Evidence For the Existence of God - William Lane Craig

[rodrigodet]

No a exerternal being is not what most people refer to us God.

Be it yahweh or allah what people mean by God is a super powerful being that guides them and will take their conscience into a eternal place, there for he is not a bystander, because he has a affect on the material universe.

And I dont know where he get the idea that materialists say the universe is eternal, when confronted with origin of the universe I just say " I dont know"

[jorge0886]

LOL at a bunch of youtubers who think they are smarter than this man.

[eyestepback]

if god is eternal, then he is infinant. and if we can't comprehend it we can't comprehend infinity also. and why wouldn't infinity include 1-3??? that is 4 to infinity not just infinity moron

[drcraigvideos]

@eyestepback There's a difference between actual infinites and potential infinites and quantitative infinites and qualitative infinites.

[eyestepback]

@drcraigvideos wouldn't it be infinity - (4 to infinity) not infinity - infinity? infinity represents ongoing sequence. but that sequence has to be stated. you can't just call anything that goes on forever infinity. which your reply implies which seemingly contradicts what you said in the video?

[drcraigvideos]

@eyestepback Actually, Dr. Craig speaks of actual infinites. I don't see how he's contradicting himself anywhere.

[eyestepback]

@drcraigvideos because he calls all numbers above 3 infinity but its not, its 4 to infinity he generalized like he does with everything he talks about. why is logic so hard for you?

[drcraigvideos]

@eyestepback LOL! Look, do yourself a favor, and don't pretend to know what Craig is actually saying. You don't understand what he's saying at all.

[eyestepback]

@drcraigvideos neither does he

[drcraigvideos]

@eyestepback If that was the case then you wouldn't have responded to the way you did in the second to the last comment. You actually have to listen more closely next time. That helps.

[roverdeity]

I infinity'd on your face. Moron.

[PGHolmes]

We're simply matter, as he said... thus, mechanical in all ways and all actions are predictable because of that. We experience life as a 4th wall/person. That 4th person is probably God itself. God isn't smart enough to create everything by hand, we are made from fractals. We exist so maybe we can solve a problem he cannot. We're not even close.

[jacobcake]

Why wouldn't the universe be inclusive?

Adding an external cause brings up the classic "but what caused that?"

[6gunwalker]

@jacobcake yes sir but the buck stops with God.. nothing created God... the explanation of an explanation argument can quite simply be debunked as contradictory..

[100percentgiver]

no body has any idea and its as simple as that

[MrMadmanbob]

Ontological argument owned:

If God is the greatest thing conceivable, he must also be the most impressive.

The feat of creating the universe is remarkable. How impressive it is is based on two factors: the nature of the feat and the ability of the creator.

The greatest handicap to creating the universe is non-existence. A nonexistent God who created the universe without existing is more impressive and therefore greater than one who did so while existing.

Therefore, God does not exist.

[drcraigvideos]

@MrMadmanbob *SIGH* watch?v=msiZDJwtZ6E. Let's try to be more original, please.

[koreanhalfbreed]

@MrMadmanbob haha wow really?? .... silly argument. not even God defies logic. if so, you could make any claim...like asking the question, can God create a rock so large that he can't lift it? This would be like saying God's all powerful, so hes not all powerful. It defies logic, impossible not just in the human realm, but logically impossible. Much the same, your statement relies on the claim that its possible for someone or something non-existant to create something. Thats logically impossibl

[miscbrahhh]

@MrMadmanbob Except with that line of argument, God can both exist and exist at the same time. Which is far more impressive and incomprehensible than one or the other. Your logic is flawed.

Therefore, God does exist.

[jagarf]

@MrMadmanbob

A non-existent God could not create the universe, as that would be a universe created from nothing. After all, it can't be created by this God as he would be non-existent.

[IamnotSmartz]

There is no evidence for Atheism or Theism, there is only arguments. Seeing Atheist, and Theist, and the other 'eist', in such a rivalry, is not what is important about discussing these valuable metaphysical questions, but to inquiry into the metaphysical itself. When people say they know for sure, such as Theist say they know God does exist, and Atheist say they do not, is irrelevant to analyzing such within an objective methodology.

[St00sh13]

@IamnotSmartz Athiests say they have seen no demonstration of it. The whole discussion os about whether objective methodology is all their is.

[Thelondonbadger]

The assumption that the universe has always existed, disproves any gods as there is no need for a creator.Also if something needs to give another a purpose then gods purpose must have been givin to him by something else.Aka upon infinitum of gods are needed to design someones fate for example a god created god to create another god to create god to create god to create humans to create hentai :).

[stu1002]

Did WLC do a Q&A after this session? Is that on youtube?

[drcraigvideos]

@stu1002 I don't think he did. This was done in between classes so there was no time to do one lest the students be late for class.

[Birdieupon]

@stu1002

There was a Q&A (I even got to quiz Bill on the Ontological Argument!) so it should be available soon as all the rest are going up.

[RebornMB]

I'm an atheist of Earthly religious Gods but I believe in a Universal God.

[AdversusHaereses]

@RebornMB So would you consider yourself a deist?

[RebornMB]

@AdversusHaereses Yeah

[QuestionStupidity]

How does Mr. Craig's eternally existing being avoid his own argument saying that if the universe has existed infinitely then it would have never arrived at today. How can his deity be exempt from this? From some ancient idea that there is an unmoved mover? Please. He's arguing against an eternal universe by using it as his own argument and special pleading it.

[drcraigvideos]

@QuestionStupidity No, he's not. It depends what you mean by infinite (for instance, there's actual infinite and potential infinite). Maybe this will help answer your question: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc

[Anomalous59]

@drcraigvideos I just watched that video, and it's ridiculous. Craig does nothing to defend against the rebuttal. How does attempting to redefine the word "infinite" to be "qualitative" instead of "quantitative" solve the problem in any way? The matter in question is precisely how, when "infinite" is taken to mean "infinite in duration" or "eternal" (an attribute that Craig, self-contradictorily, actually ascribes to his god!), God is exempt from Craig's rule of no infinites.

[drcraigvideos]

@Anomalous59 LOL! Well, if you don't know the difference between qualitative and quantitative infinites, then suit yourself. Just because he pwned your argument you don't have to act like such a crybaby.

[butchbutch66]

@drcraigvideos atheists are getting pwned all over the place tonight! 

[seattlefs]

@QuestionStupidity

The difference is two different ways of conceiving of infinity. One would be quantitative and another would be qualitative. The former is about a number of parts of a set or a number of events but the qualitative is rather an umbrella under which other divine attributes fall under. It's not like you have God being infinite and God being all-powerful as if infinity is another attribute of God. No it's the umbrella not the number of units that make up God.

[QuestionStupidity]

Mr. Craig likes to harp on the universe having a finite beginning from nothing, but does not the debate with Laurence Krauss show us that Mr. Craig is setting up his own argument by claiming that this universe came from nothing? They both talk about how Craig's philosophical nothing is not the same as the "nothing" physicists talk about. It seems as if he's using the loose definition used by physicists to advance his own argument which that is based on another definition of nothing.

[07Aristotle]

@QuestionStupidity Krauss' debate with Craig was so one-sided. Krauss had the audacity to make a remark about how he hated philosophy and that it does not 'get anywhere'. So, therefore, as he planned, did not use too much logic. Furthermore, he would use logical fallacies such as; when he equivocated the term 'nothingness' and a non sequitur when he quoted philosopher David Hume. His exemption of logic violated the first order of a debate and that is having an argument with a logical basis.

[pete26785]

Everybody is slagging off Dawkins for avoiding Craig but these people are not fully considering the implications for Dawkins if he was do debate Craig. Most of those slagging off Dawkins would be equally petrified if they were in his shoes. I didnt see his atheist colleague at Oxford who called him a coward step up to the plate!?

[SeedsOfHatred]

@pete26785 I love the arrogance in all of the creationists who say that people are too "terrified" or "intimidated" to debate this guy.

Did you people ever think that some stupidity is just too unbelievable and far-fetched to be worth debating? Even I've met people whom I refused to debate because they're just too far gone - absolutely closed off to any and all reason or rationality.

The fact that we refuse to debate one or two of you does not, by default, mean that you are correct.

[pete26785]

@SeedsOfHatred Friend, the dog on the street (on all sides and neutral) knows Dawkins is afraid of Craig. Unfortunately, its cringingly obvious. But I dont blame Dawkins, Craig will make his GD "central arguments" look silly, and to make matters worse, he will do it on Dawkins home turf. OMG, how humiliating!! Hideously bad. Although, if I were he, I would probably avoid Craig too. It wouldent do his career in selling popular level books to the masses any favours debating a genius like Craig.

[SeedsOfHatred]

@pete26785 Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.

[19hatz]

Muslims believe in God, and they do immoral acts by our standards (at least some do).

Morality is nothing but a means to further expand our ability to reproduce. I don't see the tie to God.

[TheBarefootPunk]

@IsorethanB "All the "minds" we know of are bound in spacetime and we know they begin to exist as well (our thoughts begin to exists)" is a problem of induction fallacy. While it may seem Craig asserts that minds can be unembodied, could we consider studies/evidences for out-of-body as well as post-death experiences to be possible evidence for unembodied minds?

[TheBarefootPunk]

@NotSureWhatToPut Just to correct what the premise is, you state "So everything has a cause, except for the creator of the cause". What Craigs premise is states that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. "Begins to exist" is different from "exists". If God is posited as always existing then God needs no cause. But if the universe begins to exist then the universe needs a cause, whatever that cause may be.

[honkstafarian]

Ensemble, ensemble, ensemble, and the usual shit that there would be no morality without God, we would all be rapists like in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where the blokes daughters get there farther drunk and help themselves to a bit. Let alone all the children who have been raped by the supposedly morally correct believers over the years. Mental.

[drcraigvideos]

@honkstafarian Maybe you should listen to the video without plugging your ears. Craig does not say you have to believe in God to live moral lives, he's saying you need God as a standard for morality. That is all. Atheists like you need to listen to the video. That helps.

[AmunRaJuliusCaesar]

@drcraigvideos So a standard of morality as demonstrated by God is evidenced in the story of Lot and his daughters, not to mention the moral standards God recommends applying to slavery, working on a Sunday and there is that other story about a group of children who call some bloke "Baldy" so God sends a bear to rip them to shreds, the list literally goes on! Is it not about time that God botherers/Bible bashers admit that there God is not moral by any reasonable persons standards?!

[drcraigvideos]

@AmunRaJuliusCaesar Well, God didn't tell Lot to put his daughters out like that. And slavery in the Bible is NOTHIING like today's slavery. Even Christians are called slaves, genius. As for Elisha and the bears: watch?v=MgkMJhcTE1c. Look, it would be helpful if you read the Bible in context without using your atheist decorder ring to interpret it. That's helpful. But as an atheist, you have no problem of evil because evil is just relative and subjective to the individual anyway.

[IsorethanB]

Is Dr Craig a dualist or a physicalist about the universe ?I am asking this because i have a hard time understanding the notion of disambodied mind.I can understand how one can believe that our thought are immaterial (i don't know about timless tho) ,but unless one is an idealist or a dualist i don't see how one could interpret them other than having a spacetime reality by correlating them strongly to what can be unsophistically be called "brain states". =/

[IsorethanB]

i am at 8:37 and i don't understand why he proposes disembodied mind has an exemple of things existing necesserally ,all the "minds" we know of are bound in spacetime and we know they begin to exists as well (our thoughts begin to exists )....anyway most interesting vid of craig .

[njdeputter]

When I first heard a WLC debate I was disappointed that he didn't adorn his arguments with the rhetorical appeals to emotion that his opponents (Harris, Hitchens etc.) always use. Now I see why WLC doesn't do this, it's because he takes the high road. Both logically and morally he takes the high road, he's really a great role model for future Christians.

[BibleIsland]

Many times, I've heard people say "Craig's cosmological argument is not logical", yet not once have I ever heard it refuted.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@BibleIsland

You have to love how Atheists always say our arguments have been "refuted", but then never actually do so. Even when they try to do so, it turns out they barely understand the argument.

[ivolol]

"The number 7 didn't create the universe, so god did."

The universities that actually have him degrees must be visibly embarrassed.

[BibleIsland]

@ivolol That's a simple misunderstanding of the argument my friend. He demonstrated that the only 2 possibilities are an abstract concept or a transcendent being, and he showed that the former is not possible and therefore the latter is probably true.

[IsorethanB]

@BibleIsland the latter is unintelligible ,what are phenomenological differences btween an embodied mind and a disembodied one ?What can it perceive ?Does it have an internal complex of tought with an unconsciouss part ?If it makes propositions in what a language does it makes them and what is the explanation for that languge?At what point do we let the finding of neuroscience inform us on what a "mind" is ?And are we materialist about the mind or substance dualists?

[OshiSeven]

If you aren't just nodding your head and going "Uh-huh uh-huh" when he speaks and actually listen, you can't help but see the massive flaws in everything he says. He just makes up special circumstances for god with only a basic knowledge of physics and claims facts without citing a damn thing.

[machinedean100]

@OshiSeven Enlighten me, please point out the flaws. For I most not have been paying attention. I Thought the ontological argument. Pointed out that any world or any place with invented circumstances. If it is possible for god to exist in that world. Then he exists in every world including the actual. Can you think on that for a moment. can you imagine a world with out numbers. I mean there just can not be a world with out numbers. In the same sense there can not be world with out god.

[machinedean100]

@OshiSeven This man just 100 percent proved that god existed. You claim that there are flaws in his argument. could you please point them out to me.

[njdeputter]

@OshiSeven Maybe you could provide some examples of this. Personally it's difficult to read your post without seeing "the massive flaws in everything [you say]... without citing a damn thing."

[p0ssum06]

In case you morons are wondering, he's a philosopher, not a scientist. It's kind of like using an abacus to learn chemistry, ie stupid.

[libraomer]

we should pray for atheists that MAY GOD OPEN THEIR BRAIN AND EYES SO THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT GOD EXIST.....

[libraomer]

very nice video for the people how believe in science instead of Believing in GOD

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

I wonder if Craig has bothered to read Arnold T Guminski's article "The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities".

[TelosQualia]

I watched this live, and it was a really good presentation.

[Shazoolo]

Yay! Nice one! I was sadly at work when this was live so many thanks!!!

[Nev3rdie00]

is such a thing even possible?

[toppledgod]

@drcraigvideos Is there an open forum where I can comment freely on this video?

[deadlyErnest1]

cliffs?

[stupidpunkin]

TLDR?

[OneandonlyVeljko]

awesome video. makes me laugh at atheists.

[NotSureWhatToPut]

So everything has a cause, except for the creator of the cause. Strong fail logic. Typical theist bullshit.

[drcraigvideos]

@NotSureWhatToPut Maybe if you listen to the video and know the argument, you'd see why. Here's a short cut: watch?v=KLclpslxAYY

[Blighto2]

@drcraigvideos "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause." He states this as if it is a fact when it is not. Comparing the universe to an everyday object that we can explain is an outrageous stretch. Still, the universe may have had a cause, but him choosing the "intelligent mind" as the only possibly answer is a cop-out. Does he have evidence that a "disembodied mind" can exist, taking into account that the brain is a physical object?

[Aleitheo]

@drcraigvideos So the answer is "God is magically exempt from the laws of physics, he can do whatever the hell we want him to do."

Since you can't observe outside of nature, let alone know if there is such a thing, you can't make up stuff about what happens. For all we know, "outside the universe" there could be no way for God to use his magic because there is no energy to do so.

[stephjh2006]

@NotSureWhatToPut Seriously????did you not listen you can't have an infinite regress, you have to have 1 single grounding cause. TYOICAL ATHEISTIC STUPID QUESTION

Man if you just listened to the video, you wouldn’t make such a fool of yourself. Open your ears and mind

[njdeputter]

@NotSureWhatToPut The reason that Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Law and other well known atheist thinkers don't use this objection is because it is a straw man. The argument is not "So everything has a cause, except for the creator of the cause."

[wideheadofknowledge]

Three words: Shelly Kagan, biatch!!!!!!

[wideheadofknowledge]

John 20:29 - If Craig has indeed "seen" (using his wonderful logic) then the implication is that he is NOT blessed - no kingdom of heaven for good ol' Bill!

[Cyberjunkie09]

If there was anything more then the physical we wouldn't be able to observe or even *test* that because we are only physical and can only observe physical things.

[girtkaz]

@Cyberjunkie09 ".....and can only observe physical things. " Not true - we can observe abstract as well like number 7, so not only physical.

[stephjh2006]

@Cyberjunkie09 Welcome to the world of Philosophy and metaphysics, where the mind ponders that out of its sight and touch. To rely and build only on the testable and observable we are relying on scientism

[Aleitheo]

@stephjh2006 Scientism is a made up and meaningless word.

[stephjh2006]

@Aleitheo Emmm??? I didn't make it up

"...the dogmatic embrace of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable." The always reliable (lol) Wikipedia

Have an awsome day :)

[THEEVANTHETOON]

10 Atheists have seen this video...

[Aleitheo]

@THEEVANTHETOON Not all christians agree with the tired old arguments presented in the video

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@Aleitheo

Sure, we don't, but we all share a similar belief: there is more than enough evidence for the existence of God.

[brantk81]

I just answered my own question, read the description!

[brantk81]

This this lecture take place recently? Where? Thanks!

[ArjunaMysterytramp]

That wasn't Hamlet who said that, but the fool in Hamlet, Polonius, as written by Shakespeare. .

[drcraigvideos]

@ArjunaMysterytramp *SIGH* It never occurred to you that Craig was using the title "Hamlet"?

[ArjunaMysterytramp]

@drcraigvideos *SIGH* It actually did occur to me but as I quote Billy C. now "As Hamlet put it, there are more things in heaven and on earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" my point, was to point out who it was that said this and what his role was within that play. And he should have made that statement correctly REGARDLESS of whether I nitpicked it or not. Which I will grant you I did. P.S. Billy C. is always quick to strike when someone makes a mistake, just like he did right here.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@drcraigvideos

Hamlet said this line at Hamlet 1.5.166-7. I'm not even sure what ArjunaMysterytramp is talking about, as Polonius is not even in this scene.

Anyway, do you know what Dr. Craig has planned tomorrow? Any debates?

[ArjunaMysterytramp]

@THEEVANTHETOON Well I'll be damned... you are right and I concede... yup! :D My mistake and Now I bow out of that nonsense I was spewing.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@ArjunaMysterytramp

"My mistake and Now I bow out of that nonsense I was spewing"

You're alright my friend. :-) I'd be willing to bet that I've said more stupid things than you have (and I'm still in high school).

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@ArjunaMysterytramp

I'm reading Hamlet right now. It is Hamlet who says "There are more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (1.5.166-7) to his friend Horatio after he has seen met with his father's ghost. Polonius is not even in this scene, and is not the fool (Osric is); Polonius is the "councillor to the king". Dr. Craig is correct here.

Even if he did make a mistake, let's remember he is a philosopher, not a Shakespeare scholar.

[scar504]

The audiences always look like it's hell to have to sit there and listen to him speak why do they even bother coming? What could be more interesting then lectures on the nature of reality? Well to a bunch of college kids i guess playing call of duty or whatever it is they do.

[ChildoftheKing23]

Amazing speech! What a blessing to have this guy in our corner, as a Christian! God bless William Lane Craig!

[51MAN]

England? I think the CU guy means the UK. Isn't he doing a talk in Scotland?

[petercourt]

@51MAN Imperial College is in London, I am not aware of any other talks Craig is doing outside of England during his tour, though I may be mistaken

[stephjh2006]

@51MAN No talk in Scotland I don't think, I live in Scotland and have hears of no visit here. I was pondering traveling down to Manchester, but time and cash is tight so will settle for drcraigvideos. So it really is an England tour, unless I missed a planned trip to Scotland?

[FamousDave2186]

@DiNatalli That was the same debate I first saw of Dr. Craig. It was after that I knew I had to get at least one of his books and his book On Guard is one of the best books I've ever read.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@FamousDave2186

Sorry to bother you, but I've always wanted to read "On Guard". What is it about, and what did you think of it?

[FamousDave2186]

@THEEVANTHETOON On Guard is about defending our faith. It talks about cosmological arguments, the finetuning argument, moral arguement, and the historal accounts of Jesus. Also inbetween some of the chapters it talks about his personal life, when he got saved, how he was able to go to these great schools stated in this video, him learning different lauages (forgive spelling). The book greatly explains how to defend these arguments and his writing skills makes it very easy to understand.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

Anyone know what Dr. Craig has his agenda tomorrow (or whatever the time-zone-change equivalent would be)?

[ElasticGiraffe]

@THEEVANTHETOON Next I believe he'll be involved in a panel discussion with Peter Williams, Arif Ahmed, and Andrew Copson at Cambridge on October 20th. :) No events tomorrow, as far as I know.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@THEEVANTHETOON Oh, sorry, no DEBATES tomorrow. He will, however, be giving a lecture on Hawking's recent book followed by a panel response, also at Cambridge.

[D3uscaritas3st]

Aquinas has some competition....

[lilrat489]

thanks for the upload. I when to the site at12:45. LOL. I forgot they're in another time zone.

[vbfl920]

Did you travel to the UK as well?

[drcraigvideos]

@vbfl920 no. wish i did.

[markderosa]

Oh this lecture occurred earlier today? Thanks for uploading.

[Bigjon145]

Craig ought to waste his time debating and just play a video of his past debates because they're always the same, Craig smashes the exact same atheist arguments.

[bvsandman]

Great Video, destroys atheists time and time again. I wish I had the knowledge he has, I should just carry a video of all your debates. That'd be the best argument ;)

[drcraigvideos]

@bvsandman You know it was Craig's debate with Zindler that first got my attention of Craig. So, I guess, that wouldn't be a bad idea! Anyway, what I encourage people to do is show them a debate Craig was in.

[bvsandman]

@drcraigvideos I forgot when I first got interested in Craig. His arguments are flawless. He's also a great public speaker. I love all his debates and his interviews. He knows in the end God is real and he does his best (religiously and scientifically) to spread the word of God.

[TheTruthlsOutNow]

@bvsandman YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. YOU ASSHOLES HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE!

[DoYerBest]

Awesome coverage of the tour, John!

[evadnie100]

lmao!



[VigisKane]

Delicious arguments from Professor Craig

[1GodOnlyOne]

I love this guy! I attended one of his lectures in the US, and I wish that I had gone over and shook his hand, but I was too shy.

[drcraigvideos]

@1GodOnlyOne Craig may seem intimidating but he's not. I assure you, he's one of the most generous men I've met.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@drcraigvideos I can tell! But the shyness was my issue, not his.

=)

[camthejock]

@drcraigvideos u met him? sweet!

[drcraigvideos]

@camthejock Yeah. Funny thing is I thought he'd be taller! Well, okay, he looks about 5'10". I wouldn''t call that short.

[camthejock]

@drcraigvideos yea thats pretty good height. u should post a video of just you one day. ive always wondered who the genius was behind the drcraigvideos!

[drcraigvideos]

Hey guys, enjoy the lecture! By the way, if there is a better video/audio quality of this lecture I'll upload that one and take the video above down. Thanks. And I hope you love the lecture as much as I did!