Another great debate I Enjoyed. Good effort on Peter Millican for his try, it's obvious he's something he's not used to especially going against the experienced WLC.
I've watched a number of debates with WLC recently: Andrew Pyle, Alex Rosenberg and Lawrence Krauss. It's refreshing to finally hear someone from the opposing side speak with respect and humility instead of the sneering, often ad hominem, rudeness I've heard so far. An enjoyable debate and Dr Millican's points carried much greater weight because of his decent conduct.
An argument doesn't carry more weight simply because the arguer is more agreeable to you. You should examine the arguments independent of the speaker. I haven't completed this debate yet but I'm skeptical of your claim here. **After watching the video, I still don't see what it is you're referring to. Maybe you're referring to Craig pressing for responses? I can't see it.**
@@rubenmborgesmusic You missed the point of the OP. Not in and of itself, but being more agreeable means they aren't resorting to slander or ad hominem attacks, so it indirectly does carry more weight.
Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.
@@osmosis321can you link or point me towards a couple of those instances? I haven’t seen all of his debates but I’ve never seen WLC be rude, and certainly can’t recall an ad hominem attack, ever.
Dr. Millican says there are many possible gods to choose from, Zeus, for example. But to distinguish between Zeus and the God of the Bible, you need to equivocate on the word "god." It seems to me that Dr. Craig is talking about what Aristotle would call "the unmoved mover" or that St. Thomas Aquinas would call "the first cause." If Zeus exists, he's not the first cause, the cause that everyone else depends on for existence and causal power. The God of the Bible doesn't depend on anyone or anything to keep him existing. His existence is built into him. But Zeus has parents who caused him if he exists.
Aristotle's prime mover isn't the God of Aquinas, since the world of Aristotle is eternal and uncreated. Aristotle took movement to be a problem that required explanation by something else that is stationary. He took rest as something that is primary, or requires no explanation. Newton told us that an object in motion will stay in motion, and did not use teleological explanations, so in Newtonian mechanics motion does not require a telos (prime mover). Aristotle's prime mover is modeled after the insight that people remain at rest unless there is a purpose for their movement. Remember, since both of them are eternal, Aristotle's prime mover did not exist before the world: both of them always existed; the prime mover's entire role in Aristotelian metaphysics is to act as a teleological cause for movement. So Aristotle tells us that there are three types of beings: 1) beings that move and perish (e.g., animals); 2) Beings that move but don't perish (he thought planets never perished; 3) Beings that don't move nor perish and thus everything else moves towards or for it.
@@AhmedMohamedFarrag God and Aristotle's unchangeable changer are like each other if God isn't Aristotle's unchangeable changer. I say "unchangeable changer" because in the Aristotelian-Thomisitc sense, movement is any change. Classical theists believe God can't undergo any change. They even think the universe still needs a cause,, even if it has always existed. That's why I use some poor analogies to clarify what I mean. First, suppose I keep three potted carnivorous plants on a tray where water always flows. They'll die if the water goes away forever. The water sustains them, and they can't live without it. So, in the analogy, the water represents what makes them exist. Imagine a Christmas-light string. They lights will shine when electricity flows from the electrical outlet to each bulb, assuming that each bulb will work. each bulb will go out when there's a power outage. The electricity stands for existence God gives each creature. If God stops sustaining anyone or anything he creates, that will annihilate that creature. Since he creates from nothing, each creature needs him to keep it existing. God creates to make an object begin to exist and while it survives. Just as the Christmas lights will go out when you unplug them, anything that gets "unplugged" from God will stop existing. God always creates whether he makes something begin to exist, keeps the creature existing, or enables that creature to do anything it can do. God stopped creating new creatures on creation day seven. But he still paid attention to them because to keep them existing. He's paying attention to you keep you alive.
@@williammcenaney1331 I get you. Islamic theologians also had this conception of God being the sustainer of existence. Al Qayyum, or the sustainer, is one of God's names in Islam.
@@AhmedMohamedFarrag That's good news. St. Thomas Aquinas sometimes agrees with what some Islamic Aeistotelians teach about classical theism. So they disagree with Dr. Craig's theistic personalism. I know Dr. Craig doesn't like the phrase "theistic personalism." I don't enjoy being labeled an idolator when some people hear I'm. a Catholic. But I don't need to let their false opinions hurt my feelings.
I was stunned: this was a great debate. P Millican stayed the course; he engaged WL Craig in his arguments on those where he has something to contribute and not try to bluff his way through. I got the impression that he did his homework. (Don't get me wrong: I haven't been swayed by his arguments. I still find the arguments for a Creator God very convincing. I've watched several of WLC's debates so I'm familiar with most of his arguments. What matters: his interaction w/opponent et.al.)
Such a pity Millican was uncomfortable in the format. Craig is an old hand and somewhat glib in it, offering pitiful ad hoc arguments to justify the inconsistencies in the gospels, the 13.4 billion years before man, our poor ability to know God etc. Millican raised all the right points but not forthrightly enough and Craig slips through again.
I haven't watched this yet, but I came here because I saw Millican in another short clip and was impressed with his diction and clarity. So, I'm going to watch this avidly. I agree about Hitchens and Dawkins. But let's not forget the true king of the triggered trolls, Krauss.
Great Debate! Edge to Craig: Better time management, was more clear and had better ground to his philosophical arguments. Millican had a great initial case presentation, but it ended up being lost in the rebuttals. Well done to both!
Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.
Yah same. Millican’s initial presentation was fantastic but I felt he unraveled as the debate went on, felt more disorganized, didn’t reply to points as effectively as Craig did. To be fair at this point Craig is basically on autopilot though.
Simple, how can the universe be so well turned? perfectly balanced? Can you explain that with no God? How does the moon perfectly fit in the sun when an eclipse if both are very distant from earth? Coincidence?
@@vtblda I just did, that analogy doesn't explain why everything is fine tuned, it is just an analogy with no real science or explanation. How does everything stay in perfect balance?
@@vtblda The water stays in the puddle because there is an unchangeable law called gravity law, that functions in perfect balance with all other laws required for the water to stay there, like time and space, among million of molecular laws working in perfect harmony to maintain the water in the puddle, all those laws function in perfect balance with no human intervention, to think that all those laws were randomly made or that they are just a coincidence is non sense.
God loves you! Not here to debate, check this out IF you’re seeking truth! *Christianity Evidence for you to look into. I’m confident in the cumulative evidence that I believe anyone seeking truth with their bias aside will see the overwhelming evidence for Christianity after checking out the things below. Evidence: Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument. The sophisticated complicated language of DNA. The origins of life. Think about how things like purpose and love seem like they actually matter rather than being strictly chemical reactions. Look into the law and order of the known universe. The only reason we can even do science the way we do is on the assumption the universe has order. Look into Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, Watch near death experiences where people see Jesus or heaven and hell (especially from former atheists), look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, look into the science stated in the Bible before humans discovered it. Look into the archeological evidence for Christianity. Look into the laws of logic especially cause and effect and how that would point to a creator along with many other things. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic, you shouldn’t just trust me on the matter. You should seek the truth yourself. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” Debate or discussion links: ruclips.net/video/bhfkhq-CM84/видео.html ruclips.net/video/0tYm41hb48o/видео.html ruclips.net/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/видео.html ruclips.net/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/видео.html Apologetics ruclips.net/video/_7QyW9EcCRQ/видео.html Faith is reasonable here’s why.^ ruclips.net/video/67uj2qvQi_k/видео.html
I was in the audience for this. I wasn't aware it had been recorded! After the debate WLC stuck around, and I shook his hand and said: "I disagreed with almost everything you said, but thank you for putting across your case with rationality and civility."
if you watch other WLC debates, you'd see that you should've thanked Millican for that instead of Craig. btw it was painfully clear that Millican was struggling at the end to say something accurate.
Craig absolutely nails the debate in the last 30 minutes. I always thought that he is rather clever and knowledgeable but above all very cunning; turns out he is actually quite brilliant mind and very quick on his feet. Brilliant performance by him, good work by Mr Millican as well. The latter was mainly hindered by a lack of experience - otherwise it would have been a draw.
Craig has never 'nailed' any debate ever.... the repetition of insipid arguments for a delusional proposition only impresses. foolish people who are predisposed to agree with him in the first place.
Kop Prophet talk from the back.. the repetition of his “insipid” arguments is due to the fact they haven’t been properly refuted/challenged/debunked. Why change a winning formula? Don’t bother with your personal views on him.
I used to think occasionally that nothing should exist….ever…..for all time ……nothingness……ever. It’s hard to sustain this thought. Only God can make something from nothing. Nothing can not create something.
It always disturbs me when Craig says "Jesus was who he claimed to be", since Jesus claimed to be God's son, who worshipped and obeyed the same God the Jews worshipped, but Craig thinks Jesus *was God* himself and therefore actually denies Jesus' claims about himself. Nevertheless, Craig's argument for the historicity of the resurrection is excellent, and it is indeed evidence substantiating Jesus' actual claim (to be the son of the One who created all things), which then substantiates belief in that One's existence and in the Christian religion.
@@derschokokuchen9410 I have read the Bible. Jesus made it clear that he worships the God of the Jews (John 20:17), and does not know everything God knows (Matthew 24:36) or have the authority God has (Matthew 20:23; John 14:28). Can you name any place in the Bible where Jesus claimed to be God (or equal to God)?
1. John 10:30 “The Father and I are one.” John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.“ Colossians 2:9-10 “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.“ John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.“ John 8:57-58 “The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!” There are planty more my friend. It's called christianity for a reason. John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.“
@@derschokokuchen9410 The Bible also says husbands and wives are "one flesh", and Jesus prayed that his disciples could be "one" _just as_ he and the Father are one (John 17:11). The fact that no one has seen God is further proof that Jesus isn't God (people did see Jesus). But of course Jesus is the unique revelation of God and we cannot come to know God apart from Christ. Amen! That still doesn't make them equals. The fullness of the divine quality does dwell in him, but why? The previous chapter (1:19) says it is because the Father was pleased to make it so. John 1:1 does not say "and the Word was God" in the original text. If it did, the sentence would be a self-contradiction, as Dan Wallace (a Trinitarian and expert in NT Greek) has acknowledged. You can't be "with" yourself. Fortunately, that's not what the sentence says. And yes, of course Jesus existed before Abraham. Lol. He existed before the world was! (I am a Christian, by the way, and accept everything the Bible actually says about him). Jesus made his claim very clear at Matthew 16. He asked the disciples who they say he is, and they said "you are the Christ (which means the one anointed by God) the Son of the living God". Jesus said that was correct. So, that's what we ought to think.
So just to be clear: jesus is the second person of the trinitarian god. All the three persons of god (father,son,holy spirit) are all fully god and fully equal.
It is a well established fact that the vast majority of animals lack self awareness, so I'm not sure why you are acting shocked when Craig repeats this well established fact.
@@jackplumbridge2704 How are you defining “self-awareness”? Have you ever watched pigs scream when being gassed by factory farm deathhouses, or have you ever watched a mother cow break a fence and run after its calf in desperation? What *exactly* do you mean by “self-awareness”?
@@TheEternalOuroboros self awareness means exactly what it says, being aware of the self. Why you think animals reacting to pain is supposed to conflict with them not having self awareness I don't know. It seems you haven't spent anytime thinking about this issue. Lacking self awareness in no way shape or form entails a lack of reaction. Even unconscious beings, like white blood cells, react to their environment. Reacting to stimuli says nothing about whether the entity is self aware.
@@jackplumbridge2704 It’s fair to suppose some animals have degrees of self-awareness over others, including the capacity for pain (though it’s notoriously challenging to analyse another conscious being’s phenomenology). What disturbed me about WLC’s statement is how sweeping it is coming from a respected academic. It’s intuitively obvious that (at the very least) *some* animals are certainly aware of being in pain as much as they are self-aware - thus to assert that *no* animals do is beyond absurd. This is my concern.
@@FlencerMcflensington But only one side offers you nihilism and no grounds for objective morals...Either way, Craig wants your money? Seriously? Threathens you with eternal suffering? No, he simply showed how you already ARE in threat of eternal suffering because of YOUR moral failures. After all, it is YOUR fault, not something made up about you. And even so, God has graciously offered a way to evade that suffering for FREE.
Millican really believes that the universe could have come about from nothing. That is an absurdity. And if he wants to invoke ‘quantum vacuum’ how does he know the quantum vacuum isn’t God? Why is ‘quantum vacuum’ any better an explanation than God?
01:23:46 Is Craig seriously suggesting for all the other alien life forms that may be out there, God has appeared as their personal saviour in some form or another? I'm not saying this is impossible, but it does seem like he's having to perform some serious mental gymnastics (Craig, that is, not God)...
We know for a fact that if we had the power to create a universe, where all of our creatures suffered, as creatures are prone to do on planet earth, we would not expect to be worshiped as being wonderful. Fear is why people choose to worship. “I act as if God exists, and I’m terrified he might.” Author … Jordan Peterson
Peterson is an apologist for materialist theist supremacism. His brilliant transpersonal psychology breaks down at the abusive powerholders usurping Jesus Christ´s legacy in hypocrisy and worse. "Terror" is an emotion that fails in contexts like WWII when conservative isolationist businesspeople opposed FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel pro-social New Deal experimentation, his pro-religious, pro-spiritual speaking. Roosevelt´s readiness to act involved his achieving Lend/Lease and more. His actions weren´t based on "terror," but insightful proactivity suspiciously traceable to his education in the Social Gospel of Jesus Christ, who taught the parable of the Good Samaritan along with 2 loving commandments for Moses and God. The Good Samaritan took loving action, and showed the experience of being loved.
@@TheBradleyd1146 I suggest that you are avoiding the truth of the matter, that all forms of life suffer, and would even if humans did not exist. Who, other than the god can you blame for "that" suffering? You can't blame "that" suffering on a devil ... can you? If you are not honest in these matters with your self, you certainly won't be able to be honest with others.
@@angelojuat4754 If you refused to believe in the existence of a god, do you believe that the god would have a righteous right to punish your soul for eternity? "Yes," or, "No?"
I’ve watched a lot of debates with WLC and I think Dr Millican is a rare gentleman and respectful debater. I look forward to seeing more debates by him. Seeing this is his first he could become a brilliant interlocutor that would make for more insightful debates.
I heard Craig saying on an interview that people (and Craig himself) consider this as his best debate. I think that too... at least, it was the best that I saw untill now. Millican was honest and sincere and really tried to give answers to refute Craig's arguments. (And this definitively cannot be said of other debaters as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and John Shook).
Best and simplest refutation of the Kalam argument that I've heard. I thought of this rebuttal on my own and wondered if anyone had used it, and was glad to see that someone has.
it's about time people who believe in pixies who think they can dictate what other people do with their lives were disrespected. bowing down to imaginary beings is the height of stupidity, dictating what people can or cannot do based on fantasy figures should be stopped altogether.
@@HarryNicNicholas Its ironic that after mischaracterising Christians as people who "dictate what other people do with their lives" you then call for such people to face ridicule and be "stopped altogether". Can I suggest that, if the idea of God is as stupid as you believe, you find for yourself a more worthwhile past time than listening to someone defend the proposition that God exists?
We need some adrenaline. We are made to be entertained by blood letting, and Christians are champions at that. We're waiting to see some neuron engaging not parrot rehashing.
Man I walked away from this with a totally different viewpoint on Dr Craig. the comments seem to suggest that most people think that McMillan won. honestly I think that people mistake the fact that McMillan talked to last with him winning. As a former atheist and a person who used to not be able to appreciate Dr Craig I've got to say Dr Craig was really killing it in this debate he needed a great job every argument that he made was incredibly strong and the responses to those arguments were not strong. I could not believe McMillan saying that our ignorance is better than your intelligence he basically made the fallacious argument that science in the future will validate his viewpoint as an argument for why we shouldn't believe in the overwhelming scientific evidence available today. That is a terrible terrible argument
William Lane Craig is much more style than substance. He is an experienced debater, makes good use of his time, has good organization and so forth. However, I ultimately think that Millican has better arguments. His main shortcoming is that he is inexperienced as a public debater. But to say that he lost here is not right IMO. I really like Peter Millican and thought he did great here.
I understand your position (you've expressed it to me before). It seems to me to be one big appeal to mystery, but there's no need for us to kick that dead horse yet again. My point is simply that the burden of proof is NEVER on the one who says "X is possible", and ALWAYS on the one who says "X is IMpossible". That's all I objected to.
sorry but the "impossible" isn't required to demonstrate it unless it's a claim, if you say there is a god, you have to demonstrate it to me, i don't have to do anything at all. demonstrate there is a god, cos a) there is no free will b) dead people stay dead c) all loving gods can't drown babies, which pretty much clears up that the christian god is a myth.
@@HarryNicNicholas If someone claims that there is no God, then they should back that claim up, just like the person who claims there is a God should back it up. You did the right thing by listing reasons. I disagree with those 3 points, but at least you offered arguments. In any case, the 8-year-old comment your responding to wasn't about the burden for theists or atheists, just whether being open to things carries a burden of proof (like, if I'm open to the existence of aliens, but don't say for sure one way or the other, why would I have a burden of proof just to be open?).
In various other videos, and on this comments section, I have seen a lot of praise for Millican. And I must say, I just don't understand why. I mean, he was certainly cordial and polite, and I enjoy listening to him. But as far as refutations of Craig's arguments, or presenting an argument for atheism... Millican has to be in the top 10 worst that Craig has ever faced. In his opening speech, Millican promises not to make this a matter of how many other gods there are... and then instantly proceeds to make it an issue about how many other gods there are! He recognizes that he's committing the Genetic Fallacy, but then basically commits it anyway! And his responses to the cosmological and teleological arguments are basically appeals to mystery and arguments from ignorance (the very things that *theists* are usually accused of). No, this was not a formidable opponent for Craig at all.
VitalSigns1 I've watched this debate twice, and paid very close attention. I like Millican (especially his demeanor and good manners). But consider what I mentioned in my initial post. He said he wouldn't make it a matter of all the other gods there are, and then immediately turned around and did just that. His rebuttals to the cosmological and teleological arguments were textbook arguments from ignorance and mystery. It's all "we just can't know yet". Craig is arguing from what we *do* know, to the conclusion that the most reasonable position given our current knowledge is theism. Millican just appealed to our current ignorance. No, I think that, along with Wolpert, Law, and Enqvist, Peter Millican is among the least formidable of Craig's opponents.
VitalSigns1 Let's try this another way. Please summarize for me the parts of Millican's rebuttal to the Kalaam that don't boil down to an argument from ignorance or mystery.
VitalSigns1 1) Causation isn't defined as requiring physicality. Even a totally non-physical world could be described causally. So this appeal to our experience is gratuitous and irrelevant. 2) Read David Albert's review of Krauss' book. It is sensationalist nonsense to say that anything ever comes from nothing at all in QM. The quantum vacuum is far from "nothing", as Craig specifically pointed out in this debate. 3) Craig is not reasoning from "every part of the Universe has a cause" to "therefore the Universe itself does". Craig addressed this as well. 4) God only causes at the first moment IN time. These are all really weak objections, and Craig responded to all of them. When I said that Millican's case "comes down to" appeals to ignorance and mystery, what I mean si that after Craig easily rebutted these weak objections (just as I have done), Millican was left saying very little more than "we just don't know enough yet". That was all it boiled down to, especially in the q-and-a.
"He recognizes that he's committing the Genetic Fallacy, but then basically commits it anyway!" No, he recognizes what the genetic fallacy is, and said that isn't what he was committing. He made that perfectly clear. At no point did he say belief in god was false because of the way people came to it, only that the way people come to belief in god is unreliable.
"So all we know here is that our science cannot cope with it. Trying to draw any firm conclusions seems wishful thinking." This is the kind of positivism that would make life impossible without scientific proofs for any conclusion you draw. I am not surprised he is a fan of David Hume.
Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.
His discussion with Shelly Kagan wasn't a debate. The Veritas Forum instructed them not to debate, but just to flesh out each other's ideas. This event is a debate, done in a traditional debate format.
Well, this is a whole different subject. I was just responding to your previous posts. The simple fact is that the cause of all material reality cannot itself be a material reality or else it would have to cause itself as well, which is logically absurd. So, if the Kalam succeeds in showing that the Universe had a cause of its existence (which I don't think you dispute), then that cause must be non-material and non-spatiotemporal.
the main problem with premise 5 "if something is possibly true, then its possibility is necessary", is that it seem to result into multitudinous outcomes. how this is self-evidently true as you write, is beyond me.
Agreed. We live in a universe where things don't generally appear from nothing, where creatio ex nihilo is all but unheard of. Within our universe, everything comes from something else. But it is a fallacy to apply these same criteria to events that precede, or caused (if that's even a meaningful concept) this universe to exist in the first place.
Usually what i’m left with arguments like this is: then, what is the explanation or framework you propose? Its rather easy to come up with objections, but it requires so much more to devise a proper answer or solution. At the end i’m sympathetic to the position of the radical sceptic since not believing in anything is easier on the short term but is unsustainable in the long run… Beginning of something physical come from a preexistence inside the confines of the mind, this we experience every time we see something made by humans. Before they where a “thing” they were ideas in someones mind, then that mind came in contact with the created world and gave birth to the object. To assume that this is the same process by which the “universe” came to be is logical. But logically it cannot be accepted by someone that discounts the existence of a mind previous to the existence of the universe. Granted, maybe you wont believe in “God”, but perhaps you are open to believe that consciousness is a phenomena previous to the material world. However, if you believe that consciousness requires that the physical world exists first then this explanation is imposible. Maybe we should be open to other explanations when we can’t provide our own, however, usually atheist can’t provide a probable cause but just and absolute impossibility.
@@fobos9289 Then I suppose you'll be disappointed when I issue what I consider the only honest answer anyone can give regarding where everything came from: I don't know, and anyone who says they do is selling something. It seems to me that a disembodied mind is not a good candidate explanation, as minds are emergent properties of brains. One might say "but those are the rules within this universe, not outside it" and sure, that's technically correct. But when you start speculating about things that don't follow any rules we've ever known, all bets are off, and you have no way of checking if you're right.
@@osmosis321 the error of your answer lies in the supposition that your lack of knowledge of God transfers to a lack of knowledge in others. We give explanations to our experiences by natural means, we don’t receive experiences by our explanations. So, the honest answer is, I don’t know the intricacies of God, He is way bigger than my understanding and I’m not trying to sell you what you don’t want I’m just trying to show you what you can’t see. You can’t prove to me that you experience thought and yet I believe you can think, however I understand that you can’t comprehend what you haven’t experience and tend, as all human beings to think your experience is similar (if not equal to others). It ain’t so. You would want to have a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe if you where rational and logical. You would test it out and try to prove it on your own but your pride hinders you from such knowledge. So, I accept you don’t know but I would suggest to you that you have No evidence other people don’t know as well. Because you’ve never been to Japan doesn’t mean Japan does not exist, it is just outside of the purview of your experience. Look deeper and humbly and you may find it. At least if you truly want to the know the Truth you would pursuit it, however, if you don’t want to know you won’t be oblige to since we are given free will and God does not violate the sanctity of our individuality and sovereignty. But maybe you’ll say, whatever man, you are delusional… and I would reply that you don’t have any facts to say that, just speculation and speculation will grant you no experience and doubt will only give you the confort given by ignorance. Don’t be antiscientific. Test it yourself and stop the empty rhetorics they are just words with no experience. Live! God bless you and give you knowledge of His existence, amen, amen, aleluya!
@@osmosis321 you don’t want evidence. Maybe to be catered to, but no, you don’t want evidence. Truth doesn’t need to be approved by you to be true, but you can live without truth as long as it doesn’t prove fatal. Stop doubting and search for the truth, you have enough intelligence to do it but perhaps lack the will power to pursue such endeavor. Doubt is not a good way to lead life since it has no purpose or goal, but curiosity can lead many places and honesty can help to see and accept what is unknown to one experience. But this can’t be done for you. Gotta be done by you. Stop being lazy. At least say something… God loves you, but He wont cater to you. God bless!
I would ask Bill one question: How does an infinite,immaterial, disembodied, omnipotent and omniscient Being affect or create a finite and material Universe..what are the precise divine mechanisms for that action??
DAN V. I think most Philosophers don't believe we have Freewill..a limited Freewill is a contradiction! Of course our Minds and Intellect are limited..but ignorance doesn't prove God or an external world!
@@rationalsceptic7634 1) Your question can your finite mind fathom such an answer? Secondly if there is no free will then everything must be determined thus why should we value anything you say when it's not like any deliberation has gone into that statement?
NB 9 We have no Freewill..in the sense our thoughts are free from causal processes beyond our control! God doesn't explain anything..Craig is a deeply self deluded man who thinks the Bible was written by God..it wasn't..men obviously wrote the Bible!
This debate gave me, for the very first time, some respect for Dr. Craigs hard work trying to make sense out of religious mambo jambo, although in my opinion Peter Millicans philosophy is much sounder.
And, since it gives the only plausible answer to the question "What caused the Universe to begin to exist?", then we are indeed obliged to accept that at least one such entity exists.
Err, that’s not quite right. Graham Oppy has pointed out that the explanation is far simpler and does not require any supernatural shenanigans: namely, a necessary condition preceded the universe. Craig and Loke both tried to argue a god preceding a necessary condition, but failed for a variety of reasons. Hence, the conditions need to create the universe and its fine tuning had to exist necessarily by axiomatic definition. And recall that Oppy, like Craig and Loke, agrees something cannot come from nothing (even though that does not entail a logical contradiction). Here’s the kicker though. For god to do anything, god has to exist. If he does not exist he can have none of the properties he claimed to have. That is, to have all the god properties of omniscience, power etc an entity must necessarily exist. But if this entity exists there can be no state of no thing at all. As Craig points out himself nothing has no potentiality, and by extension this must extend to his god. This objection is well known and understood by and amongst serious philosophers, and is one of the primary reasons Craig’s arguments do not persuade philosophers who are neither religious or especially evangelicals. And even then there are plenty of religious philosophers who reject these claims on the grounds of incoherence. Indeed, even then, there are several theistic philosophers who have no truck with this argument or others, such as the moral argument. All one needs to refute the moral argument is to insist that Craig meets his burden of proof by showing how exactly all secular morality theories fail to establish a grounding without god. The truth is that there are many more justifications for secular morality than Craig’s. Even if you take Craig’s moral argument on face value it’s a pathetic effort as it relies on intuition. Not only is this a poor justification prone to biases, but it is such a weak justification as to render the argument worthless in phonological terms as there are countless insurmountable objections that have been raised. To use Craig’s own words in reference to the problem of evil, the burden of proof is simply too much for the theist to bear, which is exactly why he has not done so in the philosophical literature. The real problem is that many of his assertions need careful examination and unjustified claims deconstructed. This often requires a level critical analysis that many are not only incapable of applying, but find exceptionally difficult to evaluate impartially. How else is it possible for Oppy to present the simple case of necessary existence and theists to understand that this is a devastating defeater? One of the few times I saw Oppy get cross in a debate, when he got frustrated by Loke arguing that a necessary condition needed to be explained. It was as if Loke had suffered a lapse in what the term necessary meant. It was embarrassing for Loke. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Typical 'atheism' carries almost 0 burden of proof. Although a gnostic atheist which claims to KNOW gods non existence does carry a larger burden of proof. The persons that make a positive claim of existence sustains the burden of proof. If you disagree with this, I ask for your disproof of Thor, the flying spaghetti monster and the tea pot around Jupiter. Denying the burden of proof of positive claims is self defeating.
I've never "dissed" scientific evidence. In fact, science (particularly theoretical physics and cosmology) is of constant interest to me, and I do my best to stay up-to-date.
Millican drives home what is my personal pet peeve with Craig. "Objective moral values and duties". "These duties are objectively binding regardless of whether one agrees with them or not". What the hell does that mean?! 1) Ah okay he doesn't explain in his first rebuttal. Let's see about the second one. 2) Nope, nothing. Closing remarks? CR) Nothing yet again. Oh he mentions you can not appeal to popular vote to prove that god is not necessary for morality, but conveniently, you can use it to prove that morality is objective, and that is, of course, despite the fact that these philosophers may mean different things by objective morality, so it would be a fallacy of equivocation to even use them as a support for your particular view of objective morality anyway. Staying classy as always dr. Craig.
Perus Saataja Why not take the examples from the OT where YHWH commands his "chosen" guys to murder other people, winning the war, brainwashing all believers that these wars were a good thing? Craig is one of them, having actually defended the atrocities including the murder of children and babies.
Perus Saataja Yes, by defending it. Precisely like a Nazi would defend the holocaust. By seeing these murders and calls to murder for what they are, any non-believer would be more moral by the believer's own ridiculous "objective morality". Now that is irony.
John Doe Hi, assume you mean Craig defended it, not all Christian philosophers. In case you are interested, Randal Rauser (systematic and analytic theologian) has 11 part critique on his website about Craig´s position on this.
Perus Saataja _Hello! I'm not... writings_ Damn, I was certain when I've just read your comment that I must have responded to it already, but I see I haven't. And yes, he uses that example often. It doesn't shed much light into the issue though. Because he always leaves white space in the map of his view on morality. He gives this example to explain how 'objective' means basically 'unchanging'. Which is hardly sufficient. So, he leaves it up to the audience to fill in that 'good' = 'that which one ought to do' and vice versa. This is a cheap trick. He doesn't show how, on his view, that's what the words 'good' and 'evil' actually mean. On his definition 'good' = "that which corresponds to God's (moral) nature" and vice versa. How does it follow that "God's (moral) nature" is equivalent to "that which one ought to do" ? Especially since he denounces nihilism or acting out of self-interest. I hope I explained myself more clearly now.
"Many empiricists have been willing to accept the thesis so long as it is restricted to propositions solely about the relations between our own concepts. We can, they agree, know by intuition that our concept of God includes our concept of eternal existence. Just by examining the concepts, we can intellectually grasp that the one includes the other."
Millican starts off with the many gods fallacy, a category fallacy, a fallacy of generalization. There are hundreds of lesser gods claimed, of which the claims about the God of Abraham are never made. God is proposed to be the ultimate supreme being creator of all things God. Which puts him in a much more narrow category than the lesser gods. 32:13 Another bad argument by Millican. There have been scores of scientific beliefs that have been proven wrong, and many could be attributed to cultural influence, but we don't throw out science because of that fact. And yeah, atheist are always asking for more evidence of Gods existence, but they can never even relate what that evidence would be, ether qualitative or quantitative, or it is reduced down to just a subjective description. 1:08:37 Disregards purpose and value. It is more like a giant vault holding captive one single diamond, because it is the only diamond, and has a value that is incalculable..
+Bungalo Bill Plenty of religions have creator gods that are held to have created the universe and everything in it. I don't see why Millican's approach is problematic. The Abrahamic god is just one of many on offer...and creating the universe is just of many things that gods are from time to time said to have done. And atheists can certainly relate what sort of evidence would prove the existence of gods. In terms of the Abrahamic god, a big one is proof of miracles. Another is demonstrating that minds can exist without bodies.
+Paul Marino They will lump all gods together, monotheistic religions and polytheistic. Funny how they often pick limited ones as examples, such as thor. There are several with supreme beings, but most share with other gods or include other gods. The God of Abraham is quite unique in that he is the supreme and only God, of which there are no others. He does not share anything with some other god, the idea of any other god in relation to him is described as a false belief. He is not the ruler over gods, he is the one and only God. Some will argue the Trinity to be polytheistic, but this is not so, there is still only one God of Abraham. Three persons but one God. The Trinity is not three independent parts, but a whole which includes three persons.(Personifications) God will never ask Jesus or The holy Spirit, why did you do such and such. They are always of one mind.
Bungalo Bill Jews do view the trinity as polytheistic. There is some leeway for non-Jews to believe in it (according to some opinions) without being considered idolaters, though. But this aside, the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten advocated a monotheistic religion - and his god wasn't the Abrahamic one. There have been a few monotheistic options. And it has been argued that early Judaism didn't hold that the Biblical YHWH was in fact the only god...though this is certainly debatable.
+Paul Marino Anyone who believes the Trinity to be polytheistic does not understand the Trinity. As Jesus reported that David said.....The Lord said to my Lord. The Jews had no answer for this. As Paul stated...They stumbled over a stumbling block. Psalm 110 verse 1 The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. The Jews believed in one Lord (and they were correct), this verse would have made David's Lord equal to God. No one can be equal to God and not also be the same God.
Having a human being walking around on earth be considered god is idolatrous/polytheistic by Jewish standards. Some of the early Christians, who probably did not even know Hebrew, might not have known this (many/most Jews 2,000 years ago only knew Aramaic or Greek, not Hebrew). . Most of today's Christians rely on mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible and also do not know it.
Even as an atheist, I don't agree much with Millican here. I don't even believe the issue is "extremely important"; I consider the god question to be quite a trivial distinction between people, but I digress. And why did Millican ignore WLC's answers entirely *twice in a row* during the Q&A?
I made a few points against neo-Darwinism to Millican when chatting with him in Leeds in 1996. He answered one by saying, "Well those guys are not the best defenders of the theory". At my second, simple point, he turned and hastened away.
I'm dumbfounded that WLC simply repeats the same talking points ad verbatum in every 'debate" he does. Which is odd considering he is being disproven in every single debate. This man isn't a philosopher, he is a preacher.
Prof. Craig not only repeats his arguments in every debate with minor changes in them, but also accuses the other debator in every round that he has not given good evidence for his case nor refuted or weakened one of his claims. What a humbe philosopher he is
I understand that WLC is trying to defend theism with as scholarly an attitude as possible, but given that the goal of a debate is to convince the audience, not your opponent, I wish WLC engaged with the rhetorical points more than he did.
First, Millican wanted to illustrate that saying our current understanding of physics supports statement A is not the same as saying physics supports statement A. Moreover, he is bringing into question the strength of the fine tuning argument given the number of times our understanding of physics has changed and the number of times we have just been wrong. He isn't dismissing fine tuning as a viable arguments, just its strength.
Millican’s closing comments that there is no evidence to support the idea of nothing being the state before the universe came into existence was... astonishing given he could not defeat any of Craig’s arguments that marshaled the evidence before him.
Atheists don't require rationality; they merely require disbelieving in God. In that way they are kind of consistent; once you reject God what reason does one have to be rational?
Einstein's model was actually just an application of non-euclidean geometry to space-time, it was less extraordinary than you seem to think, it applied known methods to solve a known problem in space-time and enabled predictions to be made of specific tests of the character of space-time that could test the theory. It's nothing like comparable to the claim that certain events occur that completely defy everything we know about the universe.
Greetings in Christ Ment =) You are the first person I've seen here on RUclips the last 20. years who actually understood this. I had a headtrauma & a great loss in 95', and ended up isolated in a flat for around 15 years. I listened to "The absurdity of life without God" By Craig (Of Course=). by that time, I listened to tham guys .. Craig, Plantinga, Van Invagen, Greek Koukl LOL!) n' heavy apologetics on mIRC 24/7/365 =) Peace.
Part 1) I spent 6 months in Boot Camp and advanced training going through hell and much suffering in order to come out the other side a fit and useful solder. I never once accused my drill sergeants or the US ARMY of being bad or evil just because they needed to be a little hard on us to make us strong. Would not God then do the same ( be a hard ass) to insure that we, after death entered heaven the loving, selfless sole we must be?
"are you stating that one can provide a counterposition to the debate question "Does God exist?" through a claim other than the proposition "God does not exist"?" One can remain unconvinced either way. One can allow that god *may* exist, while still knowing that the likelihood of any gods invented thus far being real is exceedingly small.
Great to see Craig against such a sincere and disciplined adversary. The moral question is a good one, and I, as an interfaith Christian, can appreciate Millican´s concerns. Humans have moral capacities, and moral cause and effect through choice and consequence can be surveyed. The sources of moral orientation then becomes key. Surveys of the seemingly universal perception of the Golden Rule by other spiritual leaders is one observation. The assertion by Millican of atheists observing morality, we are faced with the historical sociological context, which in modernity in the West is a Christian context with secular and scientific materialism trying to position itself in Jesus´ legacy. That applies from such events as Christians ending legal slavery up to FD Roosevelt´s and Eleanor´s envisioning and shepherding the UN negotiations in a pluralist context. Craig doesn´t affirm the evolution of human abilities, but that would be a convergence in a Level of Analysis between the natural processes that underlie emergentism and the emergence of mind in human cultural development with shamanism as the original foundation. Millican gets at that by mentioning psychology. That point isn´t mutually exclusive, and fundamentally needs to be understand in terms of mutually inclusive Levels of Analysis. The historical sociological origins of modern Universities in Christians spiritual practice monastic schools and transformation of ancient Greek philosophy demonstrates the crucial role of Jesus´ legacy in loving integrity, even as imperfectly expressed as it was. It wasn´t Jesus preaching hate, nor some Alexandrean power trip. "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Apparently contrary to spreading a crucial point of view, one that is contrary to a natural world of the Law of the Jungle. 2:08:40: Millican is getting into his own conclusions about his own "failed" spiritual path. "God makes the rules, being omnipotent....Bill says we should seek him, but God´s just mysterious. Did I fail? Should I be blamed?" For one thing, he felt disappointed with the results of his thinking and seeking in reason. Instead, he renders a judgment that he is not seeking, but expected to be given the answer he apparently wanted. My suggestion might be, ask, "Have you tried Buddhism? Shamanism? Quaker-Friendism? Even Christian monastic practice? He has treated his search rationalistically, and decided to draw a rational conclusion based on the terms he has set. Ninian Smart, for one, was a professor of Comparative Religious Studies who concluded that religions have a lot to learn from each other.
There is no limit in the PM format here on RUclips. Why don't you send me a PM, if you have such a knock-down refutation? Or are you hoping someone else will refute me at this other website? Sounds like you're relying on other people to do your thinking for you....
Don't get confused between two different cosmological arguments. I wasn't proposing a "Kalam" style argument from the fact that the Universe had a beginning (though I think it is perfectly sound, and does indeed prove a personal cause). I was using the beginning of the Universe to show that the Universe is CONTINGENT, and thus susceptible to a Leibnizean style cosmological argument (from the PSR).
Serious question - if you're a theist, could you please tell me whether God experiences the passage of time? If he does, how long did he wait before he created the universe? If he doesn't, how can he be free to make any choices, or do anything?
Your question reveals a misunderstanding of Craigs (and my) view on God's relationship to time. God does experience the passage of time, but (logically) prior to creating time he existed timelessly, so there was no waiting to create.
@@jackplumbridge2704 Can you please explain how something or someone can "exist timelessly", and then go on to act in some way? If you're basing your information on the Bible, can you please tell me what verse you're basing this on?
@@skepticus123 God's act of creation was simultaneous with the beginning of time, so God never acted outside of time. All his actions occur within time, its just that his first action set time in motion to begin with. There isn't anything about timeless existence that would prevent a being with free will choosing to act, setting time in motion.
@@jackplumbridge2704 So (please correct me if I'm wrong) you think there is a higher dimension of time beyond the spacetime of our universe, and that a bodiless mind (equated with the god of the Bible) inhabits all points in time of this higher dimension simultaneously? Is this higher dimension infinite in extent? Is it inked to higher dimensions of space to form a higher spacetime? Is this also infinite in extent? And could you point to which Bible verse this is all laid out in (since all the Bible verses I know about that feature God all have him acting in time and space)
@@skepticus123 "So (please correct me if I'm wrong) you think there is a higher dimension of time beyond the spacetime of our universe, and that a bodiless mind (equated with the god of the Bible) inhabits all points in time of this higher dimension simultaneously? " - No, that isn't my view. I do not think there is a higher dimension of time, in fact I don't think it is accurate to call time a dimension. I hold a relational view of time, where time is a relationship of before and after. Prior to creating anything God existed alone in a timeless and changeless state. There were no relationships of before and after since nothing had happened yet. Then, God's decision to create a world was the first change, and that decision was simultaneous with the world being created. Hence, time began, as you had the first change, and from that point onwards you have relationships of before and after. God existed in a timeless state logically prior to time. In creating time God took on a temporal mode of existence and now exists and acts in time. Does this help to clarify my position?
1) Alexander Vilenkin is an expert in this field. He co-authored a paper with Alan Guth and Arvin Borde, which proves that any Universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion had an absolute beginning. He then announced to Stephen Hawking's guests that all the attempts to work around that have so far failed. 2) There is nothing incoherent about the so-called "omni-attributes".
"It's metaphysically absurd to think that things can pop into being out of non-being" Another thing Craig slyly does is that he equates the "universe" to "things." The universe is not a "thing" rather the universe is the set of all things which exist. The statement that "things" begin to exist is nonsensical since according to the first law of thermodynamics matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
By the way, I did Google what you asked me to, and found a blog entry which was absolutely worthless. It just gives a bunch of analogies to show that causation is a complicated thing, and then tries to insert an arbitrary circle into the formulation of the Kalam. Sloppy work. Causation still exists, and in every case it was very clear what caused the effects in question.
I was about to say "you'd be amazed how much of what atheists say is based on unsubstantiated beliefs and personal biases"... but you probably wouldn't be. You deal with them all the time.
But Craig argued for the beginning. In fact, I can think of two philosophical arguments and several cosmological reasons to think that the Universe certainly is finite in the past.
hi, i've stumbled over your views about contingency. you wrote that "only contingent things need causes" and that "the universe just happens to be a contingent thing." i was wondering what you mean by that and whether you could elaborate on it. as far as i know, the term is more used to describe the neutral status of a proposition. or maybe i got that wrong.
At 1.16.36, Bill Craig refers to Professor Millican (whom I personally know and with whom I have, in the briefest of interchanges, levelled a few questions about the indefensibility of neo-Darwinian theory)) as "Dr. Miller." A noteworthy Freudian slip, for he was not debating the neo-Darwinist (also a Roman Catholic) Prof. Ken Miller. Prof. Miller was an important defender of neo-Darwinism at the notorious 2005 Dover trial. And at 1.22:20 and 1.23:10 he, whilst listing points on the fine tuning of Physical constants ( or ´Laws) in favour of God´s existence, each time refers to Prof. Peter Millican as "Dr. Law". Having earlier referred to Stephen Law, whom he debated on this very topic, a debate which has been uploaded to RUclips. Prof. Craig made a similar Freudian Slip when debating Peter Atkins (also re God´s existence and also uploaded to RUclips) when he TWICE referred to him as "Dr Dawkins". You sing the same song, Prof. Craig. Just your Freudian slips reveal that you - for subliminal reasons - confuse your adversaries!
I gave a step-by-step explanation of why it's the best explanation. Direct arguments for each specific point. How is that a "massive leap"? Again, you are appealing to how little we know, instead of addressing the specific things I've mentioned that we DO know. That's called "arguing from ignorance", my friend.
Combination of factors. The easiest one is the conceivability and coherence of a Universe made up of different configurations of quarks. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about this, and yet it would be a different Universe. So our Universe is not itself metaphysically necessary. There's also the philosophical and cosmological reasons to think the Universe began to exist (which also entails that it is contingent).
Oh, it's perfectly reasonable to say "we don't know exactly what happened at the big bang". Indeed, it is admirable and right to admit our ignorance about matters of which we are truly ignorant. Of course, we are not completely in the dark about the Big Bang, and so we shouldn't pretend that we are. But, I don't object to saying "we don't know everything yet". My objection is to people looking at a deductive argument with a clear conclusion and responding with "well, we just don't know"...
and when and if the evidence of current cosmology does NOT support the existence of god...? Craig says the universe was created by an incomprehensible intelligence, which proves that Craig cannot know it or characterize it
by the way, thomas aquinas kinda hated the ontological argument as well. he said that, as only god can completely know his essence, only he could use the argument. his rejection of the ontological argument caused some catholic theologians to also reject the argument.
![[official] The Possibility of Resurrection - William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann at Cal Poly SLO](/img/1.gif)
Another great debate I Enjoyed. Good effort on Peter Millican for his try, it's obvious he's something he's not used to especially going against the experienced WLC.
I've watched a number of debates with WLC recently: Andrew Pyle, Alex Rosenberg and Lawrence Krauss. It's refreshing to finally hear someone from the opposing side speak with respect and humility instead of the sneering, often ad hominem, rudeness I've heard so far. An enjoyable debate and Dr Millican's points carried much greater weight because of his decent conduct.
An argument doesn't carry more weight simply because the arguer is more agreeable to you. You should examine the arguments independent of the speaker. I haven't completed this debate yet but I'm skeptical of your claim here.
**After watching the video, I still don't see what it is you're referring to. Maybe you're referring to Craig pressing for responses? I can't see it.**
@@rubenmborgesmusic You missed the point of the OP. Not in and of itself, but being more agreeable means they aren't resorting to slander or ad hominem attacks, so it indirectly does carry more weight.
Does it work both ways? I've seen plenty of rudeness and ad hom on WLC's part over the years.
Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.
@@osmosis321can you link or point me towards a couple of those instances? I haven’t seen all of his debates but I’ve never seen WLC be rude, and certainly can’t recall an ad hominem attack, ever.
Both gentlemen deserve credit for the composure and dignity that they carried and provided to each other.
Dr. Millican says there are many possible gods to choose from, Zeus, for example. But to distinguish between Zeus and the God of the Bible, you need to equivocate on the word "god." It seems to me that Dr. Craig is talking about what Aristotle would call "the unmoved mover" or that St. Thomas Aquinas would call "the first cause." If Zeus exists, he's not the first cause, the cause that everyone else depends on for existence and causal power. The God of the Bible doesn't depend on anyone or anything to keep him existing. His existence is built into him. But Zeus has parents who caused him if he exists.
Aristotle's prime mover isn't the God of Aquinas, since the world of Aristotle is eternal and uncreated. Aristotle took movement to be a problem that required explanation by something else that is stationary. He took rest as something that is primary, or requires no explanation. Newton told us that an object in motion will stay in motion, and did not use teleological explanations, so in Newtonian mechanics motion does not require a telos (prime mover). Aristotle's prime mover is modeled after the insight that people remain at rest unless there is a purpose for their movement. Remember, since both of them are eternal, Aristotle's prime mover did not exist before the world: both of them always existed; the prime mover's entire role in Aristotelian metaphysics is to act as a teleological cause for movement. So Aristotle tells us that there are three types of beings: 1) beings that move and perish (e.g., animals); 2) Beings that move but don't perish (he thought planets never perished; 3) Beings that don't move nor perish and thus everything else moves towards or for it.
@@AhmedMohamedFarrag God and Aristotle's unchangeable changer are like each other if God isn't Aristotle's unchangeable changer. I say "unchangeable changer" because in the Aristotelian-Thomisitc sense, movement is any change.
Classical theists believe God can't undergo any change. They even think the universe still needs a cause,, even if it has always existed. That's why I use some poor analogies to clarify what I mean.
First, suppose I keep three potted carnivorous plants on a tray where water always flows. They'll die if the water goes away forever. The water sustains them, and they can't live without it. So, in the analogy, the water represents what makes them exist.
Imagine a Christmas-light string. They lights will shine when electricity flows from the electrical outlet to each bulb, assuming that each bulb will work. each bulb will go out when there's a power outage. The electricity stands for existence God gives each creature. If God stops sustaining anyone or anything he creates, that will annihilate that creature. Since he creates from nothing, each creature needs him to keep it existing.
God creates to make an object begin to exist and while it survives. Just as the Christmas lights will go out when you unplug them, anything that gets "unplugged" from God will stop existing. God always creates whether he makes something begin to exist, keeps the creature existing, or enables that creature to do anything it can do. God stopped creating new creatures on creation day seven. But he still paid attention to them because to keep them existing. He's paying attention to you keep you alive.
@@williammcenaney1331 I get you. Islamic theologians also had this conception of God being the sustainer of existence. Al Qayyum, or the sustainer, is one of God's names in Islam.
@@AhmedMohamedFarrag That's good news. St. Thomas Aquinas sometimes agrees with what some Islamic Aeistotelians teach about classical theism. So they disagree with Dr. Craig's theistic personalism. I know Dr. Craig doesn't like the phrase "theistic personalism." I don't enjoy being labeled an idolator when some people hear I'm. a Catholic. But I don't need to let their false opinions hurt my feelings.
I was stunned: this was a great debate. P Millican stayed the course; he engaged WL Craig in his arguments on those where he has something to contribute and not try to bluff his way through. I got the impression that he did his homework. (Don't get me wrong: I haven't been swayed by his arguments. I still find the arguments for a Creator God very convincing. I've watched several of WLC's debates so I'm familiar with most of his arguments. What matters: his interaction w/opponent et.al.)
Contrast this respectful debate with the sneering arrogant attitude of Dawkins and Hitchens etc
Such a pity Millican was uncomfortable in the format. Craig is an old hand and somewhat glib in it, offering pitiful ad hoc arguments to justify the inconsistencies in the gospels, the 13.4 billion years before man, our poor ability to know God etc. Millican raised all the right points but not forthrightly enough and Craig slips through again.
I haven't watched this yet, but I came here because I saw Millican in another short clip and was impressed with his diction and clarity.
So, I'm going to watch this avidly.
I agree about Hitchens and Dawkins. But let's not forget the true king of the triggered trolls, Krauss.
@@bluegtturboYou really putting the two clowns above, to the superior intellect of Hitchens and and Dawkins?😂😂😂😂.
@@bluegtturbo sneering? those men are more humble than you would ever be armed w/ their fierce intellect
Great Debate! Edge to Craig: Better time management, was more clear and had better ground to his philosophical arguments. Millican had a great initial case presentation, but it ended up being lost in the rebuttals. Well done to both!
both played well
Very nice summary indeed.
It's not football. LOL. Anyone who thinks the cosmological argument has any merit has very little understanding about how logic works.
Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.
Yah same. Millican’s initial presentation was fantastic but I felt he unraveled as the debate went on, felt more disorganized, didn’t reply to points as effectively as Craig did. To be fair at this point Craig is basically on autopilot though.
Millicans arguments were amazing in this debate and I agree with him 100%
Simple, how can the universe be so well turned? perfectly balanced? Can you explain that with no God? How does the moon perfectly fit in the sun when an eclipse if both are very distant from earth? Coincidence?
@@misovejasescuchanmivoz ever heard about "The puddle analogy" by Douglas Adams? Take a closer look and you might come around with a different idea!
@@vtblda I just did, that analogy doesn't explain why everything is fine tuned, it is just an analogy with no real science or explanation. How does everything stay in perfect balance?
@@vtblda The water stays in the puddle because there is an unchangeable law called gravity law, that functions in perfect balance with all other laws required for the water to stay there, like time and space, among million of molecular laws working in perfect harmony to maintain the water in the puddle, all those laws function in perfect balance with no human intervention, to think that all those laws were randomly made or that they are just a coincidence is non sense.
@@misovejasescuchanmivoz It is a thought experiment! Puddles don't think! Come on, You're not trying to lecture me in physics and chemistry, are you?
I attended this debate.
Atheist here! Team Peter, but I got mad respect for WLC too! He is friendly overall and the debate was really professional
wow I have never seen an atheist compliment WLC
@@ceceroxy2227 haha, well he is respectful and that's important to me. Not all atheists are angry 😉
This IS a rarity. Most atheist commenters online seem to accuse Craig of all sorts of misdeeds and ignore his arguments.
I enjoyed this debate soo very much! God bless you all!
Great debate, Craig still leaves me with more questions...never before heard of Mr Millican but he blows my mind.
God loves you! Not here to debate, check this out IF you’re seeking truth!
*Christianity Evidence for you to look into. I’m confident in the cumulative evidence that I believe anyone seeking truth with their bias aside will see the overwhelming evidence for Christianity after checking out the things below.
Evidence:
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument. The sophisticated complicated language of DNA. The origins of life. Think about how things like purpose and love seem like they actually matter rather than being strictly chemical reactions. Look into the law and order of the known universe. The only reason we can even do science the way we do is on the assumption the universe has order. Look into Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, Watch near death experiences where people see Jesus or heaven and hell (especially from former atheists), look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, look into the science stated in the Bible before humans discovered it. Look into the archeological evidence for Christianity. Look into the laws of logic especially cause and effect and how that would point to a creator along with many other things. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic, you shouldn’t just trust me on the matter. You should seek the truth yourself.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
Debate or discussion links:
ruclips.net/video/bhfkhq-CM84/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/0tYm41hb48o/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/aC9tKeJCJtM/видео.html
Apologetics
ruclips.net/video/_7QyW9EcCRQ/видео.html
Faith is reasonable here’s why.^
ruclips.net/video/67uj2qvQi_k/видео.html
I was in the audience for this. I wasn't aware it had been recorded! After the debate WLC stuck around, and I shook his hand and said: "I disagreed with almost everything you said, but thank you for putting across your case with rationality and civility."
really ? like 1 years ago?
@@Henok-qn6nc 13 years ago, yes.
if you watch other WLC debates, you'd see that you should've thanked Millican for that instead of Craig.
btw it was painfully clear that Millican was struggling at the end to say something accurate.
Craig absolutely nails the debate in the last 30 minutes. I always thought that he is rather clever and knowledgeable but above all very cunning; turns out he is actually quite brilliant mind and very quick on his feet. Brilliant performance by him, good work by Mr Millican as well. The latter was mainly hindered by a lack of experience - otherwise it would have been a draw.
Craig has never 'nailed' any debate ever.... the repetition of insipid arguments for a delusional proposition only impresses. foolish people who are predisposed to agree with him in the first place.
Kop Prophet talk from the back.. the repetition of his “insipid” arguments is due to the fact they haven’t been properly refuted/challenged/debunked. Why change a winning formula? Don’t bother with your personal views on him.
Craig is absolute genius, just a brilliant speaker, so quick on his feet, he just obliterates all his opponents.
@@adamadams7314 that makes it worse, people know his arguments and have time to plan for them and they all still get whooped.
@@kopprophet3819 It's okay Mate, you can email me. we can talk about your butthurtness thru Starbucks or Tim hortons maybe.
I used to think occasionally that nothing should exist….ever…..for all time ……nothingness……ever. It’s hard to sustain this thought. Only God can make something from nothing. Nothing can not create something.
So who created God?
@pennytopfield5713 Well nothing must be impossible.
It always disturbs me when Craig says "Jesus was who he claimed to be", since Jesus claimed to be God's son, who worshipped and obeyed the same God the Jews worshipped, but Craig thinks Jesus *was God* himself and therefore actually denies Jesus' claims about himself.
Nevertheless, Craig's argument for the historicity of the resurrection is excellent, and it is indeed evidence substantiating Jesus' actual claim (to be the son of the One who created all things), which then substantiates belief in that One's existence and in the Christian religion.
Brother if you read the bible it becomes clear that jesus identified himself as god. He is the second Person of the triune god.
@@derschokokuchen9410
I have read the Bible. Jesus made it clear that he worships the God of the Jews (John 20:17), and does not know everything God knows (Matthew 24:36) or have the authority God has (Matthew 20:23; John 14:28). Can you name any place in the Bible where Jesus claimed to be God (or equal to God)?
1. John 10:30 “The Father and I are one.”
John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.“
Colossians 2:9-10 “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.“
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.“
John 8:57-58 “The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!”
There are planty more my friend. It's called christianity for a reason.
John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.“
@@derschokokuchen9410
The Bible also says husbands and wives are "one flesh", and Jesus prayed that his disciples could be "one" _just as_ he and the Father are one (John 17:11).
The fact that no one has seen God is further proof that Jesus isn't God (people did see Jesus). But of course Jesus is the unique revelation of God and we cannot come to know God apart from Christ. Amen! That still doesn't make them equals.
The fullness of the divine quality does dwell in him, but why? The previous chapter (1:19) says it is because the Father was pleased to make it so.
John 1:1 does not say "and the Word was God" in the original text. If it did, the sentence would be a self-contradiction, as Dan Wallace (a Trinitarian and expert in NT Greek) has acknowledged. You can't be "with" yourself. Fortunately, that's not what the sentence says.
And yes, of course Jesus existed before Abraham. Lol. He existed before the world was! (I am a Christian, by the way, and accept everything the Bible actually says about him).
Jesus made his claim very clear at Matthew 16. He asked the disciples who they say he is, and they said "you are the Christ (which means the one anointed by God) the Son of the living God". Jesus said that was correct. So, that's what we ought to think.
So just to be clear: jesus is the second person of the trinitarian god. All the three persons of god (father,son,holy spirit) are all fully god and fully equal.
Great debate this one, thanks for posting.
2:07:16 "Animals are not aware of being in pain"
WLC actually said this.
A
Wicked statement
It is a well established fact that the vast majority of animals lack self awareness, so I'm not sure why you are acting shocked when Craig repeats this well established fact.
@@jackplumbridge2704 How are you defining “self-awareness”? Have you ever watched pigs scream when being gassed by factory farm deathhouses, or have you ever watched a mother cow break a fence and run after its calf in desperation?
What *exactly* do you mean by “self-awareness”?
@@TheEternalOuroboros self awareness means exactly what it says, being aware of the self.
Why you think animals reacting to pain is supposed to conflict with them not having self awareness I don't know. It seems you haven't spent anytime thinking about this issue.
Lacking self awareness in no way shape or form entails a lack of reaction. Even unconscious beings, like white blood cells, react to their environment. Reacting to stimuli says nothing about whether the entity is self aware.
@@jackplumbridge2704 It’s fair to suppose some animals have degrees of self-awareness over others, including the capacity for pain (though it’s notoriously challenging to analyse another conscious being’s phenomenology).
What disturbed me about WLC’s statement is how sweeping it is coming from a respected academic. It’s intuitively obvious that (at the very least) *some* animals are certainly aware of being in pain as much as they are self-aware - thus to assert that *no* animals do is beyond absurd.
This is my concern.
It is so strange to watch an atheist listing some religious lies thinking that the followers of The Messiah believe that.
Great debate! Good points on both sides.
But only one side wants my money and threatens me with eternal suffering.
@@FlencerMcflensington 🤣
@@FlencerMcflensington But only one side offers you nihilism and no grounds for objective morals...Either way, Craig wants your money? Seriously? Threathens you with eternal suffering? No, he simply showed how you already ARE in threat of eternal suffering because of YOUR moral failures. After all, it is YOUR fault, not something made up about you. And even so, God has graciously offered a way to evade that suffering for FREE.
NaVi ' wouldn’t surprise me if they cared more about the money than morality.
@@FlencerMcflensington They don't need your money bruh, you need that to have a better hairstyle.
Millican really believes that the universe could have come about from nothing. That is an absurdity. And if he wants to invoke ‘quantum vacuum’ how does he know the quantum vacuum isn’t God? Why is ‘quantum vacuum’ any better an explanation than God?
At last a worthy opponent for Dr. Craig
A child could outdo Craig
01:23:46 Is Craig seriously suggesting for all the other alien life forms that may be out there, God has appeared as their personal saviour in some form or another? I'm not saying this is impossible, but it does seem like he's having to perform some serious mental gymnastics (Craig, that is, not God)...
Useful for those of us who've heard Craig a thousand times saying the same things. Thanks.
We know for a fact that if we had the power to create a universe, where all of our creatures suffered, as creatures are prone to do on planet earth, we would not expect to be worshiped as being wonderful. Fear is why people choose to worship. “I act as if God exists, and I’m terrified he might.” Author … Jordan Peterson
Peterson is an apologist for materialist theist supremacism. His brilliant transpersonal psychology breaks down at the abusive powerholders usurping Jesus Christ´s legacy in hypocrisy and worse. "Terror" is an emotion that fails in contexts like WWII when conservative isolationist businesspeople opposed FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel pro-social New Deal experimentation, his pro-religious, pro-spiritual speaking. Roosevelt´s readiness to act involved his achieving Lend/Lease and more. His actions weren´t based on "terror," but insightful proactivity suspiciously traceable to his education in the Social Gospel of Jesus Christ, who taught the parable of the Good Samaritan along with 2 loving commandments for Moses and God. The Good Samaritan took loving action, and showed the experience of being loved.
God did not create a world of suffering. Humans brought that into the world.
@@TheBradleyd1146 I suggest that you are avoiding the truth of the matter, that all forms of life suffer, and would even if humans did not exist.
Who, other than the god can you blame for "that" suffering? You can't blame "that" suffering on a devil ... can you?
If you are not honest in these matters with your self, you certainly won't be able to be honest with others.
This is your argument for disbelieving in God? LOL
@@angelojuat4754 If you refused to believe in the existence of a god, do you believe that the god would have a righteous right to punish your soul for eternity?
"Yes," or, "No?"
These guys really make me feel stupid.
I think Craig would make almost anyone in the world feel stupid
4:00 - WLC Opening, 25:50 - PM Opening, 48:45 - WLC 1st Rebuttal, 1:02:12 - PM 1st Rebuttal, 1:16:03 WLC 2nd Rebuttal, 1:25:13 - PM 2nd Rebuttal, 1:34:23 - WLC Closing, 1:40:30 - PM Closing, 1:47:06 - Moderator Questions, 1:48:30 - Audience Questions.
Time stamps before time stamps was a thing 🤗. Thank you!
Thanks. All heroes don't were capes.
@@calmnrelaxed I’m literally wearing a cape though.
11 year old comment doesn’t have clickable timestamps? I’ll post again:
4:00 - WLC Opening
25:50 - PM Opening
48:45 - WLC 1st Rebuttal
1:02:12 - PM 1st Rebuttal
1:16:03 - WLC 2nd Rebuttal
1:25:13 - PM 2nd Rebuttal
1:34:23 - WLC Closing
1:40:30 - PM Closing
1:47:06 - Moderator Questions
1:48:30 - Audience Questions
I was very impressed with Peter Millican.
I’ve watched a lot of debates with WLC and I think Dr Millican is a rare gentleman and respectful debater. I look forward to seeing more debates by him. Seeing this is his first he could become a brilliant interlocutor that would make for more insightful debates.
I heard Craig saying on an interview that people (and Craig himself) consider this as his best debate. I think that too... at least, it was the best that I saw untill now. Millican was honest and sincere and really tried to give answers to refute Craig's arguments. (And this definitively cannot be said of other debaters as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and John Shook).
If any god existed, there wouldn't be debates about its existence.
Best and simplest refutation of the Kalam argument that I've heard.
I thought of this rebuttal on my own and wondered if anyone had used it, and was glad to see that someone has.
How did he refute it ? Dum it down for me?
Love that both of em were polite and respectful!
it's about time people who believe in pixies who think they can dictate what other people do with their lives were disrespected. bowing down to imaginary beings is the height of stupidity, dictating what people can or cannot do based on fantasy figures should be stopped altogether.
@@HarryNicNicholas Its ironic that after mischaracterising Christians as people who "dictate what other people do with their lives" you then call for such people to face ridicule and be "stopped altogether". Can I suggest that, if the idea of God is as stupid as you believe, you find for yourself a more worthwhile past time than listening to someone defend the proposition that God exists?
We need some adrenaline. We are made to be entertained by blood letting, and Christians are champions at that. We're waiting to see some neuron engaging not parrot rehashing.
Proof of immortality (at least so far): Hume lives through Millican
Making a PowerPoint presentation with the key reasons why we should believe the resurrection is beyond my comprehension 😂
Man I walked away from this with a totally different viewpoint on Dr Craig. the comments seem to suggest that most people think that McMillan won. honestly I think that people mistake the fact that McMillan talked to last with him winning. As a former atheist and a person who used to not be able to appreciate Dr Craig I've got to say Dr Craig was really killing it in this debate he needed a great job every argument that he made was incredibly strong and the responses to those arguments were not strong. I could not believe McMillan saying that our ignorance is better than your intelligence he basically made the fallacious argument that science in the future will validate his viewpoint as an argument for why we shouldn't believe in the overwhelming scientific evidence available today. That is a terrible terrible argument
William Lane Craig is much more style than substance. He is an experienced debater, makes good use of his time, has good organization and so forth. However, I ultimately think that Millican has better arguments. His main shortcoming is that he is inexperienced as a public debater. But to say that he lost here is not right IMO. I really like Peter Millican and thought he did great here.
2:02:58 I had the same reaction when WLC mentioned the ontological argument 😆
the ontological argument has been done to death. it's useless.
The ontological argument is kind of dishonest and useless
@@HarryNicNicholasI think the modal ontological argument is a very good argument. In fact, it is my favourite argument for God's existence.
Prof Peter Millican has Degrees in Maths,Theology,Computer Science and Philosophy..he is also an International Grand Master Chess Player..
I understand your position (you've expressed it to me before). It seems to me to be one big appeal to mystery, but there's no need for us to kick that dead horse yet again. My point is simply that the burden of proof is NEVER on the one who says "X is possible", and ALWAYS on the one who says "X is IMpossible". That's all I objected to.
sorry but the "impossible" isn't required to demonstrate it unless it's a claim, if you say there is a god, you have to demonstrate it to me, i don't have to do anything at all.
demonstrate there is a god, cos a) there is no free will b) dead people stay dead c) all loving gods can't drown babies, which pretty much clears up that the christian god is a myth.
@@HarryNicNicholas
If someone claims that there is no God, then they should back that claim up, just like the person who claims there is a God should back it up. You did the right thing by listing reasons. I disagree with those 3 points, but at least you offered arguments.
In any case, the 8-year-old comment your responding to wasn't about the burden for theists or atheists, just whether being open to things carries a burden of proof (like, if I'm open to the existence of aliens, but don't say for sure one way or the other, why would I have a burden of proof just to be open?).
thanks for posting!
In various other videos, and on this comments section, I have seen a lot of praise for Millican. And I must say, I just don't understand why. I mean, he was certainly cordial and polite, and I enjoy listening to him. But as far as refutations of Craig's arguments, or presenting an argument for atheism... Millican has to be in the top 10 worst that Craig has ever faced.
In his opening speech, Millican promises not to make this a matter of how many other gods there are... and then instantly proceeds to make it an issue about how many other gods there are! He recognizes that he's committing the Genetic Fallacy, but then basically commits it anyway! And his responses to the cosmological and teleological arguments are basically appeals to mystery and arguments from ignorance (the very things that *theists* are usually accused of). No, this was not a formidable opponent for Craig at all.
VitalSigns1
I've watched this debate twice, and paid very close attention. I like Millican (especially his demeanor and good manners). But consider what I mentioned in my initial post. He said he wouldn't make it a matter of all the other gods there are, and then immediately turned around and did just that. His rebuttals to the cosmological and teleological arguments were textbook arguments from ignorance and mystery. It's all "we just can't know yet". Craig is arguing from what we *do* know, to the conclusion that the most reasonable position given our current knowledge is theism. Millican just appealed to our current ignorance.
No, I think that, along with Wolpert, Law, and Enqvist, Peter Millican is among the least formidable of Craig's opponents.
VitalSigns1
Let's try this another way. Please summarize for me the parts of Millican's rebuttal to the Kalaam that don't boil down to an argument from ignorance or mystery.
VitalSigns1
1) Causation isn't defined as requiring physicality. Even a totally non-physical world could be described causally. So this appeal to our experience is gratuitous and irrelevant.
2) Read David Albert's review of Krauss' book. It is sensationalist nonsense to say that anything ever comes from nothing at all in QM. The quantum vacuum is far from "nothing", as Craig specifically pointed out in this debate.
3) Craig is not reasoning from "every part of the Universe has a cause" to "therefore the Universe itself does". Craig addressed this as well.
4) God only causes at the first moment IN time.
These are all really weak objections, and Craig responded to all of them. When I said that Millican's case "comes down to" appeals to ignorance and mystery, what I mean si that after Craig easily rebutted these weak objections (just as I have done), Millican was left saying very little more than "we just don't know enough yet". That was all it boiled down to, especially in the q-and-a.
VitalSigns1
Fair enough.
"He recognizes that he's committing the Genetic Fallacy, but then basically commits it anyway!"
No, he recognizes what the genetic fallacy is, and said that isn't what he was committing. He made that perfectly clear. At no point did he say belief in god was false because of the way people came to it, only that the way people come to belief in god is unreliable.
"So all we know here is that our science cannot cope with it. Trying to draw any firm conclusions seems wishful thinking." This is the kind of positivism that would make life impossible without scientific proofs for any conclusion you draw. I am not surprised he is a fan of David Hume.
Craig is just marvellous
And wrong
@@oldtimeycabins sounds like coping.
Excellent point. And if atheism by definition is a 'lack of belief' then it's simply a psychological state, and therefore can't be right or wrong.
I am a Christian and a fan of Dr. Craig but I must admit that Dr. Millican clearly won in this debate.
What debate were you watching? Dr. Craig clearly won this debate.
Millican clearly won.
@@AHouston06 I think Millican has better points generally but I do agree that Craig did a better debate.
Let me help you Ding Dongs understand something. Craig is babbling a bunch of bs because until he can prove his talking snake, boat full of animals, and his first man made of mud he’s just rambling. The Bible doesn’t teach all that infinity Universe crap he’s talking. It teaches the talking snake, stoning people to death, and people rising from the dead. He needs to stick to those things and prove that they’re from a God and then he’ll be saying something. Until then (like I said before) he’s just rambling on and on and on.
Craig won hands down.
For someone who doesn't care about the level of factual accuracy of biblical accounts you sure have wasted a lot of time sticking up for them.
20:23 WLC's delivery sounded like he was about to present Jesus as an X-File case regarding Cargo Cults and The Day the Earth Stood Still.
His discussion with Shelly Kagan wasn't a debate. The Veritas Forum instructed them not to debate, but just to flesh out each other's ideas. This event is a debate, done in a traditional debate format.
Well, this is a whole different subject. I was just responding to your previous posts. The simple fact is that the cause of all material reality cannot itself be a material reality or else it would have to cause itself as well, which is logically absurd. So, if the Kalam succeeds in showing that the Universe had a cause of its existence (which I don't think you dispute), then that cause must be non-material and non-spatiotemporal.
the main problem with premise 5 "if something is possibly true, then its possibility is necessary", is that it seem to result into multitudinous outcomes. how this is self-evidently true as you write, is beyond me.
Agreed. We live in a universe where things don't generally appear from nothing, where creatio ex nihilo is all but unheard of. Within our universe, everything comes from something else.
But it is a fallacy to apply these same criteria to events that precede, or caused (if that's even a meaningful concept) this universe to exist in the first place.
Usually what i’m left with arguments like this is: then, what is the explanation or framework you propose?
Its rather easy to come up with objections, but it requires so much more to devise a proper answer or solution.
At the end i’m sympathetic to the position of the radical sceptic since not believing in anything is easier on the short term but is unsustainable in the long run…
Beginning of something physical come from a preexistence inside the confines of the mind, this we experience every time we see something made by humans. Before they where a “thing” they were ideas in someones mind, then that mind came in contact with the created world and gave birth to the object. To assume that this is the same process by which the “universe” came to be is logical. But logically it cannot be accepted by someone that discounts the existence of a mind previous to the existence of the universe.
Granted, maybe you wont believe in “God”, but perhaps you are open to believe that consciousness is a phenomena previous to the material world. However, if you believe that consciousness requires that the physical world exists first then this explanation is imposible.
Maybe we should be open to other explanations when we can’t provide our own, however, usually atheist can’t provide a probable cause but just and absolute impossibility.
@@fobos9289 Then I suppose you'll be disappointed when I issue what I consider the only honest answer anyone can give regarding where everything came from: I don't know, and anyone who says they do is selling something.
It seems to me that a disembodied mind is not a good candidate explanation, as minds are emergent properties of brains. One might say "but those are the rules within this universe, not outside it" and sure, that's technically correct. But when you start speculating about things that don't follow any rules we've ever known, all bets are off, and you have no way of checking if you're right.
@@osmosis321 the error of your answer lies in the supposition that your lack of knowledge of God transfers to a lack of knowledge in others. We give explanations to our experiences by natural means, we don’t receive experiences by our explanations.
So, the honest answer is, I don’t know the intricacies of God, He is way bigger than my understanding and I’m not trying to sell you what you don’t want I’m just trying to show you what you can’t see.
You can’t prove to me that you experience thought and yet I believe you can think, however I understand that you can’t comprehend what you haven’t experience and tend, as all human beings to think your experience is similar (if not equal to others). It ain’t so. You would want to have a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe if you where rational and logical. You would test it out and try to prove it on your own but your pride hinders you from such knowledge. So, I accept you don’t know but I would suggest to you that you have No evidence other people don’t know as well. Because you’ve never been to Japan doesn’t mean Japan does not exist, it is just outside of the purview of your experience. Look deeper and humbly and you may find it. At least if you truly want to the know the Truth you would pursuit it, however, if you don’t want to know you won’t be oblige to since we are given free will and God does not violate the sanctity of our individuality and sovereignty.
But maybe you’ll say, whatever man, you are delusional… and I would reply that you don’t have any facts to say that, just speculation and speculation will grant you no experience and doubt will only give you the confort given by ignorance. Don’t be antiscientific. Test it yourself and stop the empty rhetorics they are just words with no experience. Live! God bless you and give you knowledge of His existence, amen, amen, aleluya!
@@fobos9289 Well that certainly was a lot of words, but without evidence that's all it is - empty words. I'd like to see some of this evidence.
@@osmosis321 you don’t want evidence. Maybe to be catered to, but no, you don’t want evidence. Truth doesn’t need to be approved by you to be true, but you can live without truth as long as it doesn’t prove fatal. Stop doubting and search for the truth, you have enough intelligence to do it but perhaps lack the will power to pursue such endeavor. Doubt is not a good way to lead life since it has no purpose or goal, but curiosity can lead many places and honesty can help to see and accept what is unknown to one experience. But this can’t be done for you. Gotta be done by you. Stop being lazy. At least say something… God loves you, but He wont cater to you. God bless!
I would ask Bill one question:
How does an infinite,immaterial,
disembodied,
omnipotent and omniscient Being affect or create a finite and material Universe..what are the precise divine mechanisms for that action??
Sceptical Scientist great question! But, could your finite mind begin to grasp the answer?
DAN V.
I think most Philosophers don't believe we have Freewill..a limited Freewill is a contradiction!
Of course our Minds and Intellect are limited..but ignorance doesn't prove God or an external world!
DAN V.
I think Craig is grasping for thin air..he has been caught lying by Ancient Historians and Scientists!
@@rationalsceptic7634 1) Your question can your finite mind fathom such an answer? Secondly if there is no free will then everything must be determined thus why should we value anything you say when it's not like any deliberation has gone into that statement?
NB 9
We have no Freewill..in the sense our thoughts are free from causal processes beyond our control!
God doesn't explain anything..Craig is a deeply self deluded man who thinks the Bible was written by God..it wasn't..men obviously wrote the Bible!
This debate gave me, for the very first time, some respect for Dr. Craigs hard work trying to make sense out of religious mambo jambo, although in my opinion Peter Millicans philosophy is much sounder.
And, since it gives the only plausible answer to the question "What caused the Universe to begin to exist?", then we are indeed obliged to accept that at least one such entity exists.
Err, that’s not quite right. Graham Oppy has pointed out that the explanation is far simpler and does not require any supernatural shenanigans: namely, a necessary condition preceded the universe. Craig and Loke both tried to argue a god preceding a necessary condition, but failed for a variety of reasons. Hence, the conditions need to create the universe and its fine tuning had to exist necessarily by axiomatic definition. And recall that Oppy, like Craig and Loke, agrees something cannot come from nothing (even though that does not entail a logical contradiction).
Here’s the kicker though. For god to do anything, god has to exist. If he does not exist he can have none of the properties he claimed to have. That is, to have all the god properties of omniscience, power etc an entity must necessarily exist. But if this entity exists there can be no state of no thing at all. As Craig points out himself nothing has no potentiality, and by extension this must extend to his god.
This objection is well known and understood by and amongst serious philosophers, and is one of the primary reasons Craig’s arguments do not persuade philosophers who are neither religious or especially evangelicals. And even then there are plenty of religious philosophers who reject these claims on the grounds of incoherence. Indeed, even then, there are several theistic philosophers who have no truck with this argument or others, such as the moral argument.
All one needs to refute the moral argument is to insist that Craig meets his burden of proof by showing how exactly all secular morality theories fail to establish a grounding without god. The truth is that there are many more justifications for secular morality than Craig’s. Even if you take Craig’s moral argument on face value it’s a pathetic effort as it relies on intuition. Not only is this a poor justification prone to biases, but it is such a weak justification as to render the argument worthless in phonological terms as there are countless insurmountable objections that have been raised. To use Craig’s own words in reference to the problem of evil, the burden of proof is simply too much for the theist to bear, which is exactly why he has not done so in the philosophical literature.
The real problem is that many of his assertions need careful examination and unjustified claims deconstructed. This often requires a level critical analysis that many are not only incapable of applying, but find exceptionally difficult to evaluate impartially.
How else is it possible for Oppy to present the simple case of necessary existence and theists to understand that this is a devastating defeater?
One of the few times I saw Oppy get cross in a debate, when he got frustrated by Loke arguing that a necessary condition needed to be explained. It was as if Loke had suffered a lapse in what the term necessary meant. It was embarrassing for Loke. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Typical 'atheism' carries almost 0 burden of proof. Although a gnostic atheist which claims to KNOW gods non existence does carry a larger burden of proof. The persons that make a positive claim of existence sustains the burden of proof. If you disagree with this, I ask for your disproof of Thor, the flying spaghetti monster and the tea pot around Jupiter. Denying the burden of proof of positive claims is self defeating.
I've never "dissed" scientific evidence. In fact, science (particularly theoretical physics and cosmology) is of constant interest to me, and I do my best to stay up-to-date.
Short answer: Yes..
Wrong
Excellent debate by the way.
Millican drives home what is my personal pet peeve with Craig. "Objective moral values and duties". "These duties are objectively binding regardless of whether one agrees with them or not". What the hell does that mean?!
1) Ah okay he doesn't explain in his first rebuttal. Let's see about the second one.
2) Nope, nothing. Closing remarks?
CR) Nothing yet again. Oh he mentions you can not appeal to popular vote to prove that god is not necessary for morality, but conveniently, you can use it to prove that morality is objective, and that is, of course, despite the fact that these philosophers may mean different things by objective morality, so it would be a fallacy of equivocation to even use them as a support for your particular view of objective morality anyway. Staying classy as always dr. Craig.
Perus Saataja
Why not take the examples from the OT where YHWH commands his "chosen" guys to murder other people, winning the war, brainwashing all believers that these wars were a good thing? Craig is one of them, having actually defended the atrocities including the murder of children and babies.
John Doe I think you know Craig has addressed that question as have many Christian philosophers with differing answers.
Perus Saataja
Yes, by defending it. Precisely like a Nazi would defend the holocaust.
By seeing these murders and calls to murder for what they are, any non-believer would be more moral by the believer's own ridiculous "objective morality".
Now that is irony.
John Doe Hi, assume you mean Craig defended it, not all Christian philosophers. In case you are interested, Randal Rauser (systematic and analytic theologian) has 11 part critique on his website about Craig´s position on this.
Perus Saataja
_Hello! I'm not... writings_
Damn, I was certain when I've just read your comment that I must have responded to it already, but I see I haven't.
And yes, he uses that example often. It doesn't shed much light into the issue though.
Because he always leaves white space in the map of his view on morality.
He gives this example to explain how 'objective' means basically 'unchanging'. Which is hardly sufficient.
So, he leaves it up to the audience to fill in that 'good' = 'that which one ought to do' and vice versa. This is a cheap trick. He doesn't show how, on his view, that's what the words 'good' and 'evil' actually mean. On his definition 'good' = "that which corresponds to God's (moral) nature" and vice versa. How does it follow that "God's (moral) nature" is equivalent to "that which one ought to do" ? Especially since he denounces nihilism or acting out of self-interest.
I hope I explained myself more clearly now.
"Many empiricists have been willing to accept the thesis so long as it is restricted to propositions solely about the relations between our own concepts. We can, they agree, know by intuition that our concept of God includes our concept of eternal existence. Just by examining the concepts, we can intellectually grasp that the one includes the other."
Millican starts off with the many gods fallacy, a category fallacy, a fallacy of generalization. There are hundreds of lesser gods claimed, of which the claims about the God of Abraham are never made.
God is proposed to be the ultimate supreme being creator of all things God.
Which puts him in a much more narrow category than the lesser gods.
32:13 Another bad argument by Millican. There have been scores of scientific beliefs that have been proven wrong, and many could be attributed to cultural influence, but we don't throw out science because of that fact.
And yeah, atheist are always asking for more evidence of Gods existence, but they can never even relate what that evidence would be, ether qualitative or quantitative, or it is reduced down to just a subjective description.
1:08:37 Disregards purpose and value. It is more like a giant vault holding captive one single diamond, because it is the only diamond, and has a value that is incalculable..
+Bungalo Bill Plenty of religions have creator gods that are held to have created the universe and everything in it. I don't see why Millican's approach is problematic. The Abrahamic god is just one of many on offer...and creating the universe is just of many things that gods are from time to time said to have done. And atheists can certainly relate what sort of evidence would prove the existence of gods. In terms of the Abrahamic god, a big one is proof of miracles. Another is demonstrating that minds can exist without bodies.
+Paul Marino They will lump all gods together, monotheistic religions and polytheistic. Funny how they often pick limited ones as examples, such as thor. There are several with supreme beings, but most share with other gods or include other gods.
The God of Abraham is quite unique in that he is the supreme and only God, of which there are no others. He does not share anything with some other god, the idea of any other god in relation to him is described as a false belief. He is not the ruler over gods, he is the one and only God. Some will argue the Trinity to be polytheistic, but this is not so, there is still only one God of Abraham. Three persons but one God.
The Trinity is not three independent parts, but a whole which includes three persons.(Personifications) God will never ask Jesus or The holy Spirit, why did you do such and such. They are always of one mind.
Bungalo Bill Jews do view the trinity as polytheistic. There is some leeway for non-Jews to believe in it (according to some opinions) without being considered idolaters, though. But this aside, the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten advocated a monotheistic religion - and his god wasn't the Abrahamic one. There have been a few monotheistic options. And it has been argued that early Judaism didn't hold that the Biblical YHWH was in fact the only god...though this is certainly debatable.
+Paul Marino Anyone who believes the Trinity to be polytheistic does not understand the Trinity. As Jesus reported that David said.....The Lord said to my Lord. The Jews had no answer for this.
As Paul stated...They stumbled over a stumbling block.
Psalm 110 verse 1 The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.
The Jews believed in one Lord (and they were correct), this verse would have made David's Lord equal to God. No one can be equal to God and not also be the same God.
Having a human being walking around on earth be considered god is idolatrous/polytheistic by Jewish standards. Some of the early Christians, who probably did not even know Hebrew, might not have known this (many/most Jews 2,000 years ago only knew Aramaic or Greek, not Hebrew). . Most of today's Christians rely on mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible and also do not know it.
Great Debate between to experts in their profession
Craig won
Impossible he was
Murdered by Hitchens long ago.
Even as an atheist, I don't agree much with Millican here. I don't even believe the issue is "extremely important"; I consider the god question to be quite a trivial distinction between people, but I digress.
And why did Millican ignore WLC's answers entirely *twice in a row* during the Q&A?
I made a few points against neo-Darwinism to Millican when chatting with him in Leeds in 1996. He answered one by saying, "Well those guys are not the best defenders of the theory". At my second, simple point, he turned and hastened away.
I'm dumbfounded that WLC simply repeats the same talking points ad verbatum in every 'debate" he does. Which is odd considering he is being disproven in every single debate. This man isn't a philosopher, he is a preacher.
Prof. Craig not only repeats his arguments in every debate with minor changes in them, but also accuses the other debator in every round that he has not given good evidence for his case nor refuted or weakened one of his claims. What a humbe philosopher he is
I understand that WLC is trying to defend theism with as scholarly an attitude as possible, but given that the goal of a debate is to convince the audience, not your opponent, I wish WLC engaged with the rhetorical points more than he did.
First, Millican wanted to illustrate that saying our current understanding of physics supports statement A is not the same as saying physics supports statement A. Moreover, he is bringing into question the strength of the fine tuning argument given the number of times our understanding of physics has changed and the number of times we have just been wrong. He isn't dismissing fine tuning as a viable arguments, just its strength.
Has anyone in these debates ever postulated that life is not required for consciousness and free will?
Millican’s closing comments that there is no evidence to support the idea of nothing being the state before the universe came into existence was... astonishing given he could not defeat any of Craig’s arguments that marshaled the evidence before him.
Atheists don't require rationality; they merely require disbelieving in God. In that way they are kind of consistent; once you reject God what reason does one have to be rational?
Great debate.
Einstein's model was actually just an application of non-euclidean geometry to space-time, it was less extraordinary than you seem to think, it applied known methods to solve a known problem in space-time and enabled predictions to be made of specific tests of the character of space-time that could test the theory.
It's nothing like comparable to the claim that certain events occur that completely defy everything we know about the universe.
Greetings in Christ Ment =) You are the first person I've seen here on RUclips the last 20. years who actually understood this. I had a headtrauma & a great loss in 95', and ended up isolated in a flat for around 15 years. I listened to "The absurdity of life without God" By Craig (Of Course=). by that time, I listened to tham guys .. Craig, Plantinga, Van Invagen, Greek Koukl LOL!) n' heavy apologetics on mIRC 24/7/365 =) Peace.
Part 1) I spent 6 months in Boot Camp and advanced training going through hell and much suffering in order to come out the other side a fit and useful solder. I never once accused my drill sergeants or the US ARMY of being bad or evil just because they needed to be a little hard on us to make us strong. Would not God then do the same ( be a hard ass) to insure that we, after death entered heaven the loving, selfless sole we must be?
"are you stating that one can provide a counterposition to the debate question "Does God exist?" through a claim other than the proposition "God does not exist"?"
One can remain unconvinced either way. One can allow that god *may* exist, while still knowing that the likelihood of any gods invented thus far being real is exceedingly small.
a) there is no free will b) dead people stay dead c) all loving gods can't drown babies, which pretty much clears up that the christian god is a myth.
Great to see Craig against such a sincere and disciplined adversary. The moral question is a good one, and I, as an interfaith Christian, can appreciate Millican´s concerns. Humans have moral capacities, and moral cause and effect through choice and consequence can be surveyed. The sources of moral orientation then becomes key. Surveys of the seemingly universal perception of the Golden Rule by other spiritual leaders is one observation. The assertion by Millican of atheists observing morality, we are faced with the historical sociological context, which in modernity in the West is a Christian context with secular and scientific materialism trying to position itself in Jesus´ legacy. That applies from such events as Christians ending legal slavery up to FD Roosevelt´s and Eleanor´s envisioning and shepherding the UN negotiations in a pluralist context.
Craig doesn´t affirm the evolution of human abilities, but that would be a convergence in a Level of Analysis between the natural processes that underlie emergentism and the emergence of mind in human cultural development with shamanism as the original foundation. Millican gets at that by mentioning psychology. That point isn´t mutually exclusive, and fundamentally needs to be understand in terms of mutually inclusive Levels of Analysis. The historical sociological origins of modern Universities in Christians spiritual practice monastic schools and transformation of ancient Greek philosophy demonstrates the crucial role of Jesus´ legacy in loving integrity, even as imperfectly expressed as it was. It wasn´t Jesus preaching hate, nor some Alexandrean power trip. "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Apparently contrary to spreading a crucial point of view, one that is contrary to a natural world of the Law of the Jungle.
2:08:40: Millican is getting into his own conclusions about his own "failed" spiritual path. "God makes the rules, being omnipotent....Bill says we should seek him, but God´s just mysterious. Did I fail? Should I be blamed?" For one thing, he felt disappointed with the results of his thinking and seeking in reason. Instead, he renders a judgment that he is not seeking, but expected to be given the answer he apparently wanted. My suggestion might be, ask, "Have you tried Buddhism? Shamanism? Quaker-Friendism? Even Christian monastic practice? He has treated his search rationalistically, and decided to draw a rational conclusion based on the terms he has set. Ninian Smart, for one, was a professor of Comparative Religious Studies who concluded that religions have a lot to learn from each other.
There is no limit in the PM format here on RUclips. Why don't you send me a PM, if you have such a knock-down refutation? Or are you hoping someone else will refute me at this other website? Sounds like you're relying on other people to do your thinking for you....
the scientific evidence shows that...notice Craig rarely says the theological or Biblical evidence says anything specific
Am I the only one that skips forward to the question and answer part?
I skipped all the way to the comment section.
Don't get confused between two different cosmological arguments. I wasn't proposing a "Kalam" style argument from the fact that the Universe had a beginning (though I think it is perfectly sound, and does indeed prove a personal cause). I was using the beginning of the Universe to show that the Universe is CONTINGENT, and thus susceptible to a Leibnizean style cosmological argument (from the PSR).
Serious question - if you're a theist, could you please tell me whether God experiences the passage of time?
If he does, how long did he wait before he created the universe?
If he doesn't, how can he be free to make any choices, or do anything?
Your question reveals a misunderstanding of Craigs (and my) view on God's relationship to time.
God does experience the passage of time, but (logically) prior to creating time he existed timelessly, so there was no waiting to create.
@@jackplumbridge2704 Can you please explain how something or someone can "exist timelessly", and then go on to act in some way? If you're basing your information on the Bible, can you please tell me what verse you're basing this on?
@@skepticus123 God's act of creation was simultaneous with the beginning of time, so God never acted outside of time. All his actions occur within time, its just that his first action set time in motion to begin with.
There isn't anything about timeless existence that would prevent a being with free will choosing to act, setting time in motion.
@@jackplumbridge2704 So (please correct me if I'm wrong) you think there is a higher dimension of time beyond the spacetime of our universe, and that a bodiless mind (equated with the god of the Bible) inhabits all points in time of this higher dimension simultaneously? Is this higher dimension infinite in extent? Is it inked to higher dimensions of space to form a higher spacetime? Is this also infinite in extent? And could you point to which Bible verse this is all laid out in (since all the Bible verses I know about that feature God all have him acting in time and space)
@@skepticus123 "So (please correct me if I'm wrong) you think there is a higher dimension of time beyond the spacetime of our universe, and that a bodiless mind (equated with the god of the Bible) inhabits all points in time of this higher dimension simultaneously? " - No, that isn't my view. I do not think there is a higher dimension of time, in fact I don't think it is accurate to call time a dimension. I hold a relational view of time, where time is a relationship of before and after.
Prior to creating anything God existed alone in a timeless and changeless state. There were no relationships of before and after since nothing had happened yet.
Then, God's decision to create a world was the first change, and that decision was simultaneous with the world being created. Hence, time began, as you had the first change, and from that point onwards you have relationships of before and after.
God existed in a timeless state logically prior to time.
In creating time God took on a temporal mode of existence and now exists and acts in time.
Does this help to clarify my position?
1) Alexander Vilenkin is an expert in this field. He co-authored a paper with Alan Guth and Arvin Borde, which proves that any Universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion had an absolute beginning. He then announced to Stephen Hawking's guests that all the attempts to work around that have so far failed.
2) There is nothing incoherent about the so-called "omni-attributes".
"It's metaphysically absurd to think that things can pop into being out of non-being" Another thing Craig slyly does is that he equates the "universe" to "things." The universe is not a "thing" rather the universe is the set of all things which exist. The statement that "things" begin to exist is nonsensical since according to the first law of thermodynamics matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Why do you define the universe as the set of all things that exists? Did numbers not exist "1, 2, 3" prior and independent of the universe?
What song was that at the beginning of the video?
Should also be noted that we are spiritual beings living a human life!
By the way, I did Google what you asked me to, and found a blog entry which was absolutely worthless. It just gives a bunch of analogies to show that causation is a complicated thing, and then tries to insert an arbitrary circle into the formulation of the Kalam. Sloppy work. Causation still exists, and in every case it was very clear what caused the effects in question.
I was about to say "you'd be amazed how much of what atheists say is based on unsubstantiated beliefs and personal biases"... but you probably wouldn't be. You deal with them all the time.
But Craig argued for the beginning. In fact, I can think of two philosophical arguments and several cosmological reasons to think that the Universe certainly is finite in the past.
@monitor301 Exactly where is Millican taken apart? Which arguments were taken apart?
hi, i've stumbled over your views about contingency. you wrote that "only contingent things need causes" and that "the universe just happens to be a contingent thing."
i was wondering what you mean by that and whether you could elaborate on it. as far as i know, the term is more used to describe the neutral status of a proposition. or maybe i got that wrong.
Craig won the presentation segment, Peter won the cross fire
Nazareth? where was this place?
At 1.16.36, Bill Craig refers to Professor Millican (whom I personally know and with whom I have, in the briefest of interchanges, levelled a few questions about the indefensibility of neo-Darwinian theory)) as "Dr. Miller."
A noteworthy Freudian slip, for he was not debating the neo-Darwinist (also a Roman Catholic) Prof. Ken Miller.
Prof. Miller was an important defender of neo-Darwinism at the notorious 2005 Dover trial.
And at 1.22:20 and 1.23:10 he, whilst listing points on the fine tuning of Physical constants ( or ´Laws) in favour of God´s existence, each time refers to Prof. Peter Millican as "Dr. Law".
Having earlier referred to Stephen Law, whom he debated on this very topic, a debate which has been uploaded to RUclips.
Prof. Craig made a similar Freudian Slip when debating Peter Atkins (also re God´s existence and also uploaded to RUclips) when he TWICE referred to him as "Dr Dawkins".
You sing the same song, Prof. Craig.
Just your Freudian slips reveal that you - for subliminal reasons - confuse your adversaries!
I gave a step-by-step explanation of why it's the best explanation. Direct arguments for each specific point. How is that a "massive leap"? Again, you are appealing to how little we know, instead of addressing the specific things I've mentioned that we DO know. That's called "arguing from ignorance", my friend.
Combination of factors. The easiest one is the conceivability and coherence of a Universe made up of different configurations of quarks. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about this, and yet it would be a different Universe. So our Universe is not itself metaphysically necessary. There's also the philosophical and cosmological reasons to think the Universe began to exist (which also entails that it is contingent).
So Millican's view leaves room for a supernatural element of existence?
Oh, it's perfectly reasonable to say "we don't know exactly what happened at the big bang". Indeed, it is admirable and right to admit our ignorance about matters of which we are truly ignorant. Of course, we are not completely in the dark about the Big Bang, and so we shouldn't pretend that we are. But, I don't object to saying "we don't know everything yet". My objection is to people looking at a deductive argument with a clear conclusion and responding with "well, we just don't know"...
and when and if the evidence of current cosmology does NOT support the existence of god...?
Craig says the universe was created by an incomprehensible intelligence, which proves that Craig cannot know it or characterize it
Excellent debate. Lots to think about 🧐
by the way, thomas aquinas kinda hated the ontological argument as well. he said that, as only god can completely know his essence, only he could use the argument. his rejection of the ontological argument caused some catholic theologians to also reject the argument.