The problem with your argument is if nothing does exist. Then you do have a material cause. Nothing would then qualify as material. Stop playing stupid arse hole. I see you O.O!
Hey TheoBS you must have figured out by now that WLC has a very lucrative business selling books to comfort his followers. It is why he refers you to his "work" or books. I have seen WLC say on video that even if he was faced with absolute proof that his god did not exist he would still never the less dispute it on HIS faith. So kind of pointless to try plus he makes too much money selling books to scared souls who crave his comforting philosphy (nutty as it is).
Existence itself perpetually defies/confounds, all attempts by limited, fallible logic to understand or explain.
Moreover, one cannot physically regress in space-time to implement the scientific method towards empirical knowledge in definitive explanation of that which was actually responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life appearing on the pre-biotic earth.
You're in the same boat as everyone for inability to know the eternal mysteries of the reality of existence.
there is a FIRST CAUSE AND THAT CAUSE IS GOD , then by the argument I gave in the previous comment , the Kalam argument breaks down .
What really bothers me is that Stenger failed to mention this in his debate with Craig when he gave the example of virtual particles , while both the examples that I gave above can be found in a high school physics textbook.
and the infinite number of reflections produced when an object is put between two opposite facing mirrors.
Since he is apparently unaware of these things or ignores them to validate his assertion about the impossibility of an actual infinite existing , thus the possibility for infinite regress opens up. And if there is infinite regress then that means there can NEVER BE A FIRST CAUSE/UNCAUSED CAUSE . Since the Kalam argument hypothesises that the ..........
@mynameszz Actually the amount of reflections between 2 mirrors isn't infinite, it's only as many as the light has had time to travel. So if the mirrors are 1 meter apart you will get 300 million reflections per second. Not sure about the superconductor argument either, whether that can be considered an example of infinity in the real world. I prefer just pointing out the fact that the kalam argument is an argument for the existence of the universe, not for the existence of god.
Craig's central argument for God's existence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument(apart from the Jesus's empty tomb) . I am sure we both agree on that . And in the assertions he makes in the Kalam argument , one of his main assertions(for refuting infinite regress) is that an actual infinite CANNOT EXIST.
However what he he is apparently unaware of is that in real life actual infinites DO EXIST eg. infinite conductivity of a superconductor(explained by Meissner Effect) .....
“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.” - Albert Einstein
I don't quite share the same judgement of God as ol' Al here, but regardless I thought that quote suited this well.
Oh...I forgot to mention - It is on WLC's own website I've been, almost exclusively, following this debate. He is now giving it attention. This is the only place you need to look to realise how tightly you are gripping his gonads right now on this argument.
I don't even need to hear your arguments - He is in a state of intellectual chaos in front of his home crowd.
I have to admit TBS, I haven't been fully following your "stalking" of Craig fallacious "Kalam cosmology" argument, though I did catch some of his later takes on your, presumably satirical, "Kalam argument for the "NON existence of God".
W.L.C's defence seem to be an arrogant and unexplained dismissal of your thinking skills, and a critique of your propositions which negates his own original Kalam argument.
My question: Why are you bothering with this intellectually dishonest little turd?
@Tobytrim Because he thinks some of the apologists actually invite reasoned and balanced arguments from their critics. He has to have faith, because, it's healthy to invite debate from apologists. Unfortunately it's not often the case when you are having a debate with apologists that they will represent your position fairly. You shouldn't be anyone's intimidated victim, but neither should you continue arguments after you have successfully defended your position. TB left at the right time.
@Tobytrim I don't want to misrepresent TBS, but after watching a few of his videos, it would seem to me that he's arguing more broadly for the promotion of honest inquiry in global society that is ultimately a catalyst to humanity's progress. Wouldn't you agree that by being honest with ourselves and towards others intellectually, and by challenging those that are clearly misguided, we might finally come to a consensus on which beliefs or subjective values are outright deleterious...
@VibrasoulARA ... to human and societal well-being and which we can confidently (on the basis of sound and verifiable evidence) and wholeheartedly uphold in the name of peace and solidarity. Just a thought, hope my point came across.
Ive been watching you for 3 years on this channel and I had no idea that you work on a soap! Then I watched the awards last night and there was TheoreticalBullshit going on stage to pick up his EMMY.....haha, very very COOL ! Congrats ! And please do more vids on your philosophy of life and religion. I love you and love listening to your opinions and comments.
Hey Scott ... I don't know if you'll see this, but congratulations on your Emmy! You have done such good work for many years, and it must be nice to be recognized by those who enjoy and admire what you do. When you first 'hit' General Hospital' all those years ago, I felt that you were something special, and you have not disappointed ... in the characters you've played, nor in your YouTube 'self-character'. Agree or not, I'm a FAN! ;))
@Kang "I don't want to call it god." Exactly, you don't WANT to. You would rather appeal to fvcking absurdity, like something popping into existence uncaused out of nothing, then to be rational & accept the most logical position.
How can an atheist tease theists for believing in "magic" & then turn around and say something as ridiculous as something can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, for no reason. It can just happen! No explanation required!
@theDracoIX You call it "ridiculous", because it cannot be squared with a 19th century understanding of the univese. You talk about an "infite regress of past events" thereby suggesting an A-theory of time. You refer to immaterial agent-causation thereby implying an interactionist mind-body dualism. And you use "something cannot come from nothing" considering a metaphysical "nothingness" which we can not even positively describe. There is a reason why these concepts are pretty much dead by now.
@TheNameIsUnimportant Can you give me some reference in the literature, preferably something online to begin with, for the metaphysics of "nothingness" where it shows the problems with its description ? Thanks.
@menonfire12 If you want to have something quick and dirty online try the Stanford Encyclopedia plato(dot)stanford(dot)edu / entries / nothingness. For an in-depth discussion that relates to causation read Lewis' article "Void and Object" and Beebee's article "Nothingness and Causation" in the book "Causation and Counterfactuals".
Excuse me, but you've failed to see again and again that a rejection of religious creationism does not entail an acceptance of any position concerning the existence of things at all. Humans are not *required* to hold positions of knowledge with respect to the most unknowable questions--I myself am perfectly okay with not knowing. Epistemological certainty is only a problem for theism, which actually makes claims about these things that it has to defend.
(contd) However, even if rejecting religious dogma did require an explanation of how things exist, the problem still lies with you. The idea that matter "appeared" is in principle just as defensible as the idea that matter has always existedt. Your cry of "absurd" aside, I am free to posit an eternal universe. You see, I don't even need to account for the existence of the universe, because you can't account for the existence of god. Existence is always self-justifying.
@AtheistTower Are you talking to the video's author? Is this the extent of your commentary? If so, your suggestion lacks substance and comes off as an insult rather than a serious criticism.
I think that live debates that rely heavily on speeches made up on the spot test many skills that are ultimately useless in true logical debate.
In this format, it's sensible to write most of your content before recording. It gives people like yourself something to complain about, but that's about it.
@AtheistTower Not to be pushy, but your other responses came within the same day, and it's been two days since I re-presented my "actual argument." Is that really what you were waiting for?
My belief that you have no idea what you are talking about began to exist as a result of my seeing your video. Your video caused my belief that you have no idea what you are talking about to begin to exist. You claim that :"Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing. " If this is is true, how did your video (which exists) cause my belief that you have no idea what you are taking about (which did not exist) to begin to exist?
@greylights888 So what? The new mental state is a state that began to exist. Further, the belief that is associated with that particular arrangement comes into being when the arrangement is made (you assume either an identity theory or a functionalist theory of mind...both of which are false, but never mind.) That the mental state has a corresponding brain state is irrelevant. Mental content exists, and if it is caused to exist by my brain arrangement then point still stands.
@timetothinkclearly "So what? The new mental state is a state that began to exist."
The new mental state is just a new arrangement of molecules in your brain. Rearranging something and giving it a new name is not really bringing anything into existence. You may as well say you bring a fist into existence when you close your fingers.
@DickJohnson3434 False, Do not confuse the atomic arrangement with the mental content. The mental content is not the atomic arrangement. To think it is is to subscribe to the long debunked token-identity theory of mind which was blown out of the water by functionalism and supervenience 30 years ago. P.S.google "universal quantification"
What are mental states than if not products of the physical brain? Are they illogical products of your intangible soul?
How does universal quantification imply that thoughts are something other than the products of physical brain? Thoughts are what the mind does. It's like saying your legs bring the verb of "running" into existence, when all they do is move. Moving things is not bringing anything into existence in the way Craig talks about the universe.
@DickJohnson3434 "thoughts are what the mind does. It's like saying your legs bring the verb of "running" into existence, when all they do is move. " This is obviously false. Please read up on Philosophy of mind. The notion you just advanced was last argued by Jack Smart in the 60's and was knocked out by Hillary Putnam. And please look into Universal Quantification. Its a term in formal logic that your going to need to understand in order to understand my objection.
@timetothinkclearly your making the same mistake WLC is making, you interpret "beginning to exist" as anything that you can put a new label on rather then starting to exist ex nihilo. by doing this you are completely draining the Kalam argument from its meaning given the fact that, if this is true, for all we know, the "cause" of the universe is no more special then the "cause" of you forming your belief about Scott. leaving you further away from your desired conclusion then you were be4.
This is false. There is a difference between mental content, and the atomic arangement which causes the mental content. Just like there is a difference between h20 and water. If I have a single molecule of h20, I don't have water. If i accumulate enough h20 molecules together in the right way, water "emerges" as a new thing. if the temperature is low, ice may emerge. Also, Google universal quantification.
@timetothinkclearly your h2o example makes no sense.. but that doesn't matter since i already understand how you define "beginning to exist" as i already said.. yet your comment does nothing to actually address anything in my comment.. and i also don't see what universal quantification has to do with the point made in the video or my comment... you don't have to explain your position to me, i already know that. instead, address the argument.
@AllenQuatermain2de Yes my example makes perfect sense. In fact, it is used by John Searle in "Rediscovery of the Mind." Never mind that. Here is a video set of my explaining it: Start with the first one and go from there. watch?v=zCSoXNd5qTQ
@timetothinkclearly well, i now know you have a poor understanding of what it means to be, but luckily, that is irrelevant. what IS relevant is the fact that you understand my point(which is more then i can say for WLC) you understand that it is about the difference between "creation" and "assemblage" now clearly you and WLC are using assemblage. but as you pointed out, this happens all the time, its nothing special and it makes the argument useless yet you dont address this at all.
@AllenQuatermain2de You guys all make the same point: "The universe requires a material cause." No proof of this has been fourth coming, the point is just asserted and not argued for, but Craig already called you guys on that. If the belief is not ontologically reducible to the brain state, then my point sticks. BTW Craig does understand the creation assemblage distinction, if you had watched the first video in the series you would know I got that distinction from something that Craig wrote.
@timetothinkclearly No proof has been forthcoming since it's a metaphysical statement. But, a priori reasoning does suggest that if a material phenomenon has an efficient cause, then this cause has to be material. Something immaterial efficiently affecting the material seems unintelligible (what mechanism could that entail?). A posteriori all material phenomena whose efficient causes are known have material causes. The beginning of the universe is a material phenomenon, so the argument stands.
@TheNameIsUnimportant "a priori reasoning does suggest that if a material phenomenon has an efficient cause, then this cause has to be material. " Lets hear the argument for that. And polkinghorne has suggested the mechanism of information.
@AllenQuatermain2de Here is the link to the thing you think I am lying about: reasonablefaith(dot)org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7279 , Here is the quote:"I have, again, with Thomas Aquinas, explicitly rejected the idea that creation is a type of change or transition (see my and Paul Copan's Creation out of Nothing [Baker, 2004]). I substitute "assemblage' in for "Transition," But this is where I got the distinction from.
@timetothinkclearly but on an added note, your h2o example is useful in explaining your error, and that of WLC's. unlike what you suggested, ice, water and steam are ALL the same thing, they just occur in different shapes, just like you and i. the material of which we are built existed long be4 we did, we are simply a new arrangement. in other words, nothing new actually began to exist, instead, things that already were simply changed shape, like water. this can also count for the universe
@Atheisophy How does The BIG, PROFESIONAL, PHILOSOPHER, METAPHYSISIT, LOGICIAN "take apart" TBS' argument? He says that by "something that exists can't cause something that does not exist to begin existing" one is asserting the existence of that which does not exist. Tell me something: by "something that exists can't cause a decent, honest W.L Craig (which is something that does not exist) to begin existing" is it asserted that a decent, honest W.L. Craig exists? Didn't think so. Logician? Neh
There has been a lot of controversy about whether or not Craig has actually patronisingly labeled TBS as asserting something which he hasn't been asserting. Craig has labeled TBS as another one of those who assert that every cause has to be a material cause.
But TBS is allowing both for an immaterial cause AND for such a cause to be an efficient one.
That, for EXAMPLE, the fact that 6 is an even number is an EFFICIANT and IMMATERIAL cause for it's division by 2 to give a whole number.
Indeed the theistic view seems more probable since on TBS' view, A and B could be skipped, whereas the theist only maintain that B can be skipped. For all of these reasons, I think premis 1 of the KCA still stands and Scott has failed to show that premis 1 is less probable then its negation.
Moreover, TBS's view implies that the universe cannot have any cause at all, for he maintains that if it did have an efficient cause, that cause would have to be a material cause (1:47), which he himself thinks is impossible for the universe (1:30) . So in the case with of his A-B-C form of causality, it's not just B that is skipped on TBS' view, but A ánd B. But if he thinks that it possible for A and B to be skipped, then why complain about B being skipped on the theistic view?
@GGDFan777 Dude, let me get this one. Because skipping A AND B is easier than just skipping B, DUH! Here, let me help you out since I doubt you understand. 0 + 0 is greater than 1+ 0. NOW DO YOU GET IT?! I surely hope so, because if you can't get something as simple as that - then fvck it, I give up!
Also, please don't bring up WLC defending creatio ex nihilo in EVERY single fvcking speech I've ever seen him give on the KCA. That's like calling TBS a bold face liar on his own channel. HOW RUDE!
@theDracoIX How is skipping A and B easier then only B? TBS's point was that you can not come to C by skipping B, yet on his view B is still skipped. So are you saying that the universe can come into existence uncaused out of nothing if it did began to exist? And if it is possible for things to come into existence uncaused out of nothing, why doesn't this happen all the time? Why only the universe?
@GGDFan777 I was being sarcastic. TBS's position is mindnumbingly absurd and yet the guy gets 95% positive ratings... it just goes to show you how fake and insincere people are.
Dr. Craig offers other reasons as well to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause, not just our empirical observation of physical things, for example, that it would become inexplicable why not anything and everything come into being uncaused out of nothing. Think about it, if it would be really possible for things to come into existence uncaused out of nothing, why doesn't this happen all the time? Why only the universe? TBS doesn't even engage with this reason at all.
I'm well aware of the "William Lane Craig is not ...", I feel there needs to be a "William Lane Craig is ..." series. Mainly because whilst you can reverse some things, eg "William Lane Craig is dishonest" to "William Lane Craig is not honest", there are somethings where that can't apply, eg: "William Lane Craig is a wanker."
This might actually be, at least partially, a case of being too articulate to be understood properly. Dr. Craig appears to be at least somewhat well read, so... I don't know. :-/
@Theoreticalbullshit (continued) Indeed, as anyone who has studied formal, material, efficient and final causation knows, efficient causation cannot be made sense of sans *final* causes, not material causes, and material causes cannot be made sense of sans *formal* causes, not efficient causes. You don't seem to grasp the logical relationships that obtain among these four notions of causation well enough to begin defending the claim that efficient causes require not final but material causes.
@Theoreticalbullshit, I just listened to your "On Causation and the Ethics of Discourse" video, and I have to say, you *were* arguing that "everything that begins to exist has a material cause"! Hence, Craig didn't misrepresent you at all. You just were arguing that 'X is caused' can only be made sense of if X had a material cause. And you have certainly not defended the notion that efficient causes can only be made sense of if they're coupled with material causes.
Part 1: "I once expressed bewilderment that people like TBS could be taken in by such sloppy thinking. I think I know part of the reason now: such folks are wrestling with significant and difficult philosophical questions but lack the skills to do so rigorously." -William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith
Well, it looks like you're gonna be waiting a little longer, since WLC still thinks that you believe everything which begins to exist has a material cause. And do you know why? BECAUSE, Cont.
Part 2: THAT IS YOUR ACTUAL FVCKING POSITION! How many times do I have to say it? If you take your P1 to its logical conclusion, then you are saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for something to begin existing ex nihilo caused or uncaused i.e. EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST HAS A MATERIAL CAUSE!
See, the real fvcking problem here is that YOU don't even believe all of your premises are true. Which means that YOU aren't even convinced by your own argument! Now, how fvcking stupid is that? Cont.
Part 3: You're actually trying to convince people to believe something that YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE!
And then you have the fvcking nerve to sit there and accuse people of misinterpreting your argument, when YOU are the one who doesn't even understand what the fvck you're saying!
Scott, do you believe something can begin to exist uncaused out of nothing? That is to say - you start with nothing.... and nothing happens, and then for absolutely no reason whatsoever something begins to exist. Cont.
Part 4: Unless you believe that's possible, AND YOU DON'T, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T - IF YOU BELIEVE P1 IS TRUE, then given your position against creatio ex nihilo, you believe that EVERYTHING WHICH BEGINS TO EXIST MUST HAVE A MATERIAL CAUSE!
Seriously Dude... STOP FVCKING ACTING SO DENSE. You can get this... just step away from the mirror for like 5 minutes and FOCUS!
You don't believe there are NON-EXISTENT things which can cause something into existence ex nihilo, right? Well, the way your, Cont.
Part 5: argument is worded, your C1 is actually: God is a non-existent being that caused the universe to exist ex nihilo.
Since you don't believe that. And you don't believe that an EXISTENT thing can cause something into existence ex nihilo, then you MUST also believe that something cannot be UNCAUSED into existence ex nihilo, since that would be EVEN WORSE!
You say that it's IMPOSSIBLE for something that exists to act on nothing and cause it to turn into something... Cont.
@theDracoIX There are many respectable thinkers who claim that an uncaused universe is possible and Craig certainly knows it, since he responds to these claims routinely. He even wrote a book together with Quentin Smith who holds precisely this view. Stephen Hawking would be another example of a "moron" who rejects your "obvious metaphysical truth". So, there is really no excuse for Craig misrepresenting the argument as he clearly did. Oh, and it seems your capslock is malfunctioning.
Watch his Video again before raging out in caps. The whole point of the argument is that something whitch allready exist (God) can not cause nothing (The non-existent Universe) to do anything because it doesnt exist yet.
P1: "Nothing whitch exists can cause something that does not exist to begin existing ex nihilo."
Nowhere in this premise it is said that nothing can begin existing ex nihilo.
@dark I'm simply speechless at this point. Have you even watched all of TBS's Kalam videos? I HAVE, go watch them if you haven't. I've been responding to this shit for a year now.
Let me put this as simply as possible. TBS defends his P1 by saying you can't act on nothing & turn it into something. Which is just another way of saying... NOTHING CANNOT BE TURNED INTO SOMETHING!
So, if NOTHING cannot be turned into something. THEN HOW THE FVCK CAN YOU GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING? (P3) YOU CAN'T!
Err.. Yeah.. That's why he made a second Video to clear things up.
And yes, P1 sais that you can't act on nothing and turn it into something. Still wondering where you get the idea that that means that something can't come from nothing. It's even mathematicly possible: (-1)+1=0. Btw yes, nothing can not be turned into something. And now I want you to pay attention for once.. If NOTHING is TURNED into SOMETHING then someone/thing has to do the TURNING and is thus impossible.
@darkimausi Guy, you are mentally insane, and I say that sincerely. Claiming that you can get something from nothing is equivalent to saying 0 + 0 = 1. You would have to be braindead to believe that.
"Btw yes, nothing can not be turned into something."
So then, how can SOMETHING begin to exist out of NOTHING? Where did the something come from? It didn't come from the NOTHING, because you just said nothing can't be turned into something.
Have fun contradicting yourself, you fvcking nincompoop.
Matter (1) + Antimatter (-1) = 0 That was the illustration.
"So then, how can SOMETHING begin to exist out of NOTHING?"
That's what scientists are trying to figure out whitch is not necessarily true btw.
You completely missed the point of the argument. It is not about how matter came into existence.. It's about that something whitch exists(in biblical terms GOD) can cause something whitch does not exist (Universe) to begin existing.
@darkimausi I'm still waiting for you to explain how someone can believe that's it's IMPOSSIBLE for nothing to be turned into something P1... and also believe that it's POSSIBLE for something to come from nothing P3.
This is the ENTIRE point. GIVEN TBS's reasoning behind P1, it's logically IMPOSSIBLE for something to begin existing ex nihilo caused or uncaused, since TBS believes that NOTHING cannot turn into SOMETHING.
And my aggression is a way of fending off lowlife parasites like you.
Dracol, the point of TBS's argument is to a hightlight a logical and causal flaw in the KCA. Clearly, based on our current understanding of reality, we can't comprehend of how can something be brought into existence from nothing. The argument TBS is setting out though simply attempts to say... "well lets presume for a minute that in some unknown way, something CAN come into existence without a cause. What would be the logical, causal conclusion of that be..."
@OneFor You have no idea what TBS is trying to do, so let me explain. This isn't a real argument, it's a gimmick argument. TBS is trying to get theists to "pick their battles" meaning - if you believe the universe began to exist w/o arising from preexisting material, then based on his argument God wouldn't exist.
And if you reject P3 and say the universe began to exist from preexisting material, then the theist loses that way as well.
Anyway, TBS completely failed. Read all of my comments.
@theDracoIX I'm well aware of 'what TBS is trying to do' - i dont need you to explain it to me.
The 'gimmick' is a valid critque of the KCA. You state that it has failed, yet on reading ALL your comments to this vid, I am unable to find that you have made one valid argument against it. So - MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT. Show us the error in the critique.
I'll give you two responses worth of writing to make your argument, and any reply that is not a valid argument will be considered a fail.
@OneForTheTeams Nigger, who the fvck are you talking to? You're a goddamn nobody. Now go read ALL of my comments on all 4 of TBS's KCA videos and hopefully you will learn something.
TBS doesn't have a valid critique of the KCA, and I explain why in GREAT detail if you read all of my comments on his KCA videos.
NOW FVCK OFF! You aren't even worth this reply. Go get 20K subs and I might let you have a few more moments of my time.
@Dick If the two premises of the KCA are true (regardless of whether or not the universe began to exist from preexisting material or out of nothing) then I think the argument demonstrates a logical necessity for a first uncaused cause, otherwise - you have an infinite regress of past events, which is impossible.
The uncaused cause would need to be immaterial & eternal by nature & have the power to voluntarily produce an effect w/ something comparable to freewill.
@darkimausi The DracoIX is a troll. Best not to feed it. I've seen his shit polluting youtube for over a year. You're not going to get a civil discourse going with him.
@TheNeognostic Hey you dumb, pathetic, worthless nobody. Why don't you go read all of my comments on TBS's four Kalam videos to see how much I've contributed to this conversation. I've offered the most thorough and well thought out responses.
You're the goddamn troll you idiot fvck. CALLING SOMEONE A TROLLING WHO ISN'T TROLLING IS ITSELF TROLLING. Now go eat shit and die you fvcking soulless faggot.
@TheoreticalBullshit hmm this is very interesting i read craig facebook and traced it to you. you should read al ghazalis "incoherence of the philosophers" i think you'll really enjoy it and it would give you another perceptive on the KCA as ghazali was a incredible philosopher and addressed Aristotle and the ex nihilo philosophical theology ... if it was for al ghazali there wouldnt even be a thomas aquinas
I've got an idea... since Craig fans are calling Richard Dawkins a coward for not accepting to debate him in Oxford, why don't you present Dr Craig with a formal debate challenge, and then, when he ignores you or refuses it, we can all consider him a coward as well?
@dookdawg214 Dude, you`re actually comparing Craig to an uneducated soap actor (with ZERO formal training in philosophy) who makes YouTube videos? Seriously??? I`d be shocked if Craig has ever even seen Scott`s channel. Dawkins on the other hand has no valid excuse to not debate Craig. Dawkins is obviously a full blown pussy.
1. Dawkins doesn't have to accept every debate proposal he's offered.
2. Dawkins and Craig are experts in different disciplines. They loosely intersect in respects to religion, but neither man is well versed in the other's specialty. So what's the point?
3. The typical debate format they both use is really ridiculous. There's no quick and natural back-and-forth to allow for traps. They're typically long-winded speeches and nothing more.
@dookdawg214 1. Ya ... only the ones he feels comfortable with and not the ones where he knows he`ll have his ass handed to him.
2. Dawkins is the modern face of atheism and Craig is the modern face of theism (or the defense of it). *THAT* alone is good enough reason for a debate.
3. Thats a cop out since Dawkins has engaged in live debates before. He`s down for a debate ... just not with Craig. It is what it is.
I'm there and can't find anything. His site is very confusing. What do I have to click on? I tried blogs, forums, etc. Can you give me the URL extension?
I know you can't post links; that's why I asked for only the extension (whatever follows the dot com part of the URL) -- if it's not too long, of course.
Thats typical of craig the dr of comic books is always either ad homing strawmanning or laughs at the oppossing arguement suggesting to his audience he knows what the arguement is about while the audience clearly doesnt however responds to craig in the positive
craig is all about belitting his opponant so if you do get to debate him, please point out what he's doing, because for the most part his audience is too stupid to realize it
A passing recommendation after watching the string here.
This is not a new response to cosmolog. arguments in general or to different accounts of causality in particular. Furthermore, the view you are propagating is quite difficult to defend currently. If you think its the golden gun against KCA and arguments like it, you would do quite a bit of progress to define in your approach and address Aristotle's four causes and refute the two which undermine this thesis on their own terms.
@Theologica37 He's covered the material, the formal and the efficient cause. If you want to argue the final cause for the universe we could be here all day. In fact, Aristotle's assertation falls apart completely in the case of creatio ex nihilo . There is no material to start with, therefore no formal arrangment of such and no required efficiency to enact said arrangment. Each of Aristotles successive causes hinges on it's predecessor, without material the rest collapse by corollary.
William Lane Craig responded to you twice before you made this video and the one before it. That's two times, bro. The question is WILL you respond to HIM? And he didn't claim that you said that whatever begins to exist has a cause. You didn't read his articles, did you? Instead you're lying to make him look bad. And from the looks of your video you don't now what agent causation is.
@theoisafatso Sometimes when they don't claim that that needs an explanation. Your inability to comprehend your absurdity wasn't to change the subject and said it and went off on a tangent because you know what ad hominem means? Your previous comment was just an example. Uhm, okay. *ROLL EYES* Well, it's great you have a program for. Why are you begging the question by saying by the way. Keep thinking that. And be sure to listen to me. I will never be 100% certain about anything.
@CartesianTheist If you watch the video "On causation and the ethics of discourse", Scott addresses that claim. The fact of the matter is, Craig DOES go after popular internet critiques of his argument. He's made a hobby out of it.
But time is ordered in addition by a unique relation of earlier/later than: for two successive moments t1 and t2 in time, t1 is earlier than t1, and t2 is later than t1. While spatial points are not ordered by any such relation, this relation is essential to the nature of time; (Scientist Schlesinger) - "The relations 'before' and 'after' have generally been acknowledged as being the most fundamental temporal relations, which means that time deprived of these relations would cease to be time"
there are models that convert time into a spatial dimension by employing imaginary numbers for the time coordinate prior to the Planck time. Construed realistically, this is just bad metaphysics. Space is a dimension ordered by a relation of betweeness: for three successive points x, y, and z on a spatial line, y is between x and z.
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly hav...e a creation "EX NIHILO"
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 442
Scott we give you props for trying, and we enjoy your work, but if an argument is "at least in question" then be honest about it
It's dead simple: there is no Y, then X manages to make one! End of story.
Then here are some more knockdowns to TBS's argument. As far as naturalism goes we still don't understand Black holes as well as an Event horizon. This causes serious question begging in TBS's first premise.
Lastly you make it out like God isn't capable of destroying any part of existence into completely nothing then recreating something from absolutely nothing.
@dimic Lol, calling someone a boy when he is clearly older then you. He uses a lot of facial expressions as he is a soap opera actor, it is natural that he does that.
Also the K.C.A is crappy to begin with, so in truth this is already much more time spend on it then it is worth.
Dr. Craig is simply another disingenuous Apologist. He will keep avoiding what you request until the number of times you communicated with him can be seen as harassment , at least to those who have not been viewing the videos (his flock).
Part 1: @TBS Why don't you explain how it can be possible for something to begin existing uncaused ex nihilo IF it's IMPOSSIBLE for something to be caused into existence ex nihilo. Because until you actually explain that, you don't even deserve a reply from WLC - since all you've done is assert your position.
You said that if something did begin to exist ex nihilo, that it's more probable that it did so WITHOUT a cause. You then tried to show why something CANNOT be caused into existence, Cont.
Part 2: ex nihilo, but never explained how (given your own reasoning against creatio ex nihilo) something coming into existence uncaused ex nihilo is STILL possible.
And until you do that, there's nothing to respond to. You are basically trying to refute the first premise of the Kalam by going NUH UH!
Why? Because, what if it's completely IMPOSSIBLE for something to begin existing ex nihilo caused or uncaused?! How does that affect the KCA?! IT FVCKING DOESN'T! Cont.
Part 3: The KCA doesn't actually state whether or not something can begin to exist ex nihilo... it merely states that whatever begins to exist... whether from preexisting material or not, has a cause. If nothing ever begins to exist ex nihilo, then the first premise is still TRUE! And the conclusion is still fvcking TRUE even if that means the universe began to exist from preexisting material.
I've explained this before. The only angle you can take against the first premise is claiming, Cont.
ehhhhhhh 'everything must have a material cause' is the equivalent of saying 'without a material cause, there is no efficient cause'. Also, since the rest of your argument follows from the first premise, IT IS the 'serious' objection. Not only is it ignorant of the principle of sufficient reason, it's also ontologically fallacious, existence is NOT a contingent property, nor is it a property at all, it merely is or isn't.
Respond to what Craig says, and THEN expect a follow up. Have a nice day.
Dude u be on bold and the beautiful
lumbeem 1 day ago
Dude, make more vids please!
qonf 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TheoreticalBullshit sums up the channel..no more need be said.
DawkinsDebunked 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
ArcadianGenesis 1 month ago
The problem with your argument is if nothing does exist. Then you do have a material cause. Nothing would then qualify as material. Stop playing stupid arse hole. I see you O.O!
machinedean100 2 months ago
@machinedean100 how could nothingness exist?
Sheri159 2 months ago
@Sheri159 IDK ask him its apart of his argument. His anti kalam argument begins with nothing which exists.
machinedean100 2 months ago
Hey TheoBS you must have figured out by now that WLC has a very lucrative business selling books to comfort his followers. It is why he refers you to his "work" or books. I have seen WLC say on video that even if he was faced with absolute proof that his god did not exist he would still never the less dispute it on HIS faith. So kind of pointless to try plus he makes too much money selling books to scared souls who crave his comforting philosphy (nutty as it is).
tsunami770 2 months ago
Existence itself perpetually defies/confounds, all attempts by limited, fallible logic to understand or explain.
Moreover, one cannot physically regress in space-time to implement the scientific method towards empirical knowledge in definitive explanation of that which was actually responsible for the origination of the cosmos and life appearing on the pre-biotic earth.
You're in the same boat as everyone for inability to know the eternal mysteries of the reality of existence.
Get over it.
LizardLeaps 2 months ago
I keep a dictionary beside me listening to this...I understand him and agree on his statements but I like learning new words
lornakidd 4 months ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
...(continued)
there is a FIRST CAUSE AND THAT CAUSE IS GOD , then by the argument I gave in the previous comment , the Kalam argument breaks down .
What really bothers me is that Stenger failed to mention this in his debate with Craig when he gave the example of virtual particles , while both the examples that I gave above can be found in a high school physics textbook.
mynameszz 4 months ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
...(continued)
and the infinite number of reflections produced when an object is put between two opposite facing mirrors.
Since he is apparently unaware of these things or ignores them to validate his assertion about the impossibility of an actual infinite existing , thus the possibility for infinite regress opens up. And if there is infinite regress then that means there can NEVER BE A FIRST CAUSE/UNCAUSED CAUSE . Since the Kalam argument hypothesises that the ..........
mynameszz 4 months ago
@mynameszz Actually the amount of reflections between 2 mirrors isn't infinite, it's only as many as the light has had time to travel. So if the mirrors are 1 meter apart you will get 300 million reflections per second. Not sure about the superconductor argument either, whether that can be considered an example of infinity in the real world. I prefer just pointing out the fact that the kalam argument is an argument for the existence of the universe, not for the existence of god.
Blighto2 4 months ago
@TheoreticalBullshit
Craig's central argument for God's existence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument(apart from the Jesus's empty tomb) . I am sure we both agree on that . And in the assertions he makes in the Kalam argument , one of his main assertions(for refuting infinite regress) is that an actual infinite CANNOT EXIST.
However what he he is apparently unaware of is that in real life actual infinites DO EXIST eg. infinite conductivity of a superconductor(explained by Meissner Effect) .....
mynameszz 4 months ago
Is this guy serious? Or is it meant to be taken as a joke? Like a Stephen Colbert of philosophy or something?
IchthusPunk 5 months ago
william lane craig was molested by his priest................last week
atheistcommonsense 5 months ago
“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.” - Albert Einstein
I don't quite share the same judgement of God as ol' Al here, but regardless I thought that quote suited this well.
Keiranforreal 6 months ago
im christian
thejanitorssuccess 6 months ago
@thejanitorssuccess I worship the FSM
DerrenBrown100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he's still posting and yes...still alive
StargateMunky 7 months ago
Who would ever offend your impressive intellect o_O ???
dragonsword343 7 months ago
Dying for another vid, can't get enough of your stuff. :) You're incredibly articulate.
viiScorp 7 months ago
The creator of my favorite YouTube channel is now an Emmy winner!
Arteia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do you bother arguing with religious morons like W.L.Craig.
TheDano1947 7 months ago
Why do you bother arguing with religious morons lie W.L.Craig.
TheDano1947 7 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Come watch my new video! Its called "Why the fuck do you care!"
WillToNihilsm 8 months ago
Congrats on the Daytime Emmy!
mjr256 8 months ago
Oh...I forgot to mention - It is on WLC's own website I've been, almost exclusively, following this debate. He is now giving it attention. This is the only place you need to look to realise how tightly you are gripping his gonads right now on this argument.
I don't even need to hear your arguments - He is in a state of intellectual chaos in front of his home crowd.
His responses are getting truly childish!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
I have to admit TBS, I haven't been fully following your "stalking" of Craig fallacious "Kalam cosmology" argument, though I did catch some of his later takes on your, presumably satirical, "Kalam argument for the "NON existence of God".
W.L.C's defence seem to be an arrogant and unexplained dismissal of your thinking skills, and a critique of your propositions which negates his own original Kalam argument.
My question: Why are you bothering with this intellectually dishonest little turd?
Tobytrim 8 months ago 33
@Tobytrim Because he thinks some of the apologists actually invite reasoned and balanced arguments from their critics. He has to have faith, because, it's healthy to invite debate from apologists. Unfortunately it's not often the case when you are having a debate with apologists that they will represent your position fairly. You shouldn't be anyone's intimidated victim, but neither should you continue arguments after you have successfully defended your position. TB left at the right time.
NeonSloaney 6 months ago
@NeonSloaney It was a while ago, and I kind of forgot the whole thread- but I think I very much agree!
Tobytrim 6 months ago
@Tobytrim I don't want to misrepresent TBS, but after watching a few of his videos, it would seem to me that he's arguing more broadly for the promotion of honest inquiry in global society that is ultimately a catalyst to humanity's progress. Wouldn't you agree that by being honest with ourselves and towards others intellectually, and by challenging those that are clearly misguided, we might finally come to a consensus on which beliefs or subjective values are outright deleterious...
VibrasoulARA 4 weeks ago
@VibrasoulARA ... to human and societal well-being and which we can confidently (on the basis of sound and verifiable evidence) and wholeheartedly uphold in the name of peace and solidarity. Just a thought, hope my point came across.
Gj TBS, very informative as usual. (Y)
VibrasoulARA 4 weeks ago
@VibrasoulARA Without even checking my own comment, which you responded to here, I would say that is a fair comment.
Tobytrim 3 weeks ago
Ive been watching you for 3 years on this channel and I had no idea that you work on a soap! Then I watched the awards last night and there was TheoreticalBullshit going on stage to pick up his EMMY.....haha, very very COOL ! Congrats ! And please do more vids on your philosophy of life and religion. I love you and love listening to your opinions and comments.
wiannoboy 8 months ago
Hey Scott ... I don't know if you'll see this, but congratulations on your Emmy! You have done such good work for many years, and it must be nice to be recognized by those who enjoy and admire what you do. When you first 'hit' General Hospital' all those years ago, I felt that you were something special, and you have not disappointed ... in the characters you've played, nor in your YouTube 'self-character'. Agree or not, I'm a FAN! ;))
justanote7 8 months ago
Congrats on your Emmy!
znodester 8 months ago
congratulations!scott on winning your award.i'm just one of many of your fans.
mrblackcat501 8 months ago
@Kang "I don't want to call it god." Exactly, you don't WANT to. You would rather appeal to fvcking absurdity, like something popping into existence uncaused out of nothing, then to be rational & accept the most logical position.
How can an atheist tease theists for believing in "magic" & then turn around and say something as ridiculous as something can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, for no reason. It can just happen! No explanation required!
As WLC says, that's WORSE than magic!
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX You call it "ridiculous", because it cannot be squared with a 19th century understanding of the univese. You talk about an "infite regress of past events" thereby suggesting an A-theory of time. You refer to immaterial agent-causation thereby implying an interactionist mind-body dualism. And you use "something cannot come from nothing" considering a metaphysical "nothingness" which we can not even positively describe. There is a reason why these concepts are pretty much dead by now.
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago 36
@TheNameIsUnimportant Can you give me some reference in the literature, preferably something online to begin with, for the metaphysics of "nothingness" where it shows the problems with its description ? Thanks.
menonfire12 7 months ago
@menonfire12 If you want to have something quick and dirty online try the Stanford Encyclopedia plato(dot)stanford(dot)edu / entries / nothingness. For an in-depth discussion that relates to causation read Lewis' article "Void and Object" and Beebee's article "Nothingness and Causation" in the book "Causation and Counterfactuals".
TheNameIsUnimportant 7 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant Great, thanks!
menonfire12 7 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant Did einstein prove the B theory of time?
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@theDracoIX
Excuse me, but you've failed to see again and again that a rejection of religious creationism does not entail an acceptance of any position concerning the existence of things at all. Humans are not *required* to hold positions of knowledge with respect to the most unknowable questions--I myself am perfectly okay with not knowing. Epistemological certainty is only a problem for theism, which actually makes claims about these things that it has to defend.
LinguaNonFranca 8 months ago 2
@theDracoIX
(contd) However, even if rejecting religious dogma did require an explanation of how things exist, the problem still lies with you. The idea that matter "appeared" is in principle just as defensible as the idea that matter has always existedt. Your cry of "absurd" aside, I am free to posit an eternal universe. You see, I don't even need to account for the existence of the universe, because you can't account for the existence of god. Existence is always self-justifying.
LinguaNonFranca 8 months ago 2
You: Here's some advice; don't go into debating, you wouldn't last a round
Me: ...your suggestion lacks substance and comes off as an insult rather than a serious criticism.
You: ...particularly without your scripted answers on your computer.
Me: I think that live debates that rely heavily on speeches made up on the spot test many skills that are ultimately useless in true logical debate.
In this format, it's sensible to write most of your content before recording.
Your responses?
airandfingers 8 months ago
Here's some advice; don't go into debating, you wouldn't last a round, particularly without your scripted answers on your computer.
AtheistTower 8 months ago 2
@AtheistTower Are you talking to the video's author? Is this the extent of your commentary? If so, your suggestion lacks substance and comes off as an insult rather than a serious criticism.
I think that live debates that rely heavily on speeches made up on the spot test many skills that are ultimately useless in true logical debate.
In this format, it's sensible to write most of your content before recording. It gives people like yourself something to complain about, but that's about it.
airandfingers 8 months ago
@airandfingers
Christopher Hitchens would disagree.
AtheistTower 8 months ago
@AtheistTower
Appeal to authority much? How about you and I engage in an actual debate, in which we're supposed to make actual points?
airandfingers 8 months ago
@airandfingers
Go ahead, I'm waiting for you to make an actual argument.
AtheistTower 8 months ago
@AtheistTower Not to be pushy, but your other responses came within the same day, and it's been two days since I re-presented my "actual argument." Is that really what you were waiting for?
airandfingers 8 months ago
@airandfingers
Where is your argument? I can't see it.
AtheistTower 8 months ago
The past is incomplete, so whatever caused t = 0 would need to be causeless and efficient but not necessarily material as E=MC2.
height76 8 months ago
My belief that you have no idea what you are talking about began to exist as a result of my seeing your video. Your video caused my belief that you have no idea what you are talking about to begin to exist. You claim that :"Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing. " If this is is true, how did your video (which exists) cause my belief that you have no idea what you are taking about (which did not exist) to begin to exist?
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly By rearranging the neurological state of your pre-existing brain. You are trying to reify a 'belief' unjustifiably.
greylights888 8 months ago
@greylights888 So what? The new mental state is a state that began to exist. Further, the belief that is associated with that particular arrangement comes into being when the arrangement is made (you assume either an identity theory or a functionalist theory of mind...both of which are false, but never mind.) That the mental state has a corresponding brain state is irrelevant. Mental content exists, and if it is caused to exist by my brain arrangement then point still stands.
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly "So what? The new mental state is a state that began to exist."
The new mental state is just a new arrangement of molecules in your brain. Rearranging something and giving it a new name is not really bringing anything into existence. You may as well say you bring a fist into existence when you close your fingers.
DickJohnson3434 8 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 False, Do not confuse the atomic arrangement with the mental content. The mental content is not the atomic arrangement. To think it is is to subscribe to the long debunked token-identity theory of mind which was blown out of the water by functionalism and supervenience 30 years ago. P.S.google "universal quantification"
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly
What are mental states than if not products of the physical brain? Are they illogical products of your intangible soul?
How does universal quantification imply that thoughts are something other than the products of physical brain? Thoughts are what the mind does. It's like saying your legs bring the verb of "running" into existence, when all they do is move. Moving things is not bringing anything into existence in the way Craig talks about the universe.
DickJohnson3434 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DickJohnson3434 "thoughts are what the mind does. It's like saying your legs bring the verb of "running" into existence, when all they do is move. " This is obviously false. Please read up on Philosophy of mind. The notion you just advanced was last argued by Jack Smart in the 60's and was knocked out by Hillary Putnam. And please look into Universal Quantification. Its a term in formal logic that your going to need to understand in order to understand my objection.
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 I did a video set on this. See here: watch?v=BzrHkCmHR_Y&feature=related
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly your making the same mistake WLC is making, you interpret "beginning to exist" as anything that you can put a new label on rather then starting to exist ex nihilo. by doing this you are completely draining the Kalam argument from its meaning given the fact that, if this is true, for all we know, the "cause" of the universe is no more special then the "cause" of you forming your belief about Scott. leaving you further away from your desired conclusion then you were be4.
AllenQuatermain2de 8 months ago
This is false. There is a difference between mental content, and the atomic arangement which causes the mental content. Just like there is a difference between h20 and water. If I have a single molecule of h20, I don't have water. If i accumulate enough h20 molecules together in the right way, water "emerges" as a new thing. if the temperature is low, ice may emerge. Also, Google universal quantification.
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly your h2o example makes no sense.. but that doesn't matter since i already understand how you define "beginning to exist" as i already said.. yet your comment does nothing to actually address anything in my comment.. and i also don't see what universal quantification has to do with the point made in the video or my comment... you don't have to explain your position to me, i already know that. instead, address the argument.
AllenQuatermain2de 8 months ago
@AllenQuatermain2de Yes my example makes perfect sense. In fact, it is used by John Searle in "Rediscovery of the Mind." Never mind that. Here is a video set of my explaining it: Start with the first one and go from there. watch?v=zCSoXNd5qTQ
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly well, i now know you have a poor understanding of what it means to be, but luckily, that is irrelevant. what IS relevant is the fact that you understand my point(which is more then i can say for WLC) you understand that it is about the difference between "creation" and "assemblage" now clearly you and WLC are using assemblage. but as you pointed out, this happens all the time, its nothing special and it makes the argument useless yet you dont address this at all.
AllenQuatermain2de 8 months ago
@AllenQuatermain2de You guys all make the same point: "The universe requires a material cause." No proof of this has been fourth coming, the point is just asserted and not argued for, but Craig already called you guys on that. If the belief is not ontologically reducible to the brain state, then my point sticks. BTW Craig does understand the creation assemblage distinction, if you had watched the first video in the series you would know I got that distinction from something that Craig wrote.
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly No proof has been forthcoming since it's a metaphysical statement. But, a priori reasoning does suggest that if a material phenomenon has an efficient cause, then this cause has to be material. Something immaterial efficiently affecting the material seems unintelligible (what mechanism could that entail?). A posteriori all material phenomena whose efficient causes are known have material causes. The beginning of the universe is a material phenomenon, so the argument stands.
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNameIsUnimportant "a priori reasoning does suggest that if a material phenomenon has an efficient cause, then this cause has to be material. " Lets hear the argument for that. And polkinghorne has suggested the mechanism of information.
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly now you just lying out of your arse, i have no patience for liar, believe what you want. i am done with the likes of you
AllenQuatermain2de 8 months ago
@AllenQuatermain2de Here is the link to the thing you think I am lying about: reasonablefaith(dot)org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7279 , Here is the quote:"I have, again, with Thomas Aquinas, explicitly rejected the idea that creation is a type of change or transition (see my and Paul Copan's Creation out of Nothing [Baker, 2004]). I substitute "assemblage' in for "Transition," But this is where I got the distinction from.
timetothinkclearly 8 months ago
@timetothinkclearly but on an added note, your h2o example is useful in explaining your error, and that of WLC's. unlike what you suggested, ice, water and steam are ALL the same thing, they just occur in different shapes, just like you and i. the material of which we are built existed long be4 we did, we are simply a new arrangement. in other words, nothing new actually began to exist, instead, things that already were simply changed shape, like water. this can also count for the universe
AllenQuatermain2de 8 months ago
Craig is a sociopathic liar, why are you expecting a serious response from him?
GodDebate 8 months ago
@Atheisophy Thanks for being honest and impartial... that's so rare.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
go to reasonable faith . org /site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
B3R3T 8 months ago 4
@Atheisophy How does The BIG, PROFESIONAL, PHILOSOPHER, METAPHYSISIT, LOGICIAN "take apart" TBS' argument? He says that by "something that exists can't cause something that does not exist to begin existing" one is asserting the existence of that which does not exist. Tell me something: by "something that exists can't cause a decent, honest W.L Craig (which is something that does not exist) to begin existing" is it asserted that a decent, honest W.L. Craig exists? Didn't think so. Logician? Neh
Ramatganski 8 months ago
@theoreticalbullshit any more feedback from WLC?
587Thumper 8 months ago
Craig responded in the question of the week. Check his website.
topology10 8 months ago
There has been a lot of controversy about whether or not Craig has actually patronisingly labeled TBS as asserting something which he hasn't been asserting. Craig has labeled TBS as another one of those who assert that every cause has to be a material cause.
But TBS is allowing both for an immaterial cause AND for such a cause to be an efficient one.
That, for EXAMPLE, the fact that 6 is an even number is an EFFICIANT and IMMATERIAL cause for it's division by 2 to give a whole number.
There.
Ramatganski 8 months ago
Dr. Craig responded to you FULLY. Don't lie about the good doctor, TBS. That's bad form, man.
ab9070 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Indeed the theistic view seems more probable since on TBS' view, A and B could be skipped, whereas the theist only maintain that B can be skipped. For all of these reasons, I think premis 1 of the KCA still stands and Scott has failed to show that premis 1 is less probable then its negation.
GGDFan777 8 months ago
Moreover, TBS's view implies that the universe cannot have any cause at all, for he maintains that if it did have an efficient cause, that cause would have to be a material cause (1:47), which he himself thinks is impossible for the universe (1:30) . So in the case with of his A-B-C form of causality, it's not just B that is skipped on TBS' view, but A ánd B. But if he thinks that it possible for A and B to be skipped, then why complain about B being skipped on the theistic view?
GGDFan777 8 months ago
@GGDFan777 Dude, let me get this one. Because skipping A AND B is easier than just skipping B, DUH! Here, let me help you out since I doubt you understand. 0 + 0 is greater than 1+ 0. NOW DO YOU GET IT?! I surely hope so, because if you can't get something as simple as that - then fvck it, I give up!
Also, please don't bring up WLC defending creatio ex nihilo in EVERY single fvcking speech I've ever seen him give on the KCA. That's like calling TBS a bold face liar on his own channel. HOW RUDE!
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX How is skipping A and B easier then only B? TBS's point was that you can not come to C by skipping B, yet on his view B is still skipped. So are you saying that the universe can come into existence uncaused out of nothing if it did began to exist? And if it is possible for things to come into existence uncaused out of nothing, why doesn't this happen all the time? Why only the universe?
GGDFan777 8 months ago
@GGDFan777 I was being sarcastic. TBS's position is mindnumbingly absurd and yet the guy gets 95% positive ratings... it just goes to show you how fake and insincere people are.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX Are you a theist or are you a no- theist who just happens to disagree with TBS?
GGDFan777 8 months ago
Dr. Craig offers other reasons as well to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause, not just our empirical observation of physical things, for example, that it would become inexplicable why not anything and everything come into being uncaused out of nothing. Think about it, if it would be really possible for things to come into existence uncaused out of nothing, why doesn't this happen all the time? Why only the universe? TBS doesn't even engage with this reason at all.
GGDFan777 8 months ago
I wish my computer speakers were louder...
beavisishere 8 months ago
I'm well aware of the "William Lane Craig is not ...", I feel there needs to be a "William Lane Craig is ..." series. Mainly because whilst you can reverse some things, eg "William Lane Craig is dishonest" to "William Lane Craig is not honest", there are somethings where that can't apply, eg: "William Lane Craig is a wanker."
TheNamelessCharacter 8 months ago
This might actually be, at least partially, a case of being too articulate to be understood properly. Dr. Craig appears to be at least somewhat well read, so... I don't know. :-/
servohahn 8 months ago
@Theoreticalbullshit (continued) Indeed, as anyone who has studied formal, material, efficient and final causation knows, efficient causation cannot be made sense of sans *final* causes, not material causes, and material causes cannot be made sense of sans *formal* causes, not efficient causes. You don't seem to grasp the logical relationships that obtain among these four notions of causation well enough to begin defending the claim that efficient causes require not final but material causes.
chesterbelloc1 8 months ago
@Theoreticalbullshit, I just listened to your "On Causation and the Ethics of Discourse" video, and I have to say, you *were* arguing that "everything that begins to exist has a material cause"! Hence, Craig didn't misrepresent you at all. You just were arguing that 'X is caused' can only be made sense of if X had a material cause. And you have certainly not defended the notion that efficient causes can only be made sense of if they're coupled with material causes.
chesterbelloc1 8 months ago
Part 1: "I once expressed bewilderment that people like TBS could be taken in by such sloppy thinking. I think I know part of the reason now: such folks are wrestling with significant and difficult philosophical questions but lack the skills to do so rigorously." -William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith
Well, it looks like you're gonna be waiting a little longer, since WLC still thinks that you believe everything which begins to exist has a material cause. And do you know why? BECAUSE, Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 2: THAT IS YOUR ACTUAL FVCKING POSITION! How many times do I have to say it? If you take your P1 to its logical conclusion, then you are saying it's IMPOSSIBLE for something to begin existing ex nihilo caused or uncaused i.e. EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST HAS A MATERIAL CAUSE!
See, the real fvcking problem here is that YOU don't even believe all of your premises are true. Which means that YOU aren't even convinced by your own argument! Now, how fvcking stupid is that? Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 3: You're actually trying to convince people to believe something that YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE!
And then you have the fvcking nerve to sit there and accuse people of misinterpreting your argument, when YOU are the one who doesn't even understand what the fvck you're saying!
Scott, do you believe something can begin to exist uncaused out of nothing? That is to say - you start with nothing.... and nothing happens, and then for absolutely no reason whatsoever something begins to exist. Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 4: Unless you believe that's possible, AND YOU DON'T, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T - IF YOU BELIEVE P1 IS TRUE, then given your position against creatio ex nihilo, you believe that EVERYTHING WHICH BEGINS TO EXIST MUST HAVE A MATERIAL CAUSE!
Seriously Dude... STOP FVCKING ACTING SO DENSE. You can get this... just step away from the mirror for like 5 minutes and FOCUS!
You don't believe there are NON-EXISTENT things which can cause something into existence ex nihilo, right? Well, the way your, Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 5: argument is worded, your C1 is actually: God is a non-existent being that caused the universe to exist ex nihilo.
Since you don't believe that. And you don't believe that an EXISTENT thing can cause something into existence ex nihilo, then you MUST also believe that something cannot be UNCAUSED into existence ex nihilo, since that would be EVEN WORSE!
You say that it's IMPOSSIBLE for something that exists to act on nothing and cause it to turn into something... Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 6: HOWEVER, you think that it's POSSIBLE for NOTHING to NOT ACT on NOTHING and turn it into SOMETHING?!
NO SCOTT! No you don't believe that, THEREFORE WLC is correct in his analysis of your position.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX There are many respectable thinkers who claim that an uncaused universe is possible and Craig certainly knows it, since he responds to these claims routinely. He even wrote a book together with Quentin Smith who holds precisely this view. Stephen Hawking would be another example of a "moron" who rejects your "obvious metaphysical truth". So, there is really no excuse for Craig misrepresenting the argument as he clearly did. Oh, and it seems your capslock is malfunctioning.
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
@theDracoIX
Watch his Video again before raging out in caps. The whole point of the argument is that something whitch allready exist (God) can not cause nothing (The non-existent Universe) to do anything because it doesnt exist yet.
P1: "Nothing whitch exists can cause something that does not exist to begin existing ex nihilo."
Nowhere in this premise it is said that nothing can begin existing ex nihilo.
P3: "The Universe began to exist ex nihilo."
Seems like you missed this premise completely.
darkimausi 8 months ago
@dark I'm simply speechless at this point. Have you even watched all of TBS's Kalam videos? I HAVE, go watch them if you haven't. I've been responding to this shit for a year now.
Let me put this as simply as possible. TBS defends his P1 by saying you can't act on nothing & turn it into something. Which is just another way of saying... NOTHING CANNOT BE TURNED INTO SOMETHING!
So, if NOTHING cannot be turned into something. THEN HOW THE FVCK CAN YOU GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING? (P3) YOU CAN'T!
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX
Err.. Yeah.. That's why he made a second Video to clear things up.
And yes, P1 sais that you can't act on nothing and turn it into something. Still wondering where you get the idea that that means that something can't come from nothing. It's even mathematicly possible: (-1)+1=0. Btw yes, nothing can not be turned into something. And now I want you to pay attention for once.. If NOTHING is TURNED into SOMETHING then someone/thing has to do the TURNING and is thus impossible.
darkimausi 8 months ago
@darkimausi Guy, you are mentally insane, and I say that sincerely. Claiming that you can get something from nothing is equivalent to saying 0 + 0 = 1. You would have to be braindead to believe that.
"Btw yes, nothing can not be turned into something."
So then, how can SOMETHING begin to exist out of NOTHING? Where did the something come from? It didn't come from the NOTHING, because you just said nothing can't be turned into something.
Have fun contradicting yourself, you fvcking nincompoop.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX
Matter (1) + Antimatter (-1) = 0 That was the illustration.
"So then, how can SOMETHING begin to exist out of NOTHING?"
That's what scientists are trying to figure out whitch is not necessarily true btw.
You completely missed the point of the argument. It is not about how matter came into existence.. It's about that something whitch exists(in biblical terms GOD) can cause something whitch does not exist (Universe) to begin existing.
Also, you've got a serious agression problem.
darkimausi 8 months ago
@darkimausi I'm still waiting for you to explain how someone can believe that's it's IMPOSSIBLE for nothing to be turned into something P1... and also believe that it's POSSIBLE for something to come from nothing P3.
This is the ENTIRE point. GIVEN TBS's reasoning behind P1, it's logically IMPOSSIBLE for something to begin existing ex nihilo caused or uncaused, since TBS believes that NOTHING cannot turn into SOMETHING.
And my aggression is a way of fending off lowlife parasites like you.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX
Dracol, the point of TBS's argument is to a hightlight a logical and causal flaw in the KCA. Clearly, based on our current understanding of reality, we can't comprehend of how can something be brought into existence from nothing. The argument TBS is setting out though simply attempts to say... "well lets presume for a minute that in some unknown way, something CAN come into existence without a cause. What would be the logical, causal conclusion of that be..."
OneForTheTeams 8 months ago
@OneFor You have no idea what TBS is trying to do, so let me explain. This isn't a real argument, it's a gimmick argument. TBS is trying to get theists to "pick their battles" meaning - if you believe the universe began to exist w/o arising from preexisting material, then based on his argument God wouldn't exist.
And if you reject P3 and say the universe began to exist from preexisting material, then the theist loses that way as well.
Anyway, TBS completely failed. Read all of my comments.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX I'm well aware of 'what TBS is trying to do' - i dont need you to explain it to me.
The 'gimmick' is a valid critque of the KCA. You state that it has failed, yet on reading ALL your comments to this vid, I am unable to find that you have made one valid argument against it. So - MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT. Show us the error in the critique.
I'll give you two responses worth of writing to make your argument, and any reply that is not a valid argument will be considered a fail.
OneForTheTeams 8 months ago
@OneForTheTeams Nigger, who the fvck are you talking to? You're a goddamn nobody. Now go read ALL of my comments on all 4 of TBS's KCA videos and hopefully you will learn something.
TBS doesn't have a valid critique of the KCA, and I explain why in GREAT detail if you read all of my comments on his KCA videos.
NOW FVCK OFF! You aren't even worth this reply. Go get 20K subs and I might let you have a few more moments of my time.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX
Do you think the KCA proves the existence of God?
DickJohnson3434 8 months ago
@Dick If the two premises of the KCA are true (regardless of whether or not the universe began to exist from preexisting material or out of nothing) then I think the argument demonstrates a logical necessity for a first uncaused cause, otherwise - you have an infinite regress of past events, which is impossible.
The uncaused cause would need to be immaterial & eternal by nature & have the power to voluntarily produce an effect w/ something comparable to freewill.
You might as well call it god.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theDracoIX
Question 2, do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior?
DickJohnson3434 8 months ago
@theDracoIX No-one without 20K subs is worthy of your time. Do you have 20K subs? Oh, I thought not.
TheNeognostic 8 months ago
@darkimausi The DracoIX is a troll. Best not to feed it. I've seen his shit polluting youtube for over a year. You're not going to get a civil discourse going with him.
TheNeognostic 8 months ago
@TheNeognostic Don't worry. If I don't see any progression after 3 posts I basicly throw my hands in the air and aks myself: "Screw it, why bother?"
darkimausi 8 months ago
@TheNeognostic Hey you dumb, pathetic, worthless nobody. Why don't you go read all of my comments on TBS's four Kalam videos to see how much I've contributed to this conversation. I've offered the most thorough and well thought out responses.
You're the goddamn troll you idiot fvck. CALLING SOMEONE A TROLLING WHO ISN'T TROLLING IS ITSELF TROLLING. Now go eat shit and die you fvcking soulless faggot.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theDracoIX Thank you for proving my point. Now go play with traffic.
TheNeognostic 8 months ago
@TheoreticalBullshit hmm this is very interesting i read craig facebook and traced it to you. you should read al ghazalis "incoherence of the philosophers" i think you'll really enjoy it and it would give you another perceptive on the KCA as ghazali was a incredible philosopher and addressed Aristotle and the ex nihilo philosophical theology ... if it was for al ghazali there wouldnt even be a thomas aquinas
0ptimusbibIe 8 months ago
I've got an idea... since Craig fans are calling Richard Dawkins a coward for not accepting to debate him in Oxford, why don't you present Dr Craig with a formal debate challenge, and then, when he ignores you or refuses it, we can all consider him a coward as well?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 Dude, you`re actually comparing Craig to an uneducated soap actor (with ZERO formal training in philosophy) who makes YouTube videos? Seriously??? I`d be shocked if Craig has ever even seen Scott`s channel. Dawkins on the other hand has no valid excuse to not debate Craig. Dawkins is obviously a full blown pussy.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 8 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost
You've missed the point(s).
1. Dawkins doesn't have to accept every debate proposal he's offered.
2. Dawkins and Craig are experts in different disciplines. They loosely intersect in respects to religion, but neither man is well versed in the other's specialty. So what's the point?
3. The typical debate format they both use is really ridiculous. There's no quick and natural back-and-forth to allow for traps. They're typically long-winded speeches and nothing more.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 1. Ya ... only the ones he feels comfortable with and not the ones where he knows he`ll have his ass handed to him.
2. Dawkins is the modern face of atheism and Craig is the modern face of theism (or the defense of it). *THAT* alone is good enough reason for a debate.
3. Thats a cop out since Dawkins has engaged in live debates before. He`s down for a debate ... just not with Craig. It is what it is.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 8 months ago
he responded. check his website.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx
I'm there and can't find anything. His site is very confusing. What do I have to click on? I tried blogs, forums, etc. Can you give me the URL extension?
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 i can't leave any links but try reasonablefaith dot come
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx
I know you can't post links; that's why I asked for only the extension (whatever follows the dot com part of the URL) -- if it's not too long, of course.
dookdawg214 8 months ago
@dookdawg214 I will PM you the link.
xchampx 8 months ago
@xchampx
Thanks
dookdawg214 8 months ago
Thats typical of craig the dr of comic books is always either ad homing strawmanning or laughs at the oppossing arguement suggesting to his audience he knows what the arguement is about while the audience clearly doesnt however responds to craig in the positive
craig is all about belitting his opponant so if you do get to debate him, please point out what he's doing, because for the most part his audience is too stupid to realize it
debateyourfaith 8 months ago
heres a logical transendance there is a higher power that created the universe
atontearmont 8 months ago
I remain unimpressed by WLC.
CousinoMacul 8 months ago
@CousinoMacul
« I remain unimpressed by WLC. »
Indeed, given his audience and his credentials, you'd expect arguments that could not be as easily dismantled by even laymen.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@CousinoMacul Oh, I'm impressed, all right. But only by his incoherent word-salad cocktails. He's what's called a SOPHIST.
indignant99 8 months ago
Hey Scott,
A passing recommendation after watching the string here.
This is not a new response to cosmolog. arguments in general or to different accounts of causality in particular. Furthermore, the view you are propagating is quite difficult to defend currently. If you think its the golden gun against KCA and arguments like it, you would do quite a bit of progress to define in your approach and address Aristotle's four causes and refute the two which undermine this thesis on their own terms.
Theologica37 8 months ago
@Theologica37 He's covered the material, the formal and the efficient cause. If you want to argue the final cause for the universe we could be here all day. In fact, Aristotle's assertation falls apart completely in the case of creatio ex nihilo . There is no material to start with, therefore no formal arrangment of such and no required efficiency to enact said arrangment. Each of Aristotles successive causes hinges on it's predecessor, without material the rest collapse by corollary.
schmatt13 8 months ago
TheoreticalBullshit,
William Lane Craig responded to you twice before you made this video and the one before it. That's two times, bro. The question is WILL you respond to HIM? And he didn't claim that you said that whatever begins to exist has a cause. You didn't read his articles, did you? Instead you're lying to make him look bad. And from the looks of your video you don't now what agent causation is.
ab9070 8 months ago
@theoisafatso Sometimes when they don't claim that that needs an explanation. Your inability to comprehend your absurdity wasn't to change the subject and said it and went off on a tangent because you know what ad hominem means? Your previous comment was just an example. Uhm, okay. *ROLL EYES* Well, it's great you have a program for. Why are you begging the question by saying by the way. Keep thinking that. And be sure to listen to me. I will never be 100% certain about anything.
thePhantomFrank 8 months ago
All this over a parable of a dude (and 1/3 of so much more) that liked to tell parables.
MinervaInTheBrain 8 months ago
@CartesianTheist If you watch the video "On causation and the ethics of discourse", Scott addresses that claim. The fact of the matter is, Craig DOES go after popular internet critiques of his argument. He's made a hobby out of it.
Drgamedood 8 months ago
Scott you should check out the article that Atheist Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig argued on this subject. It's very interesting
TimelessApologist 8 months ago
@TimelessApologist lol why emphazise Smith's atheism? I never hear craig fanboys use the phrase "Christian William Lane Craig"
Drgamedood 8 months ago
But time is ordered in addition by a unique relation of earlier/later than: for two successive moments t1 and t2 in time, t1 is earlier than t1, and t2 is later than t1. While spatial points are not ordered by any such relation, this relation is essential to the nature of time; (Scientist Schlesinger) - "The relations 'before' and 'after' have generally been acknowledged as being the most fundamental temporal relations, which means that time deprived of these relations would cease to be time"
TimelessApologist 8 months ago
there are models that convert time into a spatial dimension by employing imaginary numbers for the time coordinate prior to the Planck time. Construed realistically, this is just bad metaphysics. Space is a dimension ordered by a relation of betweeness: for three successive points x, y, and z on a spatial line, y is between x and z.
TimelessApologist 8 months ago
Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly hav...e a creation "EX NIHILO"
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 442
Scott we give you props for trying, and we enjoy your work, but if an argument is "at least in question" then be honest about it
TimelessApologist 8 months ago
It's dead simple: there is no Y, then X manages to make one! End of story.
Then here are some more knockdowns to TBS's argument. As far as naturalism goes we still don't understand Black holes as well as an Event horizon. This causes serious question begging in TBS's first premise.
Lastly you make it out like God isn't capable of destroying any part of existence into completely nothing then recreating something from absolutely nothing.
this argument is done, just be a man and concede
TimelessApologist 8 months ago
by trying to insult your intelligence he ends up insulting his own!!!.
favoritemoneymakers 8 months ago
And you come off a prolonged hiatus just as Emperor Popentine comes to visit. {snicker} I love your sense of timing.
TheQuinch 8 months ago
This boy spends more time trying to make the right facial expression instead of spending more time understanding the K.C.A., lol.
dimic 8 months ago
@dimic Lol, calling someone a boy when he is clearly older then you. He uses a lot of facial expressions as he is a soap opera actor, it is natural that he does that.
Also the K.C.A is crappy to begin with, so in truth this is already much more time spend on it then it is worth.
NathanWubs 8 months ago
Dr. Craig is simply another disingenuous Apologist. He will keep avoiding what you request until the number of times you communicated with him can be seen as harassment , at least to those who have not been viewing the videos (his flock).
That's my guess anyway.
EnemyofCredulity 8 months ago
Craig is a blabbermouthed charlatan, and I love the fact that you are nailing his flailing ass to the wall. Keep it up!
jjdecani 8 months ago
Part 1: @TBS Why don't you explain how it can be possible for something to begin existing uncaused ex nihilo IF it's IMPOSSIBLE for something to be caused into existence ex nihilo. Because until you actually explain that, you don't even deserve a reply from WLC - since all you've done is assert your position.
You said that if something did begin to exist ex nihilo, that it's more probable that it did so WITHOUT a cause. You then tried to show why something CANNOT be caused into existence, Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 2: ex nihilo, but never explained how (given your own reasoning against creatio ex nihilo) something coming into existence uncaused ex nihilo is STILL possible.
And until you do that, there's nothing to respond to. You are basically trying to refute the first premise of the Kalam by going NUH UH!
Why? Because, what if it's completely IMPOSSIBLE for something to begin existing ex nihilo caused or uncaused?! How does that affect the KCA?! IT FVCKING DOESN'T! Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 3: The KCA doesn't actually state whether or not something can begin to exist ex nihilo... it merely states that whatever begins to exist... whether from preexisting material or not, has a cause. If nothing ever begins to exist ex nihilo, then the first premise is still TRUE! And the conclusion is still fvcking TRUE even if that means the universe began to exist from preexisting material.
I've explained this before. The only angle you can take against the first premise is claiming, Cont.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
Part 4: that it's POSSIBLE for something to begin existing uncaused ex nihilo. AND YOU'VE NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO DEFEND THAT FVCKING POSITION!
theDracoIX 8 months ago
jesus...ur very articulate
tamu77095 8 months ago
The KCA is a nonsensical argument to begin with. Of course he's going to respond to your rebuttal with more nonsense.
tml4873 9 months ago
this kind of philosophy sucks. it sucks when christians do it.... and it sucks when atheists do it.
ima make a prediction : WLC will be the victor, because he is a greater slave to his ego.
MpowerdAPE 9 months ago
@MpowerdAPE He'll be a victor, to himself, in his own feeble head. Hordes of us already consider him a loser of the utmost magnitude.
indignant99 8 months ago
ehhhhhhh 'everything must have a material cause' is the equivalent of saying 'without a material cause, there is no efficient cause'. Also, since the rest of your argument follows from the first premise, IT IS the 'serious' objection. Not only is it ignorant of the principle of sufficient reason, it's also ontologically fallacious, existence is NOT a contingent property, nor is it a property at all, it merely is or isn't.
Respond to what Craig says, and THEN expect a follow up. Have a nice day.
DrZpankz 9 months ago