"Coward"???? You do not know the man your are maligning! Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists as doing so would a) give them an undeserved platform, b) give the false impression that science & religion are on an equal footing, and c) would look better on Craig's CV than on Dawkins'. You can see Dawkins himself explaining this in several RUclips videos.
Well... How are you going to even disprove an ideology that a) you presuppose is false and b) you don't even want to consider. This seems like circular reasoning: it is false, therefore I don't have to even consider it, because it is false. You see the problem? Dawkins IS indeed either a) a coward who can't even be intellectually honest enough to see criticisms to his book or b) an idiot who can't even be intellectually honest enough to see criticisms to his book because he is so confident that he is right.
@@r.i.p.volodyaDawkins is not a philosopher and his critique of theism in The God Delusion was ridiculed even by atheist philosophers. Look at his seven point argument from the God Delusion below. The conclusion doesn’t even logically follow from the premises. He can’t even formulate a valid argument. If you are an atheist you need to upgrade to the likes of Graham Oppy because Dawkins is a bottom-rung atheist populariser. He is a fine biologist and I do like his work in that field but he is not a philosopher and he often concedes this. 1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises. 2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. 3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. 4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. 5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics. 6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. 7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
@@r.i.p.volodyaYet he debates with John Lennoux, Francis collins etc. He said so many excuses like Dr. Craig isn't qualified. But I think the real problem is he doesn't debate with philosophers. Cause that is way out of his league. An event manager who knows Dawkins said this to Craig. If that is so. He should tell that instead of making excuses.
"For the Word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing (clearly), but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18. In the immortal words of a Rabbi friend who, when asked why when he was in hospital quite sick and had asked to pray with a Christian Chaplain, he threw up his hands, shrugging, and answered, "What if I was wrong?".... so, to those who thumb their nose at the One who created them: what if you are wrong?
This just sounds like Pasca's wager, which only encourages someone to ponder the plausability of god's existence and says nothing about whether or not god does exist or what form they may take.
+Stan Lee True, true. Craig is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. You know you're on the right track when all people can do in response to your arguments is insult you personally ;)
+MrJeter693 No, he is not. www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/an-index-of-why-william-lane-craig-is-a-dishonest-genocide-defending-creepy-homophobe/ Smart enough to make his nonsense sound convincing and confusing. Not smart enough to realize there is no god.
+Stan Lee True, true. Craig is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. You know you're on the right track when all people can do in response to your arguments is insult you personally ;)
Fabian - I tried to follow your link - it goes nowhere. You haven't offered a SINGLE argument here. When you need insults in place of arguments, it's because you don't really have any; All you have is your precious anger. I'd lover to hear some actual argument from atheists but all I ever get is seething anger and ridicule. Makes me wonder how people actually become atheists since there are never any real arguments to convince them. Hitchen basically does the same thing - either just attacks the person or ridicules anything any religious person does, as if it's somehow bad because the religious person did it, whereas it's normal for anyone else.
Except you never offer any arguments. Just insults. Atheism is a beef, not a belief. you have a beef with something that you have no legitimate argument against, so you have to make everything the person or group you have a beef with wrong somehow.
I have yet to see Dawkins in a serious one on one debate with Dr. Craig. So lets craft an argument to prove why Dawkins was MIA from a very important debate in his own backyard. 1. If Dawkins won't show for this important debate there must be an explanation. 2. If Dawkins has a plausible explanation it will be highly probable that it couches several adolescent put downs of Craigs arguments. 3. Since Dawkins feels the need to use name calling and inflammatory language in a non debate scenario then this means his arguments are weaker and he is left with only name calling and infantile school yard tactics. Instesd of arguments that hold there own in a true debate. 4. Therefore knowing he has the weaker position, and is tired of name calling; decided to just stay home and watch the T.V. Well according to this premise Dawkins will never show up for a one on one debate with the most comparable Dr. Craig. What a shame that would be a very satisfying debate to behold.
Usually when you open with a disclaimer the reality is you are being that which you are dismissing. Whether Dr.Craig contradicts himself or not the debate would still be very satisfying. Dawkins' positions are weak and contradictory. His philosophical positions are elementary and have drawn criticism from good atheist philosophers and scientists. Dawkins' understanding of theology is no better than a first year seminary student. He resorts to gross carciture rather than good scholarship. If you will reread my statement you will find that I never insulted Dawkins' personally I only take exception with his work. When one resorts to name calling (like ass hat) it is a debating truth that the one calling names feels they have the weaker position.
Most ordinary believers don't have their philosophy or theology all worked out either. If that is good enough for them, then why shouldn't Dawkins be allowed to discuss religion at a basic level? He is a bit of a prick though.
He claims he won’t debate Dr. Craig because of his “beliefs”. The truth is he would be backed into a corner that he wouldn’t be able to get out of. Dawkins is frowned upon by his fellow atheist because of his name calling tactics. A waste of an incredible mind in my opinion.
Hi Paradox, Dawkins knows something about bats, but his ideas on mindless drift have been replaced by a sound providential evolution. Dawkins isn't even smart in his own chosen field.
How can WLC be a gift to a cult like craptianity....wasn't "hesus"the so called gift... to the foreskinless ..and he handles nothing...he just beats around his pubebush...
Biology vs mythology...evolution vs fairytales ..genius vs idiot...truth vs your silly fear of death..the god who offered his son as a price to himself to buy back what he "created" from who again???? Oh yes...from himself...what a awesome idiot u serve.....
@@mhah21 cool story. one day you will mature and understand that at the very essence of life there has to be an unmoved mover. we know for a fact that the universe began to exist (big bang) what makes more sense? nothing created everything or a Creator? no need to answer because it will be some drivel about " we dont know yet" or " multiverse" or some other crap created to explain away your meaningless less. God gives our lives meaning because we have eternal life through him? would you be a Christian if it was 100% true?
@@Gatorbeaux no....no...no....no....no...I will not bow to a Jewish guy who got in trouble with the authorities and got himself crucified. ..I really wish the roman method of execution was rather burning him at the stake...wonder how the myth would have followed after that...
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 08:29 🌌 The cosmological argument, specifically the version related to the beginning of the universe, indicates the existence of an uncaused, timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful personal creator. 22:29 🎯 The fine-tuning of the universe for life supports the teleological argument. Dawkins responds with the hypothesis of a multiverse, but this raises complexities and doesn't eliminate the design argument's plausibility. 00:43 🗣️ William Lane Craig discusses the arguments for the existence of God, responding to Richard Dawkins' objections. 01:46 📚 William Lane Craig's background and expertise in philosophy and theology are highlighted, including his works on cosmological and moral arguments. 04:21 💬 The format of the event is outlined, with Bill speaking for 45-50 minutes, followed by Oxford academics' comments, his response, and audience questions. 07:12 🤝 Richard Dawkins' arguments are taken into account, even though his objections don't fully negate the arguments' conclusions. 17:49 🤔 The moral argument asserts that if God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties are baseless. Dawkins paradoxically condemns actions while maintaining ethical subjectivism. 25:15 🎭 The argument from consciousness and the origin of life are not covered in this transcript chunk. 32:32 🌌 Professor Craig discusses Dawkins' suggested mechanisms for generating a world ensemble: Smolin's evolutionary cosmology and black holes as portals to baby universes. 34:15 🌌 Smolin's scenario of black holes and evolutionary cosmology would actually make the existence of a life-permitting universe even more improbable. 35:59 🌌 The conjecture that black holes may lead to other universes contradicts quantum physics, as information preservation in black hole formation is necessary. 36:53 🌌 Roger Penrose's argument suggests that observing an ordered universe like ours contradicts the multiverse hypothesis, favoring a single universe without a world ensemble. 38:01 🌌 Dawkins claims that a designed explanation for the universe is inferior to the many-worlds hypothesis due to the question of who designed the designer. However, this objection is flawed as it doesn't require an explanation of the explanation. 42:08 🌌 The objection that God is as complex as the universe is inaccurate; a divine mind is a remarkably simple entity without physical parts. 45:27 🕊️ Plantinga's ontological argument presents the possibility of a maximally great being (God) existing in a possible world, raising questions about whether the universe began to exist. 46:47 🕊️ Some philosophers consider the possibility that the universe might not have had a finite beginning due to alternate cosmological models, challenging the second premise of the cosmological argument. 54:01 🕊️ Counterarguments are explored against the notion that an infinite series of events is inherently problematic or incoherent, challenging the concept of a finite beginning for the universe. 58:06 🕊️ Qualitative and quantitative interpretations of Occam's razor are discussed, with Daniel suggesting that theism, not the multiverse hypothesis, is the more extravagant hypothesis in terms of types of entities postulated. 01:01:45 🕊️ Daniel presents an agnostic perspective, highlighting the limitations of knowing whether God exists or not, suggesting a position of skeptical agnosticism. 01:02:55 🌌 The debate is not merely about belief or disbelief, but rather about spiritual knowledge which is of acquaintance or experience, not propositional in nature. 01:03:34 🕊️ Misconceptions about spiritual reality and God: God is not a physical or material being, but rather an immaterial and timeless presence. 01:04:15 📚 Philosophy involves understanding questions profoundly rather than just answering them; much of modern philosophy remains rooted in outdated views. 01:05:23 🔮 The implications of quantum physics and Heidegger's thinking will revolutionize philosophical understanding, paving the way for a new era of thought. 01:06:18 ⏰ The concept of "now" is timeless; it's always now, with the past and future existing within it. This timeless "now" bears attributes similar to the concept of God. 01:07:16 🌞 Exploring the nature of being and existence reveals attributes that align with the characteristics of God, such as being immaterial and infinite. 01:09:21 👤 The mystery of individual human existence and perspective raises questions that go beyond scientific explanations and hint at something beyond the material realm. 01:10:47 🎭 Acknowledging the limitations of a scientific perspective and considering the deep resonance of religion in society, both for better and worse. 01:11:49 🌌 Complexity of the origin of the universe: caution needed in simplifying ideas about the Big Bang and the existence before it. 01:13:23 🔍 Complexity of fine-tuning: Exploring the intricacies of the universe's physical constants and questioning whether it definitively points to a creator. 01:14:20 🎨 Philosophical debate shifts from past religious focuses to cosmological considerations, potentially weakening religious perspectives. 01:15:00 ⏳ The problem of reconciling an intervening God with the observed imperfections and complexities of life, as understood through biological and genetic mechanisms. 01:18:52 🤝 Acknowledging the power and resonance of religion in human society and its ability to bring people together for both positive and negative purposes. 01:19:05 🧠 The challenge of responding to multiple panelists with differing perspectives, emphasizing the importance of open dialogue. 01:19:49 🔄 Addressing objections to the cosmological argument and clarifying why oscillating models and multiverse theories don't negate the notion of a universe with a beginning. 01:21:07 🔢 Explaining the difference between an infinite series of numbers and an infinite series of events in time, highlighting the temporal nature of events. 01:22:24 🌌 Challenging the notion of a continuous spatial continuum and explaining that continuous models are mathematical abstractions, not necessarily reflective of reality. 01:23:58 📐 The significance of fine-tuning in the universe and its potential implications, including the rejection of some physicists' conclusions against fine-tuning. 01:25:16 🧬 Analyzing the design of the genome and addressing the challenges that arise when considering the idea of a designer in the context of evolution. 01:25:54 👁️ The recognition of the limitations in Dawkins' account of religion, particularly in understanding its resonance and influence in society. 01:26:22 🤔 Craig defends fine-tuning argument against claims of ignorance, positing design as the best explanation. 01:26:53 🧠 Cosmic designer attributes: intelligent, personal, highly intelligent, creator of physics laws and constants. 01:27:36 🌌 Fine-tuning argument goes beyond evolution, relying on cosmic initial conditions and constants. 01:28:16 🤔 Design argument: physical necessity or chance explanations less plausible than design. 01:28:56 📜 Philosophy's importance affirmed in Christian view, as faith seeks understanding and influences theology. 01:29:22 ⏰ The question of "Why is it now?" offers insights into the universe's beginning and existence. 01:30:05 🕊️ God's nature as a personal being with diverse attributes, not compromising necessity or sanity. 01:30:58 ❓ "Why is something you?" relates to understanding God's providence, purpose, and plan for individuals. 01:35:26 💬 Daniel questions the moral argument's assumption of theism as sole foundation for objective moral values. 01:36:08 🧐 Causal principle (causality) discussed as metaphysical, not just physical law. 01:39:26 🤔 Stephen emphasizes the need for spiritual understanding to render philosophy redundant. 01:40:08 🤖 Craig elaborates on God's nature, changelessness, and temporal interaction with the universe. 01:42:41 👁️ Unembodied minds, consciousness, and God's existence discussed, with materialist perspectives explored. 01:45:12 😢 The problem of evil addressed, explaining God's allowance of evil as a result of human free will. 01:46:21 📖 Biblical narratives of judgment and conquest examined, clarifying the context of Canaanite displacement. 01:53:30 📜 Israel's role in Canaanite judgment seen as divine command morality, with Israel as an instrument of judgment. 01:53:58 ❓ God's command regarding children's fate addressed, highlighting God's right to give and take life, with potential for their salvation. 01:55:05 🌍 Morally sufficient reasons for extraordinary command discussed, emphasizing lesson to Israel and broader divine plan through salvation and Christ.
Dawkins always have debate with a jock, and Dr William Lane Craig always wins with the evidences of God’s existence and strong points with the truth. God bless Dr Bill✊❤️
@@richardmooney383 Most of the arguements Dr. Craig uses are based on philosophy and logic, using science to prove or establish certain points in the arguements. What has Craig said here that is psuedoscientific?
junk DNA isnt junk DNA. William lane craigs points are clear and consice who are these guys? they act like academic superstars but its easy to see none of them are the sharpest tools in the shed.
+brad cummings indeed, over the last few years, geneticists have discovered all sorts of "switches" in DNA that turn sections off or on, making "junk" into active sections, etc. Instead of being junk, we now are beginning to understand that it's an even more dizzyingly complex and layered system of code than we ever imagined. It's incredible that the professional scientist is so dismissive of the implications and wonder of his own science. He doesn't really get in there and deal with any actual arguments either. The physicist is just as bad, the cosmic bounce? Bounce once or twice? If it bounced less than an infinite number of times than it still have a beginning, wow... that was a waste of time, it proved nothing. If it supposedly did bounce, then what of the wasted mass through heat decay and "lost" energy over time to to entropy? It's been fairly well established that our universe's mass vs acceleration cannot support a coming crunch which could facilitate another bounce, so if we did bounce, we're not going to ever do so again (at least it looks that way, the most respected astrophysicists agree, the crunch is old hat and never had good proof but was always the stubborn infinite universe materialists refusing to give up). Thus we DID have a beginning and before it, no universe existed. Infinite negative numbers are okay therefore the past is infinite? Wow. Infinite negative number regresses are just as impossible as positive number regresses, because, if the time experienced (the events in concurrence) is REAL and not just theoretical (in math, like finance, negative numbers aren't REAL numbers, it's not just measuring back to a real past, since that's not a negative number, it was positive and only SEEMS negative now because it's past, but it's not a time deficit, like my credit card balance, that's a deficit, it could theoretically be infinite, it can't really be because I can't spend that much, but mathematically, it could be so by virtue of hacking the bank so that I never run out of debt. That's just it, it's a math equation for potentiation, I have potentially infinite debt)... but there can't be an infinite past because the past isn't potential the future is, the past happened and things that happened were definite concrete things and can't have happened infinitely, there can't be an infinite past "nows" in this chronology. Theoretically you could have an infinite concurrent "now"s in a multiverse, but there's no reason to postulate this.
The Pharaoh Aaand let me guess, you don't believe there are very very educated biologists with decades of experience in their field who nonetheless still believe very profoundly in God?
Craig does not debate. He has a standard well-rehearsed set piece speech which he never deviates from regardless of who is being debated. He only debates very specific questions with a very specific format that allows hime to make his key points and set pieces. He has a team and minders who he works with and rehearses his responses to typical points that his opposition will make. His team analyses the books and writings of whoever he is debating and they spend lots of time preparing him almost like a presidential candidate. They rehearse likely opportunities for cutting remarks and humourous put downs. He has been doing this for years and it is as disgraceful as it is disreputable. That he can get away with this merely proves the Ancient Greeks were correct in their disdain for sophistry and their understanding of the dangers of its skilled practitioners.
***** This is a statement of fact based on watching his speeches over the last 20 years. He insists on the same format and set piece structure. He makes the same points rehearsed like a script. When he occasionally gets a response he hasn't considered or rehearsed with his team, such as occurred on several occasions during a debate with Shelly Kagan, Professor of Philosohy at Yale, then in subsequent debates you see newly rehearsed responses for those areas he was hammered by Kagan. This is a disingenuous and legalistic approach. Yes he is a good debater and so he should be as this has been his focus for the last 30 years. He and his team receive funding and support for the express purpose of christian apology.
***** I can refute his ideas in one paragraph… Absolute morality: Morality is not Absolute as it depends on our conscious state. Cosmological argument: The philosophical nothing never existed. Fine tuning: Anthropic principle/ Not fine tune for life to begin with. Historic evidence for Jesus: hahahahah Here 20 years …...
Jan Aike I do not disagree on your last point about Dawkins, whose breadth of knowledge outside of his areas of special interest on evolution and directly related subjects is poor. Search out Craig's debates with the moral philosopher Shelly Kagan and the Physicist Sean Carroll for rather more grown-up debates. His debate with Carroll is particularly good as it refutes Craig's statements that modern Physics and Cosmology suggests the Universe has a beginning and therefore a creator.
***** See Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, easily found on youtube. He shows that Craig's intepretation of the Guth/Linde and Verlinken theory of inflation DOES NOT state the universe had a beginning.
Or maybe he just knows what atheists are going to say before they say it? That is what it sounds more like to me. When I debate an atheist, I generally know every argument they are going to make, so I just sit back and wait for them to get there and make their arguments.
Well *that's* a new one I haven't heard before. When are you guys going to get around to refuting his arguments instead of attacking him personally? Just curious.
Sorry,I'm 12 years late.I absolutely believe in a Creator God.But if you don't,can you agree that however the universe and reality came about it is mind blowing? WLC,I respect as a mentor.🙏
What's special about "now" is that it's actually happening. The future doesn't exist yet. The current moment is the terminating point of all the actual events which have occurred. I appreciate your open-mindedness. If nothing else, these are deeply interesting topics to discuss.
The premise is "everything that begins to exist has a cause". That leaves out ANYTHING which happens to be eternal, and without beginning. So, if something has no beginning, then it can exist with no cause and not violate that premise.
I found another quote that helped me realize your hurdles in conceptualizing infinity. "Saying the universe is eternal simply is saying that it has no beginning or end, not that it a beginning an infinite time ago"
A flaw in design doesn't disprove a designer, and if the designer's purposes aren't limited to our present life on this planet, then it doesn't even disprove that He is a perfect designer. So long as His ultimate goal (which is not limited to our present life) is realized, the design is perfect.
"Special pleading, AKA stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment, is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."
People learn from books, embarrassment comes if independent thought is not applied to the information/misinformation being consumed. It is embarrassing if someone just repeats what they read....not if they are reading.
The Intelligent God designed us this way: War after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war.......
I'm not talking about being inspired by religion. I'm talking about *theism*; the belief that a rational God created the Universe with certain ends in mind. This is what guided most of the truly great thinkers of history (Newton, Descartes, Boyle, etc). I am not defending religion. Merely theism.
Of course it's an argument of contrast: You can contrast the things for which a design inference is warranted from those for which it is *not* warranted, by giving criteria (as I've done repeatedly). You can call it "refuted" all day, but you have to actually present a refutation.
With this definition, we no longer need to use our intuition to test whether or not sets of points have different sizes; we only have to check whether or not there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the given pair of sets. If there is no one-to-one correspondence then, according to Cantor, one of the two sets must be larger than the other.
Just fyi: Begging the Question is when a person accepts a premise in an argument only because they already accept the conclusion. So, if I had an argument in which one of the premises is "non-physical realities can interact with physical ones", and the conclusion was "therefore, God interacts with physical reality", and the only reason I had to accept that premise was that I already accepted the conclusion, then that...
I have read plenty in mathematics and physics. They are among my strongest points. And, as I've already said, many interpretations of quantum effects have them being completely deterministic. But even in the indeterministic models, there are still causes for the effects, we just can't possibly predict when they'll come about. You can't see your league from here.
I am thankful for this debate. How about asking God to show Himself to us if He exist? Any one who truly wants to have relationship with God, all they need to do is to ask from their heart and God will prepare their heart for His landing for it is in our heart that He lands. As a Muslim I prayed this prayer “Jesus, I don't believe You are the son of God, but if You are, I give You my heart” Jesus came into my heart and I can feel Gods existence every single day in my heart,how about your heart?
I didn't say that religion was credited for the fruits of science. I said *theism* was often what inspired the greatest scientists (Newton, Leibniz, Boyle, etc), and that they felt they were uncovering the work of a rational Creator. This didn't impede their science; it encouraged it.
Imagine two concentric circles. Each circle contains infinitely many points along its circumference, but since the outer circle has a greater circumference, it has more points than the inner circle. Now take any point A on the outer circle, and draw a line from A to the circle’s center. This line must intersect some point B on the circumference of the inner circle. Hence, for every point A on the outer circle, there is a corresponding point B on the inner circle, and vice versa.
Physical reality contains time as an essential feature! In physical reality, events are always occurring (even if just quantum fluctuations), and they occur one-after-another. You can't get away from this fact. One of the essential properties of a physical reality is that it is NOT changeless.
Not at all. Rahab and her family, the Gibeonites, and many others were spared in this unique event. But the vast majority of the Canaanites were incorrigibly evil.
Time is a property of any system in which one event follows another. The fact that they have already happened, means they are "past" events. They are not happening now; they already happened. Nothing could be more basic and obvious.
I have lots to say about what's possible or impossible in a situation without anything. And I do not just assume that such a situation never existed. I've given reasons to think that that situation could never give rise to anything; and yet clearly there are things that exist now, so there must never have been a total lack of things.
Correct. But we need to understand why this would occur. Craig appears to be masterful at marshalling evidence and quotes. What's not so apparent is that he will often misrepresent the intent of those he is quoting. He certainly has a penchant for misrepresenting science, often ignoring those that raise valid objections to his claims that he cannot counter. This is dishonest and leads people following such debates to draw false conclusions. For example, Craig tried to criticise Hawking for his use of imaginary numbers, claiming this was Hawking making things up in order to account for time before time. But this is wrong. Imaginary numbers are not 'made up' as Craig claims, and they certainly are not used as a means to deny the existence of god or god's authorship of the creation of the universe. And yet, he managed to convince believers of exactly this. Either he is stupid and does not know what imaginary numbers are, or he lied to paint his interlocutor in an unfavourable light. It seems to clear to me that it is the later! And then there is the notion that Craig's simplistic arguments do not require studied analysis to raise objections he cannot counter. The point being that one cannot raise such objections in a debate where the audience already has a limited attention span and time is limited. This is a dishonest tactic of Craig's in debate, but It does not work offline and in slow time, when his interlocutors have time to show how his arguments fail
Well, I'm not disputing what you mention above. The original question of this thread was "I have a challenge for WL Craig: Name one thing that has only one cause!" To which I responded that the universe itself had to have a cause (ie, the big bang)
But the problem is that the infinite sequence argument has no flaws. "I don't buy it" is not a refutation. Indeed, the very definition of an infinite sequence includes "does not terminate". So, since we only have two options for the sequence of past events (finite or infinite), and infinite is out of the question (since the past terminates at the present), we're stuck with a finite past. And it really is that simple.
Lol!! We are not stuck with a finite past. What we do have is theists unable to break the symmetry. Their arguments have been eviscerated both in the philosophical literature and the science has long overtaken this. No one needs a god or anything remotely resembling one. :)
If the past weren't composed of one event following another, then your objection might make sense. But one event DOES follow another, and does so in a sequence up to the present moment.
I'm not referring to Darwin's membership in a church. He believed in God. When Asa Gray pointed out the teleological implications of "Origin of Species", Darwin applauded him. And Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) openly acknowledged that the intricate mechanism of Natural Selection implied an even more complex set of initial conditions for the Universe, which he felt no one could get around as proof of an initial designer.
The review is mostly about the Krauss' severe misrepresentation of what quantum fields are and how particle creation works. Albert is both a philosopher and a quantum physicist. His review is very well-written and informed.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word "Universe" means "One (uni) Word (verse)", so we could read that as: "In the beginning was the Universe, and the Universe was with God and the Universe was God". Thought is faster than Light. If man's Thought were unclouded, man's mind would become Perfect.
Therefore, both circles must have the same number of points, despite the fact that the outer circle appears to have more points than the inner circle. Many thinkers tried to unravel this apparent paradox, including Galileo Galilei, but it wasn’t until the late 1800s that Georg Cantor brought it to a successful resolution. Cantor’s idea was simple: infinite sets of objects are so far removed from our everyday experience that they may follow rules that seem counterintuitive.
For Cantor, it simply must be accepted that the inner and outer circles have the same number of points-our intuition that the outer circle has more points, according to Cantor, is just wrong. Instead, he focused on the fact that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the points on the outer circle and the points on the inner circle. Cantor’s insight was to use this idea as the definition for determining whether or not two sets of objects are the same size.
people from different religions tell me a lot about their god, what he wants, what he says.. all I can understand is this: god exist, he is invisible and mute, but he talks to me.. and he told me to tell you that you've got to do what I say or else you will suffer consequences.. now that is a mind blowing claim right there!
Infinite sets do not require identical values. We don't even have to address unequal infinities. These ones are on a 1-to-1 correspondence and of the same magnitude.
The fact that a given event can be given a specific place in the sequence relative to the present moment. Event X is directly prior to the present. Event Y is directly prior to X. And so on, for eternity. Each event has a position relative to the others, and relative to the present one, and therefore is sequential and ordered, not random.
Life is categorically different. A computer is a great example, since it is also categorically different, and we infer a designer when we look at a computer.
No one is talking about you, or about experiences of angels, demons, or whatever. I am talking about people who have first-hand experiences of God, and are perfectly rational to believe their own first-hand experience (just as you are perfectly rational to think that your friends have minds).
I have presented a deductive argument. You have three options: Defeat one of the premises, accept the conclusion, or admit to being irrational. Since you have yet to present any defeaters for any of the premises, and you clearly don't accept the conclusion, are you ready to take option 3?
He's also very good at name dropping and cherry picking quotes to make an argument from authority even when those authorities explicitly show why his interpretation is wrong. My favourite is the quote he often uses from Vilenkin's book which on the very next page Vilenkin explains why it should be no comfort for theists and that it doesn't imply what they try to imply with his work.
It's not that events are terminators, it's that the present moment (the vantage point from which we are looking back at the past and trying to decide if it's infinite or finite), is in fact here. If the sequence of events leading up to now were actually infinite, then it is inexplicable why "now" didn't arrive yesterday, or a hundred years ago.
If the changeless situation has instability to it, then it could not be changeless eternally. If the situation has always been unstable, then it should have broken down an infinite amount of time ago, not just 13 billion years (or any other finite amount of time) ago.
Cantor’s definition tamed infinity. It provided a rigorous method by which infinite sets could be compared. He used this idea to prove that there are just as many integers as even integers, since the function f(x)=2x provides the required one-to-one correspondence. He showed that there are just as many lattice points on the plane as there are integers. And Cantor even proved that there are as many rational numbers as there are integers.
Besides, if you're trying to say there was "sort-of nothing", but still something, and that it happened to spark a multiverse a finite time ago, then you are still committed to the cause having free will. Otherwise the changeless "almost-nothing" would remain changeless eternally. Those are your options. A fully-sufficient set of causal conditions will ALWAYS have its effect, unless the cause has free will to choose.
For the same reason that people still take Deepak Chopra seriously, there are a lot of ignorant people in the world that either, don't know how to search for actual truth or are too lazy to search for actual truth.
... By the way, when I say "fine-tuned for life", I don't mean "designed for life". I just mean that these initial conditions fell into an extraordinarily narrow range of acceptable values such that life could eventually exist.
He did answer that question quite well to my satisfaction. By the way, Hitchens, et al have great respect for Craig, you can find this video by searching Hitchens on Craig, and the feeling is mutual. Craigs debating schedule is quite full and so I don't get your 'he can't get debates'. Let's stick with the arguments. :)
They hold it as a properly basic belief. Look it up. The point is that "atheist" means more than "unconvinced by current arguments". Every encyclopedia agrees.
Fine-tuned does NOT denote "intent" or anything of the kind. It merely means that the initial conditions of the Universe fell into the extraordinarily narrow ranges that they needed to in order for life to exist, and that life would not have existed if that hadn't been the case. As physicist Paul Davies puts it: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".
I'm not lying about what cosmologists think. Paul Davies says: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." The size of the Universe is necessary for just one life-bearing planet. And the points of contrast are in the possible values. We've been over this.
Each change would be an event. Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot. Either no changes are occuring, but everything is simultaneous and eternal, or else changes are happening, which would involve a sequence (one change after another). Pick one.
...would be begging the question. Since my arguments don't contain that premise, and my reasons for accepting that God can interact with physical reality are utterly separate arguments and empirical indications, there was never any chance of begging the question here.
This is amazingly simple: An orbit completes, and that's a "1". A second orbit completes, and that is a "2". No matter which planet you're dealing with, this is the case. And, in an infinite amount of time, a given planet's orbits will be equinumerous and identical with the set of natural numbers. What part of this don't you get??
You see, that baffles me. Several people on this thread (and others) have implied that I'm somehow engaging in special pleading for God. I have pointed out *repeatedly* that even God cannot create himself (any more than physical reality could) or persist over an infinite sequence of events (any more than physical reality could). The only thing God has that physical reality as a whole doesn't have is free choice to come out of a timeless state and make the first change a finite time ago.
That being said, it is a total distraction from our actual discussion: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: Physical reality began to exist (could not persist over an infinite sequence which terminates, since no infinite sequence ever does terminate). C1: Therefore, the whole of physical reality has some cause. P3: X cannot cause X. P4: Non-agential causes have their effects as long as they exist. C2: The cause of all physical reality was a non-physical agent.
I know you can't count time before that event, because the state prior to the first event is "eventless" and changeless. However, if there is an instability that exists eternally within that changeless moment, then it should either always manifest itself (in which case the Universe would be eternally old), or it should never manifest itself (in which case the Universe would not ever exist). It cannot just manifest itself a finite time ago.
First off, we're talking about whether physical reality (which INCLUDES time) can be infinite in the past. Secondly, calling them "past events" means that they precede the present. They have transpired prior to the present moment. As such, we again have a temporal relation. And since a given event transpired farther back from the present than some other, more recent event, we have an ordered sequence.
@@percyburkett1916 Could you elaborate a little, please? This comment you're responding to is 11 years old, and I honestly don't remember all the context.
Nutritionists tell us to take breaths between bites for several reasons. It's not a flaw. It's just variety. And there is nothing imperfect about having to eat a particular way. Variety doesn't mean one way is "better" than the others.
To a small child, the movement of ants may seem random, but meanwhile they're storing food for the winter, and building intricate cities underground, designed so perfectly they can resist floods. Randomness doesn't exist. Randomness is perceived when we see part of something (the ants scurrying along on the ground) without seeing the whole picture. If randomness existed, life would not.
As to a "selfish" moral framework, this would only be the case if the members were the ones who decided what was morally valuable. But they don't decide it; they discover it, and try to live accordingly. The objective truth that individuals are valuable is not decided by the individuals, and therefore is not "selfish".
I apologize for taking so long to respond this time. I have been sick the past few days. Kenith, I'm not talking about relating points in time to an absolute beginning. I'm talking about a beginningless past, with an infinite number of past events. It is still the case that, for any three events, it is possible to relate them to each other as "X came before Y which came before Z". Thus, one event follows another, in a sequence {1, 2, 3}.
Well, just call it "beginningless", it still follows that the actualization of the instability should likewise be beginningless if the instability is always present in the system. Virtual particles don't behave like anything in a timeless domain. Nothing behaves or acts at all in such a domain, or else there'd be a sequence of the behaviors. The sequence would begin with the first behavior or action.
And, by the way, I understood perfectly what you were saying about begging the question; but, you were simply wrong. And I defined "begging the question" for you, so that you wouldn't make the same mistake in the future.
I love how Dawkins was too much of a coward to show up to this event.
No. He was smart. When it is obvious he’s carrying a pea-shooter against a man with a gun - it’s better to avoid.
"Coward"???? You do not know the man your are maligning! Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists as doing so would a) give them an undeserved platform, b) give the false impression that science & religion are on an equal footing, and c) would look better on Craig's CV than on Dawkins'. You can see Dawkins himself explaining this in several RUclips videos.
Well... How are you going to even disprove an ideology that a) you presuppose is false and b) you don't even want to consider. This seems like circular reasoning: it is false, therefore I don't have to even consider it, because it is false. You see the problem? Dawkins IS indeed either a) a coward who can't even be intellectually honest enough to see criticisms to his book or b) an idiot who can't even be intellectually honest enough to see criticisms to his book because he is so confident that he is right.
@@r.i.p.volodyaDawkins is not a philosopher and his critique of theism in The God Delusion was ridiculed even by atheist philosophers.
Look at his seven point argument from the God Delusion below. The conclusion doesn’t even logically follow from the premises. He can’t even formulate a valid argument. If you are an atheist you need to upgrade to the likes of Graham Oppy because Dawkins is a bottom-rung atheist populariser. He is a fine biologist and I do like his work in that field but he is not a philosopher and he often concedes this.
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
@@r.i.p.volodyaYet he debates with John Lennoux, Francis collins etc. He said so many excuses like Dr. Craig isn't qualified. But I think the real problem is he doesn't debate with philosophers. Cause that is way out of his league. An event manager who knows Dawkins said this to Craig. If that is so. He should tell that instead of making excuses.
"For the Word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing (clearly), but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18. In the immortal words of a Rabbi friend who, when asked why when he was in hospital quite sick and had asked to pray with a Christian Chaplain, he threw up his hands, shrugging, and answered, "What if I was wrong?".... so, to those who thumb their nose at the One who created them: what if you are wrong?
Christian Vegan then naturally there are going to be very serious consequences to those atheists getting it wrong ..
You people are deluded 😂 Pascal’s wager is ridiculous by the way
This just sounds like Pasca's wager, which only encourages someone to ponder the plausability of god's existence and says nothing about whether or not god does exist or what form they may take.
+Stan Lee True, true. Craig is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. You know you're on the right track when all people can do in response to your arguments is insult you personally ;)
The bus in the intro says "there's probably no Dawkins " 😂😂😂
William Lane Craig is a very versatile, intelligent, and rare mind. He's awesome! I'm glad I found this!
+Stan Lee
He's a special kind of nutjob. Making profound idiocy sound smart.
+MrJeter693 No, he is not. www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/an-index-of-why-william-lane-craig-is-a-dishonest-genocide-defending-creepy-homophobe/
Smart enough to make his nonsense sound convincing and confusing. Not smart enough to realize there is no god.
+Fabian Tschopp Well, boo hoo...
+Stan Lee True, true. Craig is one of the greatest thinkers of our time. You know you're on the right track when all people can do in response to your arguments is insult you personally ;)
Fabian - I tried to follow your link - it goes nowhere. You haven't offered a SINGLE argument here. When you need insults in place of arguments, it's because you don't really have any; All you have is your precious anger. I'd lover to hear some actual argument from atheists but all I ever get is seething anger and ridicule. Makes me wonder how people actually become atheists since there are never any real arguments to convince them. Hitchen basically does the same thing - either just attacks the person or ridicules anything any religious person does, as if it's somehow bad because the religious person did it, whereas it's normal for anyone else.
Its funny how many angry, bitter, resentful atheists and anti theists are roaming these forums.
+Damian Tharcisius Only logical. Moronic arguments and statements should get any reasonable person to be even a little angry.
Yeah, anti-theists are a humorous bunch ;)
Except you never offer any arguments. Just insults. Atheism is a beef, not a belief. you have a beef with something that you have no legitimate argument against, so you have to make everything the person or group you have a beef with wrong somehow.
I am so full of rage right now. My non belief in god is making me so angry.
How can a person "lack belief" in powerful people, those of us with exceptional talents, and all the other definitions of gods we're all aware of?
Dawkins didn't have enough courage to face Dr. Craig. God bless them both.
Dawkins doesn't have to debate every idiot on the face of the planet, does he? :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 excuses
@@sandmantheman There are no excuses for idiocy. Either you measure up or you don't. ;-)
I absolutely love listening to Dr. Craig speak. Truly brilliant!
brother craig truly is an inspiration
I have yet to see Dawkins in a serious one on one debate with Dr. Craig. So lets craft an argument to prove why Dawkins was MIA from a very important debate in his own backyard.
1. If Dawkins won't show for this important debate there must be an explanation.
2. If Dawkins has a plausible explanation it will be highly probable that it couches several adolescent put downs of Craigs arguments.
3. Since Dawkins feels the need to use name calling and inflammatory language in a non debate scenario then this means his arguments are weaker and he is left with only name calling and infantile school yard tactics. Instesd of arguments that hold there own in a true debate.
4. Therefore knowing he has the weaker position, and is tired of name calling; decided to just stay home and watch the T.V.
Well according to this premise Dawkins will never show up for a one on one debate with the most comparable Dr. Craig. What a shame that would be a very satisfying debate to behold.
Not trying to be a dick, but I've honestly heard Craig say one thing and then contradict himself with the very next sentence. Dr. Craig is an ass hat.
Usually when you open with a disclaimer the reality is you are being that which you are dismissing. Whether Dr.Craig contradicts himself or not the debate would still be very satisfying. Dawkins' positions are weak and contradictory. His philosophical positions are elementary and have drawn criticism from good atheist philosophers and scientists. Dawkins' understanding of theology is no better than a first year seminary student. He resorts to gross carciture rather than good scholarship. If you will reread my statement you will find that I never insulted Dawkins' personally I only take exception with his work. When one resorts to name calling (like ass hat) it is a debating truth that the one calling names feels they have the weaker position.
Most ordinary believers don't have their philosophy or theology all worked out either. If that is good enough for them, then why shouldn't Dawkins be allowed to discuss religion at a basic level? He is a bit of a prick though.
He claims he won’t debate Dr. Craig because of his “beliefs”. The truth is he would be backed into a corner that he wouldn’t be able to get out of. Dawkins is frowned upon by his fellow atheist because of his name calling tactics. A waste of an incredible mind in my opinion.
Hi Paradox, Dawkins knows something about bats, but his ideas on mindless drift have been replaced by a sound providential evolution. Dawkins isn't even smart in his own chosen field.
Craig handles everyone with ease-- such a gift to Christianity---Would have loved to see him debate Dawkins .....
How can WLC be a gift to a cult like craptianity....wasn't "hesus"the so called gift... to the foreskinless ..and he handles nothing...he just beats around his pubebush...
Biology vs mythology...evolution vs fairytales ..genius vs idiot...truth vs your silly fear of death..the god who offered his son as a price to himself to buy back what he "created" from who again???? Oh yes...from himself...what a awesome idiot u serve.....
@@mhah21 cool story. one day you will mature and understand that at the very essence of life there has to be an unmoved mover. we know for a fact that the universe began to exist (big bang) what makes more sense? nothing created everything or a Creator? no need to answer because it will be some drivel about " we dont know yet" or " multiverse" or some other crap created to explain away your meaningless less. God gives our lives meaning because we have eternal life through him? would you be a Christian if it was 100% true?
@@Gatorbeaux no....no...no....no....no...I will not bow to a Jewish guy who got in trouble with the authorities and got himself crucified. ..I really wish the roman method of execution was rather burning him at the stake...wonder how the myth would have followed after that...
@@mhah21 oh you will bow one day, we all will. Its just where you go after you bow thats the difference! take care and God Bless!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
08:29 🌌 The cosmological argument, specifically the version related to the beginning of the universe, indicates the existence of an uncaused, timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful personal creator.
22:29 🎯 The fine-tuning of the universe for life supports the teleological argument. Dawkins responds with the hypothesis of a multiverse, but this raises complexities and doesn't eliminate the design argument's plausibility.
00:43 🗣️ William Lane Craig discusses the arguments for the existence of God, responding to Richard Dawkins' objections.
01:46 📚 William Lane Craig's background and expertise in philosophy and theology are highlighted, including his works on cosmological and moral arguments.
04:21 💬 The format of the event is outlined, with Bill speaking for 45-50 minutes, followed by Oxford academics' comments, his response, and audience questions.
07:12 🤝 Richard Dawkins' arguments are taken into account, even though his objections don't fully negate the arguments' conclusions.
17:49 🤔 The moral argument asserts that if God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties are baseless. Dawkins paradoxically condemns actions while maintaining ethical subjectivism.
25:15 🎭 The argument from consciousness and the origin of life are not covered in this transcript chunk.
32:32 🌌 Professor Craig discusses Dawkins' suggested mechanisms for generating a world ensemble: Smolin's evolutionary cosmology and black holes as portals to baby universes.
34:15 🌌 Smolin's scenario of black holes and evolutionary cosmology would actually make the existence of a life-permitting universe even more improbable.
35:59 🌌 The conjecture that black holes may lead to other universes contradicts quantum physics, as information preservation in black hole formation is necessary.
36:53 🌌 Roger Penrose's argument suggests that observing an ordered universe like ours contradicts the multiverse hypothesis, favoring a single universe without a world ensemble.
38:01 🌌 Dawkins claims that a designed explanation for the universe is inferior to the many-worlds hypothesis due to the question of who designed the designer. However, this objection is flawed as it doesn't require an explanation of the explanation.
42:08 🌌 The objection that God is as complex as the universe is inaccurate; a divine mind is a remarkably simple entity without physical parts.
45:27 🕊️ Plantinga's ontological argument presents the possibility of a maximally great being (God) existing in a possible world, raising questions about whether the universe began to exist.
46:47 🕊️ Some philosophers consider the possibility that the universe might not have had a finite beginning due to alternate cosmological models, challenging the second premise of the cosmological argument.
54:01 🕊️ Counterarguments are explored against the notion that an infinite series of events is inherently problematic or incoherent, challenging the concept of a finite beginning for the universe.
58:06 🕊️ Qualitative and quantitative interpretations of Occam's razor are discussed, with Daniel suggesting that theism, not the multiverse hypothesis, is the more extravagant hypothesis in terms of types of entities postulated.
01:01:45 🕊️ Daniel presents an agnostic perspective, highlighting the limitations of knowing whether God exists or not, suggesting a position of skeptical agnosticism.
01:02:55 🌌 The debate is not merely about belief or disbelief, but rather about spiritual knowledge which is of acquaintance or experience, not propositional in nature.
01:03:34 🕊️ Misconceptions about spiritual reality and God: God is not a physical or material being, but rather an immaterial and timeless presence.
01:04:15 📚 Philosophy involves understanding questions profoundly rather than just answering them; much of modern philosophy remains rooted in outdated views.
01:05:23 🔮 The implications of quantum physics and Heidegger's thinking will revolutionize philosophical understanding, paving the way for a new era of thought.
01:06:18 ⏰ The concept of "now" is timeless; it's always now, with the past and future existing within it. This timeless "now" bears attributes similar to the concept of God.
01:07:16 🌞 Exploring the nature of being and existence reveals attributes that align with the characteristics of God, such as being immaterial and infinite.
01:09:21 👤 The mystery of individual human existence and perspective raises questions that go beyond scientific explanations and hint at something beyond the material realm.
01:10:47 🎭 Acknowledging the limitations of a scientific perspective and considering the deep resonance of religion in society, both for better and worse.
01:11:49 🌌 Complexity of the origin of the universe: caution needed in simplifying ideas about the Big Bang and the existence before it.
01:13:23 🔍 Complexity of fine-tuning: Exploring the intricacies of the universe's physical constants and questioning whether it definitively points to a creator.
01:14:20 🎨 Philosophical debate shifts from past religious focuses to cosmological considerations, potentially weakening religious perspectives.
01:15:00 ⏳ The problem of reconciling an intervening God with the observed imperfections and complexities of life, as understood through biological and genetic mechanisms.
01:18:52 🤝 Acknowledging the power and resonance of religion in human society and its ability to bring people together for both positive and negative purposes.
01:19:05 🧠 The challenge of responding to multiple panelists with differing perspectives, emphasizing the importance of open dialogue.
01:19:49 🔄 Addressing objections to the cosmological argument and clarifying why oscillating models and multiverse theories don't negate the notion of a universe with a beginning.
01:21:07 🔢 Explaining the difference between an infinite series of numbers and an infinite series of events in time, highlighting the temporal nature of events.
01:22:24 🌌 Challenging the notion of a continuous spatial continuum and explaining that continuous models are mathematical abstractions, not necessarily reflective of reality.
01:23:58 📐 The significance of fine-tuning in the universe and its potential implications, including the rejection of some physicists' conclusions against fine-tuning.
01:25:16 🧬 Analyzing the design of the genome and addressing the challenges that arise when considering the idea of a designer in the context of evolution.
01:25:54 👁️ The recognition of the limitations in Dawkins' account of religion, particularly in understanding its resonance and influence in society.
01:26:22 🤔 Craig defends fine-tuning argument against claims of ignorance, positing design as the best explanation.
01:26:53 🧠 Cosmic designer attributes: intelligent, personal, highly intelligent, creator of physics laws and constants.
01:27:36 🌌 Fine-tuning argument goes beyond evolution, relying on cosmic initial conditions and constants.
01:28:16 🤔 Design argument: physical necessity or chance explanations less plausible than design.
01:28:56 📜 Philosophy's importance affirmed in Christian view, as faith seeks understanding and influences theology.
01:29:22 ⏰ The question of "Why is it now?" offers insights into the universe's beginning and existence.
01:30:05 🕊️ God's nature as a personal being with diverse attributes, not compromising necessity or sanity.
01:30:58 ❓ "Why is something you?" relates to understanding God's providence, purpose, and plan for individuals.
01:35:26 💬 Daniel questions the moral argument's assumption of theism as sole foundation for objective moral values.
01:36:08 🧐 Causal principle (causality) discussed as metaphysical, not just physical law.
01:39:26 🤔 Stephen emphasizes the need for spiritual understanding to render philosophy redundant.
01:40:08 🤖 Craig elaborates on God's nature, changelessness, and temporal interaction with the universe.
01:42:41 👁️ Unembodied minds, consciousness, and God's existence discussed, with materialist perspectives explored.
01:45:12 😢 The problem of evil addressed, explaining God's allowance of evil as a result of human free will.
01:46:21 📖 Biblical narratives of judgment and conquest examined, clarifying the context of Canaanite displacement.
01:53:30 📜 Israel's role in Canaanite judgment seen as divine command morality, with Israel as an instrument of judgment.
01:53:58 ❓ God's command regarding children's fate addressed, highlighting God's right to give and take life, with potential for their salvation.
01:55:05 🌍 Morally sufficient reasons for extraordinary command discussed, emphasizing lesson to Israel and broader divine plan through salvation and Christ.
Dawkins arguments? Destroyed...
Dawkins always have debate with a jock, and Dr William Lane Craig always wins with the evidences of God’s existence and strong points with the truth. God bless Dr Bill✊❤️
Evidence. ...really...evidence. ..fuuuuck
William you were masterful!
Yes, the most masterful exposition of pseudo-scientific bunkum I have ever heard.
@@richardmooney383 Most of the arguements Dr. Craig uses are based on philosophy and logic, using science to prove or establish certain points in the arguements. What has Craig said here that is psuedoscientific?
Masterfull at lying...and deceiving. ..old fart....
WLC...has nothing but his own conviction. ..no arguments...no proof...no brains...a??hole...
U r broken..
That is why u need this GOD of yours...grow some balls man...
The argument has a C1 and a C2. And the use of the word "Universe" is just shorthand for "all of physical reality" in this argument.
Dawkins took the money for his book and ran,
away from argument
Except for the time he was involved in a debate featuring Craig, and Craig's side lost so badly that they complained that the other side were bigots.
Richard dawkins got totally Destroyed
junk DNA isnt junk DNA. William lane craigs points are clear and consice who are these guys? they act like academic superstars but its easy to see none of them are the sharpest tools in the shed.
+brad cummings indeed, over the last few years, geneticists have discovered all sorts of "switches" in DNA that turn sections off or on, making "junk" into active sections, etc. Instead of being junk, we now are beginning to understand that it's an even more dizzyingly complex and layered system of code than we ever imagined. It's incredible that the professional scientist is so dismissive of the implications and wonder of his own science. He doesn't really get in there and deal with any actual arguments either.
The physicist is just as bad, the cosmic bounce? Bounce once or twice? If it bounced less than an infinite number of times than it still have a beginning, wow... that was a waste of time, it proved nothing. If it supposedly did bounce, then what of the wasted mass through heat decay and "lost" energy over time to to entropy? It's been fairly well established that our universe's mass vs acceleration cannot support a coming crunch which could facilitate another bounce, so if we did bounce, we're not going to ever do so again (at least it looks that way, the most respected astrophysicists agree, the crunch is old hat and never had good proof but was always the stubborn infinite universe materialists refusing to give up). Thus we DID have a beginning and before it, no universe existed.
Infinite negative numbers are okay therefore the past is infinite? Wow. Infinite negative number regresses are just as impossible as positive number regresses, because, if the time experienced (the events in concurrence) is REAL and not just theoretical (in math, like finance, negative numbers aren't REAL numbers, it's not just measuring back to a real past, since that's not a negative number, it was positive and only SEEMS negative now because it's past, but it's not a time deficit, like my credit card balance, that's a deficit, it could theoretically be infinite, it can't really be because I can't spend that much, but mathematically, it could be so by virtue of hacking the bank so that I never run out of debt. That's just it, it's a math equation for potentiation, I have potentially infinite debt)... but there can't be an infinite past because the past isn't potential the future is, the past happened and things that happened were definite concrete things and can't have happened infinitely, there can't be an infinite past "nows" in this chronology. Theoretically you could have an infinite concurrent "now"s in a multiverse, but there's no reason to postulate this.
The Pharaoh
Aaand let me guess, you don't believe there are very very educated biologists with decades of experience in their field who nonetheless still believe very profoundly in God?
Man that wasn't a debate that was school and class was in session
Ha! Three atheists and Craig still won :D
Craig does not debate. He has a standard well-rehearsed set piece speech which he never deviates from regardless of who is being debated. He only debates very specific questions with a very specific format that allows hime to make his key points and set pieces. He has a team and minders who he works with and rehearses his responses to typical points that his opposition will make. His team analyses the books and writings of whoever he is debating and they spend lots of time preparing him almost like a presidential candidate. They rehearse likely opportunities for cutting remarks and humourous put downs. He has been doing this for years and it is as disgraceful as it is disreputable. That he can get away with this merely proves the Ancient Greeks were correct in their disdain for sophistry and their understanding of the dangers of its skilled practitioners.
***** This is a statement of fact based on watching his speeches over the last 20 years. He insists on the same format and set piece structure. He makes the same points rehearsed like a script. When he occasionally gets a response he hasn't considered or rehearsed with his team, such as occurred on several occasions during a debate with Shelly Kagan, Professor of Philosohy at Yale, then in subsequent debates you see newly rehearsed responses for those areas he was hammered by Kagan. This is a disingenuous and legalistic approach. Yes he is a good debater and so he should be as this has been his focus for the last 30 years. He and his team receive funding and support for the express purpose of christian apology.
***** I can refute his ideas in one paragraph…
Absolute morality: Morality is not Absolute as it depends on our conscious state.
Cosmological argument: The philosophical nothing never existed.
Fine tuning: Anthropic principle/ Not fine tune for life to begin with.
Historic evidence for Jesus: hahahahah
Here 20 years …...
Jan Aike I do not disagree on your last point about Dawkins, whose breadth of knowledge outside of his areas of special interest on evolution and directly related subjects is poor. Search out Craig's debates with the moral philosopher Shelly Kagan and the Physicist Sean Carroll for rather more grown-up debates. His debate with Carroll is particularly good as it refutes Craig's statements that modern Physics and Cosmology suggests the Universe has a beginning and therefore a creator.
***** See Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, easily found on youtube. He shows that Craig's intepretation of the Guth/Linde and Verlinken theory of inflation DOES NOT state the universe had a beginning.
Or maybe he just knows what atheists are going to say before they say it? That is what it sounds more like to me. When I debate an atheist, I generally know every argument they are going to make, so I just sit back and wait for them to get there and make their arguments.
This guy just gives off creepy vibes
Well *that's* a new one I haven't heard before. When are you guys going to get around to refuting his arguments instead of attacking him personally? Just curious.
I disagree seems like a nice guy who would be easy to get alone with.
Sorry,I'm 12 years late.I absolutely believe in a Creator God.But if you don't,can you agree that however the universe and reality came about it is mind blowing?
WLC,I respect as a mentor.🙏
What's special about "now" is that it's actually happening. The future doesn't exist yet. The current moment is the terminating point of all the actual events which have occurred.
I appreciate your open-mindedness. If nothing else, these are deeply interesting topics to discuss.
The premise is "everything that begins to exist has a cause". That leaves out ANYTHING which happens to be eternal, and without beginning. So, if something has no beginning, then it can exist with no cause and not violate that premise.
I found another quote that helped me realize your hurdles in conceptualizing infinity.
"Saying the universe is eternal simply is saying that it has no beginning or end, not that it a beginning an infinite time ago"
A flaw in design doesn't disprove a designer, and if the designer's purposes aren't limited to our present life on this planet, then it doesn't even disprove that He is a perfect designer. So long as His ultimate goal (which is not limited to our present life) is realized, the design is perfect.
"Special pleading, AKA stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment, is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."
1:05:12 guy in blue heavily invested in this discourse
If someone has "The God Delusion" on their bookshelf, I feel embarrassed for them.
People learn from books, embarrassment comes if independent thought is not applied to the information/misinformation being consumed.
It is embarrassing if someone just repeats what they read....not if they are reading.
The series of past events cannot be infinite. Period.
The Intelligent God designed us this way:
War after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war after war.......
Bullshit and emotional argument we have free will
I'm not talking about being inspired by religion. I'm talking about *theism*; the belief that a rational God created the Universe with certain ends in mind. This is what guided most of the truly great thinkers of history (Newton, Descartes, Boyle, etc).
I am not defending religion. Merely theism.
Of course it's an argument of contrast: You can contrast the things for which a design inference is warranted from those for which it is *not* warranted, by giving criteria (as I've done repeatedly).
You can call it "refuted" all day, but you have to actually present a refutation.
With this definition, we no longer need to use our intuition to test whether or not sets of points have different sizes; we only have to check whether or not there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the given pair of sets. If there is no one-to-one correspondence then, according to Cantor, one of the two sets must be larger than the other.
Just fyi: Begging the Question is when a person accepts a premise in an argument only because they already accept the conclusion. So, if I had an argument in which one of the premises is "non-physical realities can interact with physical ones", and the conclusion was "therefore, God interacts with physical reality", and the only reason I had to accept that premise was that I already accepted the conclusion, then that...
I have read plenty in mathematics and physics. They are among my strongest points. And, as I've already said, many interpretations of quantum effects have them being completely deterministic. But even in the indeterministic models, there are still causes for the effects, we just can't possibly predict when they'll come about. You can't see your league from here.
I am thankful for this debate.
How about asking God to show Himself to us if He exist?
Any one who truly wants to have relationship with God, all they need to do is to ask from their heart and God will prepare their heart for His landing for it is in our heart that He lands.
As a Muslim I prayed this prayer “Jesus, I don't believe You are the son of God, but if You are, I give You my heart”
Jesus came into my heart and I can feel Gods existence every single day in my heart,how about your heart?
I didn't say that religion was credited for the fruits of science. I said *theism* was often what inspired the greatest scientists (Newton, Leibniz, Boyle, etc), and that they felt they were uncovering the work of a rational Creator. This didn't impede their science; it encouraged it.
Imagine two concentric circles. Each circle contains infinitely many points along its circumference, but since the outer circle has a greater circumference, it has more points than the inner circle. Now take any point A on the outer circle, and draw a line from A to the circle’s center. This line must intersect some point B on the circumference of the inner circle. Hence, for every point A on the outer circle, there is a corresponding point B on the inner circle, and vice versa.
Physical reality contains time as an essential feature! In physical reality, events are always occurring (even if just quantum fluctuations), and they occur one-after-another. You can't get away from this fact. One of the essential properties of a physical reality is that it is NOT changeless.
What? Is not entropy the epitome of change? Your reasoning here is deeply flawed.
@@percyburkett1916
What do you mean by the "epitome of change"? Do you mean that all change would cease if maximum overall entropy was reached?
"Can't you read?" That's kind of a mean thing to say don't you think? Why did you say it?
So he's saying every single adult Canaanite was evil?
Maybe the Canaanites was like the Nazi during the time
Not at all. Rahab and her family, the Gibeonites, and many others were spared in this unique event. But the vast majority of the Canaanites were incorrigibly evil.
+Mentat1231 Here is a great article that expounds on the morality of the ancient canaanites.
www.equip.org/article/killing-the-canaanites/
You're a legend in your own mind
Every time he mentions "conjuring up a Terminator" I picture the Terminator from the movies.
That an infinite sequence of successive additions does not terminate isn't just "proven", it's definitive.
Time is a property of any system in which one event follows another.
The fact that they have already happened, means they are "past" events. They are not happening now; they already happened. Nothing could be more basic and obvious.
I have lots to say about what's possible or impossible in a situation without anything. And I do not just assume that such a situation never existed. I've given reasons to think that that situation could never give rise to anything; and yet clearly there are things that exist now, so there must never have been a total lack of things.
Dawkins wouldn’t have stood a chance...
Correct. But we need to understand why this would occur. Craig appears to be masterful at marshalling evidence and quotes. What's not so apparent is that he will often misrepresent the intent of those he is quoting. He certainly has a penchant for misrepresenting science, often ignoring those that raise valid objections to his claims that he cannot counter. This is dishonest and leads people following such debates to draw false conclusions. For example, Craig tried to criticise Hawking for his use of imaginary numbers, claiming this was Hawking making things up in order to account for time before time. But this is wrong. Imaginary numbers are not 'made up' as Craig claims, and they certainly are not used as a means to deny the existence of god or god's authorship of the creation of the universe. And yet, he managed to convince believers of exactly this. Either he is stupid and does not know what imaginary numbers are, or he lied to paint his interlocutor in an unfavourable light. It seems to clear to me that it is the later! And then there is the notion that Craig's simplistic arguments do not require studied analysis to raise objections he cannot counter. The point being that one cannot raise such objections in a debate where the audience already has a limited attention span and time is limited. This is a dishonest tactic of Craig's in debate, but It does not work offline and in slow time, when his interlocutors have time to show how his arguments fail
I'm referring of course to Craig's later reference to this debate, where he mimics Eastwood. Look it up. It's not hard to Google.
Well, I'm not disputing what you mention above. The original question of this thread was "I have a challenge for WL Craig: Name one thing that has only one cause!" To which I responded that the universe itself had to have a cause (ie, the big bang)
But the problem is that the infinite sequence argument has no flaws. "I don't buy it" is not a refutation. Indeed, the very definition of an infinite sequence includes "does not terminate". So, since we only have two options for the sequence of past events (finite or infinite), and infinite is out of the question (since the past terminates at the present), we're stuck with a finite past. And it really is that simple.
Lol!! We are not stuck with a finite past. What we do have is theists unable to break the symmetry. Their arguments have been eviscerated both in the philosophical literature and the science has long overtaken this. No one needs a god or anything remotely resembling one. :)
Just because you say something is undisputeable, doesn't mean it is in fact undisputeable😂
Wow! Dr. William Lane Craig truly is VERY prepared! God bless him!
If the past weren't composed of one event following another, then your objection might make sense. But one event DOES follow another, and does so in a sequence up to the present moment.
I'm not referring to Darwin's membership in a church. He believed in God. When Asa Gray pointed out the teleological implications of "Origin of Species", Darwin applauded him. And Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) openly acknowledged that the intricate mechanism of Natural Selection implied an even more complex set of initial conditions for the Universe, which he felt no one could get around as proof of an initial designer.
The review is mostly about the Krauss' severe misrepresentation of what quantum fields are and how particle creation works. Albert is both a philosopher and a quantum physicist. His review is very well-written and informed.
John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The word "Universe" means "One (uni) Word (verse)", so we could read that as:
"In the beginning was the Universe, and the Universe was with God and the Universe was God".
Thought is faster than Light. If man's Thought were unclouded, man's mind would become Perfect.
Jesus is Lord. Universe as we know it means "one speech" Jesus creates by His speech-act.
Therefore, both circles must have the same number of points, despite the fact that the outer circle appears to have more points than the inner circle.
Many thinkers tried to unravel this apparent paradox, including Galileo Galilei, but it wasn’t until the late 1800s that Georg Cantor brought it to a successful resolution. Cantor’s idea was simple: infinite sets of objects are so far removed from our everyday experience that they may follow rules that seem counterintuitive.
For Cantor, it simply must be accepted that the inner and outer circles have the same number of points-our intuition that the outer circle has more points, according to Cantor, is just wrong.
Instead, he focused on the fact that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the points on the outer circle and the points on the inner circle. Cantor’s insight was to use this idea as the definition for determining whether or not two sets of objects are the same size.
people from different religions tell me a lot about their god, what he wants, what he says.. all I can understand is this: god exist, he is invisible and mute, but he talks to me.. and he told me to tell you that you've got to do what I say or else you will suffer consequences.. now that is a mind blowing claim right there!
Infinite sets do not require identical values. We don't even have to address unequal infinities. These ones are on a 1-to-1 correspondence and of the same magnitude.
Multiple universes is an extraordinary claim. And you know what they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Excellent response.
Is it just me or does the chair of the event look like an older Brian Regan?
Bill Craig is God's bodyguard. This man knows what came first the Chicken or the Egg
The fact that a given event can be given a specific place in the sequence relative to the present moment. Event X is directly prior to the present. Event Y is directly prior to X. And so on, for eternity. Each event has a position relative to the others, and relative to the present one, and therefore is sequential and ordered, not random.
Fantastic!
Life is categorically different. A computer is a great example, since it is also categorically different, and we infer a designer when we look at a computer.
No one is talking about you, or about experiences of angels, demons, or whatever. I am talking about people who have first-hand experiences of God, and are perfectly rational to believe their own first-hand experience (just as you are perfectly rational to think that your friends have minds).
I have presented a deductive argument. You have three options: Defeat one of the premises, accept the conclusion, or admit to being irrational. Since you have yet to present any defeaters for any of the premises, and you clearly don't accept the conclusion, are you ready to take option 3?
He's also very good at name dropping and cherry picking quotes to make an argument from authority even when those authorities explicitly show why his interpretation is wrong. My favourite is the quote he often uses from Vilenkin's book which on the very next page Vilenkin explains why it should be no comfort for theists and that it doesn't imply what they try to imply with his work.
It's not that events are terminators, it's that the present moment (the vantage point from which we are looking back at the past and trying to decide if it's infinite or finite), is in fact here. If the sequence of events leading up to now were actually infinite, then it is inexplicable why "now" didn't arrive yesterday, or a hundred years ago.
If the changeless situation has instability to it, then it could not be changeless eternally. If the situation has always been unstable, then it should have broken down an infinite amount of time ago, not just 13 billion years (or any other finite amount of time) ago.
Cantor’s definition tamed infinity. It provided a rigorous method by which infinite sets could be compared. He used this idea to prove that there are just as many integers as even integers, since the function f(x)=2x provides the required one-to-one correspondence. He showed that there are just as many lattice points on the plane as there are integers. And Cantor even proved that there are as many rational numbers as there are integers.
Besides, if you're trying to say there was "sort-of nothing", but still something, and that it happened to spark a multiverse a finite time ago, then you are still committed to the cause having free will. Otherwise the changeless "almost-nothing" would remain changeless eternally. Those are your options. A fully-sufficient set of causal conditions will ALWAYS have its effect, unless the cause has free will to choose.
For the same reason that people still take Deepak Chopra seriously, there are a lot of ignorant people in the world that either, don't know how to search for actual truth or are too lazy to search for actual truth.
If we are in the midst of potential infinity, rather than at the end point of a completed infinity, then past is finite.
Special pleading doesn't mean "having only one example". I've told you this numerous times.
Causation (which just means "X is necessary an sufficient for Y") is a LOGICAL relation; not just one that exists in our own Universe.
... By the way, when I say "fine-tuned for life", I don't mean "designed for life". I just mean that these initial conditions fell into an extraordinarily narrow range of acceptable values such that life could eventually exist.
He did answer that question quite well to my satisfaction. By the way, Hitchens, et al have great respect for Craig, you can find this video by searching Hitchens on Craig, and the feeling is mutual. Craigs debating schedule is quite full and so I don't get your 'he can't get debates'. Let's stick with the arguments. :)
They hold it as a properly basic belief. Look it up. The point is that "atheist" means more than "unconvinced by current arguments". Every encyclopedia agrees.
Fine-tuned does NOT denote "intent" or anything of the kind. It merely means that the initial conditions of the Universe fell into the extraordinarily narrow ranges that they needed to in order for life to exist, and that life would not have existed if that hadn't been the case. As physicist Paul Davies puts it: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".
I'm not lying about what cosmologists think. Paul Davies says: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
The size of the Universe is necessary for just one life-bearing planet. And the points of contrast are in the possible values. We've been over this.
Each change would be an event. Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot. Either no changes are occuring, but everything is simultaneous and eternal, or else changes are happening, which would involve a sequence (one change after another). Pick one.
...would be begging the question. Since my arguments don't contain that premise, and my reasons for accepting that God can interact with physical reality are utterly separate arguments and empirical indications, there was never any chance of begging the question here.
This is amazingly simple: An orbit completes, and that's a "1". A second orbit completes, and that is a "2". No matter which planet you're dealing with, this is the case. And, in an infinite amount of time, a given planet's orbits will be equinumerous and identical with the set of natural numbers. What part of this don't you get??
You see, that baffles me. Several people on this thread (and others) have implied that I'm somehow engaging in special pleading for God. I have pointed out *repeatedly* that even God cannot create himself (any more than physical reality could) or persist over an infinite sequence of events (any more than physical reality could). The only thing God has that physical reality as a whole doesn't have is free choice to come out of a timeless state and make the first change a finite time ago.
That being said, it is a total distraction from our actual discussion:
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: Physical reality began to exist (could not persist over an infinite sequence which terminates, since no infinite sequence ever does terminate).
C1: Therefore, the whole of physical reality has some cause.
P3: X cannot cause X.
P4: Non-agential causes have their effects as long as they exist.
C2: The cause of all physical reality was a non-physical agent.
I know you can't count time before that event, because the state prior to the first event is "eventless" and changeless. However, if there is an instability that exists eternally within that changeless moment, then it should either always manifest itself (in which case the Universe would be eternally old), or it should never manifest itself (in which case the Universe would not ever exist). It cannot just manifest itself a finite time ago.
Poor Dawkins. He looks like an upstart freshman undergrad in the presence of Craig's tour de force.
First off, we're talking about whether physical reality (which INCLUDES time) can be infinite in the past. Secondly, calling them "past events" means that they precede the present. They have transpired prior to the present moment. As such, we again have a temporal relation. And since a given event transpired farther back from the present than some other, more recent event, we have an ordered sequence.
You are not really addressing the issue of ontological priority.
@@percyburkett1916
Could you elaborate a little, please? This comment you're responding to is 11 years old, and I honestly don't remember all the context.
Nutritionists tell us to take breaths between bites for several reasons. It's not a flaw. It's just variety. And there is nothing imperfect about having to eat a particular way. Variety doesn't mean one way is "better" than the others.
To a small child, the movement of ants may seem random, but meanwhile they're storing food for the winter, and building intricate cities underground, designed so perfectly they can resist floods. Randomness doesn't exist. Randomness is perceived when we see part of something (the ants scurrying along on the ground) without seeing the whole picture. If randomness existed, life would not.
As to a "selfish" moral framework, this would only be the case if the members were the ones who decided what was morally valuable. But they don't decide it; they discover it, and try to live accordingly. The objective truth that individuals are valuable is not decided by the individuals, and therefore is not "selfish".
I apologize for taking so long to respond this time. I have been sick the past few days.
Kenith, I'm not talking about relating points in time to an absolute beginning. I'm talking about a beginningless past, with an infinite number of past events. It is still the case that, for any three events, it is possible to relate them to each other as "X came before Y which came before Z". Thus, one event follows another, in a sequence {1, 2, 3}.
Well, just call it "beginningless", it still follows that the actualization of the instability should likewise be beginningless if the instability is always present in the system.
Virtual particles don't behave like anything in a timeless domain. Nothing behaves or acts at all in such a domain, or else there'd be a sequence of the behaviors. The sequence would begin with the first behavior or action.
And, by the way, I understood perfectly what you were saying about begging the question; but, you were simply wrong. And I defined "begging the question" for you, so that you wouldn't make the same mistake in the future.