Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
William Lane Craig: Is God a Delusion? Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford October 2011
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 ноя 2011
- Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to defend his book The God Delusion in public debate with William Lane Craig. The invitation remained open until the last minute. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. Craig then gave a lecture to a capacity audience on the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book and responded to a panel of academics. The event, which was chaired by atheist Prof. Peter Millican, was part of The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 sponsored by UCCF, Damaris & Premier Christian Radio.
For more information please visit:
www.bethinking....
www.premier.org...
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.
+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 ;)
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.
I absolutely love listening to Dr. Craig speak. Truly brilliant!
"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
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?
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.
brother craig truly is an inspiration
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
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!
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. ;-)
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.
Dawkins arguments? Destroyed...
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...
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?
Fantastic!
Richard dawkins got totally Destroyed
Ha! Three atheists and Craig still won :D
Excellent response.
If someone has "The God Delusion" on their bookshelf, I feel embarrassed for them.
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.
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.
🎯 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.
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.
1:05:12 guy in blue heavily invested in this discourse
The series of past events cannot be infinite. Period.
"Can't you read?" That's kind of a mean thing to say don't you think? Why did you say it?
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.
Do you have a link to a credible source that supports your assertion? I certainly can't find one. The only thing I find absurd so far is your requirement that these sets be the same after admitting not all infinities are equal.
Also if you're going to keep running in circles here, I see no further use of debating with you.
You made an assertion and failed to provide evidence to support it. I called you out on it and you've not countered my points. This argument will be over and you have lost unless you provide evidence to support your extraordinary claim.
An argument from ignorance is no justification to accept anything... find a better one!
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?
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.
Dawkins wouldn’t have stood a chance...
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...
"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."
You're a legend in your own mind
I have strong reasons to doubt, that you perceive word "cause" with it's original content, or as Craig himself understands it. Can you give me your definition of 'cause' please ?
And, by the way, drop the fine-tuning thing. I've said several times that it is off-topic, and it only came up because you said that theists avoid evidence, and I gave examples of where atheists are the ones avoiding evidence they don't like. End of story. I am not defending the fine-tuning point here.
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.
Dawkins is taking on where he came from
We have two infinities sets 1 being all positive integers 2 being all positive and negative integers. What you are saying is that infinity is impossible because for every 1 number in the first set there are 2 in the second?
I am answering all your points, and I am not running in circles. If you want to run away, that's your prerogative. But, if you have any confidence in your arguments, then you should respond to the responses that I just posted.
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.
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.
Man that wasn't a debate that was school and class was in session
Calm down, I don't agree with Sidney Lentz. He's an atheist fanatic. I was just saying that I don't agree with "Christian" speakers. Christians shouldn't need to listen to them to build up their faith. What do you not understand about what I said? I'm not really sure what you're asking...
... 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.
Of course not.
Don't try to slip in "laws of physics" when I never mentioned those. Laws of physics are just generalized observations of regularities. Physics and chemistry are both based on approximations all the way through, because they are both empirical. When did I ever say otherwise? Hm? Thought so. I said the laws of MATHEMATICS and LOGIC. Learn to read.
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.
You really make me laugh. The problems with the multiverse idea are mostly philosophical (like Occam's Razor), not scientific. Besides, it may very well be the case that there is a multiverse, but it still doesn't explain the fine-tuning without some pretty impressive fine-tuning of its own (in which case you've just pushed the problem back a step). Penrose actually recognizes this, by the way. Have you read "The Road to Reality"??
Prof Craig is very articulate but he is not at the top of his game when it comes to the problem of evil and always seems a little uncomfortable defending God against the existence of suffering. And this was evident with regard to the slaughter of the Canaanites where he gave a long and rather unconvincing speech that simply amounted to saying God can do whatever he considers to be morally justified, even if that means children must suffer.
Agreed. N. T. Wright and Peter Kreeft are much better on that subject.
+jarquontre I think he does a good job with the facts, but he's so much better when not dealing with emotionally heavy words. He's articulate and agile, but doesn't always feel like an emotive and empathetic speaker on such matters. He seems to have the facts right, but the words feel hollow because they sound like excuses instead of explanations because of how he says them. It's a hard thing to defend with facts alone. THe issue is incredibly muddled by how we view death and killing via human will versus an absolute divine will for whom death doesn't finish a person, it merely translates them irrevocably. ANd only the deity can know when this is the best for his world in total and still fair to the individuals involved. We just can't see that and we tend to feel that judging such is dangerous and leads to wanton evil on a moral slippery slope if we say such things are allowed and logical... but that's because we're us. He's temporally ignorant or causation, eternal effect, personal fairness and eternal persistence. So we feel... weird about it. ut that's why we're not God and he is. This is his purview and for him nothing is lost and everything is gained when it is right to do so.
I've seen a lot of Craig but I've not heard him give this argument elsewhere; perhaps he has thought better of it. He seems blissfully unaware that it is exactly the argument used by jihadists to justify the killing of the innocent and the righteous (from an Islamist point of view} by suicide bombers. I was pleased when he sat own to hear a few boos rise above the automatic applause from the faithful, who appeared, judging by the show of hands at the end, to have packed out the hall.
2) BA, why didn't read my posts #3 and #3 continued? They're right there for anyone to see. I gave the specific steps of how you get from "all of physical reality has a cause" to " the cause must be a non-physical person (or agent with free will)". The steps are all there. Which of them do you disagree with?
Your response to my analogy of machinery on Pluto (which would indeed warrant a design inference) is that Craig also used it? That's it? My analogy shows that design inferences can be valid. Who cares if someone else also uses the same analogy??
How does natural selection, which eliminates information, support evolution, which requires the creation and addition of new information?
natural selection changes the amount of a trait across a population
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.
Actually, your quote (from whatever unnamed source you copied it) doesn't contradict my point. Hilbert was referring to ALL infinities (be they sub-divisions of a finite space or extensions along a sequence). In every case, all we have is the idea of potential infinite (for example, the infinite subdivisions of a second don't actually exist, that's just a potential infinity, like the limits used in calculus). No actual infinite can be instantiated.
You are indeed late in the conversation, and so you've missed the part where we deduced that physical reality had a cause. We did so from the fact that it had a beginning, and that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. God, on the other hand, did not have a beginning, and therefore doesn't fall into the category of things which need causes.
Does that answer your question?
Do you agree that all past events have elapsed prior to the present moment? Isn't that what it means to be a "past" event?
BA, for the third time, I did not present the "machinery on distant planet" analogy as a support for the design argument. I presented it as a counter to the objection which was made "if you have to infer a designer for this Universe that appears designed, then who designed the designer?". The answer is that that's a separate question, just as it would be if we found machinery on a planet and inferred an alien civilization. We wouldn't need to know their origins in order to make that inference.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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)
I did not say anything about uniformity of speed. I said that after an infinite amount of time, the number of orbits for either planet would be equal to the full set of natural numbers (cardinality of "Aleph-null", look it up). They both complete 1 orbit after another, albeit at different speeds. You've lost. Give it up.
1) If you draw the circle, then the circle began to exist, when you drew it. And yes, the line has finite length and a beginning. It began when and where you drew it. This analogy really does not help you. The point is that, if you say "X has always had the fully sufficient conditions (including the random generator) in place to cause Y" you are logically committed to "Y has always existed". There is no way around this.
Every time he mentions "conjuring up a Terminator" I picture the Terminator from the movies.
Special pleading doesn't mean "having only one example". I've told you this numerous times.
From a 2023 perspective, the Darwinian argument no longer holds, as Darwin did not have a clue about the biological realities underlying his assumptions, though scientists cling to the worldview implied by it. Hearing the old evolutionary myths is off-putting.
The multiverse doesn't explain the fine-tuning as well (again, I cite Penrose's book, as well as the fact that the multiverse would itself need to be fine-tuned), and it violates Occam's Razor to choose infinite extra entities over one.
The conditions are beginningless.
The exact sequence of events in a given black hole will vary. What is the point of the question?
You really don't seem to get it. Let me lay this out for you:
1) Infinite sequence can't complete, therefore the sequence of past events isn't infinite.
2) That which begins must have a cause.
3) Multiverse or Universe doesn't matter; they all persist across a sequence of events, so they cannot be infinite.
4) A beginningless cause cannot have a finite effect unless the cause has free choice. I've explained this point numerous times. You're stuck with a cause that can make choices.
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.
Let's call this point 0 everything in the past is negative and everything in the future is positive. What is the finite amount of negative numbers?
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).
1) And what if the new members are friendlier? You're definitively stating thing you cannot possibly know. Without a point for comparison, your argument completely falls apart.
2) Exactly. You've simply taken one roll of a thousand die producing a completely random result and then asserted that result was exactly how your god intended. If the probability to getting a winning poker hand among a group is 1:1 then you've no reason to suspect anyone cheated.
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"
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.🙏
" I said you should reject beliefs that you have good reason to think are false."
Is a complete absence of supporting evidence a good reason to think an idea is false? Does rejection of an idea constitute a positive claim to you?
If I told you there was a magic invisible dragon on my shoulder right now, would the burden of proof be on you to prove it isn't there? Would you not be wrong to reject my unsupported claim without having first proved it wrong?
The point is that, if there IS evidence, then saying "we've never seen one before" or "all the X's we've seen before have been like Y not Z" is no counter-argument at all. That's all I'm saying.
Each event has to have elapsed prior to now, in a sequence, one after the other. That's what "past" means. So, either an actually infinite series can finish, and then afterward you have "now" (which you and I both agree is ludicrous), or else sequence of past events is finite. Which will it be?
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.
During this lecture, Dr. Craig says God exists timelessly, but he changed his mind. In other videos, he tells us that God is timeless without creation and temporal after it. Anything needs a cause when that thing has parts. The ability to go from being timeless to being temporal is a metaphysical part. So, Dr. Craig's theism produces an infinite causal regress. If classical theism is true and implies that God has no parts, Dr. Craig's God concept implies atheism.
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.
BA, I don't know if it's that you are responding too quickly or what, but I have already addressed everything you're saying. Why didn't you read them the first (or second or third) time I posted my responses? It's really starting to get annoying, especially since I do have other things to do with my time. Let me ennumerate my responses once again for you:
1) The claim that something is possible is the rational default until impossibility is shown. Period. This is standard knowledge....
P3: I didn't say that. I said that the first premise of the Kalam only applies to things which begin to exist. ANY eternal thing is immune from this premise.
P4: I did prove it. The meaning of the term "fully sufficient causal condition" entails that the effect exists as long as the cause does (otherwise it was clearly not "fully sufficient"). But, in the case of physical reality, it has a beginninigless cause, but it itself has only existed for a finite time. You need free will.
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'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.
But, if someone presented some evidence of an ET civilization (say, machinery and buildings found on some other planet), would you really respond by saying "it can't be ET, since we've never seen any before"??
1) The initial conditions I'm referring to are necessary for even BASIC CHEMISTRY to occur. It's not about "Earth-based life" vs. slightly different life. No life at all would be possible.
2) I never said scientists believed the Universe was "designed for life". Maybe you should try not lying yourself, and represent my position accurately. I said most cosmologists and astrophysicists agree the Universe is "fine-tuned" (initial conditions extremely unlikely); not "designed".
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.
You said it was drawn, and it is therefore not beginningless.
Actually, you said the random instability existed timelessly. If the analgoy is length:time, then you should have a circle with zero circumference (no circle at all). You see what happens when you don't think your analogies through?
The bottom line is this: If there is nothing missing from the causal conditions, then the effect must always exist. End of story.
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.
But I have addressed everything you've mentioned numerous times. God is not contradictory; I've countered every one of your examples. Saying we've never seen a non-physical consciousness before is no argument at all against the possibility that one exists, and therefore no argument against inferring design. Fine-tuning is standard cosmology, and I can provide quote after quote until you stop denying this. What more is there to say? Or for you to repeat?
Your choosing an arbitrary point does nothing negate infinity prior to or after that point. I'm saying the infinity doesn't end hence it being infinite.
And when did I ever mention religion or divine revelations from god?? Hm?
When did I ever attribute their accomplishments to their religious beliefs??? Never! I said that their belief in a rational God was what inspired and guided them, not their belief in some particular religion (which is a total red herring in this discussion, and yet you keep going back to it).
That an infinite sequence of successive additions does not terminate isn't just "proven", it's definitive.
1) If there were extraordinarily unlikely conditions to be met in order for something to be a liquid (rather than everything being solid), then maybe an argument could be made there. But that's just not the case. There is no exquisite fine-tuning needed for that category difference. However, to get life, you do need unfathomably unlikely conditions.
2) I'm showing that fine-tuning is standard cosmological knowledge, by citing the experts and textbooks. How else would I show that?