I'd be perfectly happy to have a debate with Dr. William Craig. I am currently reading some of his work and he makes all sorts of incorrect assumptions especially when it comes to physics.
He finds it 'appalling' that young people are not exposed to 'rigorous' and 'sophisticated' treatments of problems. He's also a proponent of the 'Resurrection of Jesus Argument,' and thinks homosexuality is a birth defect. I wish someone would simply come out and tell this man where to shove it (as Hitchens gleefully would with, say, a 9-11 truther). There is no 'debate' here people, this man is full of... it, and all the big words and windsor knots in the world don't change that
People like Dawkins because he's well spoken and truly astonished at how lazy theists are when it comes to researching their views.
Here's some good, rigorous argumentation for you WLC: Ever notice that anything that has to do with your God is invisible, intangible, illogical, and magical?
Look around you simpleton. Have you ever seen any magic? There is no sophistication in believing in fairy tales. It's one of the first things you're supposed to grow out of as a child, not as an adult!
Most subatomic effects and behavior in keeping with Quantum Mechanics is invisible, intangible, and incomprehensible. The bending of spacetime, as understood by General Relativity, is intangible and invisible. Indeed, much of the Universe is invisible and intangible to the senses of apes (no matter how hubristic or how "advanced" the ape). A little humility, eh? Especially when confronted with a perfectly logical refutation in this video. Just sayin'.
I've never heard this argument from atheists before. On the other hand, christians believe in eternal life, apparently they'll never cease to exist. I could bring up a plethora of baseless, tautological argument from christians, or krishnas (who think people could fly 100 million years ago, and they too have their 'archeological proof' of this), but I won't because it's irrelevant. I can't tell if Mr. Craig doesn't understand the arguments of people he debates with, or if he is being dishonest..
1) Dr. Aubrey de Grey believes humans could attain agelessness too. "Ending Aging". Excellent book, and rigorously scientific.
2) Are you sure you know what "tautological" means ;-)
3) Craig isn't defending "Krishnas" or the Bhagavad Gita. That's a red herring. In fact, since neither of the beliefs you mention were referenced in the video, they're technically both red herrings.
4) "Nothing ever comes into existence; it's components already existed" was the argument. No dishonesty.
talk about a double standard. He says everything has to come from something, so then when we ask who made God they say well nothing did he always was and is eternal.
Yeah. I totally agree with this. The problem, as I see it, is that some people simply fail to understand what a "thing" is; sometimes by carelessness, and sometimes because they just don't want to. A "thing" is made from matter, but that doesn't mean that the matter itself and the thing itself are the same. In a way, though, I wish he'd gotten less upset when talking about it, though.
@sethdbeebe He'd lose. period. remember that time he debated boteach, did so badly and then claimed they never debated? He's a great scientist, but not a philosopher.
@VeridicusX "We have never observed that anything begins to exist." Yes we have, the begining of Human life, within the womb. Of course this isn't the Universe, but is the begining for all present human beings.
What form changes - for natual reasons? Variation, adaptation, or enviromental reasons (that have been observed) can you point at?
I am 'flabbergasted' (frankly, I can't believe he actually talks like this) that he completely missed the very essence of the point he even made clear from his refuters.
Basically, since matter in the universe exists within discrete forms therefore what they are currently formed into is secondary. The atoms in your body are made of the same material as they were when they were first created within the hearts of stars, only being "altered" by their current molecular configuration.
@SciBishop You're wrong on two points. First off all, stars make Atoms? That's new, I'd love to read the paper on how that works. Second of all, you're modifying the original statement to attempt to make it valid but the fact is, everything has a beginning and an end any moron can see that. Even the universe has a beginning where it started to exist, before which it did not exist. If this were not the case, then why do we have an approximate age of the universe?
@SciBishop Lol? "Basically, since matter in the universe exists in decrete forms therefore what you are typing has no cause, but is secondary. In actual fact there is no cause for what you are typing because you are just matter, and are made of the same material as inanimate atoms created within the heart of stars. Just you have been 'altered' to your current molecular cofiguration." Am I doing it right? lolol P.S. Also, matter was never formed within the Big Bang as contempory science suggests
Honestly, SciBishop, are you being serious? I am also "flabbergasted" that you think bringing pieces together to produce a new entity from them is somehow different from "creating a new entity". And, even if there were such a logical distinction (and there isn't), it wouldn't really hurt the first premise of the Cosmological Argument. The first premise could just as easily be stated as: Everything that is formed from existing material, is *caused* to be formed.
@SciBishop I agree that he failed in his explanation. Try this instead: Matter (and energy) cannot be created or destroyed by the forces of this universe. It is unscientific to claim that matter has existed forever since there is no evidence for anything in this universe that is not caused by something else. How then, can one explain the existence of matter? One must look to a force that does not abide by the rules of the universe, a force outside the universe, God, for the cause.
@Matt51112 why not a black hole? you cannot conclude anything from your argument about the cause - the only strength your argument has is in stating a possibility for the universe to have a cause, nothing more, nothing about the cause (itself). Be careful with the logic
He thinks that by sounding flabberghasted and apphhhhhhhalled, he's showing that he uses, "...good rigorous argumentation..." In truth, his argument is obtuse.
@jerrygreg2 LOL I think what you're just hearing is completely honest bewilderment as he stated himself. I have found myself watching dozens of hours of "debates" with the same confusion as I watch the most absurd responses get nearly standing ovations. I completely understand where he is coming from. I think you might also not be so quick to dismiss this man. The four horsement won't debate him and dawkins is being called a coward for refusing by fellow leading atheists.
@ITTutorCanada If you're happy to believe that people are scared to debate him, that's nice for you, but his, "... have I always existed?..." is just a misrepresentation of an opposing argument, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the faithful. A classic strawman. There are many religious people and atheists who lack debating skills. Perhaps he should have Shockofgod, or NephilimFree standing by his side?
@jerrygreg2 I'm not believing anything, it's a fact. Google it. Google "dawkins called coward by fellow atheist" I'm not "believing" anything except for the facts. As far as his response, it's perfectly valid. It sounds ridiculous because he is elaborating on the ridiculous nature of a ridiculous argument.
@ITTutorCanada It's quite a simple argument made ridiculous by, "...was I around in the Jurassic age...?" This is blatant dishonesty from WLC. I'm not standing up for Dawkins, I'm talking about the hypocrisy of WLC. How many Christians lazily quote him and spout, "Nothing comes from nothing" before telling atheists (with glee) that they'll burn in Hell for eternity? I'll say this, I have the utmost respect for Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of All Saints Monastery. I have no respect for WLC.
@jerrygreg2 Again, he's emphasizing the poor logic behind the original argument. As far as the part about telling unbelievers they're gonna burn in hell with a smile on their face, well they should do no such thing and miss-represent the Gospel completely. Jesus never once acted like this to anyone except for people who were already (pretending) to be part of the Church, had full knowledge and were perverting the Gospel intentionally.... (continued)....
@ITTutorCanada jesus didnt write the bible nor did he ever meet anyone who had anything to do with the bible, please explain what you are talking about.
@jerrygreg2 ....(Continued).... with regards to people being told turn or burn ect although it is true the only alternative to God (Life/Love/Peace) is the antonym of God - Devil (Death/Hate/Suffering) the truth is the bible explicitly states Hell wasn't even made for man it was made only for the devil and his fallen angels. Since men will choose to follow the same path of the devil (anti-God) then they follow his path even into eternity. This grieve God but that judgement was made before man.
@jerrygreg2 Absolutely. Why so harsh? Well it's pretty simple. Imagine you were on death row and someone came along and said "put me in the chair and let him go free." And all he asked in return is that you love him and honor him for who he is and what he did. Then you turn to him and spit in his face and say "nothx jerk I can manage myself." Do you still go to your death? It's not like God is sending you to hell, you're choosing it.
@ITTutorCanada You equate not believing that Jesus is the son of God, to spitting in someone's face! Thank you. That's all I needed to see. Good day and may your god go with you.
@jerrygreg2 That's right I do, because weather you believe He is God or not, He laid down His entire life teaching a message of redemption and even was crucified on your behalf. Weather you believe He is God or not, that is what He preached, that is what He lived, and that is why they nailed Him to the cross: because of that very message. All He asked in return is that you love Him and love you Neighbor as yourself. What a terrible burden eh?
@ITTutorCanada Definitely my last comment. No-one could lay down their life on my behalf before I was even conceived. I can love my neighbour as myself without believing in a sado-masochistic, guilt ridden philosophy. I leave you with that burden. I am burden free.
@jerrygreg2 lol sado-masochistic. Since you're so passionate I wanna see you out on the street every day asking for every criminal to be set free. After all, being punished for what you do wrong is sado-masochistic, right? I wanna see it I'm dead serious. Post some links to vids of you protesting for every person imprisoned, every person who has been sentenced to death to be set free and vindicated for the wrong done... oh wait a sec, gee what a paradox. Btw I have no guilt, Christ took it. :)
@karozans OK I've humoured you, watched the video. THAT is your reference! Please, grow up. One day you'll realise that The devil is as much a fairy tale as Santa Clause. It's not for me to undermine your faith, time for you to test your own faith, read The God Delusion, God is not Great and others, I dare you. If your faith is strong it will just be learning about the ememy, so you have nothing to loose. (both available as audio books) Good luck. (last year I would have said God bless)
Poor dude, clinging on for sweet life. When you have had a lifetime of indoctrination and built your life around it, it is hard to let go. Unfortunately for Lane Craig, it tends to be those with faith that have to avoid thinking about difficult subjects.
It is so hard to accept after a lifetime of belief that Jesus, is most likely another hero story, a meek and mild Thor or Apollo, with some nice messages. Christianity I expect is on the decline, Islam however is another matter.
Look who's talking here. A pseudointellectual ad hominem spewing evangelist who once claimed that all the genocide in the OT is morally right because God said it was morally right.
Fundamentalist Christians are the ones who are not exposed to sophisticated literature. That example he is throwing out is called a straw man fallacy. Building up an argument under false premises or out of context to easily knock down in their favor.
3:06 Yes you did, you existed in a different form. Everything that exists always existed in one form of another. We never observed matter/energy coming into being; we observed them changing forms, therefore to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause is a leap of faith and is unsupported by any evidence.
What if everything DOESN'T need a cause to exist? What if we exist just because there were chances of Earth and human beings happening as a consequence of natural phenomena? What if similar "creations" have happened elsewhere in the Universe?
While I know you can't argue probability backwards - considering the probability, I'd stand with the great deal of evidence - as inconclusive as it is - on the side of God. I realize that there's no way you can understand my view unless you do the research yourself, and I'm only telling you this in the hope that you will do more exploration on your own into the truth about the reality of our existence.
@wishingwellspring - Unfortunately (for you that is) there is not one sinlge piece of evidence that points to the existence of god. Not one single piece of evidence. You have discarded all other god's on which you don't believe. Move one additional step further and discard the one that is left.
@LegionarioCruel Why don't you look and see? Do a little research before pretending that there's no evidence. If anything, maybe you'll learn some grammar.
@LegionarioCruel There is lots of evidence for God. The creation itself is evidence of the creator, and it's full of signs pointing to the truth of our reality. But you will only see it when you open your mind. Do some research, for real - I promise you will find interesting things. Approach the subject without any bias and honestly try to find the truth about it.
Thats begging the question, you have to first assume there is a creation. There cannot be a creation without a creator, and a purported creation must still be substantiated by evidence. Intuitive reasoning does not lead to accurate answers, especially for events like the beginning of the Universe. Much of nature is counterintuitive, therefore you cannot use logic to reach the answer.
@buttface112211 There is a great deal of evidence for the big bang; it is a widely-accepted theory. Among the evidence available you can investigate the Doppler effect. However, the big bang itself having happened does not conclusively indicate a creator. The methodology evident within nature's evolution of self-conscious, however, does. At least to me. Of course, this is a subjective view. I see it because I'm free of the bias that would otherwise prevent me. There may be other biases present.
@buttface112211 It's rather the evolution of self-consciousness that indicates a concluding purpose to creation, and that which in turn evidences a creator.
@wishingwellspring Yes, I've already read that, your response didn't answe my question. All of your assertions are unsubstantiated and you are unwilling to defend them with the science you embrace as evidence of your creator?
@buttface112211 Do you understand what I'm saying? It seemed like you missed my meaning, guessing by your last question, so I tried to make my phrasing clearer for you. How about you tell me what you think I meant, and then I can clarify? Please think about what I said before making your judgments.
@wishingwellspring You said, "the big bang itself having happened does not conclusively indicate a creator. The methodology evident within nature's evolution of self-conscious, however, does."
@buttface112211 Following the cosmic explosion, there were stages of time on our planet when no living matter existed, and then the spark of life that grew as the tiniest bacteria. It thrived, evolved. Many different types of plants and creatures manifested through time. Finally, nature evolved into a self-conscious form: man. It generated something to truly appreciate it: purpose for existence, capacity for reflection. Funny when you look at how terrible we are to the environment.
@wishingwellspring I understand evolution, but that didn't answer my question. How does the "methodology evident within nature's evolution of self-conscious" conclusively indicate a creator. You said The Big Bang does not conclusively indicate a creator, but then you said this other idea involved consciousness does. Explain how it indicates a creator. One minor correction: there was no cosmic explosion.
@buttface112211 I'm talking about the big bang. You don't believe that happened? The fact that nature pointedly evolved self-consciousness is the methodology I'm referencing. It looks clearly purposed to me, and that is what indicates a creator. You either see it or you don't, as I initially stated. The fact that you keep needing rephrasings of a concept that is, in the end, very simple, makes me think you don't.
@wishingwellspring You still didn't answer how the evolution of self-consciousness indicates a creator. You just repeated the same thing over and over again. I didn't ask for rephrasings, I guess your forced to just rephrase it when you don't have any actual answer.
@buttface112211 It shows that there is a purpose to creation. If you don't understand, then I can't really help it, no matter how many times I rephrase this. It is a somewhat complex concept, I guess, though it seems fairly simple to me.
@wishingwellspring How does consciousness show there is a purpose, and how does it reflect a creator? You aren't answering my question, you just repeat the same comment followed by, "You don't understand." I will admit, I don't understand. But what I don't understand is in question, I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that you did. Your conclusion is a complete non sequitur, and your failure to explain how consciousness reflects a cretor is somewhat evidence of that.
@buttface112211 Okay, we can go step by step if you want. 1. We have a self-consciousness that is not evident among animals of lesser intelligence. 2. This self-consciousness was evolved over a great deal of time from the amino acids within clay that became life. 3. With the production of self-consciousness, nature itself became conscious. Animals came to reflect. 4. This goes to show that natural evolution had a goal at which it arrived. 5. If nature has a purpose, it is not random. Thus, God.
@wishingwellspring How does humans evolving self-consciousness show that nature had a goal? Thats another non sequitur. But in any case, evolution isn't random, but just because it is not random doesn't mean that therefore your God is responsible.
@buttface112211 Digesting this kind of concept requires a lot of personal thought. I'll leave you to it. Nothing is entirely conclusive, however. Scattered evidence just builds.
@wishingwellspring Okay then, continue parading that rediculous comment that is deprived of any logic and based off of a complete non sequitur. Perhaps you know this, and that is why you were unable to conjure an adequate response that actually explained how you reached this nonsensical conclusion. There is no concept to "digest" because you haven't actually presented any concept but self-consciousness. You are avoiding my question, how does consciousness mean there is a creator?
@buttface112211 I answered it in detail. It's funny that you keep attempting to insult my logic when you can't spell or utilize proper grammar, but hey - I'm trying really hard not to judge you for that, just advising you not to scorn others. You should check out athenism if you want to look more into how special self-consciousness is.
@wishingwellspring Where are my grammar or spelling mistakes? I did see a typo in of my previous comments after rereading it but that's all it is, a typo. You did not answer my question in detail, you declined to actually explain it multiple times followed by similar reiterations of the first comment that originally objected to. I watched this video: /watch?v=oPEdDcs_8ZQ&ob=av3e. All it did was explain an enlightening view of consciousness, nothing about how it is the result of a creator.
@buttface112211 "Your"="you're" and "rediculous"="ridiculous". I'd consider them typos if they weren't common mistakes, but really, it doesn't matter. I was just taking unnecessary offense at what I saw as an attempted insult to my intelligence.
@wishingwellspring I understand self consciousness, and all you do is repeatedly explain it despite the irrelevance of it. My question remains unanswered, how does consciousness indicate a creator? Asserting something and demonstrating something are two different things. Asserting it (which is all that you've done) does not advance the discussion or adequately answer my question. I'll agree with you, self-consciousness is special. But how does that indicate a creator?
@buttface112211 I think the problem is that you expect me to prove something when initially I told you it was my subjective opinion. Because self-consciousness is so special, it seems that nature evolved it as a goal - in order to truly exist. The fact that nature is purposed indicates that its design is intelligent. Existence itself is intelligent, ordered, and not chaotic. This points to a creator, as the creation is designed. You can't argue probability as proof but it is still evidence.
@wishingwellspring Alright then, your conclusion is based on a complete non sequitur as I originally stated, nothing more to it. However, because it is a non sequitur, it can therefore be deemed illogical. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed here. I am aware that you said it was subjective, but I asked how you reached the conclusion. Now I know that you didn't reach a conclusion, you decided to believe something because you felt life believing something, despite the conspicuous non sequitur.
@wishingwellspring Based on such a premise, you cannot therefore assert any creation because the laws of nature or cause and effect may not have even applied then. You prevalently insist that LegionariaCruel conduct some independent research on the topic, however, if you want to get straight to the point, that research must be guided to some extent. If you wish that he reaches the same conclusion, you must present some adequate sources or particular topics. I encourage you to present some to me.
@buttface112211 I don't wish that he reaches the same conclusion, specifically. I just want him to be better educated on the topic. Even when I was an atheist, I understood what religious people believed was evidence for their beliefs. After a while I just came to see it the same way. Everything is available for all of us to look at. The difference is what we actually internalize.
@wishingwellspring - Not really, but thanks anyway. I am not against anyone believing the bullshit they want to believe, but I am against the dissemination of such crap. Science is the way to go, and there is no need to believe in anything that science (empirical science, as in observable, testable phenomena, and maths) has not shown to exist. Atheism is (in most cases) not a philosophical position but the natural consequence of critical thinking.
@LegionarioCruel Do you really think that the human race will have everything figured out within your lifetime? Our understanding of science is constantly evolving. If during Copernicus' time you insisted that the planets revolved around the Earth in the pattern he laid out, you would be wrong. We are less wrong now, but still imperfect. It's silly to think we know everything.
@wishingwellspring - Science is not perfect. There is not one scientist in the world that will tell you such a blatant idiocy. But science is still and by far the best method we have to get closer to the truth. Better than guessing, trusting our "common sense" and/or blaming gods or other mythical beings. The BEAUTY of science is actually that it CORRECTS ITSELF. Unlike stupid religions that only try to impose a view and force you to "believe" instead of KNOWING.
@LegionarioCruel You should relax a little, there's no need to get upset. Not all religions demand you to believe without knowing. "Follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked." [17:36]
Since there is no evidence for any of the fantastic claims of each and every religion on the face of the Earth, basically, ALL of them, without exception, demand from their followers to quit reason and "just believe". Most of them, such as Islam and Catholicism actually punish scientific curiosity and critical thinking ("lack of faith", they call it). Religion by nature is anti-intellectual; had the Bizantine Empire not fell to the Otoman Turks, we would still live in the Dark Ages.
@LegionarioCruel You know the Ottomans were Islamic, right? :) Islam commands every male and female to seek knowledge: it's a requirement from the cradle to the grave. Also, the quote I referenced for you is from the Qur'an.
@wishingwellspring - I blame Christians for the dark ages, but that does not equal to saying muslims were responsible for the renaissance (duh!). The fall of the Western Roman Empire (independently of the circumstances) allowed for a new way of thinking, less dependant of the religion the empire forced into the people as a means of state control. ("He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost. Quran 3:85)
@LegionarioCruel That's only after he's recognized the truth of it and decided to choose something else. It'd be apparent to you if you read the whole book, but I don't think that you read straight from the beginning to 3:85 in order to find that quote or you would have found others accepting the faith of devout Christians and Jews, for example.
@wishingwellspring - And you just hit the nail again. Another point against all holy books is how contradictory, inconsistent and bad written they are. Religions are stupid, and useless, and their fantastic claims have hurt the development of humanity for ages. There is no evidence of the existence of any god whatsoever, and humnkind needs not to believe in anything that science has not proven. Anyway, you seem to be the master of missing the point, so, tata!
@LegionarioCruel It's not a contradiction, it has a legitimate explanation that I just told you. But you're determined to continue on your path, so go on. I don't really care if you do or not, but you -should- realize that 'humnkind' is a population of individuals with individual freedom. I'll believe in God and you can keep insisting he doesn't exist. There's no compulsion in religion. (Another quote from the Qur'an).
And yes organized religion has certainly perpetuated ill-informed, archaic beliefs. St. Augustine, founder of the modern day church impressed upon the religious establishment that "Thus in the Wisdom of God the world could not know God through wisdom".
John 15:6 (KJV) - "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." LOL
@LegionarioCruel If you don't believe it, you don't believe that will happen, so it doesn't matter, does it? Besides, quoting the material of another religion does little to diminish my point that there are exceptions.
Philosophy, World-view, scientific model; call them what you want they are not empirical. The Big Bang model is not reproducible. Big Bang is the origin story myth for a world view called Philosophical Materialism. In your other post you were stretching the word "science" into areas that have nothing to do with science but philosophy, metaphysics ie things that are not testable through empiricism, mathematics ie. hard science. Although the Kalam Cosmological argument is valid if 1 premis is true
@androcracy Science should be everything and everything should be science. There is a science to everything, honestly. Restricting genres of thought does nothing but restrict thought. Everything is connected. Everything came from God, and everything will return to Him.
@wishingwellspring You don't know what "science" is either. Science is not everything. Are you "science"? Is a thought or statement science? Is logic? Reason? Even the empiricist uses his rational abilities to evaluate his empirical deductions. Everything came from God, I agree, but not everything is scientifically verifiable or empirical.
@androcracy That's only because our technology isn't advanced enough. We act like supernatural stuff isn't natural but if something's happening, it's natural. Same allegory applies to science and things that people consider as not-science.
@wishingwellspring the way the word "natural" is used or assumed in the general public is 1 & 2 Laws of thermodynamics. When the topic is anything Biological starting with a single cell organism upwards it's a whole different ball game. Something as "simple" as a single cell is completely supernatural, an utter miracle. You need to get educated on the probabilities of just a single protein forming let alone undirected proteins forming a cell. Your comment on technology is simply ignorant.
@androcracy Not really, it's absolutely correct that our technology isn't advanced enough to scientifically verify logic. I'm sure that given time, it could be quantified through measurements of brain activity and chemical levels. My reference towards 'supernatural' was only to illustrate that we often consider subjects out of the reach of a certain study just because we haven't suitably widened our paradigm of that study yet. Just because it's science doesn't mean it's not a beautiful miracle.
@wishingwellspring I understand your position. You have a commitment to philosophical Materialism. Trying to deconstruct or reduce anything to mere mechanistic properties has no power to rule out the supernatural. Some miracles God has done in the past I would hold to be the suspension of the Laws he made. Other times he may use existing realities that appear to be a miracle or are simply a miracle based on the timing. The mechanics of how a cell works is despite the fact that it's a miracle
@androcracy Oh okay, sorry didn't see this important link. Youtube is weird in that it only shows me the last reply made. I don't have a commitment to any 'ism', though. Making actual commitments to any philosophy other than the absolute, that God revealed to the messengers, is a manner of deceiving the intellect.
@wishingwellspring If you need to know truth you are welcome to banter with me anytime. One more comment quick here, a consistent "Materialist" must also adhere to "Determinism". The most brilliant Materialist's have consistently held true to their world-view assumptions and confessed to some form of Determinism, men like Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawkings just to name a few most prominent. They recognize that "free will" is really an illusion, that "love" or "beauty don't really exist.
@androcracy Not sure how that's relevant to our discussion, but okay. I'd be happier to contact and banter with you over 'truth' if I was assured the conversation wouldn't be full of irrelevancies. Everything is connected, like I said before, and all information can be useful. The problem is that human beings can't really carry on intelligent discourse without sticking to one proper train of logical thought.
@wishingwellspring Something can be perceived as irrelevant if you are ignorant in some form concerning one of the premises. You may not want to consciously adhere to an "ism", but rejecting "categories" is also typical post-modernism/relativism. You said "The problem is that human beings can't really carry on intelligent discourse without sticking to one proper train of logical thought." I should point out that you also are a human, and that neutrality is a myth.
@wishingwellspring My invitation was for you to be open to reason and I'm not sure you are able, but I'm willing to continue so I think we are both on the same level of trust. :) You said "Science should be everything and everything should be science." This statement is characteristic of scientists who are committed to Material philosophy. It should be noted that this statement is a non-material concept. Tell me, would science exist if there was no human race? Who would observe?
@wishingwellspring I would definitely agree, that it is a good thing to consider the message/thought/concept and not adhere entirely to the world/view or paradigm of the philosopher or scientist. All truth is God's truth. The more one learns, the smaller the realm of possibilities and ideas get. Solomon who authored Ecclesiastes(the wise man) said "there is nothing new under the sun". I have found this to be true. There are no new ideas. Just recycled, and the next gen is ignorant of previous.
@wishingwellspring One last comment; perhaps you are uncertain, unsettled, uncommitted to a world-view, but are in pursuit of truth as a modernist/objectivist/truth-seeker. Simply put if you reject post-modernism, let me propose the more noble form of Agnosticism. I have found there to be two kinds of Agnosticism. The first kind of agnostic says "i don't know" = hence A+gnosis. The second kind is obnoxious, assertive and thus in contradiction with his own view. How can an Agnostic assert that
@wishingwellspring that someone else can't know something if he himself doesn't know. If the Agnostic knew everything there was to know, only then he could rule out or assert with certainty that someone else doesn't or can't know. But then the later assertive Agnostic would be a betrayal of the essence of what it means to adhere to Agnosticism.
@wishingwellspring Agnosticism doesn't need to slip into Relativism which is an extremely inconsistent and internally contradictory view to hold. I think a noble agnostic is simply someone who believes he can know something, yet because he doesn't know everything is open to his views being refined and theoretically even growing out of an Agnostic view into broad sweeping knowledge statements about reality. Noble agnosticism is an attitude of learning with a hope of knowing.
@androcracy I agree that agnostics who attempt to assert truths can be pretty silly. There is of course a level of knowledge that we're incapable of knowing, and we should try to refrain from illegitimate conjecture. Let me clarify my science is everything and everything is science statement. Next reply.
@androcracy Would you say that your wife getting angry because you didn't come home at 11:00PM is a scientific matter? The person who I made my statement to wouldn't judging by their point about 'logic' not being a matter of science. However, the anger is caused by brain chemistry and psychological development. Socialized notions about curfew and the current cultural atmosphere also contribute to her anger. My point is that with enough intellectual inquiry, everything can be quantified.
@androcracy If you would like a better phrased expression of my view, science is how we make sense of our perception. Things only effect us insofar as our perception detects. 'Everything' is everything within our perceptional bubble. These things operate under laws of order. We can make sense of them and quantify them with science. God, of course, can alter these laws or act outside of them - but from what I've seen, may He forgive me if I'm wrong, He normally acts within.
@androcracy "The Big Bang model is not reproducible. Big Bang is the origin story myth for a world view called Philosophical Materialism."
Not all science is or required to be reproducible. In cosmology and other fields of science, only the scientific assessment can be reproduced, and even concepts such as the Big Bang Theory are well substantiated by evidence. Methodological naturalism is one the foundational principles of scientific inquiry. You seem to oppose science, perhaps for this reason.
@buttface112211 yes not all science is reproducible in a lab. Yet the sciences that are based on observations such as cosmology become increasingly subjective in certain area's like the Big Bang model which Hawkings & Ellis acknowledged had some ideology assumed in it. As far as Methodological naturalism I deny it's a foundational to empirical research. It CAN be an assumption. It can be derived from it. I love scientific research, but it's only as good as good the mind that see's what it wants
Youre being silly mr. craig, "I" is just a title, as is "earth", as is "dinosaur". Titles given to certain arrangements of matter/energy. Though I would never say "Nothing begins to exist", this is hardly a refutation. Only real science could prove that matter/energy began to exist.
There is an argument for intentionality that "arrangement requires intelligence", which im not armed to dismiss
@androcracy Yep, it is still "only a theory" that the universe began to exist. The best theory but theory nonetheless, it has been said that very little science remains to be done at the desktop, the rest lies in large scale experimentation e.g. hadron collider
@mehico33 You don't understand what science is. The scientific method is based on empiricism. There is no such thing as something coming from nothing. Real science such as the 1st & 2nd Law of thermodynamics have yet to be broken.
@androcracy Youre not making any sense, how have I demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scientific method? When did I say something came from nothing? and how do you know theres no such thing?
"Did I exist before?" No you didn't, but you are simply the consequence of (rather infortunate) chemical and biological events, not the will of "God", you moronic idiot.
@pantherfanatic7 - Wrong. The use of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation over faith-based living and emotion-driven thinking is extremely important when it comes to accepting or rejecting fantastic claims (i.e. - the existence of God).
Since there is no scientific proof of God, this guys uses "good, rigorous" arguments to disqualify science. "Sophomoric material", "absurd", "ludicrous", says the most prominent creationist advocate. What a pathetic excuse of a human being.
Should he not have started of by saying "God is so popular, because people are so unsophisticated in their thinking." That would have made more sense. The gospels are not firsthand witness accounts of Jesus, they were written many decades after his death.
Craig shouldn't even have a doctorate because theology is not science!! Especially translated myths from the bronze age and before have nothing to do with science at all. Even astrology or star trek history has more to do with science than bible fairy tales
This is so true. Both the pro and anti New Atheism argumentation is neanderthal, treating the Bible as if it was written as a science textbook which happens to be wrong. It's so stupid, it's unbelievable.
n to exist, but he also fails to provide evidence that what ever begins to exist has a cause. These are two flaws in the cosmological argument that make the argument a giant failure. His other arguments are simple to prove wrong I dont even need to waste my time.
Craigs only argument for God that is going to convince a thinking person is the cosmological argument, because he presents the lie that the universe literally came into being out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The simple fact is, science never says that the matter and energy in which the universe is composed of came into being. Science only explains how this matter and energy changed forms to form the universe that we live in. In other words, Craig not only fails to give evidence that the universe bega
couldn't watch, sorry. after making the claim the dawkins is popular amung the unsophisticated... i would have to say that the supernatural stories of religious books are more aimed at the unsophisticated. they are even designed to keep them unsophisticated, offering foolish stories in place of facts. if you don't want to believe the evidence that we shared a common ansestor with apes then you are free to believe that a man in the sky created us from dirt. i'm just not convinced of it.
I am still waiting for the religious nuts to PROVE god exist. We don't need to prove god DOESN'T exist. It is up to YOU to prove he DOES exist. But, you can't. Anything we don't know, you automatically say "GOD DID IT" Such deluted and if I can say, pathetic thinking.
I'd be perfectly happy to have a debate with Dr. William Craig. I am currently reading some of his work and he makes all sorts of incorrect assumptions especially when it comes to physics.
Fand421 1 week ago
I have a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech University.
AutoBahnForever 1 week ago
Is this guy serious? really? REALLY?
3sim159 1 week ago
What the...?
"Rigorous thinking" is dismissing a premise as "absurd" by throwing out a few intuitionist arguments against a strawman?
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
He finds it 'appalling' that young people are not exposed to 'rigorous' and 'sophisticated' treatments of problems. He's also a proponent of the 'Resurrection of Jesus Argument,' and thinks homosexuality is a birth defect. I wish someone would simply come out and tell this man where to shove it (as Hitchens gleefully would with, say, a 9-11 truther). There is no 'debate' here people, this man is full of... it, and all the big words and windsor knots in the world don't change that
MrJercules 1 month ago
Well, then it's just an equivocation fallacy. Creation ex nihilo =/= reconfiguration of matter.
ApatheticOmniscience 1 month ago
this guy's is right, if nothing begins to exist, and we're all made of stars and the universe, why isn't their any 'evidence' :)
conraddoavil 2 months ago
People like Dawkins because he's well spoken and truly astonished at how lazy theists are when it comes to researching their views.
Here's some good, rigorous argumentation for you WLC: Ever notice that anything that has to do with your God is invisible, intangible, illogical, and magical?
Look around you simpleton. Have you ever seen any magic? There is no sophistication in believing in fairy tales. It's one of the first things you're supposed to grow out of as a child, not as an adult!
ChipArgyle 2 months ago 13
@ChipArgyle
Most subatomic effects and behavior in keeping with Quantum Mechanics is invisible, intangible, and incomprehensible. The bending of spacetime, as understood by General Relativity, is intangible and invisible. Indeed, much of the Universe is invisible and intangible to the senses of apes (no matter how hubristic or how "advanced" the ape). A little humility, eh? Especially when confronted with a perfectly logical refutation in this video. Just sayin'.
Mentat1231 2 months ago 2
@ChipArgyle Are you saying that God is a fairey tale?
Landotter1 2 months ago
Looks like Craig is gunning for popularity by jumping on the bandwagon.
Hearing him argue of 'sophisticated' discourse when his own arguments are anything but is just hilarious.
Mathenaut 3 months ago 6
I've never heard this argument from atheists before. On the other hand, christians believe in eternal life, apparently they'll never cease to exist. I could bring up a plethora of baseless, tautological argument from christians, or krishnas (who think people could fly 100 million years ago, and they too have their 'archeological proof' of this), but I won't because it's irrelevant. I can't tell if Mr. Craig doesn't understand the arguments of people he debates with, or if he is being dishonest..
ladyvanda 3 months ago
@ladyvanda
1) Dr. Aubrey de Grey believes humans could attain agelessness too. "Ending Aging". Excellent book, and rigorously scientific.
2) Are you sure you know what "tautological" means ;-)
3) Craig isn't defending "Krishnas" or the Bhagavad Gita. That's a red herring. In fact, since neither of the beliefs you mention were referenced in the video, they're technically both red herrings.
4) "Nothing ever comes into existence; it's components already existed" was the argument. No dishonesty.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
talk about a double standard. He says everything has to come from something, so then when we ask who made God they say well nothing did he always was and is eternal.
TheMossad921 4 months ago
Yeah. I totally agree with this. The problem, as I see it, is that some people simply fail to understand what a "thing" is; sometimes by carelessness, and sometimes because they just don't want to. A "thing" is made from matter, but that doesn't mean that the matter itself and the thing itself are the same. In a way, though, I wish he'd gotten less upset when talking about it, though.
mytruepower2 4 months ago 2
The idea of Dr. Craig blasting Dawkins for not using sophisticated arguments is, frankly, hilarious.
Anyone who has heard Dr. Craig in a debate will know where I'm coming from.
phocjame 5 months ago 10
@phocjame Why does Dawkins refuse to debate Craig then?
sethdbeebe 3 months ago 29
@sethdbeebe I too would not debate with someone who thinks" argumentation" is a word . It would be too painful . WLC is just WC !!
domnal 3 months ago
@sethdbeebe He'd lose. period. remember that time he debated boteach, did so badly and then claimed they never debated? He's a great scientist, but not a philosopher.
synal 3 months ago
@sethdbeebe You can't debate with insanity.
SuperGil420 1 month ago 10
@sethdbeebe Didn't Dawkins and Craig participate in a debate in Mexico a year or so ago? Its in YouTube somewhere.
wowamonn 2 weeks ago
@phocja Dawkins won't even debate William. Hmmmmmm,,,
ScScruzer831 3 months ago
Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris would destroy this guy.
edlowe0 5 months ago
@edlowe0 He's debate Hitchens and Harris. And won in my opinion.
Primeda 5 months ago 2
@edlowe0
Hitchens didn't. Dawkins wont.
Keruaran 4 months ago
We have never observed that anything begins to exist.
We've observed that what already exists changes form - for natural reasons.
I think Craig knows this, so he's playing the fool in order to defend the indefensible.
VeridicusX 5 months ago
@VeridicusX "We have never observed that anything begins to exist." Yes we have, the begining of Human life, within the womb. Of course this isn't the Universe, but is the begining for all present human beings.
What form changes - for natual reasons? Variation, adaptation, or enviromental reasons (that have been observed) can you point at?
vbirdieb 4 months ago
@VeridicusX LOL
proveall 3 months ago
In short, my opponents are stupid, but I won't tell you why they're stupid or provide evidence why they're stupid.
brian9107 5 months ago 4
I am 'flabbergasted' (frankly, I can't believe he actually talks like this) that he completely missed the very essence of the point he even made clear from his refuters.
Basically, since matter in the universe exists within discrete forms therefore what they are currently formed into is secondary. The atoms in your body are made of the same material as they were when they were first created within the hearts of stars, only being "altered" by their current molecular configuration.
SciBishop 5 months ago 16
@SciBishop You're wrong on two points. First off all, stars make Atoms? That's new, I'd love to read the paper on how that works. Second of all, you're modifying the original statement to attempt to make it valid but the fact is, everything has a beginning and an end any moron can see that. Even the universe has a beginning where it started to exist, before which it did not exist. If this were not the case, then why do we have an approximate age of the universe?
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago 2
@SciBishop This guy clearly recognizes your statement that the materials existed before the form.
3:22
Chaowdur 3 months ago
@SciBishop Lol? "Basically, since matter in the universe exists in decrete forms therefore what you are typing has no cause, but is secondary. In actual fact there is no cause for what you are typing because you are just matter, and are made of the same material as inanimate atoms created within the heart of stars. Just you have been 'altered' to your current molecular cofiguration." Am I doing it right? lolol P.S. Also, matter was never formed within the Big Bang as contempory science suggests
Mylth 3 months ago
@SciBishop
Honestly, SciBishop, are you being serious? I am also "flabbergasted" that you think bringing pieces together to produce a new entity from them is somehow different from "creating a new entity". And, even if there were such a logical distinction (and there isn't), it wouldn't really hurt the first premise of the Cosmological Argument. The first premise could just as easily be stated as: Everything that is formed from existing material, is *caused* to be formed.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
@SciBishop so you think that everything arranges it'self on it's own , sorry that does not match up with reality .
SuperPatrick777 2 months ago
@SciBishop I agree that he failed in his explanation. Try this instead: Matter (and energy) cannot be created or destroyed by the forces of this universe. It is unscientific to claim that matter has existed forever since there is no evidence for anything in this universe that is not caused by something else. How then, can one explain the existence of matter? One must look to a force that does not abide by the rules of the universe, a force outside the universe, God, for the cause.
Matt51112 1 month ago
@Matt51112 why not a black hole? you cannot conclude anything from your argument about the cause - the only strength your argument has is in stating a possibility for the universe to have a cause, nothing more, nothing about the cause (itself). Be careful with the logic
sowingpantheist 2 weeks ago
He thinks that by sounding flabberghasted and apphhhhhhhalled, he's showing that he uses, "...good rigorous argumentation..." In truth, his argument is obtuse.
jerrygreg2 5 months ago
@jerrygreg2 LOL I think what you're just hearing is completely honest bewilderment as he stated himself. I have found myself watching dozens of hours of "debates" with the same confusion as I watch the most absurd responses get nearly standing ovations. I completely understand where he is coming from. I think you might also not be so quick to dismiss this man. The four horsement won't debate him and dawkins is being called a coward for refusing by fellow leading atheists.
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@ITTutorCanada If you're happy to believe that people are scared to debate him, that's nice for you, but his, "... have I always existed?..." is just a misrepresentation of an opposing argument, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the faithful. A classic strawman. There are many religious people and atheists who lack debating skills. Perhaps he should have Shockofgod, or NephilimFree standing by his side?
jerrygreg2 5 months ago
@jerrygreg2 I'm not believing anything, it's a fact. Google it. Google "dawkins called coward by fellow atheist" I'm not "believing" anything except for the facts. As far as his response, it's perfectly valid. It sounds ridiculous because he is elaborating on the ridiculous nature of a ridiculous argument.
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@ITTutorCanada It's quite a simple argument made ridiculous by, "...was I around in the Jurassic age...?" This is blatant dishonesty from WLC. I'm not standing up for Dawkins, I'm talking about the hypocrisy of WLC. How many Christians lazily quote him and spout, "Nothing comes from nothing" before telling atheists (with glee) that they'll burn in Hell for eternity? I'll say this, I have the utmost respect for Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of All Saints Monastery. I have no respect for WLC.
jerrygreg2 5 months ago
@jerrygreg2 Again, he's emphasizing the poor logic behind the original argument. As far as the part about telling unbelievers they're gonna burn in hell with a smile on their face, well they should do no such thing and miss-represent the Gospel completely. Jesus never once acted like this to anyone except for people who were already (pretending) to be part of the Church, had full knowledge and were perverting the Gospel intentionally.... (continued)....
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@ITTutorCanada jesus didnt write the bible nor did he ever meet anyone who had anything to do with the bible, please explain what you are talking about.
antoireland09 4 months ago
@jerrygreg2 ....(Continued).... with regards to people being told turn or burn ect although it is true the only alternative to God (Life/Love/Peace) is the antonym of God - Devil (Death/Hate/Suffering) the truth is the bible explicitly states Hell wasn't even made for man it was made only for the devil and his fallen angels. Since men will choose to follow the same path of the devil (anti-God) then they follow his path even into eternity. This grieve God but that judgement was made before man.
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@ITTutorCanada Hmm. So does everyone who rejects the teachings of Jesus end up in Hell?
jerrygreg2 5 months ago
@jerrygreg2 Absolutely. Why so harsh? Well it's pretty simple. Imagine you were on death row and someone came along and said "put me in the chair and let him go free." And all he asked in return is that you love him and honor him for who he is and what he did. Then you turn to him and spit in his face and say "nothx jerk I can manage myself." Do you still go to your death? It's not like God is sending you to hell, you're choosing it.
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@ITTutorCanada You equate not believing that Jesus is the son of God, to spitting in someone's face! Thank you. That's all I needed to see. Good day and may your god go with you.
jerrygreg2 5 months ago
@jerrygreg2 That's right I do, because weather you believe He is God or not, He laid down His entire life teaching a message of redemption and even was crucified on your behalf. Weather you believe He is God or not, that is what He preached, that is what He lived, and that is why they nailed Him to the cross: because of that very message. All He asked in return is that you love Him and love you Neighbor as yourself. What a terrible burden eh?
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@ITTutorCanada Definitely my last comment. No-one could lay down their life on my behalf before I was even conceived. I can love my neighbour as myself without believing in a sado-masochistic, guilt ridden philosophy. I leave you with that burden. I am burden free.
jerrygreg2 5 months ago 6
@jerrygreg2 lol sado-masochistic. Since you're so passionate I wanna see you out on the street every day asking for every criminal to be set free. After all, being punished for what you do wrong is sado-masochistic, right? I wanna see it I'm dead serious. Post some links to vids of you protesting for every person imprisoned, every person who has been sentenced to death to be set free and vindicated for the wrong done... oh wait a sec, gee what a paradox. Btw I have no guilt, Christ took it. :)
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@ITTutorCanada Perhaps that was the wrong question. If I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, do I go to Hell?
WLC is not emphasising anything here. He is misrepresenting.
jerrygreg2 5 months ago
Maybe they aren't equipping the Christians right BECAUSE THAT IS THE DOCTRINE.
Geesh, this guy just takes a few things from the bible literally, studies philosophy and studies debate for 20 years and he wins.
epicseizurenow 5 months ago
He is confusing absolute 'material' existence with the existence of form.
coolioto 5 months ago
@Nabou1 actualy read wlc book that destroys the god delusion , if you dare , haha but obviously not because your scared of the truth
MrFollowingjesus 5 months ago
athiests are fools
MrFollowingjesus 5 months ago
@MrFollowingjesus, generalizing is foolish.
NicsNetwork 5 months ago
For what it's worth, politically I am right of centre. Good luck with your life. Satan - out. Peace.
Nabou1 5 months ago
@karozans You lost me at Satan. Zzzzzz.
Nabou1 5 months ago
@Nabou1
Wait a second. I thought you just said that WLC was intellectually lazy???
You can't even read a 500 character post much less watch a 5 minute video to see why I called you Satan.
Hmm. Sounds like you are the intellectually lazy one to me.
karozans 5 months ago
@karozans OK I've humoured you, watched the video. THAT is your reference! Please, grow up. One day you'll realise that The devil is as much a fairy tale as Santa Clause. It's not for me to undermine your faith, time for you to test your own faith, read The God Delusion, God is not Great and others, I dare you. If your faith is strong it will just be learning about the ememy, so you have nothing to loose. (both available as audio books) Good luck. (last year I would have said God bless)
Nabou1 5 months ago
@Nabou1
There you go with another accusation. Did you learn nothing.
Satan mean the accuser. All you can do is accuse me of something.
You don't like what I believe in, so you accuse me of being a child and tell me to "grow up".
Frankly I am not sure that you, liberals, and atheists are even able to have a conversation without accusing your opponents of something.
Sling enough mud and some of it will stick.
LOL. Dr. WLC has completely destroyed the God Delusion. No thanks.
karozans 5 months ago
Poor dude, clinging on for sweet life. When you have had a lifetime of indoctrination and built your life around it, it is hard to let go. Unfortunately for Lane Craig, it tends to be those with faith that have to avoid thinking about difficult subjects.
It is so hard to accept after a lifetime of belief that Jesus, is most likely another hero story, a meek and mild Thor or Apollo, with some nice messages. Christianity I expect is on the decline, Islam however is another matter.
Nabou1 5 months ago
Look who's talking here. A pseudointellectual ad hominem spewing evangelist who once claimed that all the genocide in the OT is morally right because God said it was morally right.
drrobertoboogie97 5 months ago
They never read sophisticated treatments, they only read the bible.
steffenbieber 5 months ago
Comment removed
xtysonboswellx 5 months ago
wow..... Really?
amcc9001990 5 months ago
The opposite of everything he just said is true.
Frogshiem 5 months ago
@buttface112211 Would not a creator be self-conscious, therefore, finally its creations being self-conscious?
07Aristotle 5 months ago
I guess calling people in general "inept", "dumb" and "sophomoric" will attract hordes of new followers to the Church...
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
Fundamentalist Christians are the ones who are not exposed to sophisticated literature. That example he is throwing out is called a straw man fallacy. Building up an argument under false premises or out of context to easily knock down in their favor.
TheHaku85 5 months ago
5 min of bashing and name calling. Move along nothing to see here.
ddm584 5 months ago
Now that's intelligence!
ray7685 5 months ago
Wow, is he reaaaaally a philosopher?
Bananas are so perfect and designed by god for man that they fit perfectly in Dr. Craig ears.
To argument about the critics, you have to understand ALL THE POINT of the critics first.
13leumarco 5 months ago
3:06 Yes you did, you existed in a different form. Everything that exists always existed in one form of another. We never observed matter/energy coming into being; we observed them changing forms, therefore to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause is a leap of faith and is unsupported by any evidence.
mrabdrum 5 months ago
The amount of ad hominem in this video is physically painful.
drrobertoboogie97 5 months ago
What if everything DOESN'T need a cause to exist? What if we exist just because there were chances of Earth and human beings happening as a consequence of natural phenomena? What if similar "creations" have happened elsewhere in the Universe?
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel
While I know you can't argue probability backwards - considering the probability, I'd stand with the great deal of evidence - as inconclusive as it is - on the side of God. I realize that there's no way you can understand my view unless you do the research yourself, and I'm only telling you this in the hope that you will do more exploration on your own into the truth about the reality of our existence.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - Unfortunately (for you that is) there is not one sinlge piece of evidence that points to the existence of god. Not one single piece of evidence. You have discarded all other god's on which you don't believe. Move one additional step further and discard the one that is left.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Why don't you look and see? Do a little research before pretending that there's no evidence. If anything, maybe you'll learn some grammar.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - So, no evidence?
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel There is lots of evidence for God. The creation itself is evidence of the creator, and it's full of signs pointing to the truth of our reality. But you will only see it when you open your mind. Do some research, for real - I promise you will find interesting things. Approach the subject without any bias and honestly try to find the truth about it.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring "The creation itself is evidence of the creator,"
Thats begging the question, you have to first assume there is a creation. There cannot be a creation without a creator, and a purported creation must still be substantiated by evidence. Intuitive reasoning does not lead to accurate answers, especially for events like the beginning of the Universe. Much of nature is counterintuitive, therefore you cannot use logic to reach the answer.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 There is a great deal of evidence for the big bang; it is a widely-accepted theory. Among the evidence available you can investigate the Doppler effect. However, the big bang itself having happened does not conclusively indicate a creator. The methodology evident within nature's evolution of self-conscious, however, does. At least to me. Of course, this is a subjective view. I see it because I'm free of the bias that would otherwise prevent me. There may be other biases present.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring How does self-consciousness conclusively indicate a creator?
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 It's rather the evolution of self-consciousness that indicates a concluding purpose to creation, and that which in turn evidences a creator.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring Yes, I've already read that, your response didn't answe my question. All of your assertions are unsubstantiated and you are unwilling to defend them with the science you embrace as evidence of your creator?
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 Do you understand what I'm saying? It seemed like you missed my meaning, guessing by your last question, so I tried to make my phrasing clearer for you. How about you tell me what you think I meant, and then I can clarify? Please think about what I said before making your judgments.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring You said, "the big bang itself having happened does not conclusively indicate a creator. The methodology evident within nature's evolution of self-conscious, however, does."
My question: How does this indicate a creator?
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 Following the cosmic explosion, there were stages of time on our planet when no living matter existed, and then the spark of life that grew as the tiniest bacteria. It thrived, evolved. Many different types of plants and creatures manifested through time. Finally, nature evolved into a self-conscious form: man. It generated something to truly appreciate it: purpose for existence, capacity for reflection. Funny when you look at how terrible we are to the environment.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring I understand evolution, but that didn't answer my question. How does the "methodology evident within nature's evolution of self-conscious" conclusively indicate a creator. You said The Big Bang does not conclusively indicate a creator, but then you said this other idea involved consciousness does. Explain how it indicates a creator. One minor correction: there was no cosmic explosion.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 I'm talking about the big bang. You don't believe that happened? The fact that nature pointedly evolved self-consciousness is the methodology I'm referencing. It looks clearly purposed to me, and that is what indicates a creator. You either see it or you don't, as I initially stated. The fact that you keep needing rephrasings of a concept that is, in the end, very simple, makes me think you don't.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring You still didn't answer how the evolution of self-consciousness indicates a creator. You just repeated the same thing over and over again. I didn't ask for rephrasings, I guess your forced to just rephrase it when you don't have any actual answer.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 It shows that there is a purpose to creation. If you don't understand, then I can't really help it, no matter how many times I rephrase this. It is a somewhat complex concept, I guess, though it seems fairly simple to me.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring How does consciousness show there is a purpose, and how does it reflect a creator? You aren't answering my question, you just repeat the same comment followed by, "You don't understand." I will admit, I don't understand. But what I don't understand is in question, I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that you did. Your conclusion is a complete non sequitur, and your failure to explain how consciousness reflects a cretor is somewhat evidence of that.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 Okay, we can go step by step if you want. 1. We have a self-consciousness that is not evident among animals of lesser intelligence. 2. This self-consciousness was evolved over a great deal of time from the amino acids within clay that became life. 3. With the production of self-consciousness, nature itself became conscious. Animals came to reflect. 4. This goes to show that natural evolution had a goal at which it arrived. 5. If nature has a purpose, it is not random. Thus, God.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring How does humans evolving self-consciousness show that nature had a goal? Thats another non sequitur. But in any case, evolution isn't random, but just because it is not random doesn't mean that therefore your God is responsible.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 Digesting this kind of concept requires a lot of personal thought. I'll leave you to it. Nothing is entirely conclusive, however. Scattered evidence just builds.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring Okay then, continue parading that rediculous comment that is deprived of any logic and based off of a complete non sequitur. Perhaps you know this, and that is why you were unable to conjure an adequate response that actually explained how you reached this nonsensical conclusion. There is no concept to "digest" because you haven't actually presented any concept but self-consciousness. You are avoiding my question, how does consciousness mean there is a creator?
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 I answered it in detail. It's funny that you keep attempting to insult my logic when you can't spell or utilize proper grammar, but hey - I'm trying really hard not to judge you for that, just advising you not to scorn others. You should check out athenism if you want to look more into how special self-consciousness is.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring Where are my grammar or spelling mistakes? I did see a typo in of my previous comments after rereading it but that's all it is, a typo. You did not answer my question in detail, you declined to actually explain it multiple times followed by similar reiterations of the first comment that originally objected to. I watched this video: /watch?v=oPEdDcs_8ZQ&ob=av3e. All it did was explain an enlightening view of consciousness, nothing about how it is the result of a creator.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 "Your"="you're" and "rediculous"="ridiculous". I'd consider them typos if they weren't common mistakes, but really, it doesn't matter. I was just taking unnecessary offense at what I saw as an attempted insult to my intelligence.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring I understand self consciousness, and all you do is repeatedly explain it despite the irrelevance of it. My question remains unanswered, how does consciousness indicate a creator? Asserting something and demonstrating something are two different things. Asserting it (which is all that you've done) does not advance the discussion or adequately answer my question. I'll agree with you, self-consciousness is special. But how does that indicate a creator?
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 I think the problem is that you expect me to prove something when initially I told you it was my subjective opinion. Because self-consciousness is so special, it seems that nature evolved it as a goal - in order to truly exist. The fact that nature is purposed indicates that its design is intelligent. Existence itself is intelligent, ordered, and not chaotic. This points to a creator, as the creation is designed. You can't argue probability as proof but it is still evidence.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring Alright then, your conclusion is based on a complete non sequitur as I originally stated, nothing more to it. However, because it is a non sequitur, it can therefore be deemed illogical. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed here. I am aware that you said it was subjective, but I asked how you reached the conclusion. Now I know that you didn't reach a conclusion, you decided to believe something because you felt life believing something, despite the conspicuous non sequitur.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring Based on such a premise, you cannot therefore assert any creation because the laws of nature or cause and effect may not have even applied then. You prevalently insist that LegionariaCruel conduct some independent research on the topic, however, if you want to get straight to the point, that research must be guided to some extent. If you wish that he reaches the same conclusion, you must present some adequate sources or particular topics. I encourage you to present some to me.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 I don't wish that he reaches the same conclusion, specifically. I just want him to be better educated on the topic. Even when I was an atheist, I understood what religious people believed was evidence for their beliefs. After a while I just came to see it the same way. Everything is available for all of us to look at. The difference is what we actually internalize.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - Not really, but thanks anyway. I am not against anyone believing the bullshit they want to believe, but I am against the dissemination of such crap. Science is the way to go, and there is no need to believe in anything that science (empirical science, as in observable, testable phenomena, and maths) has not shown to exist. Atheism is (in most cases) not a philosophical position but the natural consequence of critical thinking.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel Do you really think that the human race will have everything figured out within your lifetime? Our understanding of science is constantly evolving. If during Copernicus' time you insisted that the planets revolved around the Earth in the pattern he laid out, you would be wrong. We are less wrong now, but still imperfect. It's silly to think we know everything.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - Science is not perfect. There is not one scientist in the world that will tell you such a blatant idiocy. But science is still and by far the best method we have to get closer to the truth. Better than guessing, trusting our "common sense" and/or blaming gods or other mythical beings. The BEAUTY of science is actually that it CORRECTS ITSELF. Unlike stupid religions that only try to impose a view and force you to "believe" instead of KNOWING.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel You should relax a little, there's no need to get upset. Not all religions demand you to believe without knowing. "Follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked." [17:36]
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
Since there is no evidence for any of the fantastic claims of each and every religion on the face of the Earth, basically, ALL of them, without exception, demand from their followers to quit reason and "just believe". Most of them, such as Islam and Catholicism actually punish scientific curiosity and critical thinking ("lack of faith", they call it). Religion by nature is anti-intellectual; had the Bizantine Empire not fell to the Otoman Turks, we would still live in the Dark Ages.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel You know the Ottomans were Islamic, right? :) Islam commands every male and female to seek knowledge: it's a requirement from the cradle to the grave. Also, the quote I referenced for you is from the Qur'an.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - I blame Christians for the dark ages, but that does not equal to saying muslims were responsible for the renaissance (duh!). The fall of the Western Roman Empire (independently of the circumstances) allowed for a new way of thinking, less dependant of the religion the empire forced into the people as a means of state control. ("He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost. Quran 3:85)
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel That's only after he's recognized the truth of it and decided to choose something else. It'd be apparent to you if you read the whole book, but I don't think that you read straight from the beginning to 3:85 in order to find that quote or you would have found others accepting the faith of devout Christians and Jews, for example.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring - And you just hit the nail again. Another point against all holy books is how contradictory, inconsistent and bad written they are. Religions are stupid, and useless, and their fantastic claims have hurt the development of humanity for ages. There is no evidence of the existence of any god whatsoever, and humnkind needs not to believe in anything that science has not proven. Anyway, you seem to be the master of missing the point, so, tata!
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel It's not a contradiction, it has a legitimate explanation that I just told you. But you're determined to continue on your path, so go on. I don't really care if you do or not, but you -should- realize that 'humnkind' is a population of individuals with individual freedom. I'll believe in God and you can keep insisting he doesn't exist. There's no compulsion in religion. (Another quote from the Qur'an).
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
And yes organized religion has certainly perpetuated ill-informed, archaic beliefs. St. Augustine, founder of the modern day church impressed upon the religious establishment that "Thus in the Wisdom of God the world could not know God through wisdom".
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
John 15:6 (KJV) - "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." LOL
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel If you don't believe it, you don't believe that will happen, so it doesn't matter, does it? Besides, quoting the material of another religion does little to diminish my point that there are exceptions.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
Philosophy, World-view, scientific model; call them what you want they are not empirical. The Big Bang model is not reproducible. Big Bang is the origin story myth for a world view called Philosophical Materialism. In your other post you were stretching the word "science" into areas that have nothing to do with science but philosophy, metaphysics ie things that are not testable through empiricism, mathematics ie. hard science. Although the Kalam Cosmological argument is valid if 1 premis is true
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy Science should be everything and everything should be science. There is a science to everything, honestly. Restricting genres of thought does nothing but restrict thought. Everything is connected. Everything came from God, and everything will return to Him.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring You don't know what "science" is either. Science is not everything. Are you "science"? Is a thought or statement science? Is logic? Reason? Even the empiricist uses his rational abilities to evaluate his empirical deductions. Everything came from God, I agree, but not everything is scientifically verifiable or empirical.
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy That's only because our technology isn't advanced enough. We act like supernatural stuff isn't natural but if something's happening, it's natural. Same allegory applies to science and things that people consider as not-science.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring the way the word "natural" is used or assumed in the general public is 1 & 2 Laws of thermodynamics. When the topic is anything Biological starting with a single cell organism upwards it's a whole different ball game. Something as "simple" as a single cell is completely supernatural, an utter miracle. You need to get educated on the probabilities of just a single protein forming let alone undirected proteins forming a cell. Your comment on technology is simply ignorant.
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy Not really, it's absolutely correct that our technology isn't advanced enough to scientifically verify logic. I'm sure that given time, it could be quantified through measurements of brain activity and chemical levels. My reference towards 'supernatural' was only to illustrate that we often consider subjects out of the reach of a certain study just because we haven't suitably widened our paradigm of that study yet. Just because it's science doesn't mean it's not a beautiful miracle.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring I understand your position. You have a commitment to philosophical Materialism. Trying to deconstruct or reduce anything to mere mechanistic properties has no power to rule out the supernatural. Some miracles God has done in the past I would hold to be the suspension of the Laws he made. Other times he may use existing realities that appear to be a miracle or are simply a miracle based on the timing. The mechanics of how a cell works is despite the fact that it's a miracle
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy Oh okay, sorry didn't see this important link. Youtube is weird in that it only shows me the last reply made. I don't have a commitment to any 'ism', though. Making actual commitments to any philosophy other than the absolute, that God revealed to the messengers, is a manner of deceiving the intellect.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring If you need to know truth you are welcome to banter with me anytime. One more comment quick here, a consistent "Materialist" must also adhere to "Determinism". The most brilliant Materialist's have consistently held true to their world-view assumptions and confessed to some form of Determinism, men like Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawkings just to name a few most prominent. They recognize that "free will" is really an illusion, that "love" or "beauty don't really exist.
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy Not sure how that's relevant to our discussion, but okay. I'd be happier to contact and banter with you over 'truth' if I was assured the conversation wouldn't be full of irrelevancies. Everything is connected, like I said before, and all information can be useful. The problem is that human beings can't really carry on intelligent discourse without sticking to one proper train of logical thought.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring Something can be perceived as irrelevant if you are ignorant in some form concerning one of the premises. You may not want to consciously adhere to an "ism", but rejecting "categories" is also typical post-modernism/relativism. You said "The problem is that human beings can't really carry on intelligent discourse without sticking to one proper train of logical thought." I should point out that you also are a human, and that neutrality is a myth.
androcracy 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring My invitation was for you to be open to reason and I'm not sure you are able, but I'm willing to continue so I think we are both on the same level of trust. :) You said "Science should be everything and everything should be science." This statement is characteristic of scientists who are committed to Material philosophy. It should be noted that this statement is a non-material concept. Tell me, would science exist if there was no human race? Who would observe?
androcracy 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring I would definitely agree, that it is a good thing to consider the message/thought/concept and not adhere entirely to the world/view or paradigm of the philosopher or scientist. All truth is God's truth. The more one learns, the smaller the realm of possibilities and ideas get. Solomon who authored Ecclesiastes(the wise man) said "there is nothing new under the sun". I have found this to be true. There are no new ideas. Just recycled, and the next gen is ignorant of previous.
androcracy 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring One last comment; perhaps you are uncertain, unsettled, uncommitted to a world-view, but are in pursuit of truth as a modernist/objectivist/truth-seeker. Simply put if you reject post-modernism, let me propose the more noble form of Agnosticism. I have found there to be two kinds of Agnosticism. The first kind of agnostic says "i don't know" = hence A+gnosis. The second kind is obnoxious, assertive and thus in contradiction with his own view. How can an Agnostic assert that
androcracy 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring that someone else can't know something if he himself doesn't know. If the Agnostic knew everything there was to know, only then he could rule out or assert with certainty that someone else doesn't or can't know. But then the later assertive Agnostic would be a betrayal of the essence of what it means to adhere to Agnosticism.
androcracy 5 months ago
@wishingwellspring Agnosticism doesn't need to slip into Relativism which is an extremely inconsistent and internally contradictory view to hold. I think a noble agnostic is simply someone who believes he can know something, yet because he doesn't know everything is open to his views being refined and theoretically even growing out of an Agnostic view into broad sweeping knowledge statements about reality. Noble agnosticism is an attitude of learning with a hope of knowing.
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy I agree that agnostics who attempt to assert truths can be pretty silly. There is of course a level of knowledge that we're incapable of knowing, and we should try to refrain from illegitimate conjecture. Let me clarify my science is everything and everything is science statement. Next reply.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@androcracy Would you say that your wife getting angry because you didn't come home at 11:00PM is a scientific matter? The person who I made my statement to wouldn't judging by their point about 'logic' not being a matter of science. However, the anger is caused by brain chemistry and psychological development. Socialized notions about curfew and the current cultural atmosphere also contribute to her anger. My point is that with enough intellectual inquiry, everything can be quantified.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@androcracy If you would like a better phrased expression of my view, science is how we make sense of our perception. Things only effect us insofar as our perception detects. 'Everything' is everything within our perceptional bubble. These things operate under laws of order. We can make sense of them and quantify them with science. God, of course, can alter these laws or act outside of them - but from what I've seen, may He forgive me if I'm wrong, He normally acts within.
wishingwellspring 5 months ago
@androcracy "The Big Bang model is not reproducible. Big Bang is the origin story myth for a world view called Philosophical Materialism."
Not all science is or required to be reproducible. In cosmology and other fields of science, only the scientific assessment can be reproduced, and even concepts such as the Big Bang Theory are well substantiated by evidence. Methodological naturalism is one the foundational principles of scientific inquiry. You seem to oppose science, perhaps for this reason.
buttface112211 5 months ago
@buttface112211 yes not all science is reproducible in a lab. Yet the sciences that are based on observations such as cosmology become increasingly subjective in certain area's like the Big Bang model which Hawkings & Ellis acknowledged had some ideology assumed in it. As far as Methodological naturalism I deny it's a foundational to empirical research. It CAN be an assumption. It can be derived from it. I love scientific research, but it's only as good as good the mind that see's what it wants
androcracy 5 months ago
JUST LIKE A CLOWN IN THE CIRCUS,HE'S ENTERTAININGLY FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!
twor4u 5 months ago
2:18 "nothing ever begins to exist"
I never hear that argument and this guy spends the whole video explaing how stupid it is... Well done.. Nice ratings.
P4PMike 5 months ago
Dr. Craig is a complete ignorant prick doesn't even wanna understand other peoples views.
wachnathan 5 months ago 2
Youre being silly mr. craig, "I" is just a title, as is "earth", as is "dinosaur". Titles given to certain arrangements of matter/energy. Though I would never say "Nothing begins to exist", this is hardly a refutation. Only real science could prove that matter/energy began to exist.
There is an argument for intentionality that "arrangement requires intelligence", which im not armed to dismiss
mehico33 5 months ago
@mehico33 lol ahahahhha hahaha Wow that was funny! Do you know what "science" is? Do you know what the word "reproducible" means?
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy Yep, it is still "only a theory" that the universe began to exist. The best theory but theory nonetheless, it has been said that very little science remains to be done at the desktop, the rest lies in large scale experimentation e.g. hadron collider
mehico33 5 months ago
@mehico33 You don't understand what science is. The scientific method is based on empiricism. There is no such thing as something coming from nothing. Real science such as the 1st & 2nd Law of thermodynamics have yet to be broken.
androcracy 5 months ago
@androcracy Youre not making any sense, how have I demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scientific method? When did I say something came from nothing? and how do you know theres no such thing?
mehico33 5 months ago
Dawkins is so successful because we are so inept. Good point!
akanippy 5 months ago
Atheists are a pathetic human being ever lived. Don't get mad LOSERS !!!!
DGalek12 5 months ago
"Did I exist before?" No you didn't, but you are simply the consequence of (rather infortunate) chemical and biological events, not the will of "God", you moronic idiot.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel A "consequence of chemical and biological events?" Which means that he has a cause for his existence, right?
pantherfanatic7 5 months ago
@pantherfanatic7 - Wrong. The use of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation over faith-based living and emotion-driven thinking is extremely important when it comes to accepting or rejecting fantastic claims (i.e. - the existence of God).
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
Since there is no scientific proof of God, this guys uses "good, rigorous" arguments to disqualify science. "Sophomoric material", "absurd", "ludicrous", says the most prominent creationist advocate. What a pathetic excuse of a human being.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
@LegionarioCruel - Ignorants often resort to offenses and denigration in order to make a point, in lack of any good arguments to defend it.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
"Good rigurous argumentation" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, poor guy.
LegionarioCruel 5 months ago
Should he not have started of by saying "God is so popular, because people are so unsophisticated in their thinking." That would have made more sense. The gospels are not firsthand witness accounts of Jesus, they were written many decades after his death.
butternutsquashist 5 months ago
Your desperation is showing. Do you have a fall back skill?
rustytool100 5 months ago
You current manifestation had a beginning, the parts that you're made of haven't had a beginning, that we know of.
How dare he call someone else sophomoric when he's presenting this terrible logic?
Davin404 5 months ago
gotta love how he thinks DAWKINS' arguments are sophomoric.
HRRyan2 5 months ago
A will begins to exist. Therefore it must have a cause. Therefore there is no free will.
lovingboarding 5 months ago
Craig shouldn't even have a doctorate because theology is not science!! Especially translated myths from the bronze age and before have nothing to do with science at all. Even astrology or star trek history has more to do with science than bible fairy tales
atheistfromaustria 5 months ago
This is so true. Both the pro and anti New Atheism argumentation is neanderthal, treating the Bible as if it was written as a science textbook which happens to be wrong. It's so stupid, it's unbelievable.
leconfidant 5 months ago
n to exist, but he also fails to provide evidence that what ever begins to exist has a cause. These are two flaws in the cosmological argument that make the argument a giant failure. His other arguments are simple to prove wrong I dont even need to waste my time.
mrabdrum 5 months ago
Craigs only argument for God that is going to convince a thinking person is the cosmological argument, because he presents the lie that the universe literally came into being out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The simple fact is, science never says that the matter and energy in which the universe is composed of came into being. Science only explains how this matter and energy changed forms to form the universe that we live in. In other words, Craig not only fails to give evidence that the universe bega
mrabdrum 5 months ago
couldn't watch, sorry. after making the claim the dawkins is popular amung the unsophisticated... i would have to say that the supernatural stories of religious books are more aimed at the unsophisticated. they are even designed to keep them unsophisticated, offering foolish stories in place of facts. if you don't want to believe the evidence that we shared a common ansestor with apes then you are free to believe that a man in the sky created us from dirt. i'm just not convinced of it.
mark902 5 months ago
I am still waiting for the religious nuts to PROVE god exist. We don't need to prove god DOESN'T exist. It is up to YOU to prove he DOES exist. But, you can't. Anything we don't know, you automatically say "GOD DID IT" Such deluted and if I can say, pathetic thinking.
Bestmoviealive 6 months ago