"Dr." Craig has a PhD in philosophy - not exactly sufficient qualification to enter into any serious scientific debate. And he shoots himself in the foot pretty much right off the bat in his video when he starts with how "improbable" evolution is - diving haphazardly into Hoyle's fallacy, as a delusional crowd cheers on.
Anyway, kudos for the video. You give a nice background synopsis and a good argument. It's definitely vital that we challenge such charlatans at every turn.
Hey motherfucker, you cocksucking again????? wipe that cum dribble off your chin cunt and have some modicum of self respect you cunt! as a dawkins asshole licker, I would like to fuck your asshole with red hot pokers, but as I don't think you would be available for that, I might deign to fingerfuck you hard, if you are polite cocksucker LMFAO
You just wasted 8 minutes of my life. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't. Somebody like you who probably has some school homework still to do, shouldn't be challenging somebody like William Lane Craig. Well, unless you want to make publicly fool of yourself.
Such a void demonstrably does not exist. Not only do we have fossils that shows intermediary species (I can give examples), but we also have several types of DNA evidence, we also have good reproducible lab experiments as well as observed speciation in the wild. Evolution is a well proven fact.
And no - the only times I have heard biologists use the terms micro and macro evolution is when they refute the separation between the two.
@itsjustameme true, but that was not Dr Craigs argument at all, look at the clip, he never says those are the odds of humans specifically, hes talking about evolution's odds of working in anyway whatsoever
Go to 1:29. He says that there are 10 steps in HUMAN evolution that has a very low chance of happening. He very specifically talks about the odds for the HUMAN genome turning out like it did. I think my example applies exactly to what he is saying.
@itsjustameme fiair enough i missed that, but it doesn't change the fact that craig is pointing out that the odds of any lengthy evolutionary line are so small, humans are not the only complecated evolutionary line, so it might take even longer for other lines. the point Craig is making is that evolution would take far to long even if it could happen natualy
But again - you can only talk of a "lengthy evolutionary line in retrospect. Any step forward (or upward if you will) on the evolutionary ladder is just the next logical step on a short term basis. From the point of view of the creature there is no line (or actually from genes point of view to be more correct).
It is clear to me that WLC does not understand evolution when he can say what he does. He seems to think that there is some long term goal other than just surviving.
@itsjustameme no, because the point is EACH short term small step has these super, insanely low chances of happening, not just the end product. and i thin someone with a phd in philosophy will now ll bout evolution
Are you saying that ANY mutation is unlikely to happen? That is not true. Even in spite of the boys repair mechanisms these changes are well documented. As a matter of fact mutations are so common that every new person on average will have around 6 of them. Most of them are harmless though and many of the ones that aren't lead to a spontaneous abortion before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant..
No WLC evidently knows as little about evolution as he does about the big bang
@itsjustameme No he knows plenty about it, hes been inn the business for years, these mutations we get are not part of macro evolution, only micro, but micro evolution can NOT add up to macro as ALL micro evolution mutations are within the data the genome already posses, in order for macro evolution to Occam, a mutation outside of the cells data would have to happen, and no such mutation has ever been documented. and macro is needed for Darwinian evolution.
He obviously doesn't. And since he has as you put it "been in the business" I can only conclude that he is deliberately misrepresenting a scientific theory.
So far as I know there is no one working with evolutionary biology who use the terms micro and macro evolution. It is a made-up word. The difference between micro and macro evolution as far as I'm concerned is the time you give it to cook. In step may be just 1 meter - but then 1000 ads up to a kilometer.
@itsjustameme yes, but your kilometer example does not apply hear, it is accepted that their is micro and macro evolution, and i stated the difference between them. look up even atheist philosopher's and scientis's they will talk about micro and macro as well, using your kilometer example. micro would mean that beyond 100 kilometers, their would be a void which has no ground and therefore cannot be traversed, you would need ground to be thier to continue
Why would I remember THIS video? You offer nothing that's not blatantly obvious to any intellectual (I assume you realise it's a waste of time trying to convince people who lack the mental capacity to understand the logic here or the bigoted) and nothing that hasn't been stated by many people before you. You sir, do not deserve recognition for this rebuttal.
Well I'm a christian, but I do agree with a lot of this video. Anyway evolution could have ended up anywhere, even though any of those paths would be unlikely. I believe in evolution myself, and the chance thing was sketchy to me too... but I like this video. I think we really need to take a deeper look into theology and make a better argument rather than depending on craig all the time haha :D
lol the argument about suffering, pain and evil existing in the world to prove God isn't benevolent or even exists has been debunked so many times that either you havent seen a response to that fallacy or you just ignore it. Even Dr. Craig responds to that fail argument in numerous debates so I would have expected you to have seen it in some way, as you make a video critique of him.
All anyone has to do is see an animal react to noise or movement in the woods and watch it assume something is there, something invisible to be wary of. Some unusual invisible force that must be respected and scared of, and how easily this assumption can be extrapolated into an all mighty invisible being at the cause of all things unknown by sentient beings. Belief in god is proof of evolution.
@mechanicmike69 YES! Humans are hardwired to see 'agency' (no doubt because it gave our evolutionary ancestors an advantage). God is the ultimate agent. Add that to the fact that we are also pattern seeking mammals and it's not too hard to understand why we have religion. Great comment!
@wownov83 I did ascribe for those things, but I can't help someone who does not want the truth. You can know God if you want too. He loves you enough to have me here to tell you about how He made a way for you to be saved by what Christ did on the cross. You can have eternal life just like Christ after he conquered the grave. The bible says whosoever shall call upon the name of Christ shall be saved. If you choose do so here is a good place to start: carm. org/how-do-i-become-christian.
@xTheUnknownTruthx I really thought you were willing to have a debate with me. It's a shame you've degraded yourself to such stereotypical theistic idiocy.
@wownov83 I did debate with you, but that wasn't my main purpose here. The purpose of my life and any Christian's life is too know Christ and let others know about Him. If I concern myself more with anything else then I am wasting my time. I am not going to have my hope in this world, but in Christ God alone. I hope you have a peaceful and fulfilling life but if or when you ever want to find an ultimate purpose and meaning to your life, He will be there for you.
Now, in any case, assuming that this first cause is "timeless and spaceless", you can't possibly ascribe this first cause any more characteristics. WLC's nonsense about a being "all powerful and transcendent" is utter verbal diarrhea with no philosophical meaning whatsoever. And, as I've done previously, I can give you a very, very long list of things that are timeless and spaceless.
@wownov83 Actually, Hawking has stated that "the laws (of nature)may have been decreed by God.' I know you don't want to see anymore responses from me so I'll make my last words brief. Look, I know I can't talk someone into being a Christian.
@wownov83 My main purpose here was not to win a debate as I have stated before, but to show how science compliments the God of the Holy Bible. If I could talk you into being a Christian someone else could talk you out. You can only have your eyes opened by the Spirit of God.
Science does not know what there was "before" the singularity, or what "caused" the singularity. Science doesn't even know if these are reasonable questions to ask. Hawking, and any other physicist, has the right to speculate the issue, but that isn't scientific fact. If you're so eager to take Hawking's words as truth, then you might also want to consider the fact that he's an atheist.
I want to shed some more light upon my case for God's existence, because that is what this is really about (for me at least): that whether or not He exists. I see the fulfillment of of Biblical prophecy with 100% current accuracy is something else that should be considered; especially Christ with His messianic prophecies. Not too mention how the entire geological record and fossil record also fits like a glove to the Biblical account.
@wownov83 What else do you need? This commenting back and forth has got to end somewhere and since you have yet to show me how something can come from nothing without a cause, I should stop wasting my time trying to help someone that doesn't want it. I am tired of seeing the Ad Infinitum natural means logical fallacy push by you as well without giving me some evidence of how a naturalistic universe can be preceded by means of strictly nature.
The singularity (potential universe) didn't appear in space for space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy.Hawking, Ellis, and so on all say that time and space had a finite beginning that corresponds to the origin of matter and energy. They have stated that in Astrophysical Journal, and I recently gave you the article from Richard Dawkins' site stating that is what hawking believes.
Now, if indeed the first cause had to be timeless and spaceless (which you haven't shown), of course God fits the description, I never denied that. However, infinitely many things are timeless and spaceless; such as numbers and concepts. Also, I myself could imagine any being who also has the needed characteristics, and claim him or her to be the "first cause".
@wownov83 No, saying that an imagined being as first cause is completely incomparable. First off, the singularity of the big bang is different from the non zero "singularities" of the black holes. Stephen Hawking says that the potential universe (singularity) came from nothing. Secondly, although you saying that singularities within black holes exist with nature that still does not give credence to your point. My argument that something can't come into being without a cause still stands.
We know that the universe did have a beginning, and before that, there was nothing…no time, space, matter, energy, nothing. That is why my arguments still stand. The universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause. The cause has too be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and so on and so forth. I have demonstrated why this has to be, and you have yet to show me why I am wrong in saying God fits the description 100%.
Neither the singularity theorems or Einstein's theories of relativity show how the universe began. They only show that it did in fact have a beginning. Stephen Hawking believes that the "universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing." -richarddawkins d.0.t. net. You say that the universe sprang into existence from a singularity. That is still unnatural and the argument is still irrelevant to my initial arguments.
@xTheUnknownTruthx No, it's essential to your argument. If space and time didn't come into existence from nothing, then you have no grounds to assume that the first cause must be timeless and spaceless. And right now, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe popped into existence from nothing. The big bang theory simply does not address questions like "what came before the big bang" or "where did the singularity come from". It's all speculation at the time being.
@wownov83 Are you implying that the proposed singularit(y)(ies) were pre-existent? Something has to pre-exist time and space or else the universe would have not been able to come into existence. The singularity if that is the term you want to use had to exist outside of the natural realm to create the natural realm; thus the cause would be supernatural. The singularity where relativity theory breaks down point to God. It could very well be His voice speaking as the Bible states.
@xTheUnknownTruthx A singularity is a real scientific term, it's not what I chose to call it. Now, for the nth time, I'm NOT implying that the singularity pre-existed the universe. All that science knows is that the universe began AS an expanding singularity. The nature of this singularity isn't known either. So basically, you're in no position to claim that spacetime came from "nothing". It's more and more evident that you're making a presuppositional case, it's getting boring...
@wownov83 Obviously I know what the term means. I still think you are confused about what the term nothing means when we refer to the ex nihilo model. When the singularity suddenly sprung into being, it created time and space and matter and energy. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed. Hence, the ex nihilo model. You say that the nature of the singularity isn't know, but what is know is that the singularity had to exist outside of the nature realm to create nature. My arguments still stand.
@xTheUnknownTruthx Every physicist agrees that the universe started as a dense singularity. Certainly some physicists have different ideas about what caused the singularity, or where it came from, but all physicists (Hawking included) agree that the universe began as a dense singularity.
@wownov83 Actually you are not entirely right; some of quantum models by hawking and others have proposed do not occur at a specific singularity. The fact remains that all models feature an absolute beginning of the universe. I do have grounds to say that the cause is space less and timeless simply because it brought those things into being when the universe came into existence.
@xTheUnknownTruthx The point is that space and time did not arise from nothing. They arose from a singularity, which we know basically nothing about. It could very well be that the singularity created space and time. But that's just speculation. Furthermore, we know nothing about what "caused the singularity". For example, black hole singularities are "caused" by gravity acting on normal matter in normal spacetime. No supernatural world needed.
.... there is no evidence whatsoever that that first cause would be god, because there is no way of interacting with this apparently supernatural, timeless and spaceless universe. The square root of 2 is also timeless and spaceless.
@wownov83 Secondly, you say there is no evidence whatsoever that the first cause would be God? Well, we can start with the universe and the fact that it does exist. You have yet to logically shoot down any of my original arguments on that note. Before I can explore your thoughts on the mechanism that drives evolution to be so efficient in maximizing "the fitness of species," we must first gain a structural and logical foundation to gather our claims. You have yet to do so.
@xTheUnknownTruthx Sure, let's start with the fact that the universe exists. I'll concede to you that there must have been a "first cause" of the universe (even though this really doesn't follow deductively). Regardless, why must this first cause be god? My main criticism here is that you simply can't use logic to make the jump from "first cause" to "god". So in that sense, I think I've definitely shot down your "argument".
@wownov83 I use logic to show what constitutes first cause, then follow that w/ how God 100% fits the description. You didn't shoot down any arguments of mine. All I have seen is you do is seeming change your position on the matter. What you don't seem understand is that God is timeless. Hence the concept of time could be initiated by something that is timeless. If you have a knowledge about cosmology & science, then you would be amazed how the Bible will put everything into perspective for you.
@xTheUnknownTruthx I'll ask you again, very clearly: why must this first cause be god? Sure, you can define god to be "timeless and spaceless" so that it fits into the "first cause". But lots of other things are timeless and spaceless, such as the square root of 2. So, given that there are numerous options for this "first cause", why are you so sure this first cause is god? P.S. I have a background in cosmology, and it's clear you don't.
Since natural selection isn't random and adaptations are not random, how can evolution as a whole be considered as blind when the primary mechanisms that drive it are not? Nature doesn't just work randomly; it works off of cause & effect as well. For instance, Everything that begins has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Nothing can't cause something, so therefore the cause of the universe must be supernatural, pre-existent, timeless, & without beginning.
@xTheUnknownTruthx Evolution is blind in the sense that it has no motive and no goal. In fact, the primary mechanism that causes large scale evolution, natural selection, is also blind is this sense. The actual process of selection is a purely natural one, and you're quite correct in saying that it follows from cause and effect. It is only natural that a more fit individual should triumph over a less fit individual for limited environmental resources; cause and effect.
@xTheUnknownTruthx Secondly, you've only shown that (conceding your rather fragile premises...) there must have been a first cause of the universe. You have no good reason for believing that the first cause of the universe should be supernatural, timeless, and without beginning. In fact, it may even be a nonsensical question to ask what happened before the big bang, since time itself had a beginning. That is like asking: what happened before the beginning of time?
@wownov83 Evolution does have motive on the species level and that is to equip for survival is it not? That is why species adapt to their environment and change certain survival mechanisms. There obviously was a cause for the existence of the universe because it began to exist. Natural forces have produced the universe? pt.1 CONT.
@xTheUnknownTruthx No, it does not have a motive. The effect of evolution is to maximize the fitness of species, but there's no motive, this effect simply follows from natural selection on individuals of a population. When the wind makes beautiful sand dunes in the desert, do you say the wind had a motive to do so?
@wownov83 Firstly, you are right that you can't have a before when there is no time because infinity has no beginning. Nice try on the strawman, but a beginning isn't a before but a start which has a cause. Are you saying that the universe did not have a beginning? It seems like you are saying that there doesn't have to be something to get something. Apparently, 0 gets to 1 without adding 1 in your thoughts?
@xTheUnknownTruthx I never said there wasn't a beginning of the universe, please pay attention to what I'm saying. All space and time began when the universe began. I said that there can't be a "before the beginning", since there was no time before the beginning. If you agree that time itself came into existence, then nothing could have possibly happened before then, since there was no time. So the need for a "first cause" is actually somewhat artificial.
@wownov83 My primary purpose here is not to win a debate, but help show people that science and logic does not contradict God. It rather compliments Him. My studies have only helped me see things more clearly. I am not one to believe in a blind religious dogma; I test the validity of my beliefs. In fact Christ didn't come to teach religion, but He came to provide a way for people to know God and too save us from the consequences of our imperfect ways.
@xTheUnknownTruthx Well, science doesn't have anything to say about god. Science limits itself to the natural world, and is completely silent on supernatural issues. So, while science certainly doesn't contradict god, it doesn't help make the case for the existence of god either.
Secondly, you absolutely do not test the validity of your beliefs. You're sure that the first cause of the universe is god, yet there's no way for you to test this belief.
@wownov83 Hold on, I just saw your most recent comment after my last post. Lets start with your question. Why must this first cause be god? For the reasons that the cause was Beginningless, Changeless, Immaterial, Timeless, Powerful, Supernatural, Transcendent and Personal. You say there is no way for me to test my belief that the first cause of the universe is God? Yes I can. It is called deductive reasoning.
@xTheUnknownTruthx Why would the first cause have the characteristics you listed? How did you deduce that? All your argument says is that there was a first cause of the universe. If you can show me how you can deductively show that the first cause must have certain characteristics, I can then try to show you some alternatives. But as long as you're going to make up certain characteristics that the first cause ought to have, this debate is going to get off track very quickly.
@wownov83 For the sake of my hands and time, I would ask you to watch this video to answer your question, then we can work from there if you need more clarification: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c
@xTheUnknownTruthx I'm very familiar with WLC's work, and I find that very unconvincing indeed. Firstly, the big bang doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. The universe began as a singularity, which is certainly not "nothing". So it does not follow that all of space and time came from nothing. Therefore, I don't see it fitting that the first cause should necessarily be timeless and spaceless. The derivation of the other characteristics is even more lazy. I'm not impressed.
@wownov83 Really? I guess you must know more than Stephen hawking and other well known scientists and physicists. Too bad your view is not Representative of modern science. Maybe you are not impressed because you are in denial of the facts. At least that is what the obvious is. It seems you are also confused with what constitutes the ex nihilo model.
@xTheUnknownTruthx What facts am I denying? The big bang theory does not say that the universe sprang into existence from nothing. It sprang into existence from a singularity. Could you be a bit more specific in your accusations?
@wownov83 It is pretty simple to put together. If God didn't created the universe what other options are there that fit into the required parameters? God fits it 100%. If the first premise I showed is true (that whatever begins to exist has a cause) then the only option is God given that the He meets the given criteria. I haven't even see you give a better alternative yet, because you can't.
@xTheUnknownTruthx Why else would the cause be God? The universe came out of nothing. Before we knew that, we knew God created ex nihilo. As for your new question. I knew you would ask how I deduced to that. I will gladly show you.
Pt. 2 There were obviously no nature or natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang—nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be spaceless because it created space; timeless because it created time; CONTINUED.
Pt.3...immaterial because it created matter; powerful because it created out of nothing; intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed; personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices).
@xTheUnknownTruthx There are a few problems with the premises of the argument to begin, but even granting them, the argument falls. You can't have a "before" when there is no time (i.e. before the big bang), so the question of what came before the big bang, or what could have caused it, becomes meaningless. Regardless of that, granting that a "spaceless, timeless and immaterial" could have been "the first cause" (even though there is no need for a first cause)....continued....
Actually a goal is totally irrelevant to probability dealing with a specified outcome. The outcomes of an open ended model are not goals, they are simply outcomes. We can work out the probability of one outcome being realised without difficulty. Even without intelligent design being invoked, any evolutionary biologist (like me) will tell you it is indeed extremely improbable that human sentience emerged. From a secular view point we did get very very lucky.
See the believer giving ground. more and more. painting himself into a corner. Until he loses by attrition. Until there aren't enough believers left to breed. Observe the EVOLUTION of a mind set through the process of natural selection.
Craig is such a cowardly puke. "Theistic Evolution" can only mean the study of how gods and the worshipers of them has evolved over time. Evolution has nothing to do with opinion or biases. It's an iron clad indisputable process.
which is deduced from newtons laws of motion. if the universe ended in its static movement, it must have began in its static movement, and not have been eternally moving and suddenly stop. (As some have tried to answer)
He also makes another false assumption that flew by most people's heads: That the probability he cited would be the case if evolution was operating on chance alone; which it isn't. Sure the -mutations- happen by chance but the evolution operates by natural selection which favors species that are better suited to survive in their given environments.
I personally am a Christian Creationist, and I completely agree with your premise. I reject all macro evolution claims based on apologetics and cataclysmic geology. There are cosmological difficulties, but that is true for theism and naturalism alike. But logic should be consistent and surrendering a God of miracles to naturalistic evolution is ilogical. True enough.
@AegeanKing Obsessed with truth... which is why I'm not a Christian. Christianity is a fraud. As a pastors son, I learned that only after actually studying the bible and the history of Christianity.
im still very skeptical about the probability behind evolution. i understand evolution, and it makes sense, i mean there is plenty of evolution that we observe that isnt just biological. what i find increidbly improbable is that evolution was able to develop the complexity we find in the human body. in response to the probability you mentioned, if probability is merely a number sought to prove one side or another, then the biologist who claims it is probabolistic for evolution to occur
@mrjosephnasty If I knew what bylaterally symmetry was, I would, but as there is no such thing it would be hard to. Now if you mean bilateral symmetry then I could explain that to you, except I doubt you have the intelligence to understand such a simple concept. Your question is almost as ridiculous as SockofShits silly non question.
@mrjosephnasty "could you elaborate for me your understanding of bilateral symmetry? I would describe it as sound. "how do u (sic) see it?" With my eyes.
Evolution does not have goals.....if evolution was truly random then it could not reach the outcome it has reached there is far too many factors that hold together humanity and our survival for it merely to be coincidence. Maybe you should watch the whole debate and wipe that bum chin because its starting to get alittle dirty
Lol you are trying to claim that How and if God designed things the way he did he did it in an incredibly evil way not within the laws of how a being like god should act? thats a stupid thing to say considering you really have no idea how things work and how "inefficient" as you claim they really are because you could not design anything more efficient than what god has already done and neither could anyone. And i like how you pick and chose parts of His arguement to take out of context.
The argument posed to Craig was not the Argument from Poor Design. Or at least, the only thing his opponent mentioned was the length of time it took for humans to come into existence (the apparent goal of evolution, from God's point of view), as well as the inefficiency of the process. If Craig's opponent had pointed out the suffering that resulted from evolution, then your point would be a good one; but he didn't.
I think the argument uses to explain away the issue of probability is not sufficient. I agree that probability can be taken as goal oriented. In this case we see the event has already taken place and it acceptable to find out the probabilty of the event occuring. Attacking God's character to disprove His existence is not a sufficient argument. It questions His character and say nothing of His existence.
So if probability can so easily be formed to a desired result, then why not try to use probability to disprove intelligent design? It isn't used against creation because it simply does not apply—which illustrates that it can not so easily be bent to the whim of the theorist. (And don't tell me that it's because evolutionists are more inclined to unbent truth, or shall we begin sighting falsified textbooks.)
@123HailMe "some" does not mean "all", therefore 3. does not follow from 2., because not all our desires are mirrored in god, so if we have a desire to design efficiently, it does not necessarily follow that god does also
If I listen to too much IpeCraig: soon I'm hocking up my spleen, vomiting furiously while my head spins exorcist style. Suddenly my head explodes, sending chunks of grey matter, blood, plasma and bone fragments ricocheting all off the walls of my home. Staggering like the elephant man through a car wash, I take 4 steps, gurgling blood, spittle and vomit as I slump to the ground dead.
I remember Craig once said "if my reason were to turn against my faith, then so much the worse for reason!"
I don't care if he had an IQ over 200 and the philosophical insight of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Wittgenstein, Quine, Bacon, Reid, Descartes and Russel all combined. I will never have full respect for a man who holds to such a vacuous and crashingly perverse sentiment.
Theistic evolution is just standard evolution with a small twist, i.e. trying to either blindly tie Darwin's rants int with the Bible, or twisting the Bible to make it "spiritual" rather than literal. If you want to believe in evolution, so be it, but don't try to hang it on the neck of the God of the Holy Bible.
You seem to be a deep thinker. You might help me with some insight on a question I have. Why did matter "want" to organise itself to form life and have a will and conciousness? If you say matter did not have a will to do so, does that mean we (organized matter) is not really alive and have no will not conciousness?
True enough, but while we argue semantics, religions around the world indoctrinate children to blow themselves up, censor free speech, and spread disinformation. Why would they stop if they are intellectually justified to do the things they do?
Then again, I suppose the outcome would depend on what God we are talking about also. However, if we are talking about the God of the Christian bible, then the answer is obvious.... God handed or gave free moral agency to human beings. Thus renouncing his own authority in the process.
So for me this entire rundown of terms really doesn't get off the ground with the God of Christianity.
@SmalltimR That was the close of an agreement between 2 people from different cultures. If you read the course of our argument you would see that.
But no, you used that as a jumping off point for an ad hominem attack.
That aside, I will respond to you. God gave them free moral agency, yes. But he also gave them his definition of evil that he created. (Tree of good and evil if you remember). He created the evil that the humans ingested. Therefore it is his responsibility to remove it.
RE: But no, you used that as a jumping off point for an ad hominem attack.
I saw it there and I responded it it. Do you think this is the first time someone post this? Also... what's with the stupid ad-hominem whine? I criticized the argument not the person posting(moron). < (fixed that for you). I swear people get dumber by the minute in these places. <(a bit more for good measure ).
Hopefully that helped clarify those misconceptions for you.
RE: He created the evil that the humans ingested.
That's not quite right actually.
The fruit(in case you haven't read) was harmless in itself.
It was the act of disobedience associated with the taking of the fruit(affirmative action) that would determine sin.
Likewise, it is not nor has it ever been God's responsibility to remove sin from the world. Which can be seen in the way in which salvation is "achieved" in this day.
@SmalltimR Even if he hadn't done this. This ancient line of reasoning still rings true. If someone is able to prevent evil, and chooses not to, then they themselves are malevolent. If you were an omnipresent witness for every crime ever committed with unlimited power to stop it, would you sit idly by and just watch them? Answer truthfully. If you can't, then why is God excused from this? If you can, then you would be in a small minority of individuals.(Which i find revolting and disgusting)
RE: If someone is able to prevent evil, and chooses not to, then they themselves are malevolent.
You still haven't grasped or factored in free moral agency.
Keep thinking about it and it may come to you.
FTR. God see all, under the rules of from will, interference would negate the arrangement. With this in mind, God would not violate the terms of the arrangement because it either suited or not. However He can move to influence people to make the right decision.
@SmalltimR 3rd paragraph- Are you saying that God has NEVER interfered in man's affairs before? Not according to the bible.
4th paragraph- When did I ever tell you what my idea of God was? How is this dichotomy going to get me to see how unrealistic qualities of an invisible being are reality?
@SmalltimR 1st point- So after Adam and Eve, God can now interfere for whatever reason he wants? If he is now able and willing, whence cometh evil? Strange how it seems he never interferes at all.. It's almost like he was invented by an early (primitive) culture, much like all other religions.
2nd point- So you tried to convince me I have no clue what I'm talking about by... an irrelevant metaphor? I think that does you a greater disservice in that department.
RE: God can now interfere for whatever reason he wants?
If you pay attention you'd see that God interfered for one specific reason... "To put humanity back on track" - Therefore, when He decreed the redemption of mankind(restoring balance). It meant nothing would stand between His will and its fulfillment.
@SmalltimR I'm going to start counting the number of times I see the phrase "If you pay attention". Its an unnecessary condescension that you could do without.
So to put humanity back on track involves drowning, burning, and commanding his followers to kill large numbers of them?
You still think this is an eternally good God right? The best he could come up with with his infallible wisdom was to callously kill off all the bad eggs? Only to have them be replaced with more anyway?
@playerwithfaith if you had 20 billion children, and ten thousand of them were leading the other 19 billion plus to certain doom, and you repeatedly told the smaller group to cease, and repeatedly begged the larger group not to follow the smaller one, how much time would you waste in killing the 10 thousand to save the billions? Hell is eternal, and it is NOT a place anyone wants to be, so if God has to make an example out of a few malcontents to save the rest of us, who are we to condemn Him?
@apologeticsman If I had 20 billion children, I would save ALL of them.
Make an example? He KILLED almost everyone on the face of the earth! (including plants and animals). The numbers would be more like 19,985 billion of my own children I would have to kill for your hypothetical to be congruent.
@playerwithfaith the God of the Bible is stupid and tyrannical and to defend him is basically fullifulling the Myer experiment of obedinance to authority.
@MrTruthAddict Your argument smells like "The God delusion", however, if you had the choice to kill one person in order to save 10 persons, what would you do? Sure, you would most likeley save all eleven of them, but in such a situation, you and I would kill this person if there wouldn't be another choice. That is why God judges people and sometimes kills them, to save a bigger number of other people.
@eagleeye2102 Look up these two words in the dictionary. Faith, and Delusion. You will see that their definitions are almost identical.
You believe, based on no evidence at all, that an imaginary man in the sky condones killing certain people, or entire civilizations for that matter, because of 'sin."
Schizophrenics believe they are hearing voices, telling them what to do. Theism is a mental illness.
@MrTruthAddict I don't have any evidence? Look, if it wouldn't have been for the evidence, I wouldn't have started to believe. Just look at all the prophesies Scripture states which have been fulfilled. Look at the great knowledge in Scripture when it talks about the laws of heaven, climate changes, or common sense. Look at the way the Bible is written, so that everyone in all times could understand it. Look at the complexity in life itself.
@eagleeye2102 Again, zero evidence. The corrupt Catholic church interpolated and forged so many scriptures that there is ZERO chance that any of the 'prophecies' or 'miracles' are legitimate. Trust me, as a pastors son, I've heard all those silly reasons you mention, but there is no hard evidence to back up any of your claims or assertions.
I have studied the history of Christianity and the bible itself for many years. Christianity is a fraud.
@MrTruthAddict I agree that the Churches are corrupted, I think that they are not part of God's kingdom. However, Archaeology AGREES with the teachings of Scripture. Every Statement Scripture states in the field of history has been verified. watch this:
@eagleeye2102 Au contraire. Israeli archaeologists have found ZERO evidence that the Exodus story happened. There should have been hundreds of pieces of evidence left behind and there are NONE.
Scientists have completely disproven the book of Genesis and the creation myth.
My original point is that today's evangelicals believe that Catholicism is corrupt yet the Catholic church, when they were at the HEIGHT of their corruption, was totally corrupting the bible.
@MrTruthAddict The Israeli archaeologists lied! They found lots of evidence, look at this!:
/watch?v=NWawVUZg3Es
Scientists have not disproven Creation, the opposite happened, more and more Scientists become Creationists. Not Science is against Creation, only evolutionists are.
@eagleeye2102 Oh geez, another idiotic Creationist conspiracy theorist. Yes, you're right, the entire world scientific community got together and decided to lie about science just to disprove the bible. Yeah you're right.
"Dr." Craig has a PhD in philosophy - not exactly sufficient qualification to enter into any serious scientific debate. And he shoots himself in the foot pretty much right off the bat in his video when he starts with how "improbable" evolution is - diving haphazardly into Hoyle's fallacy, as a delusional crowd cheers on.
Anyway, kudos for the video. You give a nice background synopsis and a good argument. It's definitely vital that we challenge such charlatans at every turn.
TheWanderingPrimate 2 weeks ago
It amazes me that in the 21st century, people like WLC still exist.
dkthg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey motherfucker, you cocksucking again????? wipe that cum dribble off your chin cunt and have some modicum of self respect you cunt! as a dawkins asshole licker, I would like to fuck your asshole with red hot pokers, but as I don't think you would be available for that, I might deign to fingerfuck you hard, if you are polite cocksucker LMFAO
DawkinsDebunked 1 month ago
You just wasted 8 minutes of my life. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't. Somebody like you who probably has some school homework still to do, shouldn't be challenging somebody like William Lane Craig. Well, unless you want to make publicly fool of yourself.
000042229 1 month ago
WLC doesn't know that micro & macro evolution is or what natural selection is.
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago
1:44 "By chance alone" ugh... I'm not gonna bother refuting that argument.
chilledkirby 2 months ago
Such a void demonstrably does not exist. Not only do we have fossils that shows intermediary species (I can give examples), but we also have several types of DNA evidence, we also have good reproducible lab experiments as well as observed speciation in the wild. Evolution is a well proven fact.
And no - the only times I have heard biologists use the terms micro and macro evolution is when they refute the separation between the two.
itsjustameme 3 months ago
I always get a kick out of these YT Atheists "responding" to William Lane Craig. I wonder why he never responds back? *Chuckle*
JesusMostHigh 4 months ago
"Dr" Craig mistake is that he assume that humans had to be the endproduct of evolution - and that is indeed very unlikely.
If that was the case he would be right to put high odds against it.
I falls apart if you quit the assumption that we simply had to happen. Then the probability can at most be the chance of it happening again.
It is like rolling dice and saying:
"look, a 3! There is only 1/6 chance of that happening. How unlikely."
It's only true if I was rolling specifically for a "3".
itsjustameme 4 months ago
@itsjustameme true, but that was not Dr Craigs argument at all, look at the clip, he never says those are the odds of humans specifically, hes talking about evolution's odds of working in anyway whatsoever
23045678 3 months ago
@23045678
Go to 1:29. He says that there are 10 steps in HUMAN evolution that has a very low chance of happening. He very specifically talks about the odds for the HUMAN genome turning out like it did. I think my example applies exactly to what he is saying.
itsjustameme 3 months ago
@itsjustameme fiair enough i missed that, but it doesn't change the fact that craig is pointing out that the odds of any lengthy evolutionary line are so small, humans are not the only complecated evolutionary line, so it might take even longer for other lines. the point Craig is making is that evolution would take far to long even if it could happen natualy
23045678 3 months ago
@23045678
But again - you can only talk of a "lengthy evolutionary line in retrospect. Any step forward (or upward if you will) on the evolutionary ladder is just the next logical step on a short term basis. From the point of view of the creature there is no line (or actually from genes point of view to be more correct).
It is clear to me that WLC does not understand evolution when he can say what he does. He seems to think that there is some long term goal other than just surviving.
itsjustameme 3 months ago
@itsjustameme no, because the point is EACH short term small step has these super, insanely low chances of happening, not just the end product. and i thin someone with a phd in philosophy will now ll bout evolution
23045678 3 months ago
@23045678
Are you saying that ANY mutation is unlikely to happen? That is not true. Even in spite of the boys repair mechanisms these changes are well documented. As a matter of fact mutations are so common that every new person on average will have around 6 of them. Most of them are harmless though and many of the ones that aren't lead to a spontaneous abortion before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant..
No WLC evidently knows as little about evolution as he does about the big bang
itsjustameme 3 months ago
@itsjustameme No he knows plenty about it, hes been inn the business for years, these mutations we get are not part of macro evolution, only micro, but micro evolution can NOT add up to macro as ALL micro evolution mutations are within the data the genome already posses, in order for macro evolution to Occam, a mutation outside of the cells data would have to happen, and no such mutation has ever been documented. and macro is needed for Darwinian evolution.
23045678 3 months ago
@23045678
He obviously doesn't. And since he has as you put it "been in the business" I can only conclude that he is deliberately misrepresenting a scientific theory.
So far as I know there is no one working with evolutionary biology who use the terms micro and macro evolution. It is a made-up word. The difference between micro and macro evolution as far as I'm concerned is the time you give it to cook. In step may be just 1 meter - but then 1000 ads up to a kilometer.
itsjustameme 3 months ago
@itsjustameme yes, but your kilometer example does not apply hear, it is accepted that their is micro and macro evolution, and i stated the difference between them. look up even atheist philosopher's and scientis's they will talk about micro and macro as well, using your kilometer example. micro would mean that beyond 100 kilometers, their would be a void which has no ground and therefore cannot be traversed, you would need ground to be thier to continue
23045678 3 months ago
Lol..Dude u seriously need a girlfriend
mellymel51029 4 months ago
To be honest, I always thought this argument from Craig was more a joke rather than a serious argument.
LouigiVerona 5 months ago
Why would I remember THIS video? You offer nothing that's not blatantly obvious to any intellectual (I assume you realise it's a waste of time trying to convince people who lack the mental capacity to understand the logic here or the bigoted) and nothing that hasn't been stated by many people before you. You sir, do not deserve recognition for this rebuttal.
Vanastarr 5 months ago
@Vanastarr well this was not even a good rebuttel, took me a few secounds to refute all of it
23045678 3 months ago
Well I'm a christian, but I do agree with a lot of this video. Anyway evolution could have ended up anywhere, even though any of those paths would be unlikely. I believe in evolution myself, and the chance thing was sketchy to me too... but I like this video. I think we really need to take a deeper look into theology and make a better argument rather than depending on craig all the time haha :D
mikeytheaznking 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you know nothing
gogolplex74 6 months ago
lol the argument about suffering, pain and evil existing in the world to prove God isn't benevolent or even exists has been debunked so many times that either you havent seen a response to that fallacy or you just ignore it. Even Dr. Craig responds to that fail argument in numerous debates so I would have expected you to have seen it in some way, as you make a video critique of him.
signofthehammer 6 months ago
All anyone has to do is see an animal react to noise or movement in the woods and watch it assume something is there, something invisible to be wary of. Some unusual invisible force that must be respected and scared of, and how easily this assumption can be extrapolated into an all mighty invisible being at the cause of all things unknown by sentient beings. Belief in god is proof of evolution.
mechanicmike69 6 months ago 3
@mechanicmike69 You're fucking retarded.
wownov83 6 months ago
@wownov83 You're a delusional fucking moron.
mechanicmike69 6 months ago
@mechanicmike69 Umm... what are you basing that on? I had good reason for my accusation.
wownov83 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wownov83 I did, you did not. You are a delusional fucking moron.
mechanicmike69 6 months ago
@mechanicmike69 xD
steffenbieber 6 months ago
@mechanicmike69
Hahaha made me laugh..
Amsah 6 months ago
@mechanicmike69 YES! Humans are hardwired to see 'agency' (no doubt because it gave our evolutionary ancestors an advantage). God is the ultimate agent. Add that to the fact that we are also pattern seeking mammals and it's not too hard to understand why we have religion. Great comment!
pillsareyummy 5 months ago
@wownov83 I did ascribe for those things, but I can't help someone who does not want the truth. You can know God if you want too. He loves you enough to have me here to tell you about how He made a way for you to be saved by what Christ did on the cross. You can have eternal life just like Christ after he conquered the grave. The bible says whosoever shall call upon the name of Christ shall be saved. If you choose do so here is a good place to start: carm. org/how-do-i-become-christian.
xTheUnknownTruthx 6 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I really thought you were willing to have a debate with me. It's a shame you've degraded yourself to such stereotypical theistic idiocy.
wownov83 6 months ago
@wownov83 I did debate with you, but that wasn't my main purpose here. The purpose of my life and any Christian's life is too know Christ and let others know about Him. If I concern myself more with anything else then I am wasting my time. I am not going to have my hope in this world, but in Christ God alone. I hope you have a peaceful and fulfilling life but if or when you ever want to find an ultimate purpose and meaning to your life, He will be there for you.
xTheUnknownTruthx 6 months ago
Now, in any case, assuming that this first cause is "timeless and spaceless", you can't possibly ascribe this first cause any more characteristics. WLC's nonsense about a being "all powerful and transcendent" is utter verbal diarrhea with no philosophical meaning whatsoever. And, as I've done previously, I can give you a very, very long list of things that are timeless and spaceless.
wownov83 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 6 months ago
@wownov83 Actually, Hawking has stated that "the laws (of nature)may have been decreed by God.' I know you don't want to see anymore responses from me so I'll make my last words brief. Look, I know I can't talk someone into being a Christian.
xTheUnknownTruthx 6 months ago
@wownov83 My main purpose here was not to win a debate as I have stated before, but to show how science compliments the God of the Holy Bible. If I could talk you into being a Christian someone else could talk you out. You can only have your eyes opened by the Spirit of God.
xTheUnknownTruthx 6 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 6 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 6 months ago
Science does not know what there was "before" the singularity, or what "caused" the singularity. Science doesn't even know if these are reasonable questions to ask. Hawking, and any other physicist, has the right to speculate the issue, but that isn't scientific fact. If you're so eager to take Hawking's words as truth, then you might also want to consider the fact that he's an atheist.
wownov83 7 months ago
I want to shed some more light upon my case for God's existence, because that is what this is really about (for me at least): that whether or not He exists. I see the fulfillment of of Biblical prophecy with 100% current accuracy is something else that should be considered; especially Christ with His messianic prophecies. Not too mention how the entire geological record and fossil record also fits like a glove to the Biblical account.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@wownov83 What else do you need? This commenting back and forth has got to end somewhere and since you have yet to show me how something can come from nothing without a cause, I should stop wasting my time trying to help someone that doesn't want it. I am tired of seeing the Ad Infinitum natural means logical fallacy push by you as well without giving me some evidence of how a naturalistic universe can be preceded by means of strictly nature.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
The singularity (potential universe) didn't appear in space for space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy.Hawking, Ellis, and so on all say that time and space had a finite beginning that corresponds to the origin of matter and energy. They have stated that in Astrophysical Journal, and I recently gave you the article from Richard Dawkins' site stating that is what hawking believes.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Comment removed
wownov83 7 months ago
Now, if indeed the first cause had to be timeless and spaceless (which you haven't shown), of course God fits the description, I never denied that. However, infinitely many things are timeless and spaceless; such as numbers and concepts. Also, I myself could imagine any being who also has the needed characteristics, and claim him or her to be the "first cause".
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 No, saying that an imagined being as first cause is completely incomparable. First off, the singularity of the big bang is different from the non zero "singularities" of the black holes. Stephen Hawking says that the potential universe (singularity) came from nothing. Secondly, although you saying that singularities within black holes exist with nature that still does not give credence to your point. My argument that something can't come into being without a cause still stands.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
We know that the universe did have a beginning, and before that, there was nothing…no time, space, matter, energy, nothing. That is why my arguments still stand. The universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause. The cause has too be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and so on and so forth. I have demonstrated why this has to be, and you have yet to show me why I am wrong in saying God fits the description 100%.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx
"We know that the universe did have a beginning, and before that, there was nothing…no time, space, matter, energy, nothing."
What? How do we know there was nothing before the singularity?
"Prior to the singularity, nothing existed."
Says who?
"... but what is know is that the singularity had to exist outside of the nature realm to create nature."
Wrong. In fact, we know that singularities within black holes exist within nature, we can observe them.
wownov83 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Neither the singularity theorems or Einstein's theories of relativity show how the universe began. They only show that it did in fact have a beginning. Stephen Hawking believes that the "universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing." -richarddawkins d.0.t. net. You say that the universe sprang into existence from a singularity. That is still unnatural and the argument is still irrelevant to my initial arguments.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx No, it's essential to your argument. If space and time didn't come into existence from nothing, then you have no grounds to assume that the first cause must be timeless and spaceless. And right now, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe popped into existence from nothing. The big bang theory simply does not address questions like "what came before the big bang" or "where did the singularity come from". It's all speculation at the time being.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Are you implying that the proposed singularit(y)(ies) were pre-existent? Something has to pre-exist time and space or else the universe would have not been able to come into existence. The singularity if that is the term you want to use had to exist outside of the natural realm to create the natural realm; thus the cause would be supernatural. The singularity where relativity theory breaks down point to God. It could very well be His voice speaking as the Bible states.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx A singularity is a real scientific term, it's not what I chose to call it. Now, for the nth time, I'm NOT implying that the singularity pre-existed the universe. All that science knows is that the universe began AS an expanding singularity. The nature of this singularity isn't known either. So basically, you're in no position to claim that spacetime came from "nothing". It's more and more evident that you're making a presuppositional case, it's getting boring...
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Obviously I know what the term means. I still think you are confused about what the term nothing means when we refer to the ex nihilo model. When the singularity suddenly sprung into being, it created time and space and matter and energy. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed. Hence, the ex nihilo model. You say that the nature of the singularity isn't know, but what is know is that the singularity had to exist outside of the nature realm to create nature. My arguments still stand.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx Every physicist agrees that the universe started as a dense singularity. Certainly some physicists have different ideas about what caused the singularity, or where it came from, but all physicists (Hawking included) agree that the universe began as a dense singularity.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Actually you are not entirely right; some of quantum models by hawking and others have proposed do not occur at a specific singularity. The fact remains that all models feature an absolute beginning of the universe. I do have grounds to say that the cause is space less and timeless simply because it brought those things into being when the universe came into existence.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx The point is that space and time did not arise from nothing. They arose from a singularity, which we know basically nothing about. It could very well be that the singularity created space and time. But that's just speculation. Furthermore, we know nothing about what "caused the singularity". For example, black hole singularities are "caused" by gravity acting on normal matter in normal spacetime. No supernatural world needed.
wownov83 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
.... there is no evidence whatsoever that that first cause would be god, because there is no way of interacting with this apparently supernatural, timeless and spaceless universe. The square root of 2 is also timeless and spaceless.
wownov83 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@wownov83 Secondly, you say there is no evidence whatsoever that the first cause would be God? Well, we can start with the universe and the fact that it does exist. You have yet to logically shoot down any of my original arguments on that note. Before I can explore your thoughts on the mechanism that drives evolution to be so efficient in maximizing "the fitness of species," we must first gain a structural and logical foundation to gather our claims. You have yet to do so.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx Sure, let's start with the fact that the universe exists. I'll concede to you that there must have been a "first cause" of the universe (even though this really doesn't follow deductively). Regardless, why must this first cause be god? My main criticism here is that you simply can't use logic to make the jump from "first cause" to "god". So in that sense, I think I've definitely shot down your "argument".
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 I use logic to show what constitutes first cause, then follow that w/ how God 100% fits the description. You didn't shoot down any arguments of mine. All I have seen is you do is seeming change your position on the matter. What you don't seem understand is that God is timeless. Hence the concept of time could be initiated by something that is timeless. If you have a knowledge about cosmology & science, then you would be amazed how the Bible will put everything into perspective for you.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I'll ask you again, very clearly: why must this first cause be god? Sure, you can define god to be "timeless and spaceless" so that it fits into the "first cause". But lots of other things are timeless and spaceless, such as the square root of 2. So, given that there are numerous options for this "first cause", why are you so sure this first cause is god? P.S. I have a background in cosmology, and it's clear you don't.
wownov83 7 months ago
Throw a bunch of big numbers around and just bowl over the people listening.
finderfinder100 7 months ago
Since natural selection isn't random and adaptations are not random, how can evolution as a whole be considered as blind when the primary mechanisms that drive it are not? Nature doesn't just work randomly; it works off of cause & effect as well. For instance, Everything that begins has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Nothing can't cause something, so therefore the cause of the universe must be supernatural, pre-existent, timeless, & without beginning.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx Evolution is blind in the sense that it has no motive and no goal. In fact, the primary mechanism that causes large scale evolution, natural selection, is also blind is this sense. The actual process of selection is a purely natural one, and you're quite correct in saying that it follows from cause and effect. It is only natural that a more fit individual should triumph over a less fit individual for limited environmental resources; cause and effect.
wownov83 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx Secondly, you've only shown that (conceding your rather fragile premises...) there must have been a first cause of the universe. You have no good reason for believing that the first cause of the universe should be supernatural, timeless, and without beginning. In fact, it may even be a nonsensical question to ask what happened before the big bang, since time itself had a beginning. That is like asking: what happened before the beginning of time?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Evolution does have motive on the species level and that is to equip for survival is it not? That is why species adapt to their environment and change certain survival mechanisms. There obviously was a cause for the existence of the universe because it began to exist. Natural forces have produced the universe? pt.1 CONT.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx No, it does not have a motive. The effect of evolution is to maximize the fitness of species, but there's no motive, this effect simply follows from natural selection on individuals of a population. When the wind makes beautiful sand dunes in the desert, do you say the wind had a motive to do so?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Firstly, you are right that you can't have a before when there is no time because infinity has no beginning. Nice try on the strawman, but a beginning isn't a before but a start which has a cause. Are you saying that the universe did not have a beginning? It seems like you are saying that there doesn't have to be something to get something. Apparently, 0 gets to 1 without adding 1 in your thoughts?
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I never said there wasn't a beginning of the universe, please pay attention to what I'm saying. All space and time began when the universe began. I said that there can't be a "before the beginning", since there was no time before the beginning. If you agree that time itself came into existence, then nothing could have possibly happened before then, since there was no time. So the need for a "first cause" is actually somewhat artificial.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 My primary purpose here is not to win a debate, but help show people that science and logic does not contradict God. It rather compliments Him. My studies have only helped me see things more clearly. I am not one to believe in a blind religious dogma; I test the validity of my beliefs. In fact Christ didn't come to teach religion, but He came to provide a way for people to know God and too save us from the consequences of our imperfect ways.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx Well, science doesn't have anything to say about god. Science limits itself to the natural world, and is completely silent on supernatural issues. So, while science certainly doesn't contradict god, it doesn't help make the case for the existence of god either.
Secondly, you absolutely do not test the validity of your beliefs. You're sure that the first cause of the universe is god, yet there's no way for you to test this belief.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Hold on, I just saw your most recent comment after my last post. Lets start with your question. Why must this first cause be god? For the reasons that the cause was Beginningless, Changeless, Immaterial, Timeless, Powerful, Supernatural, Transcendent and Personal. You say there is no way for me to test my belief that the first cause of the universe is God? Yes I can. It is called deductive reasoning.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx Why would the first cause have the characteristics you listed? How did you deduce that? All your argument says is that there was a first cause of the universe. If you can show me how you can deductively show that the first cause must have certain characteristics, I can then try to show you some alternatives. But as long as you're going to make up certain characteristics that the first cause ought to have, this debate is going to get off track very quickly.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 For the sake of my hands and time, I would ask you to watch this video to answer your question, then we can work from there if you need more clarification: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx I'm very familiar with WLC's work, and I find that very unconvincing indeed. Firstly, the big bang doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. The universe began as a singularity, which is certainly not "nothing". So it does not follow that all of space and time came from nothing. Therefore, I don't see it fitting that the first cause should necessarily be timeless and spaceless. The derivation of the other characteristics is even more lazy. I'm not impressed.
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 Really? I guess you must know more than Stephen hawking and other well known scientists and physicists. Too bad your view is not Representative of modern science. Maybe you are not impressed because you are in denial of the facts. At least that is what the obvious is. It seems you are also confused with what constitutes the ex nihilo model.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx What facts am I denying? The big bang theory does not say that the universe sprang into existence from nothing. It sprang into existence from a singularity. Could you be a bit more specific in your accusations?
wownov83 7 months ago
@wownov83 It is pretty simple to put together. If God didn't created the universe what other options are there that fit into the required parameters? God fits it 100%. If the first premise I showed is true (that whatever begins to exist has a cause) then the only option is God given that the He meets the given criteria. I haven't even see you give a better alternative yet, because you can't.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx Why else would the cause be God? The universe came out of nothing. Before we knew that, we knew God created ex nihilo. As for your new question. I knew you would ask how I deduced to that. I will gladly show you.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Comment removed
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Pt. 2 There were obviously no nature or natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang—nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be spaceless because it created space; timeless because it created time; CONTINUED.
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
Pt.3...immaterial because it created matter; powerful because it created out of nothing; intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed; personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices).
xTheUnknownTruthx 7 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx There are a few problems with the premises of the argument to begin, but even granting them, the argument falls. You can't have a "before" when there is no time (i.e. before the big bang), so the question of what came before the big bang, or what could have caused it, becomes meaningless. Regardless of that, granting that a "spaceless, timeless and immaterial" could have been "the first cause" (even though there is no need for a first cause)....continued....
wownov83 7 months ago
Actually a goal is totally irrelevant to probability dealing with a specified outcome. The outcomes of an open ended model are not goals, they are simply outcomes. We can work out the probability of one outcome being realised without difficulty. Even without intelligent design being invoked, any evolutionary biologist (like me) will tell you it is indeed extremely improbable that human sentience emerged. From a secular view point we did get very very lucky.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
See the believer giving ground. more and more. painting himself into a corner. Until he loses by attrition. Until there aren't enough believers left to breed. Observe the EVOLUTION of a mind set through the process of natural selection.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
Craig is such a cowardly puke. "Theistic Evolution" can only mean the study of how gods and the worshipers of them has evolved over time. Evolution has nothing to do with opinion or biases. It's an iron clad indisputable process.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
which is deduced from newtons laws of motion. if the universe ended in its static movement, it must have began in its static movement, and not have been eternally moving and suddenly stop. (As some have tried to answer)
ManisMask 8 months ago
He also makes another false assumption that flew by most people's heads: That the probability he cited would be the case if evolution was operating on chance alone; which it isn't. Sure the -mutations- happen by chance but the evolution operates by natural selection which favors species that are better suited to survive in their given environments.
Gothguy47 9 months ago
I personally am a Christian Creationist, and I completely agree with your premise. I reject all macro evolution claims based on apologetics and cataclysmic geology. There are cosmological difficulties, but that is true for theism and naturalism alike. But logic should be consistent and surrendering a God of miracles to naturalistic evolution is ilogical. True enough.
bluesdawg01 10 months ago
The title of your screennames shows that you are obsessed with Atheism.
AegeanKing 10 months ago
@AegeanKing Obsessed with truth... which is why I'm not a Christian. Christianity is a fraud. As a pastors son, I learned that only after actually studying the bible and the history of Christianity.
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago
over the theist who claims it is improbable has gained nothing since each side's conclusion was drawn by there own bias/belief/ whatever.
quagmire444 11 months ago
im still very skeptical about the probability behind evolution. i understand evolution, and it makes sense, i mean there is plenty of evolution that we observe that isnt just biological. what i find increidbly improbable is that evolution was able to develop the complexity we find in the human body. in response to the probability you mentioned, if probability is merely a number sought to prove one side or another, then the biologist who claims it is probabolistic for evolution to occur
quagmire444 11 months ago
Craig never said he supported evolution.
Reservoirdogs101 1 year ago
if evolution is a blind watchmaker you will have to explain bylaterally symmetry.
mrjosephnasty 1 year ago
@mrjosephnasty If I knew what bylaterally symmetry was, I would, but as there is no such thing it would be hard to. Now if you mean bilateral symmetry then I could explain that to you, except I doubt you have the intelligence to understand such a simple concept. Your question is almost as ridiculous as SockofShits silly non question.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper could you elaborate for me your understanding of bilateral symmetry? how do u see it?
mrjosephnasty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrjosephnasty "could you elaborate for me your understanding of bilateral symmetry? I would describe it as sound. "how do u (sic) see it?" With my eyes.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
Evolution does not have goals.....if evolution was truly random then it could not reach the outcome it has reached there is far too many factors that hold together humanity and our survival for it merely to be coincidence. Maybe you should watch the whole debate and wipe that bum chin because its starting to get alittle dirty
Naelzek 1 year ago
Comment removed
Naelzek 1 year ago
Lol you are trying to claim that How and if God designed things the way he did he did it in an incredibly evil way not within the laws of how a being like god should act? thats a stupid thing to say considering you really have no idea how things work and how "inefficient" as you claim they really are because you could not design anything more efficient than what god has already done and neither could anyone. And i like how you pick and chose parts of His arguement to take out of context.
Naelzek 1 year ago
Comment removed
Naelzek 1 year ago
The argument posed to Craig was not the Argument from Poor Design. Or at least, the only thing his opponent mentioned was the length of time it took for humans to come into existence (the apparent goal of evolution, from God's point of view), as well as the inefficiency of the process. If Craig's opponent had pointed out the suffering that resulted from evolution, then your point would be a good one; but he didn't.
KittenButter 1 year ago
I was going to do a response to this vid of craig. I was going to call it "william lane craig is not an inteligent design"
You did a better job than I would have, though.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
Wow...idiot.
Prolific85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Prolific85 " Wow...idiot. "
Absolutely... but James does a great job of pointing it out.
Just shows that how you can say what you want during a debate... but when people can properly respond... it shows up the nonsense.
Roper122 1 year ago
I think the argument uses to explain away the issue of probability is not sufficient. I agree that probability can be taken as goal oriented. In this case we see the event has already taken place and it acceptable to find out the probabilty of the event occuring. Attacking God's character to disprove His existence is not a sufficient argument. It questions His character and say nothing of His existence.
brianwalesh 1 year ago
Fun observation: Erosion is NOT an efficient process. By the reasoning that even Craig dismissed Erosion must be direct evidence of Satan's work. ;)
BlixsemFleerSneuw 1 year ago
So if probability can so easily be formed to a desired result, then why not try to use probability to disprove intelligent design? It isn't used against creation because it simply does not apply—which illustrates that it can not so easily be bent to the whim of the theorist. (And don't tell me that it's because evolutionists are more inclined to unbent truth, or shall we begin sighting falsified textbooks.)
IamNemoN01 1 year ago
1. If God exists, humans are created in his image.
2. If humans are created in his image, we share some of his beliefs and desires.
3. If we have a desire to design things efficiently, then this is a desire God would have.
C1. Therefore, if God exists, he desires to design things efficiently.
4. If God existed, we would see an efficiently designed universe.
5. We do not see an efficiently designed universe.
C2. Therefore God does not exist.
123HailMe 1 year ago
@123HailMe "some" does not mean "all", therefore 3. does not follow from 2., because not all our desires are mirrored in god, so if we have a desire to design efficiently, it does not necessarily follow that god does also
Myrkul1029 1 year ago
If I listen to too much IpeCraig: soon I'm hocking up my spleen, vomiting furiously while my head spins exorcist style. Suddenly my head explodes, sending chunks of grey matter, blood, plasma and bone fragments ricocheting all off the walls of my home. Staggering like the elephant man through a car wash, I take 4 steps, gurgling blood, spittle and vomit as I slump to the ground dead.
Then I watched this video. Now I'm alright again!
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@mojorhythm Craig forgot more than most of us will ever know, he's a genius.
apologeticsman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@apologeticsman
I remember Craig once said "if my reason were to turn against my faith, then so much the worse for reason!"
I don't care if he had an IQ over 200 and the philosophical insight of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Wittgenstein, Quine, Bacon, Reid, Descartes and Russel all combined. I will never have full respect for a man who holds to such a vacuous and crashingly perverse sentiment.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@mojorhythm What, propaganda makes you feel better?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@mojorhythm I see you don't deal very well with intelligence.
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 What do you mean? That I don't deal well with smart people? That I myself am not that intelligent?
mojorhythm 7 months ago
@mojorhythm Both.
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Fair enough.
mojorhythm 7 months ago
great video!
sameer137 1 year ago
Theistic evolution is just standard evolution with a small twist, i.e. trying to either blindly tie Darwin's rants int with the Bible, or twisting the Bible to make it "spiritual" rather than literal. If you want to believe in evolution, so be it, but don't try to hang it on the neck of the God of the Holy Bible.
apologeticsman 1 year ago
You seem to be a deep thinker. You might help me with some insight on a question I have. Why did matter "want" to organise itself to form life and have a will and conciousness? If you say matter did not have a will to do so, does that mean we (organized matter) is not really alive and have no will not conciousness?
heinno777 1 year ago
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurius 341 BC
True enough, but while we argue semantics, religions around the world indoctrinate children to blow themselves up, censor free speech, and spread disinformation. Why would they stop if they are intellectually justified to do the things they do?
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able...
This is a very basic clap trap :)
Then again, I suppose the outcome would depend on what God we are talking about also. However, if we are talking about the God of the Christian bible, then the answer is obvious.... God handed or gave free moral agency to human beings. Thus renouncing his own authority in the process.
So for me this entire rundown of terms really doesn't get off the ground with the God of Christianity.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR That was the close of an agreement between 2 people from different cultures. If you read the course of our argument you would see that.
But no, you used that as a jumping off point for an ad hominem attack.
That aside, I will respond to you. God gave them free moral agency, yes. But he also gave them his definition of evil that he created. (Tree of good and evil if you remember). He created the evil that the humans ingested. Therefore it is his responsibility to remove it.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith
RE: But no, you used that as a jumping off point for an ad hominem attack.
I saw it there and I responded it it. Do you think this is the first time someone post this? Also... what's with the stupid ad-hominem whine? I criticized the argument not the person posting(moron). < (fixed that for you). I swear people get dumber by the minute in these places. <(a bit more for good measure ).
Hopefully that helped clarify those misconceptions for you.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith
RE: He created the evil that the humans ingested.
That's not quite right actually.
The fruit(in case you haven't read) was harmless in itself.
It was the act of disobedience associated with the taking of the fruit(affirmative action) that would determine sin.
Likewise, it is not nor has it ever been God's responsibility to remove sin from the world. Which can be seen in the way in which salvation is "achieved" in this day.
So no case there either.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR Even if he hadn't done this. This ancient line of reasoning still rings true. If someone is able to prevent evil, and chooses not to, then they themselves are malevolent. If you were an omnipresent witness for every crime ever committed with unlimited power to stop it, would you sit idly by and just watch them? Answer truthfully. If you can't, then why is God excused from this? If you can, then you would be in a small minority of individuals.(Which i find revolting and disgusting)
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith
RE: If someone is able to prevent evil, and chooses not to, then they themselves are malevolent.
You still haven't grasped or factored in free moral agency.
Keep thinking about it and it may come to you.
FTR. God see all, under the rules of from will, interference would negate the arrangement. With this in mind, God would not violate the terms of the arrangement because it either suited or not. However He can move to influence people to make the right decision.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR 3rd paragraph- Are you saying that God has NEVER interfered in man's affairs before? Not according to the bible.
4th paragraph- When did I ever tell you what my idea of God was? How is this dichotomy going to get me to see how unrealistic qualities of an invisible being are reality?
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith
RE: Are you saying that God has NEVER interfered in man's affairs before?
If you pay attention you'd see that God's role changed following the betrayal of A&E.
RE: When did I ever tell you what my idea of God was?
You have clearly shown that you do not have an understanding of God's nature and role according to the Christian bible.
FTR. I never tried to define what you knew, I'm simply pointing out that you have no clue what you're talking about(there's a difference).
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR 1st point- So after Adam and Eve, God can now interfere for whatever reason he wants? If he is now able and willing, whence cometh evil? Strange how it seems he never interferes at all.. It's almost like he was invented by an early (primitive) culture, much like all other religions.
2nd point- So you tried to convince me I have no clue what I'm talking about by... an irrelevant metaphor? I think that does you a greater disservice in that department.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith
RE: God can now interfere for whatever reason he wants?
If you pay attention you'd see that God interfered for one specific reason... "To put humanity back on track" - Therefore, when He decreed the redemption of mankind(restoring balance). It meant nothing would stand between His will and its fulfillment.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR I'm going to start counting the number of times I see the phrase "If you pay attention". Its an unnecessary condescension that you could do without.
So to put humanity back on track involves drowning, burning, and commanding his followers to kill large numbers of them?
You still think this is an eternally good God right? The best he could come up with with his infallible wisdom was to callously kill off all the bad eggs? Only to have them be replaced with more anyway?
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@playerwithfaith
RE: I'm going to start counting...
You'd probably be better off paying attention.
RE: So to put humanity back on track involves drowning...
Try reading the declaration rather than parroting nonsense.
Who knows... you might actually learn something along the way.
RE: You still think this is an eternally good God right.
I certainly do.
Considering what's at stake, then the answer becomes quite obvious.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith if you had 20 billion children, and ten thousand of them were leading the other 19 billion plus to certain doom, and you repeatedly told the smaller group to cease, and repeatedly begged the larger group not to follow the smaller one, how much time would you waste in killing the 10 thousand to save the billions? Hell is eternal, and it is NOT a place anyone wants to be, so if God has to make an example out of a few malcontents to save the rest of us, who are we to condemn Him?
apologeticsman 1 year ago
@apologeticsman If I had 20 billion children, I would save ALL of them.
Make an example? He KILLED almost everyone on the face of the earth! (including plants and animals). The numbers would be more like 19,985 billion of my own children I would have to kill for your hypothetical to be congruent.
I can't believe you worship a God of genocide.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith the God of the Bible is stupid and tyrannical and to defend him is basically fullifulling the Myer experiment of obedinance to authority.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith For religious people, genocide is prove of god's love
petion2010 10 months ago
@petion2010 nah i think its proof of mans disobedience
matrixlone 9 months ago
@playerwithfaith He killed bad people, but not his children.
eagleeye2102 9 months ago
@eagleeye2102 LOL, you people are idiots
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Your argument smells like "The God delusion", however, if you had the choice to kill one person in order to save 10 persons, what would you do? Sure, you would most likeley save all eleven of them, but in such a situation, you and I would kill this person if there wouldn't be another choice. That is why God judges people and sometimes kills them, to save a bigger number of other people.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 You're mentally ill
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago
@MrTruthAddict Because?
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Look up these two words in the dictionary. Faith, and Delusion. You will see that their definitions are almost identical.
You believe, based on no evidence at all, that an imaginary man in the sky condones killing certain people, or entire civilizations for that matter, because of 'sin."
Schizophrenics believe they are hearing voices, telling them what to do. Theism is a mental illness.
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago
@MrTruthAddict I don't have any evidence? Look, if it wouldn't have been for the evidence, I wouldn't have started to believe. Just look at all the prophesies Scripture states which have been fulfilled. Look at the great knowledge in Scripture when it talks about the laws of heaven, climate changes, or common sense. Look at the way the Bible is written, so that everyone in all times could understand it. Look at the complexity in life itself.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Again, zero evidence. The corrupt Catholic church interpolated and forged so many scriptures that there is ZERO chance that any of the 'prophecies' or 'miracles' are legitimate. Trust me, as a pastors son, I've heard all those silly reasons you mention, but there is no hard evidence to back up any of your claims or assertions.
I have studied the history of Christianity and the bible itself for many years. Christianity is a fraud.
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago
@MrTruthAddict I agree that the Churches are corrupted, I think that they are not part of God's kingdom. However, Archaeology AGREES with the teachings of Scripture. Every Statement Scripture states in the field of history has been verified. watch this:
/watch?v=NWawVUZg3Es by Don Patton.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Au contraire. Israeli archaeologists have found ZERO evidence that the Exodus story happened. There should have been hundreds of pieces of evidence left behind and there are NONE.
Scientists have completely disproven the book of Genesis and the creation myth.
My original point is that today's evangelicals believe that Catholicism is corrupt yet the Catholic church, when they were at the HEIGHT of their corruption, was totally corrupting the bible.
The bible is a fraud.
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago
@MrTruthAddict The Israeli archaeologists lied! They found lots of evidence, look at this!:
/watch?v=NWawVUZg3Es
Scientists have not disproven Creation, the opposite happened, more and more Scientists become Creationists. Not Science is against Creation, only evolutionists are.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
@eagleeye2102 Oh geez, another idiotic Creationist conspiracy theorist. Yes, you're right, the entire world scientific community got together and decided to lie about science just to disprove the bible. Yeah you're right.
Enjoy your life of delusion...
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago