that's justifying the implied definition of "love" that is "preventing foreseeable suffering to the best of one's ability" in the context of debating with theists, when we don't REALLY believe that's the definition in OTHER situations. What do I mean by this. Consider the average parent. Do they not KNOW their child will suffer (and cause suffering to some degree) before creating them? Do they not have all the POWER they need to prevent this suffering (by simply not procreating)? Yes, and yes, but they create children anyway, mostly for selfish reasons. So how can we say any parent loves their child? Simple. The parent believes there is enough good in life to make the bad seem insignificant, sooner or later. The same goes for the Christian god, who if he were real would hold the tickets to eternal ecstasy and bliss.
Admittedly, this argument would only help Christians who do not believe in Hell, which is unfortunately a minority. But they are out there, and I've read coherent and biblical arguments to say that Hell is not biblical after all. I chalk it up to the necessary evolution Christianity has undertaken, seeing as how their numbers grow smaller every year.
Vic 2.0 How does theism provide a better foundation? I presented reasons for why it doesn't in my last post. And I don't see how atheists being able to provide a foundation or not has anything to do with whether the theistic foundation works or not.
You are doing the same thing that Craig often points out in his debate opponents of confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. How humans come to know moral values is another conversation. If we are objectively valuable, then that is the case (or not) whether we know of it or not. That's part of what it means to be objective. I think the same is true whether there is a God to know it or not, too. I can reformulate the Euthyphro to clarify. You said that if God says we are morally significant then it must be true because he knows everything and doesn't lie. Is it true because he says it is, or does he say it because it is true? You seem to be implying the latter. But then, it would still be true if God were not around to say it.
Your criticism of the argument from evil is interesting. You are skeptical of our ability to know what 'good' means well enough to have the argument go through, which is essentially the skeptical theist position. God is 'good', though it may not seem so to us because we don't have the kind of handle on the words 'good' and 'love' that he does. This seems to undercut your reasoning about God not lying. For all we know, he might have good reasons for deceiving us, just as he has good reasons for allowing evil. And to go back to your doubt about atheists moral epistemology - if you are right about us not knowing what 'good' is, then we seem to be in far worse shape under theism. Maybe we should walk away when we see someone getting raped because for all we know that might be 'good'. Certainly, whatever justifies God not intervening would justify our inaction, too, though we may not appreciate what that justification is.
You then move on to a theodicy about God allowing evil because, on balance, there is more good than evil in the end. You're right about those that believe in hell having a difficult time reconciling it with this idea of greater good. But ignoring that, I think it doesn't really explain _why_ we need evil in the first place. In fact, it calls its necessity even more into question. If heaven is a possible world, then why couldn't God have simply created _that_ world instead of this one? Why all the drama?
Yes, my phrasing was bad English, but I think it was pretty clear my intent. And I didn't notice the "Sort by thread" option so it has been hard to track down where your responses to me were.
Dennett still hasn't answered the question "why is there anything at all?
Simple, the answer is we didn't know. People who claim god is the cause are being disingenuous or ignorant of what we know of the universe.
"Colin"...I can't speak for all people who believe in god. I am saying it is the "best explanation" I have heard. I am waiting for a better explanation if you have one.
J Scott Upton
*"I am saying it is the "best explanation" I have heard"*
So you accept explanations that either have not or possibly cannot be confirmed to hold to reality?
"Colin"...by "accept explanations" I assume you mean the way that Newtonian physics was "accepted" until it was replaced by another explanation that fit the facts better? The idea of god is one explanation of some questions like "why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't hear any theoretical physicists advocating theories that even come close to answering that question in a "better" way than the god explanation. My favorite "non god" explanation amounted to "the universe created itself". Neat trick. But I am certainly open to new arguments.
J Scott Upton
Two things:
1) Scientists are able to say and accept something that you seem unable to: "We don't know"
2) You never even attempted to answer the question and instead danced around it
If you watch as many debates as I have, and still do, you'll begin to see that Craig has his one story. And by god, he's sticking to it. He demonstrates no flexibility in his thinking. He simply repeats the same talking points over and over. It's just a job to him. A way to make money. It's all so boring.
If it ain't debunked, don't fix it!
Kevin Craighead, if the opposing team knows exactly what play you are going to run and are never able to stop you then I think that is a good indicator of which team has the superior playbook.
+ Chris Gibbs
Or perhaps that you don't have the ability to listen to counter arguments?
Did he just invoke the athiest version of the "God of Gaps" in an attempt to refute WLC's arguments?
They always do. Naturalism of the gaps lol.
Yep!
Who do you think is right?
WLC's arguments should be used in logic classes to demonstrate all the logical fallacies.
So far, all the accusations of "fallacies" I've heard fail. But if you have an example you think works, by all means identify it.
Vic, If you don't recognize fallacies, I can't help you.
So you *can't* identify one for us...
Vic, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kalām_Cosmological_Argument
1) We can't know that everything had an ultimate beginning.
2) There is no reason we can't have an infinite past as WLC assumes his god has an infinite past.
3) You and WLC assume a super mind without a brain always existed then willed/thought material into existence despite the fact every mind you know has a brain. If god has existed eternally then existence would be eternal.
4) Nothing WLC demonstates his god did anything anymore than magical pixies did anything.
I won't go on a wild goose chase, especially after so many videos/articles have failed me. But I will respond to what you provide here...
"1) We can't know that everything had an ultimate beginning."
Nor does the argument *say* that. It says that everything that *does* begin to exist has a cause.
"2) There is no reason we can't have an infinite past as WLC assumes his god has an infinite past."
a. Craig gives arguments against the possibility of actual infinites.
b. God is not understood to have existed for an infinite time, but rather as a timeless being "outside" of time.
c. The philosophical arguments are not all. A lot of *physicists* are saying the universe (meaning all of contiguous spacetime, space and time itself) had a beginning.
"3) ...despite the fact every mind you know has a brain."
But that doesn't mean that minds require a brain for them to *exist.* It could just as easily be that minds exist and the brain is the medium through which they interact with the physical world. Besides which, the KCA is an argument *for* the existence of an unembodied mind.
"4) Nothing WLC demonstates his god did anything anymore than magical pixies did anything."
Well you would need to redefine "pixies", it seems, for them to be the cause of spacetime. To my understanding, they are physical (if magical) beings and have never been described as "timeless". Doing so for this argument's sake makes your hypothesis obviously more ad hoc than theism. Moreover, the KCA is part of a cumulative case, usually concluded with Craig's *resurrection* argument, which of course wouldn't support your pixie theory.
A changeless God is a God that doesn't have a mind or think. Emotions and thinking are changes is your current mental state.
@Davidson 1 It's religion that paints God's mind as like our own; if God has no physical body nor a mind like ours, then in what way can a Christian claim we are made in God's image?
The Bible describes God with emotions, making decisions, even examples (or at least one from memory) where a human changes God's mind through persistence.
God seems to flip flop between deeply personal and wholly alien and unknowable whenever convenient.
@Davidson 1 that still doesnt change, that god changed his mind, according to Bible. If god is not bound by anything, then why is he described with emotions like anger, saddness, even with Jesus aside?
@Davidson 1 Can you explain in simpler words, professor?
“You get a guy like Daniel Dennett, whose greatest intellectual achievement was growing that stupid beard of his, masquerading as a scientific expert on Darwinian Theory staring at the camera and no one is dousing him with a bucket of water. It’s incredible to me.”
David Berlinski
Actually, LOTS of people reject philosophy as a method for finding verifiable truth. In fact, I suspect that nearly all scientists would reject that idea. Philosophy as a useful tool for thought is not even rejected by Dawkins. But Philosophy (by itself) can never ever prove anything because it lacks any mechanism to do so. That is why philosophy can never be anything more than a springboard for scientific inquiry. That is likely its highest use in terms of gaining knowledge.
Craig is sincere. Deluded. But sincere. He also has the gift of listening and politeness, rare these days.
No he is not sincere. He earns a wage pushing his bs. He will never let go of the Power, the Glory, the MONEY unto him.
@@honeysucklecat his only goal is to "win" whatever debate he is in, which is counter productive because it won't help actually prove his christianity. He will ignore a valid point because it's "not what this debate is about" how about these apologists debate they're actual views instead of these vague topics like is there evidence for god. Well regardless if you can show evidence for god in general how about proof that it is THE god from the bible you actually believe in and say is true
Calling WLC a 'Professor' is like calling GODZILLA a Ballet Dancer
No, the reason you shouldn't call WLC o professor is because his 'degree' came from a completely unaccredited school. He's a phony whose degree came off a Xerox machine in a double wide trailer in some park. He Has No Real Education. Got It?
His credentials are non existent, and his argument are wrong on their face. But I guess 'critical thinking' is not on your resume?
I have a feeling he's getting mixed up with kent hovind
Hany Moussa Please bare in mind I don't like him myself. His arguments are flawed and he is intellectually dishonest and in some cases I've seen him say quite immoral stuff
To @mrthebillman you wrote: "Calling WLC a 'Professor' is like calling GODZILLA a Ballet Dancer"
You mean getting Phd's from the University of Birmingham and the University of Munich in Philosophy and Theology respectively is not valid? Then daring to teach in those disciplines is clumsy and oafish?
Oh wow, Daniel Dennett expresses my thoughts on the subject exactly!! The truth, whatever it may be, is bound to be so mindbogglingly counterintuitive that none of our ideas will be even remotely able to express it, if and when we are ever able to discover and/or understand it. I've always been a "soft" atheist, and Daniel Dennett has justified me in continuing to be one.
Why would that make you an atheist? Wouldn't God fit into that category of mind-boggling and counter intuitive? Ruling the idea completely out seems foolish in a sense, specially as a philosopher who's suppose to be open minded on all subject and even the reality itself at times.
@@StallionFernando God counterintuitive, you say? No, God is anything but counterintuitive. The notion of God, as developed by almost all mainstream monotheisms, is that he is all powerful, all knowing and all good. Far from being counterintuitive, these qualities, such as most Christians, Muslims and Jews ascribe to him, are starkly simplistic and childishly concrete - anything but subtle or ineffable.
@@laurameszaros9547 it's counterintuitive and mind boggling too think that such a being too exist, how could a being be so powerful, limitless, ageless, perfect, personal yet so distant and vague, All knowing and Omnipresent? It sounds illogical too think that such a being could exist. He's simple enough too know that even a child can, yet vague and complex enough too never be fully understood in our limited human mind. A paradox and an enigma.
"God does not exist because God is not counter intuitive enough" is pretty weak sauce
@@trevorandthegunrunners4166 Not nearly so weak a sauce as assuming that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent without a shred of evidence to that effect, as the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have imagined.
WLC uses the Kalam argument to prove the universe had a beginning and/or a cause. That is as far as he can logically go. When he continues to try to prove that the cause must be the christian god, he loses his footing.
How so?
@@butlerbros.9370 you can’t prove or disprove how the universe began. There is no evidence from that event. Craig says that a creator must be responsible. One can’t say if that is right or not. So I can grant the possibility.
However, to ascribe all the perfect characteristics of the supreme christian god doesn’t match our experience. The world kills thousands indiscriminately every day.
@@johnelliott5859 The Christian god is comprised of logically incoherent attributes anyway, ergo, in cannot exist.
Craig is a redundant babbler, he will ramble on and on about the principle of principality...
Ironically, your comment here seems to be just you babbling and rambling without giving a refutation of his arguments.
Vic 2.0 HAHAHAHAH
For someone who is quite familiar with Daniel Dennett's writings, his accusations against W.L.C. are stunningly ironic. Virtually everything he accuses his opponent of, he is, in fact, guilty of. Dennett is not so much a philosopher as he is an ideologue who has chosen a particularly weak ideological position, materialism, though he would certainly quibble that that is what he holds and he makes some ridiculous arguments that even his fellow ideological atheists, if they have any philosophical integrity, reject. I don't agree with everything that W.L.C. says or concludes but, of the two, he is a far better philosopher than Dennett.
[Citation Needed]
Evidence?
It's called reading what he's written. Or you could listen to his nonsense at Sean Carroll's Moving Naturalism, as a philosopher Dennett is a pudding headed lightweight.
Anthony McCarthy So that's a 'no' on the evidence then?
Thought so.
You might know this phrase:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." C. Hitchens.
Atheists always demand "evidence" and no matter how much of it you present to them, they will insist it isn't enough. I've read Daniel Dennett, his supporters and his critics. The man is a philosophical lightweight, a man who has survived on the tenure track and the fact that he pushes the ideology of most of the bully boys of academia, atheism. If he ever went up against William Lane Craig he would be as reduced to blithering inanity as Richard Dawkins knew he would be. About the only atheist I've seen go up against him and just hold his own was Sean Carroll and Carroll couldn't do it. I don't agree with everything Craig says or thinks but he is a first rate philosopher and a good enough debater to master the arguments of his opponents and to have found their weakenesses and what arguments can defeat them. If he had to go up against Dennett on something he wrote about such as Dennett's extension of natural selection outside of biology, it would be child's play to tear him to shreds on the basis of his own words in his own books. H. Allen Orr, and such atheists as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewonton have done that.
As I said, go read Dennett and those who have dealt with his writing critically, the man is a philosophical lightweight.
Anthony McCarthy Yes. There's a reason for that. Because the likes of you, have none. (evidence)
Seriously, i ask for evidence of god, and they say 'creation exists. Proof of god.'
how? Which god?
They say fulfilled 'biblical prophecies' and ignore the total failure of them.
they say 'jesus is a historical figure' yet there's no evidence that any cult leader called jesus was around at the time, let alone doing miracles.
The reason you can't convince your typical atheist/skeptic, is that we know about standards of evidence. And the folks on your side either don't, or have a mental block stopping them from applying it to the 'evidence' for god.
What standards of evidence would you accept from a hindu that wanted to convince you that Shiva was the lord of the universe?
That's what we are looking for.
Visions? They have them.
Supposedly answered prayers? Miracles? Fulfilled prophecy?
They all have them.
So, present some evidence, and we'll go over it.
This talk is mind-boggling!
I don't see how the hypothesis that we're not alone in the galaxy is mind boggling; It's a statistical impossibility that there isn't life elsewhere in the galaxy. The hard part is finding it, but that's not mind boggling.
I also doubt we're alone. But we don't know what the statistics are.
@@bozo5632 We're alone. Definitely.
Only an atheist could ask " are we alone"
when we are surrounded by millions of species.
The question is actually a statement of cosmic loneliness.
It honestly should be very easy to answer, of course we're not alone, i mean have you seen the scale of how big it all is, too many possibilities. It's only a matter of when
So, in other words, "Craig is brilliant, but since his conclusion can't be right, there must be something wrong with his premise, even though we don't know what that is."
No, I believe Dennet is saying that Craig takes holes in scientific explanations, and claims that they are evidence of God.
+Jordan Bikes Isn't that part of the God of the gaps theory?
J A.K What Jordan said does sound like "God of the gaps." But I don't think that is what Dennet is claiming concerning Craig.
Timothy Fish Oh okay. I wasn't sure.
He looks like Darwin! Hahahahaha :)
The older he gets, the more obvious it becomes
I was thinking Santa.
You're not a philosopher if you don't have a beard.
@@ConvictedFelon2024 that’s gay.
I'm glad you are interested in what scripture has to say. The context of that passage is one in which Paul is trying to encourage the Christians in Thessaloniaca who were being persecuted by the state and by the cult of Jewish Pharisees. In it Paul teaches about judgment day. I'm sorry if the reality of God's judgment for those who reject Christ troubles you. The Bible also teaches that there is the Rock on which we stumble and are broken but which falls on some and they are destroyed.
"Do you believe in magic? I don't."
If you believe that God snapped his fingers and spoke everything into existence then magic is precisely what you believe in.
Total misrepresentation of WLC.
$40 a month, is that all it costs to join? I am so glad you brought this up, can you send the link with the membership application please?
By the way: "that is what I though" is not proper English. It's actually more correct to say "that is what I thought".
Are you capable of THOUGHT? Probably Not.
Back to more urgent issues, do you THINK, now that I have asked you TEN times, you might get round to answering my original question posted several days ago, at the same time as sending that link?
"Most of his evidence is based on faith."
The Kalam cosmological argument is based on logic and premises, not faith.
The teleological argument is based on empirical evidence, not faith.
Craig has used historical secular evidence to support the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not faith.
Where does your logic come from?
Mine comes from God, who is my Authority.
Amen.
"He came to make dead people alive."
"He came to make dead people alive."
"He came to make dead people alive."
"He came to make dead people alive."
"He came to make dead people alive."
How many times do you have to say that to yourself before you're convinced it's true?
I'm deluded, aren't I? I think that science is true and your stuff is stories?
How could I be so deluded?
So long - I'm sticking with research and science - fool that I am.
Didn't say much.
Because he was responding to someone who didn't say much.
So evolution is a thesis or hypothesis if you like, one that says that all species "evolved" from a common ancestor. Keep in mind that when we say "all life" we mean everything: Grass, Jellyfish, bacteria, etc--they are all related according to the theory.
The problem is that this "thesis" (evolution) is not observed to be doing what it claims. And, for example, natural selection as it is tested with species that create many generations, is shown to NOT have the creative power attributed to it.
Why is it every time an anti-theist can't refute William Lane Craig's arguments he goes on a rant about WLC's style of debate, general demeanor, etc.? Why can't they just stick to the topic and stop with all the BS? In this speech, Dennett doesn't bother to explain *why* if the premises are true and the logic is sound, the conclusion is still somehow implausible. He just asserts that some vague something must be wrong. David Lewis said "I cannot refute an incredulous stare". Well this is mighty close to being exactly that!
When Dennett finally *does* try to focus on the argument, he still ignores Craig's reasoning in getting from a "cause of the universe" to a god. He foolishly questions the statement "abstract objects (like numbers) can't cause anything", letting the world know he's willing to dig in his heels at just about every logical step WLC outlines. Hell, Dennett, you might as well go all the way back to "But is the universe real?" if *that's* the game you're gonna play.
And is he serious? A physical object that can be attached to a house is *not* an abstract object.
Also, I love how he just asserts that Vilenkin wouldn't agree with what WLC is saying about the theorem, completely oblivious to the fact that Vilenkin has already confirmed that Craig represented the theorem quite well! Oops! And Dennett admits he doesn't understand what the fuck Craig and Vilenkin are even talking about but feels the need to say Craig's wrong anyway. What. The. Hell.
He does try to say that if god is changeless it means that he won't answer prayers. But that's demonstrating a lack of understanding of a god existing outside of time, clearly. And he closes with suggesting that theists not educate themselves on matters of cosmology. Could that be because when they do, they become a force to be reckoned with in debate like WLC? :P
Vic 2.0 FACTS!!! Times are hard. We need TRUTH in these days... not the bullcrap
I'm an atheist and I really like both Dennett and WLC. But WLC verbally beat Dennett like Ike used to beat Tina
One of my favorite arguments against Kalam is actually done by Theoretical Bullshit
watch?v=gYpfkdQ32Io
Really heavy into philosophical terms but a fun listen none the less.
Basically an argument against philosophy more than it is really against WLC. Scientists usually make poor philosophers. Dennett demonstrates he does not understand some philosophical ideas very well. For example his understanding of immutability is poor. He shows that he does not understand the basics of what most Christians has meant by immutability.
You realize that Dennet isn't a scientist right? He has a doctorate in philosophy.
Edit:
"He shows that he does not understand the basics of what most Christians has meant by immutability. "
That seems to be more in the realm of theology than philosophy, similar but not the same.
Colin Barr
That makes it even worse. Immutability crosses in between both Philosophy and theology. Some would say it is part of how philosophy influenced theology. But this is something he should understand if he is commenting on Christian apologetics.
Carl Peterson
Well considering I am a layman in philosophy and have not seen the tern immutability before in that sense, I have no comment on that actual subject matter.
I only know the context of immutability from other contexts (ie computer science)
Carl Peterson Theology isn't even a subject! It's complete and utter vacuous horseshit.
Carl Peterson "God"s immutability proves "God" cannot exist. Not in the way "he" is portrayed by Christianity, at least. "God" cannot be omniscient AND have "free will". If "God" knows the future then "he" knows in advance what "he" will be doing and therefore can't have the "free will" to change. An unchanging "God" CANNOT have "free will", and therefore is NOT a "God" QED.
Sorry, I'm getting two different conversations confused. I hate using RUclips as a forum. However, you previous message stated " i presumed that it could be that inferring a cause is unnecessary". Maybe, but it can just as validly be presumed that inferring a cause is of the utmost necessity and by using what we know of the scientific method, it indicates that cause is more likely.
If you try to pay your light bill with something that is timeless, spaceless, causeless, immaterial, and transcendent...they tell you that you didn't pay it.
Isn't that interesting. The very argument that he is placing against Dr. Craig is the very argument that atheists make their case with.
Example:
If I said that nothing created man in the last hour. Your mind would say, "no way".
If I said that nothing created man in the last week. Your mind would say, "no way".
If I said that nothing created man in the last month. Your mind would say, "no way".
If I said that nothing created man in the last year. Your mind would say, "no way".
If I said that nothing created man in the last thousand years. Your mind would say, "no way".
If I said that nothing created man in the last 100 thousand years. Your mind would say, "not likely".
If I said that nothing created man in the last 100 million years. Your mind would say, "well, maybe".
If I said that nothing created man in the last 100 Billion years. Your mind would say, "sure".
All the atheist does, is simply keep backing up his argument until your finite mind disengages. It does so because our mind is incapable of thinking in the eternal.
So your brain shuts down and doesn't question it.
Can you point me to anywhere where an atheist has made this case?
'Nothing' isn't a state of affairs that led to the universe. A state of affairs would be 'something'. The first state of affairs would have to be uncaused (by definition), and as a theist I think you would agree with this since God sans the universe would be a state of affairs. The atheist just thinks that this first state of affairs, if there was one, didn't involve a God. And would also usually believe that positing one doesn't improve your problem situation as you are still left with something brute and unexplained.
The argument you ascribe to atheists seems to me a very theist projection. You keep the idea that the universe was created, and wonder how atheists could possibly make sense of this without an agent to do the creating. (I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant the universe rather than man as you can't seriously think that atheists believe man was created by, or came about through, nothing.) Also, that argument, if it can be called one, reads like a theist argument in that it leans on intuitions, or the supposed baulking of them. Most atheists I think, believe that the question of how the universe came about is an empirical one and will defer to our best scientific understanding when trying to answer it.
***** *"There has been sooo much time that it blows the mind so, clearly, God does not exist."*
I don't see any atheists claiming this non-sequitur either. One infers the age of the universe from available scientific evidence. Nobody I've heard of then goes on to say that because the universe is so old God does not exist. Clearly, there are many theists who believe in an old universe, and I can't imagine an atheist finding a reason to think this is inconsistent with a belief in God. Are there other arguments you have in mind?
*"It is incorrect to say that God is the first state of affairs. A state of affairs only makes sense once the physical universe exists and time exists. Then you cam have a state of affairs."*
A 'state of affairs' in the philosophical sense is the obtaining of a true proposition. It is a truth-maker. 'God exists.' cannot be a true proposition unless there is a state of affairs where in fact, God exists. I chose to use 'state of affairs' because I wanted to be as broad as possible and didn't want to conflate the beginning of all things with the beginning of the space-time we find ourselves in and digress into a discussion about the big bang. 'State of affairs' also allows the discussion to proceed while bracketing questions about time, first moments, or even physicalism, on which there are varying opinions. Given this clarification, as a theist, do you still think that God was not the first state of affairs?
Positing God does not solve or improve the problem of having to imagine an initial state of affairs that is not, to some degree, brute and unexplained. All the atheist is committed to is that the initial state of affairs was unique and different to the states of affairs that followed it (as is the theist) and he does not have to make claims about something coming from literally nothing since it is incoherent to speak of the first state of affairs being preceded by anything from which it could come. This would be akin to asking a theist where God comes from. It's the wrong question to ask, as the theist believes that God is primary. The atheist believes that existence (ultimately) is primary and could not have a cause.
*"You have two choices as an atheist given the scientific evidence:
1. Either matter and time came into being from nothing and by nothing. or
2. There was an anent that was the "first mover" that caused physical matter and time to come into existence."*
Your first option insists that 'nothing' is a state of affairs. See my discussion above. An atheist might take an option that sounds like this, but say rather that the existence of the universe (our space-time) is uncaused, which would be a stronger claim than the one I made above.
Your second option is available to the atheist, but I see no reason to think that there has to be anything personal about such a cause for the universe. As Dennett says in the video, "What do we know about non-physical causation? Absolutely nothing." Assuming that there is such a thing as non-physical causation, a non-physical impersonal cause seems to me as likely as a personal one. More likely, in fact.
*"This agent would be immaterial, timeless, space-less, and immensely powerful. Much like God."*
If it is not personal, it is not at all like the God of theism.
***** The earth is ~4.7 billion years old, evolution by natural selection is one of the most tested and most confirmed theories in science. But what on earth does this have to do with the existence of the universe?
***** *"The fine-tuning arguments are rejected, for the most part, because the view is that there is enough time for life to have evolved. It is just assumed in Darwinian Evolution that there is enough time."*
You're confusing two different topics. The fine-tuning argument is about physical constants taking on an improbable combination of values that allow for conditions where life is possible. These conditions are the laws of physics and are a _given_ in the theory of evolution.
Can you point out someone who argues that the age of the universe addresses the fine-tuning argument? What would the age of the universe have to do with these constants, since whatever determined these constants was prior to the time period in question? If you could provide a link, that would be helpful.
And the age of the universe is calculated using measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or extrapolating backwards using the expansion rate, and the age of the Earth can be calculated using radiometric dating - entirely independent of the theory of evolution. If evolution needs time, cosmology and physics have provided it.
*"Talking about God as part of a state of affairs makes God a part of the physical world."*
I told you what I meant by 'state of affairs'. If you need some more clarification, wikipedia should be adequate, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_affairs_(philosophy)
or if you want more information, try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link at the bottom of that page.
For a theist to say that God's existence, prior to the universe, was not a state of affairs is incoherent.
*"So while your trying to build some philosophical basis to avoid that "prime mover" your not taking into account the world as it is."*
I'm not trying to build a philosophical basis to avoid anything. I am trying to correct a misapprehension about what atheists think, or have available to them, and what they can say consistently about a first state of affairs.
*"Is time eternal in the past?"*
I don't know. I've heard Craig's arguments against it, though I don't think they succeed. In my discussion above I think I have assumed that it isn't, by speaking of a first state of affairs. I think the big bang happened a finite time ago. Whether there was something 'before' the big bang (if 'before' has any meaning at all in this context), I think we may never know. Doesn't mean we can't say anything about what there could possibly or probably be, or even, with good enough evidence and arguments, what necessarily must be.
*"Has matter always existed?*"
If you construe matter more broadly to include physical things, and by 'always existed' you mean 'existing for all time' (whether time is finite or not) then the answer is yes. I am a physicalist. At least in spirit. :-)
***** Well yeah...What is Neo-Darwinian evolution?
Seems like God sent WLC to smash the Four Horseman of Atheism. lol
The results which are found in the fossil record (fully formed species and body types, totally distinct morphologies) does not strongly suggest that a process like evolution made them. Darwin predicted that future paleontologist would find all the peculiar transitional fossils showing the slow morphological changes from early types into new types. This has not really been the case in 150 years of paleontology.
Keep in mind that the scientists of Darwin's era had NO IDEA how complex a cell was.
What we mean by God? In most cases we think about God who care about us, who created haven etc.? There is more possibilities for things which we would never called as God - like gravity for example... Even if we stick to God we have infinite possibilities - we know nothing, and the probability that we can guess what is his nature etc = 0% So even if he exist/existed it's irrelevant for us...
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd! Dennett is sooooooo tedious! GET ON WITH IT!
Craig stinks the whole place up when he gets on stage and opens his mouth with all those lies again!
It’s all about money. If they say it’s not about money… it’s about money. That’s what I think of WLC.
11 minutes of ad hominem.
Ad hominem is a direct attack on an arguer instead of the argument. Your statement is a red herring and a misrepresentation of a fallacy. Daniel does a great job here.
When Dennett says that the hypothesis that we're alone in the universe is mind-boggling, he is essentially framing his premise as argument.
It is only mind-boggling if you accept the idea that there is no God who created us.
But there is a God who created us. So it isn't mind-boggling that we're alone.
Actually it would only be very mind boggling if a god created us and all of the universe and we are alone. If we're not alone it really wouldn't be mind boggling at all.
I was not making an argument. I was making a suggestion. Learn the difference. I tend not to make proper arguments in the comment section because I have a habit of writing long handed paragraphs and the character limit cannot facilitate my requirements to make a the argument. If you really want a debate you can pm me, but that's all you're getting.
Again, please learn to identify the difference between a suggestion and an argument. I even pointed it out when I wrote "Here's a suggestion".
John Frantz - 2nd halfway reply. We do not need a god to tell us if gay marriage is right or wrong - we can intuitively see that recognising the love of two adults is a fair thing, as we allow other pairings of adults to show their love. I use this example because many religions are on the wrong side of this debate - not to argue that god does not exist, but to argue that my own feeling of objective right and wrong does not rely on a god. I don't need a god to show me how to behave.
Science, The Universe & The God Question
I wanna see Dr. William Lane Craig & Dr. John Lennox debate Dr. Peter Atkins & Daniel Dennett at Rice University
It is possible to make more devastating critiques of Christian apologists and to get to the point much more quickly.
Well, Daniel Dennett, I suppose for one to understand Quantum Mechanics better, one should go to the originator of Quantum Theory, Max Plank. You know, the Christian man whose name was used for the Plank measurement.
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Plank
How is Euclidean geometry the cause of stabilizing the house? A triangle is involved, and physical forces are at work. How about Euclidean geometry without a triangle. Will that stabilize the house? It doesn't seem like necessary mathematical properties themselves are causes. They are properties, it seems, and I don't see that properties and causes are identical things. Maybe I'm incorrect, but Dennett did not give a satisfactory answer.
Hey, MrStripey, me again, do you think that "multiple lies about id" is the same as not telling the truth on your passport?
Just wondered - it's kinda hard to follow Kirk's logic at the best of times.
Mr Daniel dennett how do u know how complicated or simple the truth is gonna be if u don't know what it is in the first place??
Saying that "clearly a movement existed" is like saying "clearly Warren Buffet bought Berkshire Hathaway". It was not just a movement. It was a counter cultural move of persons across classes to live lives in high contrast from those lived around them. "The Triumph of Christianity" will elucidate at length. One example was the emergence of Christian compassion. When plagues would come through Rome it was the Christians who would go and fetch the ailing out of the city sewer, take & care for them
+richard clark "The supernatural has not been shown to exist."
But arguments (such as Craig's) have been given to try and show that at least one supernatural entity *plausibly* exists. It's not enough to argue, "Where's the video footage of god?" or some such. This is a metaphysical proposition, it's going to largely depend on metaphysical arguments and considerations.
"Which goes to ghost and goblins as these are all beasties of the supernatural. If you claim that gods are supernatural then you have to also deal with if these beasties are real or not. If they are not real why is god?
"
Obviously, each proposition will have to be assessed on the basis of its own evidences/arguments.
"Predictive capabilities, Does it forecast the weather? Does it provide for any medical cures? Does it do anything that the Elks do not?
"
I would say these are misplaced or ill-founded expectations. God is a proposed creator of the universe. So you should be asking questions like "Did the universe begin to exist?" or "Is god a good explanation for the beginning of spacetime?", etc.
"Has faith made any difference? To many people the find solace but tell why good therapy would not do the same."
That's impossible for me and you to know for sure, what other people need and what would/would not benefit them spiritually, emotionally, etc.
"And tell this to the people of Ireland, and the Balkans and people around the world that are killed in the name of the gods.
"
Obviously, it's not theism doing that, it's the specific belief that god wants you to kill others (Thankfully, the vast majority of theists, especially Christians, do not adopt this belief).
"Cause harm? The war on gender and the LGBT citizens of the US by the US religious crazies. The lies of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and their likes. David Barton and his crap about the US being Christian Nation. Brian Fisher and his hate filled ministry. Pat Robertson, Liberty University, Bob Jones, Christian Identity this list goes on and on."
And it's an appeal to the availability heuristic. We can also name many plane crashes or collect reports of shark attacks, neither of which are to be confused with reason to think these are common results of flying in a plane or swimming in the ocean.
"Yes some folks do good, but look the other side. Why? People seem to be very able to perform good and bad all on their own. Religion is not necessary."
I would agree with that last part. And I think both the Christians and anti-theists have been guilty of granting "This good/bad thing is because of belief in god" but not granting the opposite, equally credible, statement.
Hey, MrStripeyDog, has your phone been tapped?
Apparently Kirk now is able to hear your voice and deduce you are panic stricken.
Any idea how he manages that?
I'm referring to "miracles". No "miracle" has ever been repeatable in a peer-reviewed environment. If you want to believe in all the NT miracle stories because the "text says so" that's your prerogative. Paul says that if Jesus didn't rise, then we're wasting our time. I disagree. Unconditional love does not stand or fall because of supernatural events. Real love isn't about going to heaven - it's about sacrificing everything for others, including enemies, without expecting some reward.
I think Craig argues that an abstract concept like gravity can affect things but cannot do things independently... Thus, if there is nothing, there is no gravity, no abstractions that can cause things from a Physical point of view. If there is nothing physical, the abstract physical laws cannot operate, and scientists believe that the big bang began from nothing. Thus, we are left with a mind or something conscious that can create the universe because it has the independent ability to do so.
Craig 20 - Dennet 0.
Sound arguments vs "who knows...".
Epistemic skeptisism undermine itself. If we rely on REASON, Craig's conclusions are unescapable. Dennet also relies on reason, until it goes against his atheistic conclusions, then reason works no more... "who knows..."
Wow, what a coherent mind...
Craig for life! Christianity is true
What I will assert, with confidence, is that the Nobel Committy takes a broader consensus than any other Prize. That biochemisatry supports evolution is universally accepted in the science community.
In reality professors keep their mouths shut about questioning Darwinism because they know what happens to people who go public. I do know personally a biologist teaching at an Ivy League school who tells his students that he does not believe that Darwinism is a good theoretical framework. But his is rare honesty.
There are lots of articles, books and papers that have come out which are significant to the change in paradigm going on re: Darwinism It just doesn't make sense of the data.