Rebutting Dr William Lane Craig and Capturing Christianity Rebutting Best Atheist Arguments
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- ----------------------SUPPORT----------------------
Paypal (thanks so much): www.paypal.me/...
Patreon (thanks so much): / skepticallyskeptical_
----------------------Video Description----------------------
This is where I respond to Capturing Christianity (Cameron Bertuzzi) and Dr. William Lane Criag rebutting the "best atheist arguments". In this video, I respond to Dr. Craig's response to a clip from Christopher Hitchens. I discuss miracles, the Kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument (the argument from intelligent design), and the moral argument. Dr. Craig says that miracles are probable because a god is probable, but I disagree.
----------------------Video Links----------------------
The original video: • Dr. Craig Rebuts the "...
Capturing Christianity's Channel: / @capturingchristianity
Paulogia's Channel: / @paulogia
CosmicSkeptic's Channel: / alexjoconnor
----------------------Join Discord and Twitch----------------------
Twitch: / skepticallyskeptical
Discord: / discord
----------------------Follow My Socials----------------------
Twitter: / chase35riley
Instagram: / chase35riley
The second "flaw" you point out in the Kalam is something I'm pretty sure Cosmic Skeptic doesn't hold to anymore. Craig doesn't equivocate the terms "begin to exist" because he's appealing to a metaphysical causal principle. When something "begins to exist" Craig means it's an efficient cause. A chair beginning to exist has the efficient cause of the man who built it, while its material cause is the wood. When Craig says the universe began to exist, he means it was an efficient cause.
One way we can deny this principle (like what Cosmic Skeptic tries to do) is to appeal to mereological nihilism. But this is a radical view even amongst atheist philosophers. David Lewis argues against this with his "atomless gunk." Sure, you could hold to this view to deny the first premise but I really don't think that it would be virtuous to your ontological commitments.
All of Craig's arguments are presumptive, but he offers them as forgone conclusions. If reality is a social construct, he is fabricating it not from the standard of empirical evidence .But rather feelings, and emotions to invent reality. A honest answer would be to accept not knowing, and the associated fear.
Your rebuttal to the teleological argument is so silly I'm not even going to spend my time on it. Seriously? the probability of the universe existing is 1?!
The universe tends toward entropy. Why then is it still here?
keep questioning it all ... really appreciate your deconstruction of these hoary old apologetics! :-)
So I'm in the middle of you pointing out "flaws" in the Kalam and I can already tell you haven't studied the Kalam in much depth. You're right to say that Craig's kalam doesn't include God (keep in mind Craig's isn't the only formulation.) But usually, KCA's come with two stages. Craig usually goes on to say that the cause has to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and powerful. Then from there, we can see what fits those descriptions. An abstract object or a mind. Abstract objects don't have causal forces, so it must be a mind.
To say that it can't be a mind is to contend with the second stage of the argument. It would be moronic to infer the first stage of the argument is "flawed" because the second one fails. Imagine you're at a crime scene of a murder. There are multiple possibilities of a murder weapon. Based on evidence and arguments one investigator says, "it seems most likely that it was this knife that was used to murder the victim." Would it be appropriate to then say, "yeah, but that doesn't show WHO killed the victim. So your arguments are flawed!" I think not.
If the Christian apologetics people were doing this honestly, they'd realize they're supposed to put forth falsifiable claims about the world/God/etc.
Q: Is the natural-universe (or “nature”) eternally-old? Or must it actually have a beginning?
A: To be eternally-old is to be un-caused. To be un-caused nature must violate Cause-Effect (a law of nature). Saying that "nature can violate a law of nature" is absurd.
Q: OK, so nature began. Per Cause-Effect whatever begins to exist must have a cause. But what caused “nature”? Was it a natural cause?
A: No, per the law of logic known as Non-Contradiction since “nature” began to exist and must have a cause, the cause of “nature” cannot be “nature”, it must logically be “not-nature” (or super-nature) which we call God. Without God (atheism) “nature” either began without a cause (violating Cause-Effect) or is eternally-old/un-caused (again violating Cause-Effect), both are scientifically-absurd.
Q: How about believing that “nature” simply created itself?
A: To create itself something must “exist before it existed”, that’s logically-absurd.
Q: OK fine, the laws of nature (Cause-Effect) and logic (Non-Contradiction) both prove God, but who created God?
A: God the Creator of our "space-time" universe logically exists outside of His own creation, outside of space (spaceless) and time (timeless). Does a timeless God begin? No. A timeless God never began & has no creator.
@@andrum-5229
What I have written is just straightforward regular plain-old basic science. You want made-up non-factual absurdity based on assertions and blind-faith? So glad you asked. Here you go:
Atheism:
Where did the universe come from? It created itself.
And the orderly laws of nature? It created itself.
Where did the first living thing come from? It created itself.
And the purposeful coded information in DNA? It created itself.
@@BernardGoonting lmao just because we don't know yet doesn't mean you can shove God into the gap... you are ridiculous
@@andrum-5229
But we do know. We all know. All humans know. All peoples in all countries no matter where, all know. You know. I know. We all do.
Why? Why do we know? Because science tells us. According to science (Cause-Effect) "nature" cannot begin without a cause (un-caused) and cannot be eternally-old (un-caused). Ergo it necessarily follows that “nature” began & per Cause-Effect must have a cause which must logically & coherently be "not-nature".
Science makes us "know", science releases us from ignorance (ignorance means to claim "I don't know").
@@BernardGoonting You are completely wrong unbelievably arrogant and extremely annoying. Bye...
@@andrum-5229
Relax, chill ... this is simply what I do. I bring scientific reasoning and logical thinking to the dark backward “brain-dead” realm of ignorance and fantasy (atheism). What is atheism? Atheism is the irrational "brain-dead" blind-faith belief in the scientific impossibility that either "nothing created everything" or that "everything created itself". It is the result of being brainwashed with magical, childish, fairy-tale nonsense.
Can you explain where we came from if there is no God?
You pretty much strawman the moral argument. As far as I know, moral arguments aren't usually formulated as:
1. If moral codes are written on our hearts, then God exists
2. Moral codes are written on our hearts
3. Therefore, God exists.
The one Craig champions is this:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Appealing to evolution doesn't solve or rebut any of the premises. If you think appealing to subjectivity defeats the second premise then you'd be committing a genetic fallacy. And as far as I know, there are no serious secular ethical theories that rely on science. Sam Harris' moral landscape has been scrutinized by atheist ethicists. Since Hume was mentioned, think of Hume's "Is-Ought problem."
The only way I could really see moral realists getting out of this is to deny the first premise by appealing to the Euthyphro Dilemma. But Craig, William Alston, Robert Adams, and Philip Quinn have a lot to say on this matter.
I can tell you’re a new atheist channel and I don’t want to be too harsh, but you really missed the mark on these arguments. You should be more hesitant to go about claiming there are all these flaws in the most famous arguments of religious philosophy. If they were so easily debunked, then it would have been done in the professional field already. Yet they haven’t been...these arguments are actually quite sturdier than you seem to think and all your objections have already been put down. You should really keep trying though, and your goal should be to continually increase knowledge and refine your arguments. Good luck -a Christian
I'm not trying to become a professional philosopher, just share my perspective. But my purpose of this video wasn't to explore the arguments in depth, just give a brief overview of how these arguments have flaws, and aren't empirical, and therefore, do not necessarily make a god probable.
Skeptically Skeptical we may disagree on the “flaws” part as I mentioned that if such serious flaws existed someone would have jumped on them long before you and put these arguments on the shelf, but that’s not the case. Also, don’t get caught up too much with empiricism, as these proofs are meant to be logical ones not empirical. A logical argument can suggest probability without empiricism, so it’s somewhat irrelevant. Still, I wish you the best and will even subscribe to hopefully see the channel progress!
@@davidmorris5130 Atheists recognize the flaws in these arguments, and put the arguments on the shelf for themselves. It's theists who keep using them, and it's probably because the arguments fit into an overall theist worldview, but the arguments om their own and unbiasedly are not strong arguments. For example, the absolute best the Kalam could do for a theist is an incredibly limited deism. But as I said in my video, the Kalam has so many possibilities that it makes it unlikely it's a god that could suspend the laws of nature. And then the moral argument is so horrendous I don't see why anyone still uses it, especially someone as intelligent as Dr. Craig. The much simpler and answer we have evidence for is "morals" came about by evolution through natural selection. I think empiricism is incredibly important in deciding what we believe, but that's a much bigger discussion. Thanks for the comment and the subscription though. I really enjoy the discussion and hope to see your thoughts on future videos!
Yes WLC, tell me why miracles are really real. So convinced
@Gabriel M. Pontes im not trying or pretending to be a good person though. But honestly no hard feelings