Christians will always tell you, we get our morals from the bible. .. i can smell bullshit here. The Aborigines have lived for thousands and thousands of years in complete harmony with nature, knowing right from wrong .. without any knowledge of the bible. Good video Askegg.
You know, this would sound ridiculous, except for the fact that you take this video out of context. It is a video aimed at Christians if they are conflicted with doubt. As Craig is certain on God's existence, it makes sense that he would tell others to seek God's help, or seek the Holy Spirit, or strengthen their faith through reason.
The arrogant confidence you exude in your poor arguments makes me cringe.
You moron. Craig may be certain is warm fuzzy feelings come from his god, but he has no way to verify this as fact. Encouraging people to ask Yahweh about their doubts of Yahweh makes as much sense as asking Zeus if Zeus exists.
The thing goes right back at you ask. Why dont you actually seek with an open mind and heart rather than closing everything off. Christians are not close minded. Atheists are. God bless.
People might attribute these "warm emotions" to different gods, but that doesn't deny that they're experiencing it. Just like an emotion like love, it's subjective. How is a feeling of an entity any different?
Of course, you would rationalise such feelings away as illusory. But where do you draw the line. Is love also illusory?
Pretty simple why you think you haven't experienced the Holy Spirit: because if you had, you would attribute it to biology. Just like love.
It is funny how all these atheists have to take personal attacks and call theists idiots.
They all either have 1. Sarcasm or 2. Condescending negativity or 3. Anger
2:28 that's not true, there are MANY Christians in the middle east AND in India. The decision is YOURS if you want o follow the truth or not. That's called FREE WILL. YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. So playing the trick if you are in another area, is bias.
5:18 because you HATE God. It is proved by your actions.
Intelligent sounding idiot sounds like a pretty apt description of this guy - you can dress it up in all the fancy words you want mate, what you're saying stil doesn't make sense!
See Craig has basically admitted that doesnt care about truth. To honestly seek truth you MUST doubt what you are told. Latching onto a particular belief and making the evidence fit that, is not a search for truth at all. And that's fine if that's the way he wants to live, but at least be honest about it.
I am in the same boat as you, well sort of the same, you'd have to be transgender to exacly the same but you know...
Anywayz, yuppers, it wasn't until I started posting vids on my transition to a female body that my eyes were open to all the crap that gets posted. Really blew me away and caused a few extra visits to the shrink lolzar!!
I think 1 part is the accesability these clowns have now, same as us clowns i spoze, and PC's are getting cheeper, yay/boo lol...
Crazy thing is, I actually don't know any in person. I mean if I hung around chuch's on sundays I might get a bite, but openly, I've only been told to leave 1 op shop 8(
The other crazy thing is, I played a gig tonight, went off (2pcs piano/drums), and the drummer, friend, is a Christian. Known him a long time. We both really enjoy each others playing and company. He had problems with drugs and turned to God to change
Never goes into it at all. Never preaches and laughs at my jokes XD XD!
Something that just occurred to me regarding Satin.
With all the planets in the universe why did God choose this one to cast him down to? Think of all the trouble that could have been avoided by sticking him on a planet on the other side of the universe.
"Blows your mind!" I'm the same.Before I started watching You Tube Vid's I didn't know about all these nut jobs! But hey shifting sands etc ....I am now a wiser atheist.
I've already hinted at how I would 'define' god: god is pure act, the ground of all being. Any attempt to speak about god, therefore, will necessarily rely upon analogy, since, as the ground of being, any conception of god must necessarily be broader than our broadest concept, viz. that of existence itself. Hence, the least we can say about anything, i.e. 'it is,' is still to narrow a way to speak about god, if we use the term univocally.
i asked you above but i'll ask a bit more clearly...
Is this the result of that book you keep mentioning? Aquinas's?
cause that book seems to be basing itself in the Bible... which is certainly not a book which demonstrates a being perfect actuality... the Biblical God seems to fluctuate between moods just as harshly as (pardon the sexism) some women
from what you've said and what i skimmed of Aquina's first book, none of this seems to support the Biblical God specifically. yet thinks it does
And if you have access to the internet -- which you clearly do -- then you have access to free versions of Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles, in a number of different translations, though it's better if you can read it in latin. Search for it on google and you'll find it quite easily.
that's what it means to be a theologian. you put your life into working out how to bend numerous fields (such as reason, philosophy, psychological, sociology, etc...) to fit religious texts.
they believe they have the answers and all they have to do now is play Jeopardy with science and thinking. Except... it's playing Jeopardy without a verifiably accurate "answer" "(question", technically, since it's Jeopardy) sheet.
yes, you support yourself with information from old-age theologians. The man in this video is not an old-age theologian.
Old-age theologians were simply trying to figure out why things were the way they were and instead of science (the devils work... retardly enough) they tried to think everything into understanding.
thinking something into understanding is delusion. evidence is necessary to verify things between people and you can't get 2 different people to think the same thing.
lol nice. They do play jeopardy don't they? They assume that the answer to everything is God, and then arrange their thinking around that. For example: God exists. Therefore God must be hiding from scientists. Therefore lack of scientific evidence for God is meaningless. Therefore God exists.
About that "holy spirit" that he thinks he talks to, I found Dan Barker's recent explanation of this to be enlightening. According to him there really is something going on in their heads.
Yes. This is certainly the hardest thing to break away from when one is losing their faith. I know from experience that the personal relationship with ones god does feel very real. It's an emotional crutch that's very hard to abandon when you've used it your entire life. But you can come to realize you do the same through simple meditation or introspection and that all religions claiming to have this same experience makes no sense if only your religion is supposed to be having it.
and longhornman99001 has already started blocking comments when i was about to give him his link showing craig is indeed a fellow of the discovery institute. it really says a lot.
You say that faith is belief without evidence, and go on to support it by saying that the dictionary defines faith as belief without proof, which tells me you have no idea that there's a huge difference between 'evidence' and 'proof.'
Oh, and Craig got his PHDs (plural) at the University of Birmingham (philosophy, under Hick) and the University of Munich (theology, under Pannenberg). Now, those are pretty good schools, and top scholars, eh?
Which shows that you know even less about theology than you do about philosophy.
See David Bentley Hart on the scholarly range required by those who study theology (philosophy, history, classical languages, modern languages, etc. in addition to theology proper).
Dude, if you're comparing the scholarly apparatus required to do work in theology with popular level, new age justifications of feng shui, then you're beyond clueless...
Oh please do tell me the scholarly apparatus employed to determine Mary was a virgin, of people can turn into pillars of salt, or women can be made from a man's rib, or a god gave us a rainbow after he killed everything on Earth, or donkeys can talk, or people can walk on water or live inside big fish.
* Anthropology of religion, * Comparative religion, * History of religions, * Philosophy of religion, * Psychology of religion, * Sociology of religion.
this seems to be what wikipedia points towards theology as being... pretty sad.
what results from these fields of study can you possibly yield when you're inherently at a disposition to believe what a single, unaccredited, book tells you?
theology, as i see it, isn't a study. it's a self-serving bullshit program.
Ah yes, and the fact that you're using 'wikipedia' as a source is telling, especially when it's the source you're using to attempt to understand the very field we're discussing -- and that you're criticizing! What does that tell you: you're criticizing an entire field of study with less than a wikipedia quality understanding of it! Brilliant!
What are the fruits of the labor of theology? How do they compensate for thousands of years of the worst crimes in human history and the general retardation and oppression of the general public?
what have we GAINED from theology? what has it proven? what product has it made from all the reactants which it has consumed?
I fail to see the benefits and if someone is going to say "you must believe in the benefits to see them" well... fuck those idiots.
The fruits of theology? You're kidding, right? Have you never heard of the popular saying, 'Western civilization is built on two pillars: Athens and Jerusalem'? Have you never studied the history of philosophy, of science, of political theory? Ha ve you never wondered why modern science arose in theologically informed cultures of the West, as opposed to the more technologically advanced (at the time) cultures of the East? "The less they know, the less they know it" -- indeed.
"'Western civilization is built on two pillars: Athens and Jerusalem?"
never once heard it. (you seem intelligent. refrain from ad hominems please k thanks)
Why did modern science arise in the west? when you say west, do we mean the Americas or do we mean west Europe? depending on what times we're talking (and where you live) west changes
also, i was meaning "fruits" as in literal applications of life. science is inevitable; theology retards that unless you can somehow show otherwise
so if you can't be using objective concepts in theology, and subjective concepts can't be used outside the mind of origin... what exactly does a PHD in theology give you?
if you're talking about analyzing the Bible and such, I'd call that being a historian or something to that degree. that isn't a study of God unless you make a BOLD assumption that, IF God exists, he is, at least for the time being, allowing things to remain constant.
Saying somebody has a phd in anything is a false argument from authority anyway. Somebody could have a phd in biology and turn around and say they believe in young earth creationism or some other harebrained hypothesis but it doesn't make them right just because they have a phd.
if the apple can control the entirety of what it, itself, is. how would you define it?
you could say it's somewhat round, red, has a stem etc... but the second you define it, it could change itself. That's what God must be in order to truly fulfill what our word god means
if the apple changed itself, it would no longer be an apple and we wouldn't call it as such.
we call such a thing which cannot be defined, God.
Kukzula, try reading the first book of Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles. You'll see that god is a purely actual being (i.e. pure act, without admixture of potentiality), and that a purely actual being must have certain properties. Again, your premise is simply bizarre. It evinces an almost unimaginable ignorance of just about anything said about god's nature by most of the greatest philosophers in the Western tradition (and, indeed, an unimaginable ignorance of pholosophy itself).
lul. damn sophists. So sure of their knowledge and the doubt in others. Keep at it big guy, one day you might get someone who's willing to take you seriously and maybe with a stroke of luck, and relaxing of your intellectual chicanery, you'll realize your pompous asshole act isn't going to work on everyone.
you don't get the point... god CAN'T have certain properties unless he chooses to define himself as having certain properties FOR THE TIME BEING. He has to be able to modify his own properties otherwise he wouldn't be a God because he wouldn't be omnipotent.
technically, God must have all properties and no properties (as limited by logic. God can't modify logic)
i don't have access to that book at the time. care to explain it in a private message or link me to a site?
Kukzula, no, it's clearly you who don't get the point. Let me demonstrate this: you claim that god must be able to modify his properties or he wouldn't be omnipotent. *Nonsense*. Omnipotence is defined (by philosophers; don't throw any irrelevant 'dictionary' definitions at me) as the ability to bring about any coherent state of affairs. Now, could a purely actual being 'modify his properties'? *No*. Anyone who understands what is meant by pure act would see the obvious contradiction.
i get your point. but your point seems to be this:
God cannot modify himself because such isn't part of being omnipotent, it's simple absurd. God's attributes are infinite in degree and "weakening" an infinite isn't infinitely difficult, it's mathematically impossible.
let me ask you something... What is your definition of God? omnipotent and what else? you're the only person i've ever heard define omnipotence as you did, so i'm curious how else you define God.
To modify something is to change it. To change X presupposes that X is in a state of potentiality with respect to that change. Now, god is a purely actual being (a conclusion of rigorous and detailed argumentation, not a mere assertion), and a purely actual being, by definition, contains no admixture or potentiality and actuality: it's pure actuality. But then it cannot be in *any* state of potentiality, and so cannot change. So, god is immutable.
rigorous and detailed argumentation with a presupposition stating that the Bible is true or at least partially true; to an extent such that we can expand upon it and obtain further truths.
there is no undeniable evidence of God so "rigorous and detailed argumentation" doesn't really hold any higher merit than simple belief.
I will agree tho, that if a God does exist, it would have to exist by your details lest it be deemed a demi-god
question: is this the result of that book you mentioned?
Absolutely wrong again, Kukulza. Aquinas's arguments begin with empirical premises, e.g. 'some things change.' They don't in any way presuppose 'the Bible is true'; have you never heard of natural theology?
Also, it's telling that you so readily deny that a book you've never read contains rigorous and detailed argumentation. My, what faith you have!
Aquinas's arguments are premised on a broadly Aristotelian metyaphysics -- nothing more.
then that simply means that, by your rough instructions, i found the wrong thing online. i (as you instructed) googled "Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles" and grabbed the 3rd site from the top.
do that yourself and go to that site or just google it yourself and tell me, which from the top should i go to? obviously, youtube won't let you put a direct link into comments, so just give me some sort of instruction to a site on this book.
Darktango78, wow, no, I don't think heretics should be put to death, no more than I, accepting wholeheartedly the biological theory of evolution, think that 'the races' have different intellectual capacities, as Darwin argues in chapter five of 'The Descent of Man.' Are *you* a racist? No? Gee, then I guess it's *not* the case that if you claim some thinker got X right it follows that he got *everything* right. But then, I'm sure you knew that already...
Merely telling someone that Aquinas said something is not much help, especially in light of the mental contortions he could go through to come to conclusions we clearly disagree with.
It is better to re-articulate an argument and show how it stands on its own merits.
Darktango, I submit that when you have a 500 space limit and are discussing topics that are never treated in 101 level texts with fewer than 100 pages, it's much better to refer people to works that are freely available online than it is to present what would inevitably be simplistic caricatures of serious philosophical arguments.
I agree, but you can often comunicate the gist and then add a reference rather than condescend those who are unfamiliar with a text.
To add to a previous point, while Darwin my have had some racist conclusions he never claimed to come from a field that had the morality market cornered, so to speak.
To this day Aquinas is held by the Catholic Church as the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood.
Do you know if the Church has issued a retraction for his broken morality?
Darktango, in general I agree, but there is a further problem with attempting to 'communicate the gist' of the arguments of a philosopher like Aquinas with a 500 space limit, viz. Aquinas uses familiar terms like cause, act, potentiality, essence, etc. in entirely unfamiliar ways (hence very common atheist misunderstandings). I other words, to communicate the gist effectively I'd have in essence to teach a mini course on Aquinas in youtube comboxes, which is not feasible; hence the reference.
Even without "insults", I very much doubt that you could ever be convinced. You are, of course, welcome to prove me wrong.
If you were open to the possibility that your beliefs are incorrect, then the excellent, evidence-based, phenomenological explanations that abound should already have convinced you. Even if the facts might ultimately convince you, deconversion is, by all accounts, a protracted process.
How can someone be disrespectful of a non-entity? That is impossible. Let's trash Santa, shall we? Oh, let's see now. Santa is a big fat nutjob that thinks he can fly around the world with reindeer that fly and pull a sleigh at the same time. How about Thor(sorry Thor worshippers)? His hammer is so small, he can't even hit a brick wall let alone a nail.
Also, did you know that the Purple People Pulverizers from planet Zenon are assholes and smell like moldy cheese?
another Berlinski type shill. he thinks that just because he uses certain mannerisms and vocabulary it makes him smart.
and, are we supposed to think it is a coincidence that they just "happen" to be christian in addition to being creationist? BULLSHIT. they're creationists BECAUSE they're already christian. show me one pagan creationist. ONE.
4:05ish: You start your Changing Reasons point with "the evidence changes." To be as clear as possible for the religious numbnutjobs, this isn't the optimal opener for that paragraph. Discovered evidence doesn't often change; previous evidence can be more correctly interpreted in light of new evidence. "Science is always changing" is a key [invalid] argument by (and only plausible to) the faith side, so science's New / Better Evidence aspect should be presented in crystal clear statements.
GR8 vid mate, I'm going to have a bad life of drinking,gambling smoking and holidays in thailand. I really hope Ive done enough to go to hell, because eternity with self righteous christians is indeed hell
And add to that, the fact(well, not really) that I don't want to hang with any of the folks who will be going 'up there' since they are delusional and hypocritical.
The thing is that this (Craig's) video was probably made in a creationist surrounding, he wouldn't say such(honest) things about himself in a different surrounding.
His video should be played on some debate. After he says that "we're here to look at the evidence", so that people can see what a dishonest prick he is.
How did you find out that he is a closet creationist? Please enlighten me.
What creationist arguments do you speak of?
"But what is most important is that he is a dishonest arrogant idiot."
I find it hilarious that people who label themselves "freethinkers" spend most of their time just running around insulting their opponents instead of responding to their arguments. Did you know that a "dishonest arrogant idiot" could also make valid arguments?
WLC believes god created everything from (presumedly) nothing at all. This makes him a creationist. Perhaps not a young earth creationist, but a creationist none the less.
Come on, that is not the common definition of "creationist." Would you call Kenneth Miller a creationist? Would you call Francis Collins a creationist?
So, it follows that creationists can accept everything contemporary science (and, I emphasize the word 'science' here) tells us about evolution. Interesting use of the term...
That is not where I am going at all. I would say that big bang cosmology shows that there must be a beginning to this universe. I would then go from there.
No, a beginning entails that matter/energy came into being at some point.
Actually, big bang cosmology is full of failed attempts at creating some sort of steady-state or cyclical model, but the evidence doesn't support them. Read Craig's chapter.
Did you just disagree with my by agreeing with me?
We can trace the universe back to the Planck epoch beyond which we have no experimental data to confirm or disprove any of the mathematical predictions of any model. We simply do not know. What you have is an argument from ignorance,and a god of the gaps argument for a deist god.
At the risk of repeating Mr. Skegg here: There's no evidence to the contrary that matter and energy haven't always existed in one form or the other and in fact no reason to assume that existence is not simply their natural state.
Now why do I want to read what a theologian has to say about cosmology?
A one-off geometric configuration based on a simple arithmetic formula? That would do it ;)
I suspect that he was thinking of a universe that will expand "expandentially". I also suspect that he was not sure what the heck he was talking about ;^/
William Lane Craig has to be one of the most overrated Christian "intellectuals". Any misguided respect for the guy is based purely on his very polished delivery of shabby arguments. If people truly investigate the substance of his rhetoric, and don't get enamored with his eloquence, Craig's arguments are no better than any teenager who tries to employ apologetics for the first time. His apologetics, much like all Christian apologetics, is just a mess of circular reasoning and non sequiturs.
Up until about a month ago, I would have agreed with Craig about the HS, until I was witnessing to a Muslim who gave me a very similar testimony of how he has an internal 100% witness of God that Islam is true. I am forced to now say that he has been tricked and I have not. because Christianity is superior. The other problem I have is that the HS is giving competing theology to different Christians for some reason.
Yes I do, and the only biblical answer is that Satan is at work in all other religions and that God allows this (false internal testimony) or in fact ordains this. Would you have said the same when you were a Christian? As for the HS, if the issue is not esential then difference of opinion is ok, or the HS is not working the way Christians believe. They are my only biblical answers.
I never held the view Satan corrupted the minds of other religions, or that god allowed it.
What is interesting to me here is that you can see every religion has an equal claim to the truth if we restrict ourselves to personal feelings - and that is the point I was making. You continue to believe in your god for purely personal emotional reasons nonetheless.
let me first say that although I am a Christian I have been challenged to seriously consider the evidence of cosmology and evolution and examine the bible for error.
I have at least 5 criteria for why I would leave the church. 1 If we evolved and were not created. 2 If the universe is eternal. 3 If Jesus never existed. 4 Serious error in the bible. 5 If aliens exist.
"" why I would leave the church. 1 If we evolved and were not created ""
You need investigate no further than that criterion, leave the church. Let me guess. The evidence is all there, but you will ignore / deny the evidence because you are unprepared to put mountains of evidence (and logic) ahead of emotion.
The same holds for 4. I imagine that your definition of "serious" is conveniently "flexible".
2 and 5 are irrelevant; proof of 3 is logically impossible.
as far as aliens go, with the universe being as big as it is, and despite that most of it's composition is hostile to life, there is little reason why there shouldn't be aliens, even if we never find them, and regardless of how advanced they are. also, even if there isn't, why would a god make a universe so incredibly large, and thereby useless, for only one spec to have life on it?
I think the main reason you should leave the church would be because you can still have your faith without it.
The first logical reason is that I can't get my head around the complexity of life on earth and the cosmos and how these things began, I mean take the big bang...where did the stuff come from that banged? what did it sit in before it banged, what was before that...and how fortunate that it banged and formed a planet like ours. That is just as hard for me to believe as it is for you to believe God has always existed.
But if you believe god never began why did matter have to begin? Why does matter and energy need a beginning if god does not?
We don't have all of the answers to your questions. We don't really know if an earth like world is a fortunate creation or a common one. We don't even know if the universe is a small part of an even larger system we can't yet understand. But it does us no good to say god did it and to stop searching for answers. Maybe god did to it, but we don't have that evidence yet.
In fact I said if the universe is eternal I am leaving the church.
You might be right when you say god did do it. I my mind that seems more likely...but hey I am open to the evidence, if I am wrong I want to know the truth and not live a lie.
Why does it seem more likely? You're going about this the wrong way. You want evidence to disprove god. That evidence does not exist. The same goes to evidence that proves god, that evidence does not exist either.
'""The first logical reason is that I can't get my head around""
Failure of understanding is not a logical argument. It is essentially an argument from incredulity and, as such, is a fallacy of logic.
If you wish to claim that "God" has "always existed", then it is equally plausible that some pre-singularity stuff has "always existed". We have evidence for the universe, not for "God".
I assume that you are aware that time does not obtain in the absence of matter/energy.
A condition where there would be no matter or energy would be a complete vacuum with a temperature of absolute zero.
But in the case of matter and energy neither can be created or destroyed, just converted from one to another. We have never observed matter or energy coming into creation or being destroyed, just changed into different states.
It's just a volume of space that is empty of matter. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the default position you just asked what something without matter or energy would be.
There is no such thing as a complete perfect vacuum. Outer space is the closest approximation of a perfect vacuum but even that contains atoms of hydrogen in small quantities and energy in the form of cosmic background radiation.
I think that the point about the fact that time is tied to matter is counter-intuitive. If there is no matter (energy), then there is no time. This means that there cannot be a "before". It also means that there cannot be a beginning. It also means that matter is tied to "always".
I know, it's as counter-intuitive as relativity is from within a Newtonian framework.
as far as not being able to get your head around it, it's still not quite a logical conclusion to draw from incredulity. As far as what happened before the big bang, what real fabric to the universe that puts the elements and forces into the arrangement that they are, those are open questions, but not satisfied by filling them with equally inexplicable deity placeholders. If there is a gap in knowledge, to fill it with a deity only serves as an impediment to finding the knowledge.
Also, just because a lot of things are unanswered and some things may forever be ambiguous, does not necessitate that we answer them right away with whatever we assume makes the most sense to us. It's ok to not know. It may feel cold and confusing some of the ways things are, but don't cut yourself short with something that feels good, but is equally as void in reasoned substance as not having any idea.
To invoke a god is to invoke your own preferences without backed reasons. Feeling in control
My doubts lead me to science, history, and books filled with proven facts. Then off to the museum where I found evidence I could see and touch. It was pretty hard to doubt that over empty and selfish promises. The last place I was going to turn was to the book filled with nothing but more doubt and deceit.
Very well thought of video as usual. But don't forget that each of us is a result of mutated genes. Most religious people would love to know how everything was created and until the scientists come up with an answer that pleases everyone you will be forever fighting religious dogma. You said in 1 of you videos u used to be a Christian so you must know how hard it is to stop believing f it gives you comfort.
WLC is so full of shit. Notice how he uses ten dollar words where they are totally unnecessary just to obfuscate and sound intellectual. It's amazing that he's one of the best apologetica has to offer.
I can't believe you are making such a big deal out of this clip. He is just endorsing reformed epistemology. If you knew what he was saying, you would realize that it is not "full of shit." (By the way, I want to make it clear that I am NOT insulting your intelligence.) I would be happy to explain it to you in the form of a video response if you like.
You can't help but notice his overuse of intelligent sounding language. "Contingent circumstances" for example. Once you wade through this swamp to the meat of his arguments, there is precious little there. Perhaps it's a deliberate tactic since debunking these convoluted structures takes far to much time and effort for most people to achieve in debate scenarios.
Um, those are standard terms in philosophy that would be familar to a sophomore philo major. Now, the fact that you describe them as 'intelligent sounding language' is telling -- it tells us that you know less about philosophy than your average philo sophomore. And, since Craig is disucssing philosophy, it tells us that you haven't done the necessary work even to understand him, much less critique him!
using jargon as buzzwords is only an attempt at camouflaging the argument. just because somebody knows some terms on a subject, doesn't mean that other people who don't know them aren't qualified to see the argument. the structure of his arguments are very simple. i could ramble all day about electrical engineering terms and just because you might not know them, does that mean I'm automatically right?
maybe if you were a sophomore philo student, you'd know such argument validity basics.
Thrashero, let's now try a parallel case, okay? Suppose that you, as an electrical engineer, put a video on youtube in which you discuss optimization using the Pareto set. Would it be better if I slammed *you* for addressing topics relevant to *your* field with *your* technical terms by complaining that *I* don't understand them, or would it be better if I kept my mouth shut premised on the notion that I simply don't have a right to an opinion on subjects I don't understand? Obvious answer, eh?
Well, he's not speaking in a tense that nobody but philosophers can understand. he's just dropping terms here and there, and while they may vaguely apply, doesn't really prove his argument any more true than if he didn't use them. as another user so concisely put it, verbose sophistry. of which you're also doing very well at displaying.
If I were to explain how a radar works very wrongly yet dropped a few terms here and there, it doesn't make my argument inmmune to those ignorant of those terms.
Also, I'd like to point out that the analogy of electronic terms to philosophical theism terms isn't a very good one. Considering the fact that electronics is testable and real. Theism isn't, and varies from person to person. it's like comparing apples to oranges. Unfalsifiable claims with special terms are still unfalsifiable claims. But my argument still stands that you can't assume some person with knowledge of terms is automatically right if you don't know them. Just even more so with theism
Also, 'jargon' does precisely the opposite: it *clarifies* meaning by stipulating that certain terms will be used in certain ways. If you want to discuss philosophy seriously, you'll have to learn the jargon.
And I agree, the structure of Craig's argument is quite simple, but the issued raised by the premises are anything but simple. Just think about the issues raised by the 'A' theory of time (McTaggart's term) the argument's premises presuppose.
No, it doesn't clarify the meaning at all. If it were a philosophy class and he wants to use special-knowledge terms then, that's understandable, but he's speaking to the public. And in doing so, he's making points people can easily understand, but dressing it up with superfluous special terms here and there. It's not clarifying his point whatsoever. It's making it seem nicer. If you want to discuss philosophy seriously, don't consider jargon as useful in proving a point unless.
He is a philosopher and the topic he is speaking on is complex and full of nuances. Of course what he says will be "intelligent sounding language." And there is meat in his argument. I can give you a video response explaining this if you would like.
It's hard for us atheists to not sound arrogant, but every single argument by the religious crowd is just so damn stupid beyond belief that it's hard for us to criticize it in a way that doesn't make us look arrogant. Their arguments are so damn ridiculous that it would be hard to not laugh or get angry and shout at them to wake the fuck up.
not only that but the religious try to tell atheists that they are sorry for us. And the same repeated arguements that we have to debunk over and over just to realize that person doesnt care what we say because we are always wrong in their eyes... Thats something that makes me sound angery when I try discussing my point of veiw.
But technically we're not nearly as arrogant as they are. We don't claim to hold the absolute truth. They do. That is the very definition of arrogant.
That was great.
camino1ca 2 years ago
Christians will always tell you, we get our morals from the bible. .. i can smell bullshit here. The Aborigines have lived for thousands and thousands of years in complete harmony with nature, knowing right from wrong .. without any knowledge of the bible. Good video Askegg.
bonnie43uk 2 years ago
now, imagine a place where everyone thinks that way....and everyone thinks you're stupid for thinking what you just said...welcome to my world.
TheAist 2 years ago
You make me sad :(
askegg 2 years ago
dont be sad, i look at it like an opportunity
TheAist 2 years ago
Seeking God's help...for doubts about God.
You know, this would sound ridiculous, except for the fact that you take this video out of context. It is a video aimed at Christians if they are conflicted with doubt. As Craig is certain on God's existence, it makes sense that he would tell others to seek God's help, or seek the Holy Spirit, or strengthen their faith through reason.
The arrogant confidence you exude in your poor arguments makes me cringe.
nathan192001 2 years ago
You moron. Craig may be certain is warm fuzzy feelings come from his god, but he has no way to verify this as fact. Encouraging people to ask Yahweh about their doubts of Yahweh makes as much sense as asking Zeus if Zeus exists.
askegg 2 years ago
The thing goes right back at you ask. Why dont you actually seek with an open mind and heart rather than closing everything off. Christians are not close minded. Atheists are. God bless.
xchampx 2 years ago
People might attribute these "warm emotions" to different gods, but that doesn't deny that they're experiencing it. Just like an emotion like love, it's subjective. How is a feeling of an entity any different?
Of course, you would rationalise such feelings away as illusory. But where do you draw the line. Is love also illusory?
Pretty simple why you think you haven't experienced the Holy Spirit: because if you had, you would attribute it to biology. Just like love.
nathan192001 2 years ago
I do not doubt WLC has emotions, but I doubt they come from some intelligent being from beyond space and time.
askegg 2 years ago
I see a lot of anger and hate behind this guys eyes. I feel bad for him. I will pray for this guy. God bless.
xchampx 2 years ago
There is no anger, just frustration that someone who seems so intelligent can be so easily misled.
askegg 2 years ago
8:42 Hey bud, why don't you actually challenge a debate with him. He is smart. Ask everyone who has debated him.
xchampx 2 years ago
Sure. You fly me over to America and put me up for a few days and I will have a chat to WLC.
askegg 2 years ago
It is funny how all these atheists have to take personal attacks and call theists idiots.
They all either have 1. Sarcasm or 2. Condescending negativity or 3. Anger
2:28 that's not true, there are MANY Christians in the middle east AND in India. The decision is YOURS if you want o follow the truth or not. That's called FREE WILL. YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. So playing the trick if you are in another area, is bias.
5:18 because you HATE God. It is proved by your actions.
You still have time to repent
xchampx 2 years ago
Intelligent sounding idiot sounds like a pretty apt description of this guy - you can dress it up in all the fancy words you want mate, what you're saying stil doesn't make sense!
spinkwotzer 2 years ago
Here via Tooltime's feature of your vid, brilliant take down of all his arguments. 5 stars.
dominictemple 2 years ago
See Craig has basically admitted that doesnt care about truth. To honestly seek truth you MUST doubt what you are told. Latching onto a particular belief and making the evidence fit that, is not a search for truth at all. And that's fine if that's the way he wants to live, but at least be honest about it.
Staunts 2 years ago
Heya 8)))
I am in the same boat as you, well sort of the same, you'd have to be transgender to exacly the same but you know...
Anywayz, yuppers, it wasn't until I started posting vids on my transition to a female body that my eyes were open to all the crap that gets posted. Really blew me away and caused a few extra visits to the shrink lolzar!!
I think 1 part is the accesability these clowns have now, same as us clowns i spoze, and PC's are getting cheeper, yay/boo lol...
PurplenovaX 2 years ago
But
Crazy thing is, I actually don't know any in person. I mean if I hung around chuch's on sundays I might get a bite, but openly, I've only been told to leave 1 op shop 8(
The other crazy thing is, I played a gig tonight, went off (2pcs piano/drums), and the drummer, friend, is a Christian. Known him a long time. We both really enjoy each others playing and company. He had problems with drugs and turned to God to change
Never goes into it at all. Never preaches and laughs at my jokes XD XD!
PurplenovaX 2 years ago
Something that just occurred to me regarding Satin.
With all the planets in the universe why did God choose this one to cast him down to? Think of all the trouble that could have been avoided by sticking him on a planet on the other side of the universe.
traog 2 years ago
ask yourself if this makes sense:
1. God makes everything including Satan.
2. Satan, living as God created him, "betrays" God.
3. God banishes Satan to Earth, the future home of his divine creation, which he "loves."
4. God creates Adam/Eve in a particular state of being (mentally).
5. Adam/Eve, living through this particular state, while under God's omniscience? and omnipresence? and omnipotence?, are "misguided" by Satan.
6. God punishes Adam/Eve/Satan for betraying him... ....
wait... what?
kukulza 2 years ago
T'is a silly tale for sure.
The more I learn about the universe, and I know practically nothing about it, the more ridiculous that story gets.
traog 2 years ago
TheoreticalBullshit has an excellent video along these lines called "God's Checklist". Check it out here watch?v=DvRPbsXBVBo
askegg 2 years ago
i've seen it, it's FANTASTIC.
kukulza 2 years ago
I've seen TBS's video, it immediately went into my favorites. :)
traog 2 years ago
mind blown
RustyCyler 2 years ago
"Blows your mind!" I'm the same.Before I started watching You Tube Vid's I didn't know about all these nut jobs! But hey shifting sands etc ....I am now a wiser atheist.
flyingfisbeefilms 2 years ago
I've already hinted at how I would 'define' god: god is pure act, the ground of all being. Any attempt to speak about god, therefore, will necessarily rely upon analogy, since, as the ground of being, any conception of god must necessarily be broader than our broadest concept, viz. that of existence itself. Hence, the least we can say about anything, i.e. 'it is,' is still to narrow a way to speak about god, if we use the term univocally.
edejardin 2 years ago
i asked you above but i'll ask a bit more clearly...
Is this the result of that book you keep mentioning? Aquinas's?
cause that book seems to be basing itself in the Bible... which is certainly not a book which demonstrates a being perfect actuality... the Biblical God seems to fluctuate between moods just as harshly as (pardon the sexism) some women
from what you've said and what i skimmed of Aquina's first book, none of this seems to support the Biblical God specifically. yet thinks it does
kukulza 2 years ago
Great video. And yes he is a sneaky, contriving little bastard.
kelliko70 2 years ago
And if you have access to the internet -- which you clearly do -- then you have access to free versions of Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles, in a number of different translations, though it's better if you can read it in latin. Search for it on google and you'll find it quite easily.
edejardin 2 years ago
It was a bit awkward at the beginning but YUP another great video.
WLC is a...
deefsound 2 years ago
Excellent video! Clearly WLC only loves and respects reason as long as it agrees with his religion.
NotWhollySane 2 years ago
that's what it means to be a theologian. you put your life into working out how to bend numerous fields (such as reason, philosophy, psychological, sociology, etc...) to fit religious texts.
they believe they have the answers and all they have to do now is play Jeopardy with science and thinking. Except... it's playing Jeopardy without a verifiably accurate "answer" "(question", technically, since it's Jeopardy) sheet.
kukulza 2 years ago
Kukzula, nearly everything I've said was clearly argued for by philosophers and theologians long before the rise of modern science.
edejardin 2 years ago
yes, you support yourself with information from old-age theologians. The man in this video is not an old-age theologian.
Old-age theologians were simply trying to figure out why things were the way they were and instead of science (the devils work... retardly enough) they tried to think everything into understanding.
thinking something into understanding is delusion. evidence is necessary to verify things between people and you can't get 2 different people to think the same thing.
kukulza 2 years ago
lol nice. They do play jeopardy don't they? They assume that the answer to everything is God, and then arrange their thinking around that. For example: God exists. Therefore God must be hiding from scientists. Therefore lack of scientific evidence for God is meaningless. Therefore God exists.
NotWhollySane 2 years ago
Well done askegg
About that "holy spirit" that he thinks he talks to, I found Dan Barker's recent explanation of this to be enlightening. According to him there really is something going on in their heads.
Listen to Dan Barker here from about 3:50
watch?v=jb-qViJ9jFM
If true it explains alot of these ideas they have like spirituality and "I know the truth"
If the brain does operate like this for some it's a wonder any of them escape from having it forced on them as children.
gph61 2 years ago
Yes. This is certainly the hardest thing to break away from when one is losing their faith. I know from experience that the personal relationship with ones god does feel very real. It's an emotional crutch that's very hard to abandon when you've used it your entire life. But you can come to realize you do the same through simple meditation or introspection and that all religions claiming to have this same experience makes no sense if only your religion is supposed to be having it.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
is it just me or does it look like askegg has a very shiny tooth?
fakeham 2 years ago
No - I see it too. The light is in a bad position.
askegg 2 years ago
and longhornman99001 has already started blocking comments when i was about to give him his link showing craig is indeed a fellow of the discovery institute. it really says a lot.
valvatica 2 years ago
How could I block comments? This is not my video. What are you even talking about?
Send me the link in the email. I don't think youtube allows links in the description box.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
By description box, I meant comment. Oops.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
I'm glad askegg has interpreted Will's blathering. I didn't understand his white noise. It just rattled in my head without any logical meaning.
limpnail 2 years ago
BEAUTIFUL video.
rrpauldoran 2 years ago
You say that faith is belief without evidence, and go on to support it by saying that the dictionary defines faith as belief without proof, which tells me you have no idea that there's a huge difference between 'evidence' and 'proof.'
Oh, and Craig got his PHDs (plural) at the University of Birmingham (philosophy, under Hick) and the University of Munich (theology, under Pannenberg). Now, those are pretty good schools, and top scholars, eh?
edejardin 2 years ago
A PHD in theology has as much value as a PHD in Feng Shui.
askegg 2 years ago
Which shows that you know even less about theology than you do about philosophy.
See David Bentley Hart on the scholarly range required by those who study theology (philosophy, history, classical languages, modern languages, etc. in addition to theology proper).
edejardin 2 years ago
You don't think Feng Shui is based on physics, chemistry, philosophy, history, with a good chunk of bullshit thrown in?
askegg 2 years ago
Dude, if you're comparing the scholarly apparatus required to do work in theology with popular level, new age justifications of feng shui, then you're beyond clueless...
edejardin 2 years ago
Oh please do tell me the scholarly apparatus employed to determine Mary was a virgin, of people can turn into pillars of salt, or women can be made from a man's rib, or a god gave us a rainbow after he killed everything on Earth, or donkeys can talk, or people can walk on water or live inside big fish.
And you call me clueless. Fucktard.
askegg 2 years ago
You think *that's* theology?
Clueless indeed....
edejardin 2 years ago
* Anthropology of religion, * Comparative religion, * History of religions, * Philosophy of religion, * Psychology of religion, * Sociology of religion.
this seems to be what wikipedia points towards theology as being... pretty sad.
what results from these fields of study can you possibly yield when you're inherently at a disposition to believe what a single, unaccredited, book tells you?
theology, as i see it, isn't a study. it's a self-serving bullshit program.
kukulza 2 years ago
Ah yes, and the fact that you're using 'wikipedia' as a source is telling, especially when it's the source you're using to attempt to understand the very field we're discussing -- and that you're criticizing! What does that tell you: you're criticizing an entire field of study with less than a wikipedia quality understanding of it! Brilliant!
edejardin 2 years ago
Hollow accusations against me, yet no actual arguments against the points put forward. Yawn. Why am I not surprised?
askegg 2 years ago
i think the better question for him is this:
What are the fruits of the labor of theology? How do they compensate for thousands of years of the worst crimes in human history and the general retardation and oppression of the general public?
what have we GAINED from theology? what has it proven? what product has it made from all the reactants which it has consumed?
I fail to see the benefits and if someone is going to say "you must believe in the benefits to see them" well... fuck those idiots.
kukulza 2 years ago
The fruits of theology? You're kidding, right? Have you never heard of the popular saying, 'Western civilization is built on two pillars: Athens and Jerusalem'? Have you never studied the history of philosophy, of science, of political theory? Ha ve you never wondered why modern science arose in theologically informed cultures of the West, as opposed to the more technologically advanced (at the time) cultures of the East? "The less they know, the less they know it" -- indeed.
edejardin 2 years ago
"'Western civilization is built on two pillars: Athens and Jerusalem?"
never once heard it. (you seem intelligent. refrain from ad hominems please k thanks)
Why did modern science arise in the west? when you say west, do we mean the Americas or do we mean west Europe? depending on what times we're talking (and where you live) west changes
also, i was meaning "fruits" as in literal applications of life. science is inevitable; theology retards that unless you can somehow show otherwise
kukulza 2 years ago
proof has two meanings, subjective and objective.
subjective proof is meaningless outside of the particular subjective mind in which is it formed... by definition.
objective proof requires evidence as evidence is the only form of non-subjective persuasion that we humans are capable of.
Theology is, in a nut shell, the study of "God(s)". God is, by definition, immune to objective anything as God(s) control objectivity.
so objective anything can't be part of theology as it isn't study-able.
kukulza 2 years ago 2
so if you can't be using objective concepts in theology, and subjective concepts can't be used outside the mind of origin... what exactly does a PHD in theology give you?
if you're talking about analyzing the Bible and such, I'd call that being a historian or something to that degree. that isn't a study of God unless you make a BOLD assumption that, IF God exists, he is, at least for the time being, allowing things to remain constant.
even so, can God be defined or predicted? no.
kukulza 2 years ago
Saying somebody has a phd in anything is a false argument from authority anyway. Somebody could have a phd in biology and turn around and say they believe in young earth creationism or some other harebrained hypothesis but it doesn't make them right just because they have a phd.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
Such as the case of my biology teacher.
Abengoshis 2 years ago
Kukzula, the premise, 'god is, by definition, immune to objective anything as god(s) control objectivity' is, simply put, bizarre.
edejardin 2 years ago
not at all, think about it in terms of an apple
if the apple can control the entirety of what it, itself, is. how would you define it?
you could say it's somewhat round, red, has a stem etc... but the second you define it, it could change itself. That's what God must be in order to truly fulfill what our word god means
if the apple changed itself, it would no longer be an apple and we wouldn't call it as such.
we call such a thing which cannot be defined, God.
kukulza 2 years ago
Kukzula, try reading the first book of Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles. You'll see that god is a purely actual being (i.e. pure act, without admixture of potentiality), and that a purely actual being must have certain properties. Again, your premise is simply bizarre. It evinces an almost unimaginable ignorance of just about anything said about god's nature by most of the greatest philosophers in the Western tradition (and, indeed, an unimaginable ignorance of pholosophy itself).
edejardin 2 years ago
lul. damn sophists. So sure of their knowledge and the doubt in others. Keep at it big guy, one day you might get someone who's willing to take you seriously and maybe with a stroke of luck, and relaxing of your intellectual chicanery, you'll realize your pompous asshole act isn't going to work on everyone.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
you don't get the point... god CAN'T have certain properties unless he chooses to define himself as having certain properties FOR THE TIME BEING. He has to be able to modify his own properties otherwise he wouldn't be a God because he wouldn't be omnipotent.
technically, God must have all properties and no properties (as limited by logic. God can't modify logic)
i don't have access to that book at the time. care to explain it in a private message or link me to a site?
prove your claims please
kukulza 2 years ago
Kukzula, no, it's clearly you who don't get the point. Let me demonstrate this: you claim that god must be able to modify his properties or he wouldn't be omnipotent. *Nonsense*. Omnipotence is defined (by philosophers; don't throw any irrelevant 'dictionary' definitions at me) as the ability to bring about any coherent state of affairs. Now, could a purely actual being 'modify his properties'? *No*. Anyone who understands what is meant by pure act would see the obvious contradiction.
edejardin 2 years ago
i get your point. but your point seems to be this:
God cannot modify himself because such isn't part of being omnipotent, it's simple absurd. God's attributes are infinite in degree and "weakening" an infinite isn't infinitely difficult, it's mathematically impossible.
let me ask you something... What is your definition of God? omnipotent and what else? you're the only person i've ever heard define omnipotence as you did, so i'm curious how else you define God.
kukulza 2 years ago
No, that's not my point.
To modify something is to change it. To change X presupposes that X is in a state of potentiality with respect to that change. Now, god is a purely actual being (a conclusion of rigorous and detailed argumentation, not a mere assertion), and a purely actual being, by definition, contains no admixture or potentiality and actuality: it's pure actuality. But then it cannot be in *any* state of potentiality, and so cannot change. So, god is immutable.
edejardin 2 years ago
rigorous and detailed argumentation with a presupposition stating that the Bible is true or at least partially true; to an extent such that we can expand upon it and obtain further truths.
there is no undeniable evidence of God so "rigorous and detailed argumentation" doesn't really hold any higher merit than simple belief.
I will agree tho, that if a God does exist, it would have to exist by your details lest it be deemed a demi-god
question: is this the result of that book you mentioned?
kukulza 2 years ago
Absolutely wrong again, Kukulza. Aquinas's arguments begin with empirical premises, e.g. 'some things change.' They don't in any way presuppose 'the Bible is true'; have you never heard of natural theology?
Also, it's telling that you so readily deny that a book you've never read contains rigorous and detailed argumentation. My, what faith you have!
Aquinas's arguments are premised on a broadly Aristotelian metyaphysics -- nothing more.
edejardin 2 years ago
then that simply means that, by your rough instructions, i found the wrong thing online. i (as you instructed) googled "Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles" and grabbed the 3rd site from the top.
do that yourself and go to that site or just google it yourself and tell me, which from the top should i go to? obviously, youtube won't let you put a direct link into comments, so just give me some sort of instruction to a site on this book.
kukulza 2 years ago
edejardin,
Do you also agree with Aquinas when he argues (in Summa Theologica) that heretics should be put to death?
darktango78 2 years ago
Darktango78, wow, no, I don't think heretics should be put to death, no more than I, accepting wholeheartedly the biological theory of evolution, think that 'the races' have different intellectual capacities, as Darwin argues in chapter five of 'The Descent of Man.' Are *you* a racist? No? Gee, then I guess it's *not* the case that if you claim some thinker got X right it follows that he got *everything* right. But then, I'm sure you knew that already...
edejardin 2 years ago
Edejardin,
I did indeed know that and that was my point.
Merely telling someone that Aquinas said something is not much help, especially in light of the mental contortions he could go through to come to conclusions we clearly disagree with.
It is better to re-articulate an argument and show how it stands on its own merits.
darktango78 2 years ago
Darktango, I submit that when you have a 500 space limit and are discussing topics that are never treated in 101 level texts with fewer than 100 pages, it's much better to refer people to works that are freely available online than it is to present what would inevitably be simplistic caricatures of serious philosophical arguments.
edejardin 2 years ago
Edejardin,
I agree, but you can often comunicate the gist and then add a reference rather than condescend those who are unfamiliar with a text.
To add to a previous point, while Darwin my have had some racist conclusions he never claimed to come from a field that had the morality market cornered, so to speak.
To this day Aquinas is held by the Catholic Church as the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood.
Do you know if the Church has issued a retraction for his broken morality?
darktango78 2 years ago
Comment removed
edejardin 2 years ago
Darktango, in general I agree, but there is a further problem with attempting to 'communicate the gist' of the arguments of a philosopher like Aquinas with a 500 space limit, viz. Aquinas uses familiar terms like cause, act, potentiality, essence, etc. in entirely unfamiliar ways (hence very common atheist misunderstandings). I other words, to communicate the gist effectively I'd have in essence to teach a mini course on Aquinas in youtube comboxes, which is not feasible; hence the reference.
edejardin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
^ I think my user name says it all. =P
Lovingdoubt 2 years ago
"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not, is a slave."-Sir William Drummond
Craig is a slave to his faith in sky daddy. It's quite easy to see this and hear this while watching this idiot try to do mental gymnastics.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
Did you ever notice that "sky daddy" is a rather disrespectful term?
Please define "mental gymnastics?"
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Demanding respect I see. Is "magical sky daddy" better?
askegg 2 years ago
How do you expect to persuade anyone with insults?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
You find "magical sky daddy" insulting?
Even without "insults", I very much doubt that you could ever be convinced. You are, of course, welcome to prove me wrong.
If you were open to the possibility that your beliefs are incorrect, then the excellent, evidence-based, phenomenological explanations that abound should already have convinced you. Even if the facts might ultimately convince you, deconversion is, by all accounts, a protracted process.
anderebiste 2 years ago
longhorn
How can someone be disrespectful of a non-entity? That is impossible. Let's trash Santa, shall we? Oh, let's see now. Santa is a big fat nutjob that thinks he can fly around the world with reindeer that fly and pull a sleigh at the same time. How about Thor(sorry Thor worshippers)? His hammer is so small, he can't even hit a brick wall let alone a nail.
Also, did you know that the Purple People Pulverizers from planet Zenon are assholes and smell like moldy cheese?
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
another Berlinski type shill. he thinks that just because he uses certain mannerisms and vocabulary it makes him smart.
and, are we supposed to think it is a coincidence that they just "happen" to be christian in addition to being creationist? BULLSHIT. they're creationists BECAUSE they're already christian. show me one pagan creationist. ONE.
valvatica 2 years ago
"another Berlinski type shill"
Please explain.
"he thinks that just because he uses certain mannerisms and vocabulary it makes him smart."
And how did you get access to his thoughts? Do tell.
"are we supposed to think it is a coincidence that they just "happen" to be christian in addition to being creationist?"
He is not a creationist.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
please view shanedk's video on Berlinski and whale evolution.
i don't have access, i work with the evidence i have. he and you, however, claim to have access to god's thoughts, when you clearly don't.
wlliiam lane craig is a Fellow of the the discovery institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. so YES, he is a creationist.
valvatica 2 years ago
I never said I had access to God's thoughts and neither did he.
I just looked up the list of discovery institute fellows and he is not listed.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
don't think my comment went through, i'll see if this goes through and try again...
valvatica 2 years ago
4:05ish: You start your Changing Reasons point with "the evidence changes." To be as clear as possible for the religious numbnutjobs, this isn't the optimal opener for that paragraph. Discovered evidence doesn't often change; previous evidence can be more correctly interpreted in light of new evidence. "Science is always changing" is a key [invalid] argument by (and only plausible to) the faith side, so science's New / Better Evidence aspect should be presented in crystal clear statements.
patienceking 2 years ago
It's not my finest moment on camera :(
askegg 2 years ago
<3 anyway
patienceking 2 years ago
GR8 vid mate, I'm going to have a bad life of drinking,gambling smoking and holidays in thailand. I really hope Ive done enough to go to hell, because eternity with self righteous christians is indeed hell
porbello9 2 years ago
I dont want to go to heaven, there is noone i know there.
knusern666 2 years ago
knuser
And add to that, the fact(well, not really) that I don't want to hang with any of the folks who will be going 'up there' since they are delusional and hypocritical.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
The evidence never changes. It has always been there, just that our perception and awareness of the evidence changes.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Yes - I tripped on my thinking. I should have redone that part, but it was getting late and I was tired.
askegg 2 years ago
The thing is that this (Craig's) video was probably made in a creationist surrounding, he wouldn't say such(honest) things about himself in a different surrounding.
His video should be played on some debate. After he says that "we're here to look at the evidence", so that people can see what a dishonest prick he is.
raoskaos 2 years ago
He is not a creationist.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
He is a closet creationist, he uses creationist arguments.
But what is most important is that he is a dishonest arrogant idiot.
raoskaos 2 years ago
How did you find out that he is a closet creationist? Please enlighten me.
What creationist arguments do you speak of?
"But what is most important is that he is a dishonest arrogant idiot."
I find it hilarious that people who label themselves "freethinkers" spend most of their time just running around insulting their opponents instead of responding to their arguments. Did you know that a "dishonest arrogant idiot" could also make valid arguments?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
WLC believes god created everything from (presumedly) nothing at all. This makes him a creationist. Perhaps not a young earth creationist, but a creationist none the less.
askegg 2 years ago
Come on, that is not the common definition of "creationist." Would you call Kenneth Miller a creationist? Would you call Francis Collins a creationist?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Yes I would.
askegg 2 years ago
So, it follows that creationists can accept everything contemporary science (and, I emphasize the word 'science' here) tells us about evolution. Interesting use of the term...
edejardin 2 years ago 2
Then what is so bad about being a creationist?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
There is no evidence supporting the idea of creation ex nihlo - hence it is an irrational and illogical view to hold.
askegg 2 years ago
No evidence? Have you read Craig's chapter on big bang cosmology?
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Please don't start on about how the big bang says everything came from nothing - it doesn't.
askegg 2 years ago
That is not where I am going at all. I would say that big bang cosmology shows that there must be a beginning to this universe. I would then go from there.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
No it doesn't. It shows there was an inflation. Why couldn't it just reciprocate?
Abengoshis 2 years ago
Again - a beginning assumes the matter/energy came into being at some point. There is nothing in the big bang which says this.
askegg 2 years ago
No, a beginning entails that matter/energy came into being at some point.
Actually, big bang cosmology is full of failed attempts at creating some sort of steady-state or cyclical model, but the evidence doesn't support them. Read Craig's chapter.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Did you just disagree with my by agreeing with me?
We can trace the universe back to the Planck epoch beyond which we have no experimental data to confirm or disprove any of the mathematical predictions of any model. We simply do not know. What you have is an argument from ignorance,and a god of the gaps argument for a deist god.
askegg 2 years ago
At the risk of repeating Mr. Skegg here: There's no evidence to the contrary that matter and energy haven't always existed in one form or the other and in fact no reason to assume that existence is not simply their natural state.
Now why do I want to read what a theologian has to say about cosmology?
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
// steady-state or cyclical model //
Is there any other kind?
EvolvedAgain 2 years ago
Yes.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
What?
EvolvedAgain 2 years ago
Possibly non-recurring fractal type pattern?
askegg 2 years ago
A one-off geometric configuration based on a simple arithmetic formula? That would do it ;)
I suspect that he was thinking of a universe that will expand "expandentially". I also suspect that he was not sure what the heck he was talking about ;^/
EvolvedAgain 2 years ago
William Lane Craig has to be one of the most overrated Christian "intellectuals". Any misguided respect for the guy is based purely on his very polished delivery of shabby arguments. If people truly investigate the substance of his rhetoric, and don't get enamored with his eloquence, Craig's arguments are no better than any teenager who tries to employ apologetics for the first time. His apologetics, much like all Christian apologetics, is just a mess of circular reasoning and non sequiturs.
alphacause 2 years ago 2
Up until about a month ago, I would have agreed with Craig about the HS, until I was witnessing to a Muslim who gave me a very similar testimony of how he has an internal 100% witness of God that Islam is true. I am forced to now say that he has been tricked and I have not. because Christianity is superior. The other problem I have is that the HS is giving competing theology to different Christians for some reason.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
Do you see the flaws in holding that position?
askegg 2 years ago
Yes I do, and the only biblical answer is that Satan is at work in all other religions and that God allows this (false internal testimony) or in fact ordains this. Would you have said the same when you were a Christian? As for the HS, if the issue is not esential then difference of opinion is ok, or the HS is not working the way Christians believe. They are my only biblical answers.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
I never held the view Satan corrupted the minds of other religions, or that god allowed it.
What is interesting to me here is that you can see every religion has an equal claim to the truth if we restrict ourselves to personal feelings - and that is the point I was making. You continue to believe in your god for purely personal emotional reasons nonetheless.
askegg 2 years ago
no I also believe in the God of the bible for what I consider logical reasons.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
and what would those be?
Thrashaero 2 years ago
let me first say that although I am a Christian I have been challenged to seriously consider the evidence of cosmology and evolution and examine the bible for error.
I have at least 5 criteria for why I would leave the church. 1 If we evolved and were not created. 2 If the universe is eternal. 3 If Jesus never existed. 4 Serious error in the bible. 5 If aliens exist.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
"" why I would leave the church. 1 If we evolved and were not created ""
You need investigate no further than that criterion, leave the church. Let me guess. The evidence is all there, but you will ignore / deny the evidence because you are unprepared to put mountains of evidence (and logic) ahead of emotion.
The same holds for 4. I imagine that your definition of "serious" is conveniently "flexible".
2 and 5 are irrelevant; proof of 3 is logically impossible.
EvolvedAgain 2 years ago
You guessed wrong. I have never examined the evidence for evolution, but I have a copy of the 'Greatest show on earth baby' so we will see.
lol at my number 4...your probably right...I have been lowering the bar lately...I think factual errors rather than moral issues will do it for me.
2 and 5 may be irrelevant to you but not me, that's why they are there.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
as far as aliens go, with the universe being as big as it is, and despite that most of it's composition is hostile to life, there is little reason why there shouldn't be aliens, even if we never find them, and regardless of how advanced they are. also, even if there isn't, why would a god make a universe so incredibly large, and thereby useless, for only one spec to have life on it?
I think the main reason you should leave the church would be because you can still have your faith without it.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
The first logical reason is that I can't get my head around the complexity of life on earth and the cosmos and how these things began, I mean take the big bang...where did the stuff come from that banged? what did it sit in before it banged, what was before that...and how fortunate that it banged and formed a planet like ours. That is just as hard for me to believe as it is for you to believe God has always existed.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
But if you believe god never began why did matter have to begin? Why does matter and energy need a beginning if god does not?
We don't have all of the answers to your questions. We don't really know if an earth like world is a fortunate creation or a common one. We don't even know if the universe is a small part of an even larger system we can't yet understand. But it does us no good to say god did it and to stop searching for answers. Maybe god did to it, but we don't have that evidence yet.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
Matter did not have to begin, but did it?
In fact I said if the universe is eternal I am leaving the church.
You might be right when you say god did do it. I my mind that seems more likely...but hey I am open to the evidence, if I am wrong I want to know the truth and not live a lie.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
Why does it seem more likely? You're going about this the wrong way. You want evidence to disprove god. That evidence does not exist. The same goes to evidence that proves god, that evidence does not exist either.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
'""The first logical reason is that I can't get my head around""
Failure of understanding is not a logical argument. It is essentially an argument from incredulity and, as such, is a fallacy of logic.
If you wish to claim that "God" has "always existed", then it is equally plausible that some pre-singularity stuff has "always existed". We have evidence for the universe, not for "God".
I assume that you are aware that time does not obtain in the absence of matter/energy.
No?
Ah!
anderebiste 2 years ago
I agree that just because I don't understand something does not mean it can not be understood.
Did matter always exist?
describe conditions when there is an absence of matter and energy?
I am willing to be educated here believe me.
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
A condition where there would be no matter or energy would be a complete vacuum with a temperature of absolute zero.
But in the case of matter and energy neither can be created or destroyed, just converted from one to another. We have never observed matter or energy coming into creation or being destroyed, just changed into different states.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
can you define a complete vacuum and why that is the default condition?
ShaneChiswick 2 years ago
It's just a volume of space that is empty of matter. It doesn't necessarily mean it's the default position you just asked what something without matter or energy would be.
There is no such thing as a complete perfect vacuum. Outer space is the closest approximation of a perfect vacuum but even that contains atoms of hydrogen in small quantities and energy in the form of cosmic background radiation.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
I think that the point about the fact that time is tied to matter is counter-intuitive. If there is no matter (energy), then there is no time. This means that there cannot be a "before". It also means that there cannot be a beginning. It also means that matter is tied to "always".
I know, it's as counter-intuitive as relativity is from within a Newtonian framework.
anderebiste 2 years ago
as far as not being able to get your head around it, it's still not quite a logical conclusion to draw from incredulity. As far as what happened before the big bang, what real fabric to the universe that puts the elements and forces into the arrangement that they are, those are open questions, but not satisfied by filling them with equally inexplicable deity placeholders. If there is a gap in knowledge, to fill it with a deity only serves as an impediment to finding the knowledge.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
Also, just because a lot of things are unanswered and some things may forever be ambiguous, does not necessitate that we answer them right away with whatever we assume makes the most sense to us. It's ok to not know. It may feel cold and confusing some of the ways things are, but don't cut yourself short with something that feels good, but is equally as void in reasoned substance as not having any idea.
To invoke a god is to invoke your own preferences without backed reasons. Feeling in control
Thrashaero 2 years ago
u gonna get trolled an insane amount now by wlc followers
mickdornfad 2 years ago
Religion dumbs people down. This applies even to PhDs.
Cygnus65 2 years ago 6
It certainly demands illogic. The problem is the natural outcome of distorting arguments to fit incorrect conclusions for which there is no evidence.
EvolvedAgain 2 years ago
Satan was the first freethinker :)
anwyll 2 years ago 4
LOL I always said the same.
hpufo 2 years ago
My doubts lead me to science, history, and books filled with proven facts. Then off to the museum where I found evidence I could see and touch. It was pretty hard to doubt that over empty and selfish promises. The last place I was going to turn was to the book filled with nothing but more doubt and deceit.
Another great vid! Thanks!
traveler420 2 years ago 2
Very well thought of video as usual. But don't forget that each of us is a result of mutated genes. Most religious people would love to know how everything was created and until the scientists come up with an answer that pleases everyone you will be forever fighting religious dogma. You said in 1 of you videos u used to be a Christian so you must know how hard it is to stop believing f it gives you comfort.
MicrosoftsourceCode 2 years ago
WLC is so full of shit. Notice how he uses ten dollar words where they are totally unnecessary just to obfuscate and sound intellectual. It's amazing that he's one of the best apologetica has to offer.
agnosticman77 2 years ago 4
I can't believe you are making such a big deal out of this clip. He is just endorsing reformed epistemology. If you knew what he was saying, you would realize that it is not "full of shit." (By the way, I want to make it clear that I am NOT insulting your intelligence.) I would be happy to explain it to you in the form of a video response if you like.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
You can't help but notice his overuse of intelligent sounding language. "Contingent circumstances" for example. Once you wade through this swamp to the meat of his arguments, there is precious little there. Perhaps it's a deliberate tactic since debunking these convoluted structures takes far to much time and effort for most people to achieve in debate scenarios.
askegg 2 years ago
Um, those are standard terms in philosophy that would be familar to a sophomore philo major. Now, the fact that you describe them as 'intelligent sounding language' is telling -- it tells us that you know less about philosophy than your average philo sophomore. And, since Craig is disucssing philosophy, it tells us that you haven't done the necessary work even to understand him, much less critique him!
edejardin 2 years ago
using jargon as buzzwords is only an attempt at camouflaging the argument. just because somebody knows some terms on a subject, doesn't mean that other people who don't know them aren't qualified to see the argument. the structure of his arguments are very simple. i could ramble all day about electrical engineering terms and just because you might not know them, does that mean I'm automatically right?
maybe if you were a sophomore philo student, you'd know such argument validity basics.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
Thrashero, let's now try a parallel case, okay? Suppose that you, as an electrical engineer, put a video on youtube in which you discuss optimization using the Pareto set. Would it be better if I slammed *you* for addressing topics relevant to *your* field with *your* technical terms by complaining that *I* don't understand them, or would it be better if I kept my mouth shut premised on the notion that I simply don't have a right to an opinion on subjects I don't understand? Obvious answer, eh?
edejardin 2 years ago
Well, he's not speaking in a tense that nobody but philosophers can understand. he's just dropping terms here and there, and while they may vaguely apply, doesn't really prove his argument any more true than if he didn't use them. as another user so concisely put it, verbose sophistry. of which you're also doing very well at displaying.
If I were to explain how a radar works very wrongly yet dropped a few terms here and there, it doesn't make my argument inmmune to those ignorant of those terms.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
Also, I'd like to point out that the analogy of electronic terms to philosophical theism terms isn't a very good one. Considering the fact that electronics is testable and real. Theism isn't, and varies from person to person. it's like comparing apples to oranges. Unfalsifiable claims with special terms are still unfalsifiable claims. But my argument still stands that you can't assume some person with knowledge of terms is automatically right if you don't know them. Just even more so with theism
Thrashaero 2 years ago
Also, 'jargon' does precisely the opposite: it *clarifies* meaning by stipulating that certain terms will be used in certain ways. If you want to discuss philosophy seriously, you'll have to learn the jargon.
And I agree, the structure of Craig's argument is quite simple, but the issued raised by the premises are anything but simple. Just think about the issues raised by the 'A' theory of time (McTaggart's term) the argument's premises presuppose.
edejardin 2 years ago
No, it doesn't clarify the meaning at all. If it were a philosophy class and he wants to use special-knowledge terms then, that's understandable, but he's speaking to the public. And in doing so, he's making points people can easily understand, but dressing it up with superfluous special terms here and there. It's not clarifying his point whatsoever. It's making it seem nicer. If you want to discuss philosophy seriously, don't consider jargon as useful in proving a point unless.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
He is a philosopher and the topic he is speaking on is complex and full of nuances. Of course what he says will be "intelligent sounding language." And there is meat in his argument. I can give you a video response explaining this if you would like.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
Feel free to post a reply.
askegg 2 years ago
It's hard for us atheists to not sound arrogant, but every single argument by the religious crowd is just so damn stupid beyond belief that it's hard for us to criticize it in a way that doesn't make us look arrogant. Their arguments are so damn ridiculous that it would be hard to not laugh or get angry and shout at them to wake the fuck up.
quickpua 2 years ago 2
not only that but the religious try to tell atheists that they are sorry for us. And the same repeated arguements that we have to debunk over and over just to realize that person doesnt care what we say because we are always wrong in their eyes... Thats something that makes me sound angery when I try discussing my point of veiw.
charleshasideas 2 years ago
But technically we're not nearly as arrogant as they are. We don't claim to hold the absolute truth. They do. That is the very definition of arrogant.
SeekerLancer 2 years ago
Can I mirror your videos?
Psycnosis 2 years ago
Yes, just link back to the original somewhere.
askegg 2 years ago
Baffling, indeed!
JesusSavesAtCitibank 2 years ago