If the KCA was obviously a "slam-dunk" bit of reasoning Churches would display it prominently on the home-page of their web-sites right next to the sinner's prayer.
The KCA is an indulgence for Christians which I approve of. The energy and time they spend honing this argument for battle with hardened atheists on Youtube is time that could have been spent witnessing to vulnerable less educated sinners.
Practicing apologetics is a time vampire. Stick with it Christians!
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause [does anything begin to exist?--my birth was not my beginning, neither my conception--me] 2 The universe began to exist ["something cannot come into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing" WLC] 3 The universe has a cause 4 That cause must be spaceless, timeless, but necessarily personal 5 Craig, himself, has just defined an imaginary construct out of absolutely nothing 6 Therefore, it follows that Craig is God. (premises all used by Craig)
The universe never coming into being presumes oscillating universe theory.
Problem is, the amount of entropy would increase by each new universe, meaning the distance by which everything would expand after each Big bang would reach further and further. Meaning that if we go further back in time it would have been smaller and smaller until they reached a point (of creation).
@Abracadabra208 Yeah, Craig is extremely deluded on this subject. There isn't even a "Lorentzian interpretation" of general relativity that can explain all the data. He often ignores this fact, but that's mainly why no modern physicists buy into it. And thought it would be cool if those superluminous neutrinos exist (though the experiment is likely just flawed), most explanations don't require a complete re-interpretation of general relativity.
@antybu86 What about the thing I said about us treating the universe as if it ran on an A-theory of time? It seems to me like one of those things, such as the existence of the self or the freedom of the will, in which one cannot have the "appearance" without the actual thing.
Something to ponder: Even if the A-theory of time is false, we seem to live as if it were true. A crime detective, for example, takes great care to map out the chronology of events surrounding a crime, which can determine whether or not a person of interest is lying and hence more likely to have committed the crime. If the A-theory is false, then most common-sense aspect of life we take for granted are unreliable, which seems absurd.
The only time the resurrection becomes a problem is if you make it one.
There is a lot of arguments, self authenticating, non self authenticating and context wise that support his resurrection and the idea that the apostles performed miracles. Saying it's impossible solely because we don't know how it was done is kind of hypcritical.
There's a difference between events that are truly impossible and events that we don't understand. And miracles are merely ones we don't understand.
@TheColaGoodfellow " Saying it's impossible solely because we don't know how it was done is kind of hypcritical. "
- Oh fantastic, you've just solved the Kalam... Craig can now no longer claim anything is impossible ( since by your definition that's hypocritical ) so therefore anything's possible, so therefore god isn't required.
"Craig can now no longer claim anything is impossible"
I never said it's hypcoritical to say something is impossible. I said that there are things which we don't understand, and then there are things that are logically impossible.
Walking on water requires an alternative force of nature to occur, a square circle is impossible. Turning water to wine would require a alternative force of nature, nothing does not exist and therefore it's impossible for anything to come from it.
I didn't say logically impossible things occur. What I meant was that there is a DIFFERENCE between logically impossible events and things we simply don't understand.
In the Bible, God did nothing logically impossible, just things that humans are incapable of reproducing.
Unless a square circle is a square with curved corners, and unless the "nothing" exists and is therefor actually a "something". Those things are impossible.
To put it easier to understand, miracles are not contradictions, they're exceptions.
You could say something coming from nothing is an exception, but that means that it exists along similiar lines to the miracles of the bible.
And it's still worse than the Bible, because nothing is no thing, no-thing is a lack of existance. It's like me saying that I believe something which doesn't exist, (like fairies), made the world.
@TheColaGoodfellow " You could say something coming from nothing is an exception, but that means that it exists along similiar lines to the miracles of the bible. "
- Yup... which you've conveniently dismissed, hence your problem.
" It's like me saying that I believe something which doesn't exist, (like fairies), made the world. "
- You do say that, you just use the word " god " instead of " fairies "
I dont really understand Kalaam, nothing in this universe "begins" to exist. It just changes (states), which is completely different from how Craig wants us to believe the universe started.
@d007ization It can be confusing because Craig has changed his definition of "begins to exist" a few times. It's usually something like, "there was a point in time that the universe existed that is preceded by no previous point of existence." But then it can get confusing and tedious with the idea of "time beginning."
@d007ization It's just a word play so that he doesn't have to say that God needs a cause. He would have to say that if he said "Everything that exists has a cause". The idea of "beginning" to exist is tricky, because for anything to "begin" you need time to exist.
That the universe had a beginning is currently accepted scientific consensus, the Borde Buth Vilinkin theorem proves as much, thus the A-Time is rightly viewed as the correct model. Thus no circular reasoning.
@BlakeRudy If you define "universe" the way Craig does ("all physical reality") then this is completely wrong. Even the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper cites earlier work by Vilenkin which suggests that our current universe may have arisen from a sort of "quantum foam" - a naturalistic explanation which requires no God.
Besides, BGV has nothing to do with A-theory of time. The vast majority of physicists (and philosophers for that matter) still reject A-theory.
Craig is such a pseudo-intellectual piece of shit it drives me absolutely insane. Rape is socially unacceptable? Funny, because I seem to remember it a practice during Biblical times and one by which God wasn't even particularly compelled.
Craig is a buffoon and we need only listen to his most concise explanation of his belief; the one about him being a "witness to the holy spirit" and this giving him a "self authenticating" confirmation of the Bible's accuracy outside of evidence.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Well, if you can't reduce his philosophical acrobatics (and many people can't), you tend believe that he is actually an incredibly powerful thinker. Truthfully, the first time I heard him speak I thought, "Finally, a Christian who can actually think." However, as you start unraveling his various, metaphysical contortions and bullshit, you realize that the crux of his argument might as well be coming from some stupid, backwoods redneck since their claims are the same.
@gatorhighlights4 There's a reason Craig doesn't quote himself about being a "witness to the holy spirit" and this giving him a "self authenticating method" of confirming the Bible is true "outside of the evidence"; at least not when he's speaking to anyone other than religious groups. It would expose the convoluted crap that follows. Dr. Craig believes the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true, and he believes that because he "felt" the holy spirit. That's his "argument."
"Dr. Craig believes the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true, and ... because he "felt" the holy spirit. That's his "argument."
No, he believes the bible because evidence and context proves it true, and because all atheistic explanations for the existance of the bible are crap, evidenceless and plain ignorant of context.
The only decent point atheists have is evolution, and even that has its problems when used to explain the entirety of life.
@TheColaGoodfellow Actrually it is his argument because that's exactly what he said. Dr. Craig believes in the Christian god "first and foremost" because of him being, as he claims, a witness to the holy spirit. Go find the video so you can hear him say it. The explanation for the Bible is simple: humans wrote it, inspired by events they deemed supernatural because ancient civilizations were superstitious; has very little to do with atheism. "Evidenceless" is not a word. You're not intelligent.
I think Mr Lane Craigs idea of being a witness to the holy spirit is not as simple as you think.
Yes, humans did write it, they also wrote written testimony for speciation, why should that change the reliability of the witness?
It's more likely that a brief encounter with a fruit fly is the result of a hallucination than 3 years of a mans life and the lives of those followers healthy enough to choose to follow him.
from supernatural events itself, the argument is already flawed. I never experienced any supernatural phenomena in my entire life. That's beyond reality. Only exists in fantasy.
Urgh. At 1:16 you misread craig's quote saying "infinitely extended" instead of "finitely extended". The only reason I noticed is because craig makes a big hooha about past time not being infinite, and I thought maybe you'd found a quote with him contradicting himself.
Anyway, "Dr" craig is still an amoral, disgusting human being.
Should I be worried that that argument seems to me to be the most convincing of all the theistic arguments? It hasn't been given a lot of attention by skeptics who aren't fringe Christ-myth supporters, which is strange to me.
@MrJercules How then do you explain away all of the evidence for the resurrection? Something obviously happened. Check out /watch?v=0rFJWizTyNk&list=UULTF8DHku5kbXhLtMiVaaJQ&feature=plcp among other videos before you so quickly dismiss it as a myth.
@FleuryFlicks that video you linked is probably the craziest piece of work I've ever seen. why are the ratings and comments disabled on it? how do you figure something you believe is true if you're already afraid everyone will dispute it?
Well done. Someone with a little philosophical training and some time can see right through Craigs arguments. The problem is that Craig has spent over 30 years developing this "smoke and mirrors", and some atheists won't take the time analyze them in depth before debating him.
I'd also point out that using "deep down, we know we have objective moral values" as the only evidence for moral values is self-refuting. It's not objective if you have to look inward for evidence of objective morality.
@itsjustameme Before you get too excited thinking you've "destroyed" arguments for the existence of God, check out /user/drcraigvideos#p/u/45/9fSluNqGxRA and /watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s&feature=channel_video_title It's easy for those untrained in philosophy to be swayed by people who tell them what they want to hear...namely, there is no God. Who doesn't want to be their own God? It's no wonder so many people work hard to repress the truth--if there is a God, we are accountable to Him.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you think that I think I am my own God? What the hell have you been smoking?
But I am in fact open to the possibility of a God existing but that is the case it very demonstrably has not the slightest in common with the God described in the Bible. And seriously - the Kalam argument seems quite half baked, the flaws described in this video only scratch the surface. For one Craig has not demonstrated that creatio ex nihilo requires a creator.
@antybu86 Actually his actual infinity issue is also kinda circular. I think deep down he first assumes that universe (or material world lets say) began to exist infinite time ago not never began to exists.
@antybu86 This is the best debunking video on YouTube. I think one of the biggest mysteries in the universe is, despite the fact that Craig is using same arguments, same quotes for last 20 years..somehow none of his opponents study their lesson and act like they heard those arguments for first time...
Very well done. Maybe it's true that it's easy to spot WLC's contradictions & circular arguments. I think you're being overly humble with the "when you study Craig's arguments" part. Who has the patience with such detritis? Your response at 7:17 hits most people on page 2 of his propaganda.
Jesus/God/Holyspirit died at the cross. gOD/Jsus/HP Rose Jsus/Gd/hp from the death, & jsus/god/HP rose to heaven 2 b with god/jsus/hp as the HP/god/jesus was witnesing jesus/god/holyspirit in heaven. then Jsus/god/HP rose from the death to go back up with god/himself/holyspirit but this time he took his body along cause decomposing sucks. & now they r all in heaven along with jesus/god/holyspirit's phisical BODY. the only way to make sense of it is to change all names by moe/larry/curly
Now I'm starting to wonder if W L Craig is well aware of just how dishonest and flawed his contention is that the Christian belief system is somehow connected to a possible supernatural creation source. So aware in fact that he's laughing all the way to the bank. I really doubt that a man of his intellectual caliber could be so willfully ignorant. The man clearly plugs and peddles Christianity because the Christian Right has deeeep pockets and he know just how to exploit this fact.
when i was a christian, this kind of thing really did appeal to me. whenever one argument seemed a little shaky, it was reassuring to "know" there were plenty of other things to fall back on. i didn't realise what a complex web of interdependence it was until a few of them were attacked at the same time and now, thank god, i'm out of that mess. great vid - thanks!!
Its always good to see a flow chart to Craig's logic. I have a feeling he doesn't know what it all looks like on paper--he might change a view or two if he did. Unlikely since its his logic that keeps him writing books.
Apologists are the most intellectually corrupt form of Christians. They have the same bullshit reasons for believing in God that the rest of Christianity does AND they also have all the evidence for why those reasons are bullshit. But instead of critically appraising their position they fabricate these bogus solutions to try and make the evidence fit with their narrow view of the world. In turn this makes it harder for Christians genuinely interested in learning to find the truth.
Even if Craig is correct in his claim that we are the product of a supernatural cause, he provides zero evidence linking this "cause" to the Christian belief system. He never says the Christian god MIGHT exist, he claims, in positive and absolute terms, the Christian god DOES exist. How does he know this? Since it is impossible for him to have any insight into the supernatural, how can he make this claim? Smells like intellectual dishonesty for the purpose of selling Christianity.
@nosajj12345 Seriously, we can find so many holes in Craig's logic, it's amazing how many people still take him seriously. Just adding a few fancy words and a nice, convincing intonation doesn't make anything he says any less ridiculous. If you think about it, his whole argument is that he "just knows" God exists. How is he not laughed at for even saying that with a straight face?
@KirbiesandYoshies Absolutely! And if you stop and think about it, if Craig were truly hungry for knowledge, eager to discover new things and really interested in disseminating truth he would humble himself and admit neither he nor any Christian has access to the supernatural therefore no case for making positive claims for their god. Like I said, Craig is a salesman and the product is Christianity. His only concern is peddling his religion and suckering more of the weak-minded into the flock.
!o! Welcome 2 the study of science philosophy... However in my opinion as good as this creative is, it does not refute Graig's objective morality primes, since without a divine morel standard anything is permissible. Dr. Graig is good, but we have even better arguments for ID, creation & the biblical account of history, founded on empirical evidence seen in the sciences, geology & archeology. Plus we have many of arguments out of biology to refute or counter the alleged strengths for evolution.
@MajesticCyru Craig argues “rape, cruelty and child abuse’ aren’t just socially unacceptable behaviours, they are moral abominations. Some things at least are really wrong”. Well I’m afraid he’s up against Islam on that one. Mohammed was a child molester himself. In Sharia where a woman’s testimony is worthless the violence is so extreme that ALL women are obliged to dress in such a way that all the broken bodies, bruises, clipped ears and noses and smashed faces can no longer be seen.
@ritchloui !o! Do u disagree with how Jesus stood up 2 the self righteous stating, "love thy Lord God with all your heart, & then others as u would yourself." Your position does not "define" objective morality, but Graig's "Christian" theist view, does!
As to your world view ..it's easy to point to racism, eugenics, & human zoos, because atheists felt we should evolve mankind this way. History shows us if u remove divine morality ..survival of the fittest takes root & anything is permissible.
@MajesticCyru Islam, like Medieval Christianity, makes fantastical claims for itself and based on these claims gives itself the moral authority to seek out and condemn unbelievers, heretics, witches and the 'possessed'. That is what 'supernatural' moral authority is all about. But when you examine it, the whole religious thing is just the fantasies of spiteful old men who have worked all their lives becoming 'experts' about absolutely nothing, literally, nothing.
@MajesticCyru I can understand why. However, don't overlook what happened in Europe when the Roman Catholic Church was at its height - they still hide what they did in South America. Where are the cries of 'foul' by all the clerics who witnessed the Native Indians' civilisations utterly smashed and the entire continent turned into a death/slave camp? Then the importation of 'better' slaves. The RCC even made money by offering 'indulgences' proportional to the crimes the perverts committed.
The quote you reference at 2:20 cannot be put forth as necessarily a part of this circular web that you describe. I've not read the chapter in question so I cannot say that your interpretation of Craig is contextually wrong but that it's possibly contextually wrong. If this sentence was directed at believers in the existence of God already then Craig is merely saying: "If you believe in God than that is a good reason to believe in A theory."
@5:12. I wonder where are rape, cruelty and child abuse handled in the 10 commandments then? I mean, lying and killing are 'objective morality' issues aren't they? Were the parts about God's jealousy just more important? I guess that would've been a subjective decision by God to cull them then..........
@itsonlymepeople He believes in Divine Command Theory. I think he made a speech or wrote an article justifying the atrocities in the OT by essentially saying, "GOD WILLS IT!"
@Christ724 Amazing isn't it. He talks about objective morality but in another breath morality is reduced to whatever God wants it to be at any given time. "I am God, do as I say, not as I do!" I guess might makes right? The God of the Bible is the same yesterday, today and forever. A douche.
It's ironic that apologists always talk about how murder and rape would be ok if God didnt exist, but if that's the case then what is actually so bad about those things in and of themselves? If the only reason they're wrong is that God says so, then why would it be so bad otherwise? Hmm......
@Staunts Like we couldn't figure it out for ourselves that murder and rape are wrong. Have you ever been asked by a believer," Since you don't believe in God, why don't you go out and kill, have sex with whoever, get drunk, use drugs, steal, etc." or something like that? I like to reply, "You mean the only thing keeping YOU from doing that is believing in God?"
@itsonlymepeople It's my believe in God that has blessed me allowing me ample time & resources to spread His hope to the hungry, poor & homeless. However it's the religious Darwinian occult leaders who want to flush them, claiming they r useless feeders.
I've also talked 2 many atheist who struggle with suicide. The good news is that at this point they can find meaning in becoming x-atheist. It's amazing what a little love can do for someone in need of salvation & a new world view!
@MajesticCyru If "spread His hope" includes feeding, clothing and helping to find shelter for the hungry, poor & homeless then I applaud you. However, belief in God is not necessary for caring about others. I've talked to many Christians who struggle with suicide, most recently a girl who commented on a different video. The good news there is that despite her faith she is still taking her medication to battle her depression. Hope and love belong to all people, not just God-believers.
@itsonlymepeople Craig's argument is that it's not the commandment that makes believers, for instance, not kill. He is arguing that our inherent morality/ sense of right and wrong is from God. Basically the reason anyone knows that killing etc. is wrong.
@ndave84 If morality is inherently from God and common to all people regardless of their religious belief, why does Craig's God need to give commandments on what's right and wrong? Better yet, how can Craig justify his God as the source of absolute morality when the Bible shows Him contradicting His own laws or commanding people to contradict His laws over and over again?
@itsonlymepeople To the first argument, morality tells us what is right and wrong, but knowing and abiding by it are two different things. We were given free will, the right to choose, and we sometimes choose wrong. Just as the government tells us that murder is wrong to remind us, and warn us of the consequences of our actions, so does God. Secondly, there are many misquoted/misunderstood verses in the bible. Removed from their context or the meaning of the passage. Sorry out of space...
@ndave84 I agree with your first sentence and most of your second. I don't think we were given free will by a creator but rather by the evolution of our brains. Either way we agree in spirit. I also don't think the comparison of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator to a man-made government works. I definitely agree that people very often misquote verses and take them out of context. However, when the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is soon followed by the command to kill the inhabitants (CONT)
What the hell is he doing interpreting Einstein´s theory? He is a philosopher, not a physicist or cosmologist or anything for that matter. That´s sorta like that German building engineer trying to disprove evolution in his books, Zillmer I think is his name. This was a brilliant vid!
Searching the original clip that ShockofGod posted can not be found but just to humor things up youtube.com/watch?v=VX4gx-IKZpg. So therefore WLC was flawed the very time the very first moment when he went up to that podium and ask Christopher Hitchens that.
Just watched the whole debate today but man WLC every time he talks he gives it great meaning. But it is flawed still because his rhetoric won't work for me if they don't quite match the other persons viewpoint. WLC was flawed the VERY first thing when he said to Christopher Hitchens to prove that Atheism is true. This brings up the similar case on youtube about the user ShockofGod trolling the similar question. Here youtube.com/watch?v=Vkzq3HHyVUs and youtube.com/watch?v=4ZzNEN2PrSg
@itsdodge I'm not sure how you can embrace that view outside of solipsism. How else do you explain the scientific advances of the last several hundred years? For example, do you believe that vaccines only "subjectively" work?
Very comprehensive. WLC defeating himself with his own rhetoric, very nice. Personal subjective experience is absolute proof but not yours. I think the main problem with exposing WLC's irrational babbling is the house of cards effect. You just pulled a card right from the bottom of his house but its such a vast edifice you won't notice its falling down if your facing one corner.
Excellent observation and depiction. Apparently, Matt Dillahunty's analysis is meant to become prophecy: 'everytime i get an argument for god, all i get are anecdotes and logical fallacies'. also, it seems that god is himself a falsehood, you cannot try to prove a falsehood without falling into fallacies.
@happysappy21 Why is it theists rarely seem to grasp the concept of what an ad hominem is? The person that made the statement you lazily called an ad hominem was no such thing. It addressed a valid observation and your reaction confirmed it rather well. I completely agree with his point and see it all the time. You're burring your head in the sand. See if they have a definition of ad hominem down there. It is not just for using when your feelings get a boo boo.
@newcoyote Come on, what kind of silly response is that? You say "theists rarely grasp the concept of ad hominem? You say the person I contested made no such claim. You say he made a valid observation. You say I'm burying my head in the sand. A whole string of claims without a shred of evidence to point to for me to know what you're talking about. And you have the audacity to say I'm being lazy. If that's what the scientific method has taught you I think you better join your local baptist church
@happysappy21 Scientific method? What are you talking about? Are you just parroting buzz phrases? This is about syllogism. I said you accused someone of a logical fallacy, misused the term and in doing so committed one yourself. A red herring in fact. The "evidence" is right there. Still is. All the shreds of it. The guy made a reasonable hypothesis. Rather than address it like a person with intellectual integrity, you just cried foul. Red herring. Learn your stuff first. You'll get buried.
@newcoyote and rather than providing a syllogistic response yourself all you do is continue to do is cry foul by throwing out the red herrings that I've been using "logical fallacies", "red herrings", "crying foul" and "lacking intellectual integrity" and whatever other little "buzz phrases" you've learned from your Idiots Guide to Debating. You throw out bones and expect me to go fetch them? Go argue with someone who you can run rings around coz it's obvious you just buried yourself
Kalam fails with premise 1. We assume a law of cause and effect, because that is how our universe works. However, there's no reason to believe that our universe's laws of physics exist outside of our universe. In fact, the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the more our laws of physics break down. However, if we grant premise 1, it still breaks down at 4--the transcendant clause. The assumption here is that there is nothing physical outside of our universe to act as a cause.
@Manifestatheist Again, advocates of Kalam make an assumption that they cannot prove as true. Why, therefore, does the cause outside of our universe have to be transcendent? Finally, if we grant premise 1 and 4, Kalam again fails at 5: that the transcendent uncaused cause describes God (here I assume the Biblical god); nothing in the Bible suggests God exists outside of our universe. Genesis only describes creation of objects--earth (and inhabitants), stars, the moon, sun--not a universe.
Excellent video as usual, but what suprises me is that you actually *spent* this much time refuting this clown. At the end of the day, and to quote a damn bumper-sticker... “God said it! I believe it! THAT settles it!” Yes, essentially, that is what -Craig- is saying.
Oh sure, his gibberish *sounds* official, but that is irrelevant, as you well know. Personally, I heard the *begging the question* argument so many times I gave up... as did you by the end of your video. :)
One more piece to add to the web of circularity. Craig argues that since objective morals exist, God exists. In order to weasel his way out of the Euthyphro Dilemma, Craig claims that God is morally infallible by nature. His justification for this? The Ontological Argument for God.
was that a trick question? Of course we should accept Craig's interpretation, because only that will get us to Christ, which will save us from hell. Einstein's intrepretation may be simpler, or even more correct, but it won't get you into heaven.
but his moral argument is way more absurd! 4:52 -> BULLSHIT!!! if objective moral values DO exist can Mr. Craig answer to me is it immoral to abuse a child who's father is the onliest one who has a key that can switching off the nu clear bomb that is going to explode the earth? or why is it immoral to kill homosexuals if old testament commands us to kill them and new testament says NOTHING against it? objective moral values DO NOT fucking exist!
fine tuning sounds too stupid to me because we can't simply know either is or not our universe fine tuned unless we see any other universe :)
how could we possibly know that laws of physics could be TUNED at all? maybe it's like mathematics? none tuned this -> 2+2=4 because it's impossible to tune it. this "law" never came in existence because it was always in existence and it always works and never fails! maybe we will discover that same is with laws of physics?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If atheism was science we would have at least on observable incident of none life becoming life...just one!
Yet most commonly atheist point to the miller experiment to prove that life can come from none life, which isn't life coming come none life it's a designed experiment done by intelligent human scientist and proof for intelligent design.
This video has no basis because it's based on the assumption that life can come from nothing which is scientifically impossible... and that's a fact!
@scotbrandon I'm not sure how your points are in any way related to this video, but I'm a little bored so...
The Urey-Miller experiment you referred to was designed, yes, but it was designed to mimic natural circumstances. But this is neither here nor there because the experiment didn't create "life" anyway.
The problem with your argument is that "life" and "non-life" are ill-defined terms. At what point does non-life become life? Are viruses alive? Prions? Red blood cells? Define your terms.
@antybu86 Exactly! Like you said, "The Urey-Miller experiment you referred to was designed." That's where you should of put a period instead of convoluting the argument.
Wow! That's a whole lot of William Lane Craig you had to sit through to make this video. Bit like in the Shawshank Redemption - you crawled through the sewer of WLC bullshit to freedom. We all owe you a debt of gratitude!
@scotbrandon before Miller, nobody believed one could create organic molecules out of non-organic molecules, in a simulation of the circumstances on the early earth. so, science already made some progress. so, don't come up with the God-of-the-gaps-argument, that is easily summarized as "science doesn't know, so God exists".
three centuries ago, we had no reliable idea about the age of the earth, so everybody assumed earth to be 6000-7000 years old. we do know much better these days "thank-God".
@doyoublush-like I said before the Miller-Ulrey experiment was proof of design. Your whole comment was one big red herring trying to get off that point, and doesn't deal with the topic at hand.
@scotbrandon no, because the experiment was all about to simulate *random* chemical reactions without intelligent design. intelligent design would imply that the experimenters had a certain result in mind when putting the substances together, like designing a house. this experiment was like throwing bricks and cement in a bucket and see what happens. it is an EXPERIMENT, not a DESIGN!
if you don't even understand that, you misunderstand the core of that experiment. FACEPALM!
Thanks for all the negative votes with my comment 3 months ago. It affirms that atheist have no valid arguments. They just can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a cop they don't want to.
@scotbrandon lol, the negative posts are the result of your lack of arguments. the miller-experiment did not produce life, but the first step towards life. theists, after claiming to already know everything, have never been that close.
I read the Bible, read a book of CS Lewis, had discussions with Christian friends, went to church and I found nothing, except for corrupted ancient texts, mass-psychology and people claiming to know things they cannot conceivably know. that was enough for me.
@doyoublush Wow, lack of argument? That's ironic! You blindly dismiss the fact of the intelligence involved in the Miller-Ulrey experiment. A little bias perhaps? Like I said before...If atheism was science we would have at least one observable incident of none life becoming life...where is it? I'm not here to have a bible study with God hating sin loving people, that would be silly. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of your worldview, like you claim they can't know, but you can.
@doyoublush Where's the evidence then, you've had a week to bring some. In fact you have had a few months. Like I said before If atheism was science we would have at least one observable incident of none life becoming life...where is it? See you have faith in a miracle without a miracle worker. The god of nothing who created everything from the "theory" of darwinist evolution. facepalm
@scotbrandon Miller-Urey experiment. You again use the God-of-the-gaps-argument. The fact that science has not yet have a complete picture, doesn't mean you can bring up a book that was written roughly 2000-3000 years ago by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual sheepherders and say you have found the truth.
And where is the proof for theism? Only less than 10% of America's top scholars (Yale, Princeton, Stanford etc.), believe in a personal God. It has a reason... guess which!
I take it from all these atheists videos contesting WLC's arguments as tacit acknowledgement that he won all his debates hands down. Why else would you feel the need to create all these videos to defeat his arguments? How desperately you don't want to believe in god
Well, it's certainly too bad that for someone who provides so many arguments that don't work that he happens to be such a good debater that there is no one on the atheist side who can use the arguments that "do work" to successful refute him. I don't think he wins his debates because he is a more capable debater, that's far too much of a stretch.
@happysappy21 Well, if it helps, Craig has certainly lost debates - the one with Shelly Kagan, for example. But no, Craig wins debates because he knows the arguments better than his opponents do, and he is superb at rhetoric.
@antybu86 I agree with you there. But I've just watched the Kagan/Craig debate and I honestly don't think Craig lost that one, it was more of a stalemate. Both provided arguments and counterarguments and there was no time to pursue to a definite conclusion. Having said that, somewhat ironically that debate was my most enjoyable to watch as Kagan is the most respectful atheist debater I've seen who doesn't appear to be purely motivated by a religion-destroying agenda. I'm quite stunned actually
@happysappy21 Craig has been refuted repeatedly, but since he uses a 5-pronged argument, he usually gets away with only different fractions of his argument demolished at a time. Craig does this sort of thing for a living. Most of his opponents take interest in atheism on the side.
@happysappy21 I'm not sure it's a stretch. Craig is a theologian and a philosopher for a living. He lives and breathes this stuff. Very few, if any, of the atheists he's debated are so well versed on the topic. Hitchens is a journalist first, Dawkins is a biologist first, Shermer is a scientist first, etc..
@DancingTableLeg... I feel there's a major double standard taking place here. Atheists eagerly watch these debates to see Theists get destroyed and support their "faith=stupidity" hegemony yet when this doesn't happen they wriggle and writhe saying it wasn't a fair contest. So why do these men attempt to debate the definitive claim there is no god in the first place? They'd be far better off attacking organised religion rather than proving the non-existence of a personal cause of the universe
@happysappy21 I don't think antybu is saying that WLC was being unfair. All he was saying is that WLC's arguments rely on "common sense", which many scientists have acknowledge is unreliable.
I have no ill will to William Lane Craig, but I'm afraid I can't understand your conclusion. "You all want to refute his arguments, therefore he won?"
Hmmm... you bring up some interesting points..
StygianDysnomia 3 weeks ago
If the KCA was obviously a "slam-dunk" bit of reasoning Churches would display it prominently on the home-page of their web-sites right next to the sinner's prayer.
The KCA is an indulgence for Christians which I approve of. The energy and time they spend honing this argument for battle with hardened atheists on Youtube is time that could have been spent witnessing to vulnerable less educated sinners.
Practicing apologetics is a time vampire. Stick with it Christians!
HellRehab 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 3 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause [does anything begin to exist?--my birth was not my beginning, neither my conception--me] 2 The universe began to exist ["something cannot come into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing" WLC] 3 The universe has a cause 4 That cause must be spaceless, timeless, but necessarily personal 5 Craig, himself, has just defined an imaginary construct out of absolutely nothing 6 Therefore, it follows that Craig is God. (premises all used by Craig)
brucegrenehan1 4 weeks ago
nice thoughts
twentyinchsoul 1 month ago
Haha Very Good
stemcgolf 1 month ago
The universe never coming into being presumes oscillating universe theory.
Problem is, the amount of entropy would increase by each new universe, meaning the distance by which everything would expand after each Big bang would reach further and further. Meaning that if we go further back in time it would have been smaller and smaller until they reached a point (of creation).
So I wouldn't call his argument circular atall.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
Pretty fucking excellent video.
DickJohnson3434 1 month ago
Question number 233 on Dr. Craig's "Reasonable Faith" website might be of interest on the subject of the correct theory of time.
Abracadabra208 1 month ago
@Abracadabra208 Yeah, Craig is extremely deluded on this subject. There isn't even a "Lorentzian interpretation" of general relativity that can explain all the data. He often ignores this fact, but that's mainly why no modern physicists buy into it. And thought it would be cool if those superluminous neutrinos exist (though the experiment is likely just flawed), most explanations don't require a complete re-interpretation of general relativity.
antybu86 1 month ago
@antybu86 What about the thing I said about us treating the universe as if it ran on an A-theory of time? It seems to me like one of those things, such as the existence of the self or the freedom of the will, in which one cannot have the "appearance" without the actual thing.
Abracadabra208 1 month ago
Something to ponder: Even if the A-theory of time is false, we seem to live as if it were true. A crime detective, for example, takes great care to map out the chronology of events surrounding a crime, which can determine whether or not a person of interest is lying and hence more likely to have committed the crime. If the A-theory is false, then most common-sense aspect of life we take for granted are unreliable, which seems absurd.
Abracadabra208 1 month ago
Anybody who understands the circular nature of self-awareness and the circular (but true) nature of the universe/truth, believes in God.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
The only time the resurrection becomes a problem is if you make it one.
There is a lot of arguments, self authenticating, non self authenticating and context wise that support his resurrection and the idea that the apostles performed miracles. Saying it's impossible solely because we don't know how it was done is kind of hypcritical.
There's a difference between events that are truly impossible and events that we don't understand. And miracles are merely ones we don't understand.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
@TheColaGoodfellow " Saying it's impossible solely because we don't know how it was done is kind of hypcritical. "
- Oh fantastic, you've just solved the Kalam... Craig can now no longer claim anything is impossible ( since by your definition that's hypocritical ) so therefore anything's possible, so therefore god isn't required.
Nice work backing yourself into a corner.
Roper122 1 month ago
@Roper122
"Craig can now no longer claim anything is impossible"
I never said it's hypcoritical to say something is impossible. I said that there are things which we don't understand, and then there are things that are logically impossible.
Walking on water requires an alternative force of nature to occur, a square circle is impossible. Turning water to wine would require a alternative force of nature, nothing does not exist and therefore it's impossible for anything to come from it.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
@TheColaGoodfellow " I said that there are things which we don't understand, and then there are things that are logically impossible. "
- Either way champ, doesn't matter to me.
If you're saying that " logically impossible " things have happened, then you're saying that god can do the " logically impossible ".
So god makes square circles now does he?
Roper122 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122
@Roper122
You misunderstood again.
I didn't say logically impossible things occur. What I meant was that there is a DIFFERENCE between logically impossible events and things we simply don't understand.
In the Bible, God did nothing logically impossible, just things that humans are incapable of reproducing.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheColaGoodfellow " You misunderstood again. "
- Nope, I just understand better than you do.
" What I meant was that there is a DIFFERENCE between logically impossible events and things we simply don't understand "
- Yup, there is.
" In the Bible, God did nothing logically impossible "
- Except " something from nothing " is logically impossible... so which is it?
I don't mind, either way you're screwed.
Roper122 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122
Unless a square circle is a square with curved corners, and unless the "nothing" exists and is therefor actually a "something". Those things are impossible.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
@Roper122
To put it easier to understand, miracles are not contradictions, they're exceptions.
You could say something coming from nothing is an exception, but that means that it exists along similiar lines to the miracles of the bible.
And it's still worse than the Bible, because nothing is no thing, no-thing is a lack of existance. It's like me saying that I believe something which doesn't exist, (like fairies), made the world.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheColaGoodfellow " You could say something coming from nothing is an exception, but that means that it exists along similiar lines to the miracles of the bible. "
- Yup... which you've conveniently dismissed, hence your problem.
" It's like me saying that I believe something which doesn't exist, (like fairies), made the world. "
- You do say that, you just use the word " god " instead of " fairies "
Roper122 1 month ago
I dont really understand Kalaam, nothing in this universe "begins" to exist. It just changes (states), which is completely different from how Craig wants us to believe the universe started.
Could someone please clear me up on this one?
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization It can be confusing because Craig has changed his definition of "begins to exist" a few times. It's usually something like, "there was a point in time that the universe existed that is preceded by no previous point of existence." But then it can get confusing and tedious with the idea of "time beginning."
antybu86 1 month ago
@antybu86 Indeed. And none of those definitions can be analogous to "beginning to exist" in the universe anyway.
d007ization 1 month ago
@d007ization It's just a word play so that he doesn't have to say that God needs a cause. He would have to say that if he said "Everything that exists has a cause". The idea of "beginning" to exist is tricky, because for anything to "begin" you need time to exist.
RestrictThis5 4 days ago
That the universe had a beginning is currently accepted scientific consensus, the Borde Buth Vilinkin theorem proves as much, thus the A-Time is rightly viewed as the correct model. Thus no circular reasoning.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy If you define "universe" the way Craig does ("all physical reality") then this is completely wrong. Even the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper cites earlier work by Vilenkin which suggests that our current universe may have arisen from a sort of "quantum foam" - a naturalistic explanation which requires no God.
Besides, BGV has nothing to do with A-theory of time. The vast majority of physicists (and philosophers for that matter) still reject A-theory.
antybu86 1 month ago
@antybu86
""quantum foam" - a naturalistic explanation which requires no God."
That is, ofcourse, assuming the quantum foam isn't God or ordered by God.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
rape, cruelty, and child abuse. sounds like old testament to me.
charliepossenriede 2 months ago
Craig is such a pseudo-intellectual piece of shit it drives me absolutely insane. Rape is socially unacceptable? Funny, because I seem to remember it a practice during Biblical times and one by which God wasn't even particularly compelled.
Craig is a buffoon and we need only listen to his most concise explanation of his belief; the one about him being a "witness to the holy spirit" and this giving him a "self authenticating" confirmation of the Bible's accuracy outside of evidence.
gatorhighlights4 2 months ago
@gatorhighlights4
"Craig is such a pseudo-intellectual piece of shit it drives me absolutely insane"
What drives ME nuts is that so many people take him seriously. Why, for crying out loud? Don't people THINK when they hear him talk?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Well, if you can't reduce his philosophical acrobatics (and many people can't), you tend believe that he is actually an incredibly powerful thinker. Truthfully, the first time I heard him speak I thought, "Finally, a Christian who can actually think." However, as you start unraveling his various, metaphysical contortions and bullshit, you realize that the crux of his argument might as well be coming from some stupid, backwoods redneck since their claims are the same.
gatorhighlights4 2 months ago
@gatorhighlights4 There's a reason Craig doesn't quote himself about being a "witness to the holy spirit" and this giving him a "self authenticating method" of confirming the Bible is true "outside of the evidence"; at least not when he's speaking to anyone other than religious groups. It would expose the convoluted crap that follows. Dr. Craig believes the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true, and he believes that because he "felt" the holy spirit. That's his "argument."
gatorhighlights4 2 months ago
@gatorhighlights4
"Dr. Craig believes the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true, and ... because he "felt" the holy spirit. That's his "argument."
No, he believes the bible because evidence and context proves it true, and because all atheistic explanations for the existance of the bible are crap, evidenceless and plain ignorant of context.
The only decent point atheists have is evolution, and even that has its problems when used to explain the entirety of life.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Actrually it is his argument because that's exactly what he said. Dr. Craig believes in the Christian god "first and foremost" because of him being, as he claims, a witness to the holy spirit. Go find the video so you can hear him say it. The explanation for the Bible is simple: humans wrote it, inspired by events they deemed supernatural because ancient civilizations were superstitious; has very little to do with atheism. "Evidenceless" is not a word. You're not intelligent.
gatorhighlights4 1 month ago
@gatorhighlights4
I think Mr Lane Craigs idea of being a witness to the holy spirit is not as simple as you think.
Yes, humans did write it, they also wrote written testimony for speciation, why should that change the reliability of the witness?
It's more likely that a brief encounter with a fruit fly is the result of a hallucination than 3 years of a mans life and the lives of those followers healthy enough to choose to follow him.
I'm dyslexic, ofcourse I'm intelligent.
TheColaGoodfellow 1 month ago
from supernatural events itself, the argument is already flawed. I never experienced any supernatural phenomena in my entire life. That's beyond reality. Only exists in fantasy.
chesster423 2 months ago
Urgh. At 1:16 you misread craig's quote saying "infinitely extended" instead of "finitely extended". The only reason I noticed is because craig makes a big hooha about past time not being infinite, and I thought maybe you'd found a quote with him contradicting himself.
Anyway, "Dr" craig is still an amoral, disgusting human being.
htomerif 2 months ago
@MrJercules
Should I be worried that that argument seems to me to be the most convincing of all the theistic arguments? It hasn't been given a lot of attention by skeptics who aren't fringe Christ-myth supporters, which is strange to me.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 2 months ago
if there is an objective reality, it's always interpreted subjectively... period
tonyfalca 2 months ago
It all sounds so brilliant, and then comes "The Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus"
MrJercules 2 months ago 2
@MrJercules How then do you explain away all of the evidence for the resurrection? Something obviously happened. Check out /watch?v=0rFJWizTyNk&list=UULTF8DHku5kbXhLtMiVaaJQ&feature=plcp among other videos before you so quickly dismiss it as a myth.
FleuryFlicks 3 days ago
@FleuryFlicks that video you linked is probably the craziest piece of work I've ever seen. why are the ratings and comments disabled on it? how do you figure something you believe is true if you're already afraid everyone will dispute it?
truthslap 18 hours ago
'kalam' sounds like a blunt, metal object which could be used to crack open your skull.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
Great job. You can notice the circularity of Craig's arguments from a mile away, but seeing it in a diagram is so much better... and funnier.
DaGavinX 3 months ago
These pesky premises. Maybe Gödel had a point after all. ;-)
smarthandsomeguy 4 months ago
It seems, as if the plausibility of every argument for or against the god hypothesis can be reduced to a priori assumptions about the issue at hand.
smarthandsomeguy 4 months ago
Well done indeed.
smarthandsomeguy 4 months ago
Well done. Someone with a little philosophical training and some time can see right through Craigs arguments. The problem is that Craig has spent over 30 years developing this "smoke and mirrors", and some atheists won't take the time analyze them in depth before debating him.
chansetwo 4 months ago
I'd also point out that using "deep down, we know we have objective moral values" as the only evidence for moral values is self-refuting. It's not objective if you have to look inward for evidence of objective morality.
BlackWolf4830 4 months ago
Wow - everything WLC ever said about God refuted in just one video. Well done.
itsjustameme 4 months ago 7
@itsjustameme Before you get too excited thinking you've "destroyed" arguments for the existence of God, check out /user/drcraigvideos#p/u/45/9fSluNqGxRA and /watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s&feature=channel_video_title It's easy for those untrained in philosophy to be swayed by people who tell them what they want to hear...namely, there is no God. Who doesn't want to be their own God? It's no wonder so many people work hard to repress the truth--if there is a God, we are accountable to Him.
FleuryFlicks 3 days ago
@FleuryFlicks
What the hell are you talking about? Do you think that I think I am my own God? What the hell have you been smoking?
But I am in fact open to the possibility of a God existing but that is the case it very demonstrably has not the slightest in common with the God described in the Bible. And seriously - the Kalam argument seems quite half baked, the flaws described in this video only scratch the surface. For one Craig has not demonstrated that creatio ex nihilo requires a creator.
itsjustameme 3 days ago
Are you saying there aren't any independent reasons to accept a Neo-Lorentzian view?
vbfl920 4 months ago
@antybu86 Actually his actual infinity issue is also kinda circular. I think deep down he first assumes that universe (or material world lets say) began to exist infinite time ago not never began to exists.
Am I wrong?
kemalcs 4 months ago
@antybu86 This is the best debunking video on YouTube. I think one of the biggest mysteries in the universe is, despite the fact that Craig is using same arguments, same quotes for last 20 years..somehow none of his opponents study their lesson and act like they heard those arguments for first time...
kemalcs 4 months ago
Very well done. Maybe it's true that it's easy to spot WLC's contradictions & circular arguments. I think you're being overly humble with the "when you study Craig's arguments" part. Who has the patience with such detritis? Your response at 7:17 hits most people on page 2 of his propaganda.
myerssa7 4 months ago
I come away with one question: If god exists and we are all imbued with his objective morality, why are prisons packed?
fdasherv 4 months ago
@fdasherv The theist could just respond it's because we've abused our free will.
Drgamedood 4 months ago
@Drgamedood Of course we have free will, boss insists on it:)
kemalcs 4 months ago
Still one of the best " Craig debunking " videos on YT
Roper122 5 months ago
craig is a preacher disguised as a philosopher
Analice29 6 months ago
Why do people even waste their time on the Kalam or Craig - such weak arguments.
trooperJac 6 months ago
Jesus/God/Holyspirit died at the cross. gOD/Jsus/HP Rose Jsus/Gd/hp from the death, & jsus/god/HP rose to heaven 2 b with god/jsus/hp as the HP/god/jesus was witnesing jesus/god/holyspirit in heaven. then Jsus/god/HP rose from the death to go back up with god/himself/holyspirit but this time he took his body along cause decomposing sucks. & now they r all in heaven along with jesus/god/holyspirit's phisical BODY. the only way to make sense of it is to change all names by moe/larry/curly
jrev37 6 months ago
@jrev37 lol
chesster423 2 months ago
Occam's Razor favors Einstein over Craig. :)
Drgamedood 6 months ago
Now I'm starting to wonder if W L Craig is well aware of just how dishonest and flawed his contention is that the Christian belief system is somehow connected to a possible supernatural creation source. So aware in fact that he's laughing all the way to the bank. I really doubt that a man of his intellectual caliber could be so willfully ignorant. The man clearly plugs and peddles Christianity because the Christian Right has deeeep pockets and he know just how to exploit this fact.
sammy2trees 6 months ago
when i was a christian, this kind of thing really did appeal to me. whenever one argument seemed a little shaky, it was reassuring to "know" there were plenty of other things to fall back on. i didn't realise what a complex web of interdependence it was until a few of them were attacked at the same time and now, thank god, i'm out of that mess. great vid - thanks!!
BozoTheBear 6 months ago
Its always good to see a flow chart to Craig's logic. I have a feeling he doesn't know what it all looks like on paper--he might change a view or two if he did. Unlikely since its his logic that keeps him writing books.
finderfinder100 7 months ago
Apologists are the most intellectually corrupt form of Christians. They have the same bullshit reasons for believing in God that the rest of Christianity does AND they also have all the evidence for why those reasons are bullshit. But instead of critically appraising their position they fabricate these bogus solutions to try and make the evidence fit with their narrow view of the world. In turn this makes it harder for Christians genuinely interested in learning to find the truth.
SimplyGebus 7 months ago 4
Even if Craig is correct in his claim that we are the product of a supernatural cause, he provides zero evidence linking this "cause" to the Christian belief system. He never says the Christian god MIGHT exist, he claims, in positive and absolute terms, the Christian god DOES exist. How does he know this? Since it is impossible for him to have any insight into the supernatural, how can he make this claim? Smells like intellectual dishonesty for the purpose of selling Christianity.
nosajj12345 7 months ago
@nosajj12345 Seriously, we can find so many holes in Craig's logic, it's amazing how many people still take him seriously. Just adding a few fancy words and a nice, convincing intonation doesn't make anything he says any less ridiculous. If you think about it, his whole argument is that he "just knows" God exists. How is he not laughed at for even saying that with a straight face?
KirbiesandYoshies 7 months ago
@KirbiesandYoshies Absolutely! And if you stop and think about it, if Craig were truly hungry for knowledge, eager to discover new things and really interested in disseminating truth he would humble himself and admit neither he nor any Christian has access to the supernatural therefore no case for making positive claims for their god. Like I said, Craig is a salesman and the product is Christianity. His only concern is peddling his religion and suckering more of the weak-minded into the flock.
nosajj12345 7 months ago
!o! Welcome 2 the study of science philosophy... However in my opinion as good as this creative is, it does not refute Graig's objective morality primes, since without a divine morel standard anything is permissible. Dr. Graig is good, but we have even better arguments for ID, creation & the biblical account of history, founded on empirical evidence seen in the sciences, geology & archeology. Plus we have many of arguments out of biology to refute or counter the alleged strengths for evolution.
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
@MajesticCyru Craig argues “rape, cruelty and child abuse’ aren’t just socially unacceptable behaviours, they are moral abominations. Some things at least are really wrong”. Well I’m afraid he’s up against Islam on that one. Mohammed was a child molester himself. In Sharia where a woman’s testimony is worthless the violence is so extreme that ALL women are obliged to dress in such a way that all the broken bodies, bruises, clipped ears and noses and smashed faces can no longer be seen.
ritchloui 7 months ago
@ritchloui !o! Do u disagree with how Jesus stood up 2 the self righteous stating, "love thy Lord God with all your heart, & then others as u would yourself." Your position does not "define" objective morality, but Graig's "Christian" theist view, does!
As to your world view ..it's easy to point to racism, eugenics, & human zoos, because atheists felt we should evolve mankind this way. History shows us if u remove divine morality ..survival of the fittest takes root & anything is permissible.
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
@MajesticCyru Islam, like Medieval Christianity, makes fantastical claims for itself and based on these claims gives itself the moral authority to seek out and condemn unbelievers, heretics, witches and the 'possessed'. That is what 'supernatural' moral authority is all about. But when you examine it, the whole religious thing is just the fantasies of spiteful old men who have worked all their lives becoming 'experts' about absolutely nothing, literally, nothing.
ritchloui 7 months ago
@ritchloui Sorry I can not agree that Islam is the same as Christianity!
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
@MajesticCyru I can understand why. However, don't overlook what happened in Europe when the Roman Catholic Church was at its height - they still hide what they did in South America. Where are the cries of 'foul' by all the clerics who witnessed the Native Indians' civilisations utterly smashed and the entire continent turned into a death/slave camp? Then the importation of 'better' slaves. The RCC even made money by offering 'indulgences' proportional to the crimes the perverts committed.
ritchloui 7 months ago
great to see WLC finally being beaten by a (Yale) professor, who immediately saw through the bad, non-sense and wishfull-thinking arguments of WLC!
doyoublush 8 months ago
The quote you reference at 2:20 cannot be put forth as necessarily a part of this circular web that you describe. I've not read the chapter in question so I cannot say that your interpretation of Craig is contextually wrong but that it's possibly contextually wrong. If this sentence was directed at believers in the existence of God already then Craig is merely saying: "If you believe in God than that is a good reason to believe in A theory."
othellopiano 8 months ago
Wow. this is - in m (subjective)opinion - the best video against WLC ever.
Genius!
Duplex0r 8 months ago
Craig is an unlettered imbecile.
Ekenedil 8 months ago
Neat diagram.
arsenelupin123 8 months ago
@5:12. I wonder where are rape, cruelty and child abuse handled in the 10 commandments then? I mean, lying and killing are 'objective morality' issues aren't they? Were the parts about God's jealousy just more important? I guess that would've been a subjective decision by God to cull them then..........
I love the walk-off at the end btw :)
FlexibleElf 8 months ago
Child rape is evil, except when god orders it, then its virtuous. How can he live with himself.
HConstantine 8 months ago
@Oliverk94 Not only does God allow those things, according to the Bible He commands them. How does Craig explain that away?
itsonlymepeople 8 months ago
@itsonlymepeople He believes in Divine Command Theory. I think he made a speech or wrote an article justifying the atrocities in the OT by essentially saying, "GOD WILLS IT!"
Christ724 8 months ago
@Christ724 Amazing isn't it. He talks about objective morality but in another breath morality is reduced to whatever God wants it to be at any given time. "I am God, do as I say, not as I do!" I guess might makes right? The God of the Bible is the same yesterday, today and forever. A douche.
itsonlymepeople 8 months ago 12
It's ironic that apologists always talk about how murder and rape would be ok if God didnt exist, but if that's the case then what is actually so bad about those things in and of themselves? If the only reason they're wrong is that God says so, then why would it be so bad otherwise? Hmm......
Staunts 8 months ago
@Staunts Like we couldn't figure it out for ourselves that murder and rape are wrong. Have you ever been asked by a believer," Since you don't believe in God, why don't you go out and kill, have sex with whoever, get drunk, use drugs, steal, etc." or something like that? I like to reply, "You mean the only thing keeping YOU from doing that is believing in God?"
itsonlymepeople 8 months ago 31
@itsonlymepeople It's my believe in God that has blessed me allowing me ample time & resources to spread His hope to the hungry, poor & homeless. However it's the religious Darwinian occult leaders who want to flush them, claiming they r useless feeders.
I've also talked 2 many atheist who struggle with suicide. The good news is that at this point they can find meaning in becoming x-atheist. It's amazing what a little love can do for someone in need of salvation & a new world view!
MajesticCyru 7 months ago
@MajesticCyru If "spread His hope" includes feeding, clothing and helping to find shelter for the hungry, poor & homeless then I applaud you. However, belief in God is not necessary for caring about others. I've talked to many Christians who struggle with suicide, most recently a girl who commented on a different video. The good news there is that despite her faith she is still taking her medication to battle her depression. Hope and love belong to all people, not just God-believers.
itsonlymepeople 7 months ago 4
@itsonlymepeople Craig's argument is that it's not the commandment that makes believers, for instance, not kill. He is arguing that our inherent morality/ sense of right and wrong is from God. Basically the reason anyone knows that killing etc. is wrong.
ndave84 5 months ago
@ndave84 If morality is inherently from God and common to all people regardless of their religious belief, why does Craig's God need to give commandments on what's right and wrong? Better yet, how can Craig justify his God as the source of absolute morality when the Bible shows Him contradicting His own laws or commanding people to contradict His laws over and over again?
itsonlymepeople 5 months ago
@itsonlymepeople To the first argument, morality tells us what is right and wrong, but knowing and abiding by it are two different things. We were given free will, the right to choose, and we sometimes choose wrong. Just as the government tells us that murder is wrong to remind us, and warn us of the consequences of our actions, so does God. Secondly, there are many misquoted/misunderstood verses in the bible. Removed from their context or the meaning of the passage. Sorry out of space...
ndave84 5 months ago
@ndave84 I agree with your first sentence and most of your second. I don't think we were given free will by a creator but rather by the evolution of our brains. Either way we agree in spirit. I also don't think the comparison of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator to a man-made government works. I definitely agree that people very often misquote verses and take them out of context. However, when the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is soon followed by the command to kill the inhabitants (CONT)
itsonlymepeople 5 months ago
(CONT) of the promised land, which God caused them to covet, then it's obvious there is a problem with God's morality.
itsonlymepeople 5 months ago
My personal experience of no god trumps yours?!?!!!
java501 8 months ago
Comment removed
JediVerse 8 months ago
cool taliesin lamp duder, and great video!
idkthisisthirdtry 8 months ago
What the hell is he doing interpreting Einstein´s theory? He is a philosopher, not a physicist or cosmologist or anything for that matter. That´s sorta like that German building engineer trying to disprove evolution in his books, Zillmer I think is his name. This was a brilliant vid!
54321Adela 9 months ago
Searching the original clip that ShockofGod posted can not be found but just to humor things up youtube.com/watch?v=VX4gx-IKZpg. So therefore WLC was flawed the very time the very first moment when he went up to that podium and ask Christopher Hitchens that.
PimpingRice 9 months ago
Just watched the whole debate today but man WLC every time he talks he gives it great meaning. But it is flawed still because his rhetoric won't work for me if they don't quite match the other persons viewpoint. WLC was flawed the VERY first thing when he said to Christopher Hitchens to prove that Atheism is true. This brings up the similar case on youtube about the user ShockofGod trolling the similar question. Here youtube.com/watch?v=Vkzq3HHyVUs and youtube.com/watch?v=4ZzNEN2PrSg
PimpingRice 9 months ago
Both craig and yourself argue from a subjective reality - good luck in finding any objective truths.
Kiekergaard reflecting on the ability to be objective points out that we start from subjective beliefs etc and create our relaity around us.
looking at "objective" evidence will never make criag believe that there is no god.
itsdodge 9 months ago
@itsdodge I'm not sure how you can embrace that view outside of solipsism. How else do you explain the scientific advances of the last several hundred years? For example, do you believe that vaccines only "subjectively" work?
antybu86 9 months ago 15
@antybu86 how can there be object without subject?
lookatmepleasesir 6 months ago
@itsdodge The atomic number of carbon is 12. It wasn't too hard.
HConstantine 8 months ago
Very comprehensive. WLC defeating himself with his own rhetoric, very nice. Personal subjective experience is absolute proof but not yours. I think the main problem with exposing WLC's irrational babbling is the house of cards effect. You just pulled a card right from the bottom of his house but its such a vast edifice you won't notice its falling down if your facing one corner.
strangetranceoffaith 9 months ago
Excellent observation and depiction. Apparently, Matt Dillahunty's analysis is meant to become prophecy: 'everytime i get an argument for god, all i get are anecdotes and logical fallacies'. also, it seems that god is himself a falsehood, you cannot try to prove a falsehood without falling into fallacies.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
such an excellent vid. Thanks!
HarrynJessie 9 months ago
Comment removed
happysappy21 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY... haha, what silly assumptions you make. Glad it's not only us "believers" who make ad hominem statements
happysappy21 10 months ago
@happysappy21 Why is it theists rarely seem to grasp the concept of what an ad hominem is? The person that made the statement you lazily called an ad hominem was no such thing. It addressed a valid observation and your reaction confirmed it rather well. I completely agree with his point and see it all the time. You're burring your head in the sand. See if they have a definition of ad hominem down there. It is not just for using when your feelings get a boo boo.
newcoyote 8 months ago
@newcoyote Come on, what kind of silly response is that? You say "theists rarely grasp the concept of ad hominem? You say the person I contested made no such claim. You say he made a valid observation. You say I'm burying my head in the sand. A whole string of claims without a shred of evidence to point to for me to know what you're talking about. And you have the audacity to say I'm being lazy. If that's what the scientific method has taught you I think you better join your local baptist church
happysappy21 8 months ago
@happysappy21 Scientific method? What are you talking about? Are you just parroting buzz phrases? This is about syllogism. I said you accused someone of a logical fallacy, misused the term and in doing so committed one yourself. A red herring in fact. The "evidence" is right there. Still is. All the shreds of it. The guy made a reasonable hypothesis. Rather than address it like a person with intellectual integrity, you just cried foul. Red herring. Learn your stuff first. You'll get buried.
newcoyote 8 months ago
@newcoyote and rather than providing a syllogistic response yourself all you do is continue to do is cry foul by throwing out the red herrings that I've been using "logical fallacies", "red herrings", "crying foul" and "lacking intellectual integrity" and whatever other little "buzz phrases" you've learned from your Idiots Guide to Debating. You throw out bones and expect me to go fetch them? Go argue with someone who you can run rings around coz it's obvious you just buried yourself
happysappy21 8 months ago
@happysappy21 Oh brother. What a baby.
newcoyote 8 months ago
@newcoyote... superb response, superb!! I think we all know what we're dealing with now.
happysappy21 8 months ago
Christian and WLC fan here; gotta admit, this video makes some great points. That Kalam mistake was obvious but I never noticed it before.
Writtenjustice 10 months ago 3
Kalam fails with premise 1. We assume a law of cause and effect, because that is how our universe works. However, there's no reason to believe that our universe's laws of physics exist outside of our universe. In fact, the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the more our laws of physics break down. However, if we grant premise 1, it still breaks down at 4--the transcendant clause. The assumption here is that there is nothing physical outside of our universe to act as a cause.
Manifestatheist 10 months ago
@Manifestatheist Again, advocates of Kalam make an assumption that they cannot prove as true. Why, therefore, does the cause outside of our universe have to be transcendent? Finally, if we grant premise 1 and 4, Kalam again fails at 5: that the transcendent uncaused cause describes God (here I assume the Biblical god); nothing in the Bible suggests God exists outside of our universe. Genesis only describes creation of objects--earth (and inhabitants), stars, the moon, sun--not a universe.
Manifestatheist 10 months ago
Excellent video as usual, but what suprises me is that you actually *spent* this much time refuting this clown. At the end of the day, and to quote a damn bumper-sticker... “God said it! I believe it! THAT settles it!” Yes, essentially, that is what -Craig- is saying.
Oh sure, his gibberish *sounds* official, but that is irrelevant, as you well know. Personally, I heard the *begging the question* argument so many times I gave up... as did you by the end of your video. :)
DRAKULU 11 months ago
One more piece to add to the web of circularity. Craig argues that since objective morals exist, God exists. In order to weasel his way out of the Euthyphro Dilemma, Craig claims that God is morally infallible by nature. His justification for this? The Ontological Argument for God.
jsoccerw87 11 months ago
Five months since your last video? Where have you been?
tommylehman 11 months ago
was that a trick question? Of course we should accept Craig's interpretation, because only that will get us to Christ, which will save us from hell. Einstein's intrepretation may be simpler, or even more correct, but it won't get you into heaven.
spiritualbully 11 months ago
Make more videos!
adtc 11 months ago
but his moral argument is way more absurd! 4:52 -> BULLSHIT!!! if objective moral values DO exist can Mr. Craig answer to me is it immoral to abuse a child who's father is the onliest one who has a key that can switching off the nu clear bomb that is going to explode the earth? or why is it immoral to kill homosexuals if old testament commands us to kill them and new testament says NOTHING against it? objective moral values DO NOT fucking exist!
CRAIG SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!! retarded fuckers...
insanewarlock666 11 months ago
fine tuning sounds too stupid to me because we can't simply know either is or not our universe fine tuned unless we see any other universe :)
how could we possibly know that laws of physics could be TUNED at all? maybe it's like mathematics? none tuned this -> 2+2=4 because it's impossible to tune it. this "law" never came in existence because it was always in existence and it always works and never fails! maybe we will discover that same is with laws of physics?
insanewarlock666 11 months ago
What epic epic pwnage sir!
MacabreManifesto 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If atheism was science we would have at least on observable incident of none life becoming life...just one!
Yet most commonly atheist point to the miller experiment to prove that life can come from none life, which isn't life coming come none life it's a designed experiment done by intelligent human scientist and proof for intelligent design.
This video has no basis because it's based on the assumption that life can come from nothing which is scientifically impossible... and that's a fact!
scotbrandon 11 months ago
@scotbrandon I'm not sure how your points are in any way related to this video, but I'm a little bored so...
The Urey-Miller experiment you referred to was designed, yes, but it was designed to mimic natural circumstances. But this is neither here nor there because the experiment didn't create "life" anyway.
The problem with your argument is that "life" and "non-life" are ill-defined terms. At what point does non-life become life? Are viruses alive? Prions? Red blood cells? Define your terms.
antybu86 11 months ago 7
@antybu86 Exactly! Like you said, "The Urey-Miller experiment you referred to was designed." That's where you should of put a period instead of convoluting the argument.
scotbrandon 11 months ago
@antybu86 You look like Sharlto Copley
glassessn 10 months ago
@scotbrandon *Facepalm*
JediVerse 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow! That's a whole lot of William Lane Craig you had to sit through to make this video. Bit like in the Shawshank Redemption - you crawled through the sewer of WLC bullshit to freedom. We all owe you a debt of gratitude!
+sub : )
JediVerse 8 months ago
@scotbrandon before Miller, nobody believed one could create organic molecules out of non-organic molecules, in a simulation of the circumstances on the early earth. so, science already made some progress. so, don't come up with the God-of-the-gaps-argument, that is easily summarized as "science doesn't know, so God exists".
three centuries ago, we had no reliable idea about the age of the earth, so everybody assumed earth to be 6000-7000 years old. we do know much better these days "thank-God".
doyoublush 8 months ago
@doyoublush-like I said before the Miller-Ulrey experiment was proof of design. Your whole comment was one big red herring trying to get off that point, and doesn't deal with the topic at hand.
scotbrandon 7 months ago
@scotbrandon no, because the experiment was all about to simulate *random* chemical reactions without intelligent design. intelligent design would imply that the experimenters had a certain result in mind when putting the substances together, like designing a house. this experiment was like throwing bricks and cement in a bucket and see what happens. it is an EXPERIMENT, not a DESIGN!
if you don't even understand that, you misunderstand the core of that experiment. FACEPALM!
doyoublush 7 months ago
Thanks for all the negative votes with my comment 3 months ago. It affirms that atheist have no valid arguments. They just can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a cop they don't want to.
scotbrandon 7 months ago
@scotbrandon lol, the negative posts are the result of your lack of arguments. the miller-experiment did not produce life, but the first step towards life. theists, after claiming to already know everything, have never been that close.
I read the Bible, read a book of CS Lewis, had discussions with Christian friends, went to church and I found nothing, except for corrupted ancient texts, mass-psychology and people claiming to know things they cannot conceivably know. that was enough for me.
doyoublush 7 months ago
@doyoublush Wow, lack of argument? That's ironic! You blindly dismiss the fact of the intelligence involved in the Miller-Ulrey experiment. A little bias perhaps? Like I said before...If atheism was science we would have at least one observable incident of none life becoming life...where is it? I'm not here to have a bible study with God hating sin loving people, that would be silly. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of your worldview, like you claim they can't know, but you can.
scotbrandon 7 months ago
@scotbrandon calling the use of brains to simulate *randomness* intelligent design?
"I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of your worldview, like you claim they can't know, but you can." -->
it is called faith for a reason buddy, if there was evidence for it, it wouldn't be called faith anymore.
doyoublush 7 months ago
@doyoublush Where's the evidence then, you've had a week to bring some. In fact you have had a few months. Like I said before If atheism was science we would have at least one observable incident of none life becoming life...where is it? See you have faith in a miracle without a miracle worker. The god of nothing who created everything from the "theory" of darwinist evolution. facepalm
scotbrandon 7 months ago
@scotbrandon Miller-Urey experiment. You again use the God-of-the-gaps-argument. The fact that science has not yet have a complete picture, doesn't mean you can bring up a book that was written roughly 2000-3000 years ago by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual sheepherders and say you have found the truth.
And where is the proof for theism? Only less than 10% of America's top scholars (Yale, Princeton, Stanford etc.), believe in a personal God. It has a reason... guess which!
doyoublush 7 months ago
@scotbrandon
"If atheism was science"
Idiot.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
there´s some 40 books available on amazon from Craig and all have 4 to 5 stars with 5to10 reviews...now doesnt that just make you sick
Its like one part (the vast minority) of us lives in reality and the rest still lives in disneyland
managarm1349 11 months ago
WLC needs to get his ass on YouTube and reply to this. I'm slowly losing my respect for him.
DancingTableLeg 11 months ago
This is brilliant. I didn't know that Craig tries to dispute Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
japonizieify 11 months ago
I take it from all these atheists videos contesting WLC's arguments as tacit acknowledgement that he won all his debates hands down. Why else would you feel the need to create all these videos to defeat his arguments? How desperately you don't want to believe in god
happysappy21 11 months ago
@happysappy21 I actually do think Craig has won most of his debates. I think his arguments don't work, but he is a very good debater.
antybu86 11 months ago 5
Well, it's certainly too bad that for someone who provides so many arguments that don't work that he happens to be such a good debater that there is no one on the atheist side who can use the arguments that "do work" to successful refute him. I don't think he wins his debates because he is a more capable debater, that's far too much of a stretch.
happysappy21 11 months ago
@happysappy21 Well, if it helps, Craig has certainly lost debates - the one with Shelly Kagan, for example. But no, Craig wins debates because he knows the arguments better than his opponents do, and he is superb at rhetoric.
antybu86 11 months ago 8
@antybu86 I agree with you there. But I've just watched the Kagan/Craig debate and I honestly don't think Craig lost that one, it was more of a stalemate. Both provided arguments and counterarguments and there was no time to pursue to a definite conclusion. Having said that, somewhat ironically that debate was my most enjoyable to watch as Kagan is the most respectful atheist debater I've seen who doesn't appear to be purely motivated by a religion-destroying agenda. I'm quite stunned actually
happysappy21 11 months ago
@antybu86 "and he is superb at rhetoric"
a.k.a. sophistry...a.k.a. baffle 'em with bullsh*t
ThePilum 10 months ago
@happysappy21 Craig has been refuted repeatedly, but since he uses a 5-pronged argument, he usually gets away with only different fractions of his argument demolished at a time. Craig does this sort of thing for a living. Most of his opponents take interest in atheism on the side.
DancingTableLeg 11 months ago
@happysappy21 I'm not sure it's a stretch. Craig is a theologian and a philosopher for a living. He lives and breathes this stuff. Very few, if any, of the atheists he's debated are so well versed on the topic. Hitchens is a journalist first, Dawkins is a biologist first, Shermer is a scientist first, etc..
DancingTableLeg 11 months ago
@DancingTableLeg... I feel there's a major double standard taking place here. Atheists eagerly watch these debates to see Theists get destroyed and support their "faith=stupidity" hegemony yet when this doesn't happen they wriggle and writhe saying it wasn't a fair contest. So why do these men attempt to debate the definitive claim there is no god in the first place? They'd be far better off attacking organised religion rather than proving the non-existence of a personal cause of the universe
happysappy21 11 months ago
@happysappy21 I don't think antybu is saying that WLC was being unfair. All he was saying is that WLC's arguments rely on "common sense", which many scientists have acknowledge is unreliable.
I have no ill will to William Lane Craig, but I'm afraid I can't understand your conclusion. "You all want to refute his arguments, therefore he won?"
BlackWolf4830 11 months ago