William Lane Craig at Saddleback Church

[saltednuts15]

@Mega

No offense, but that's a really idiotic and uneducated comment.

[MegaCaracolillo]

First give an evidence of god an AFTER talks about their

infinities.

(Idiot)

In a etimo-philosophical sense.

YOU MUST HAVE ARGUMENTS.

Not I

Idiot

[the1qb]

No when we say God is infinite it's in a qualitative sense not a quantitative sense. Secondly, this argument leads to monotheism not greek or norse polytheism. Lastly, you needing to resort to a red herring shows how little you've actually examined the argument as your objections are simply fallacious.

[MegaCaracolillo]

@the1qb

You say god is infinite in a qualitative sense.

You say god is infinite not in a quantitative sense.

Infinite quality.

Not-infinit quantity.

I say your idiotity is infinite.(In a etimo-philosophycal sense)

[the1qb]

@MegaCaracolillo I'm just glad that you have to resort to attacking me because you can't respond to the argument

[naybobdenod]

Craig is an atheist,through and through

[GetMeThere1]

I agree with the introduction: Dr. William Lane Craig is an "incredible" speaker. Certainly, I find almost nothing credit-worthy about what he says.

[LucianUramu]

great another cosmological argument fail. It shows the true blind ignorance of those that listen to this self refuting argument and think it sound.

[6thwing]

@LucianUramu Please, prove that it is wrong, because Atheists have YET to do so.

[LucianUramu]

@6thwing

1 it claims everything needs a source

2 it claims that god doesn't need a source

3 it then proceeds to fail

There are dozens of videos on YouTube that cover how idiotic this is and hundreds of articles show it in a google search. Just because you are to lazy to look for refuting proof this argument is a fallacy doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

[the1qb]

@LucianUramu He said whatever begins to exist has a cause please actually think before you post a comment

[LucianUramu]

@the1qb

Yes and it back tracks all the way to everything began with God except himself because he defies and therefore disproves the argument which is all based on assumption anyway. Which means it is still a worthless argument so take your "Please actually think before you post..." and put it to practice yourself.

[the1qb]

@LucianUramu No the argument states that whatever begins to exist has a cause. If the universe was eternal it wouldn't need a cause. The principle of sufficient reason would still apply however. Modern Cosmology and Astrophysics as well as the impossibility of an actual infinite go to prove that the universe wasn't eternal. Therefore, the cause must be eternal in order to account for the effect that we see. The argument doesn't say something can't be eternal so your objection is simply absurd

[LucianUramu]

@the1qb so its impossible for something to be infinite except for God because why exactly? You and this argument still make very bold assumptions that just carry no weight. Added on to that it still only argues for a god, this argument is equally valid for proving zeus, izanami, or Bor of norse mythology.

[lifeandphilosophy]

The KCA commits the fallacy of equivocation. He uses Big Bang comsology and 2nd law of thermodynamics to prove that the known physical universe began to exist. However, for his argument to be theologically significant he switches his definition of universe to be the sum of the natural world. A definition that working scientists do not use.

[TheDarwinman]

W.L. Craig..."widely respected authority" LOL here's the "christian mutual admiration society" at play - PROOF that a christian heaven would not be a place where you would want to actually spend any time. could you imagine the excruciating pain of having to listen to Rick & Bill discuss any topic...holy shit!

[NinjaMatie]

I'd like to see Craig debate Peter Singer. Singer would bring him down just like he did D'Souza.

[Purushadasa]

Got evidence?

[galatians4v30]

i like to listen to the words this guy uses in his dialogue

[blayde999]

Glad to see Dr. Bill Craig, one of my favorite apologists. I've listened to him so much. We can look into the cosmological arguments, and I have yet to see even one refutation to what Bill Craig (and Hugh Ross, a scientist who actually does have a PH.D in Astronomy) have to say about the cosmological argument. And I've looked. They all seem at best philosophically unsound, at worst, flat out impossible. I present one problem to atheists right now, Antony Flew. :) Keep trying though.

[intelligentfalling]

Heres a good rebuttle to the cosmological argument for you. watch?v=_2Ev4RT8dhE

[MegaCaracolillo]

@blayde999

Dr bill is NAZI

[lastdaysguitar]

Dr. Bill is cool!

[ShinoCunning]

A lot of people here have never heard of metaphysics, lol.

To think that bias can lead so many people to actually proposing that the universe just came about without explanation, without cause. To me this just seems crazy. It's a universally accepted ontological principle that out of nothing, nothing comes. That to begin to exist, something has to have a cause of its temporal existence. It seems to me that the Atheist side is the side without merit.

[SuperAtheistBrothers]

@ShinoCunning

What if the atheist puts forward the universe is eternal, just like god?

If anything, theists argue that the universe came out of nothing, creation ex nihilo (which Craig and most Christians do hold to).

[chukmaty]

@SuperAtheistBrothers

They did, essentially the Big Ban Theory and the evidence supporting it, has pushed that viewpoint to the sideline. Atheists sometimes still believe that the universe itself is uncaused, generally their numbers are growing fewer and fewer.

[SuperAtheistBrothers]

@chukmaty

Somewhat yes, but even still, the Big Bang theory doesn't explain the origin of the universe, but merely the expansion of space time. I really think if most atheists were pressed, they would probably argue that there must exist something uncaused and eternal, and most likely this entity is something of the universe rather than an external entity like god.

[Slossius1983]

Christianjr4 - I agree that experience is evidence (in general terms). I was saying that one was not LOGICALLY entailed by the other. That seemed to be the hawke123's claim.

My emphasis that it was not a logical connection was to refute hawke123 - I wasn't saying that since it isn't logically necessary, it isn't true.

[RonaldMcAtheist]

The argument "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" can not backed up by evidence. It is as simple as that.

Debating over that is like debating over the question, "how many angels can fit on the tip of a needle". The existence of angels is highly questionable, to say the least. As much as the his P1. No doubt: Craig is one smart man. But that doesn't mean he has access to the truth (as most of his followers and , apparently he himself believe).

[hawke123]

Once again, logical necessity.

[Slossius1983]

What's the logical and necessary connection between "begins to exist" and "has a cause"?

[RonaldMcAtheist]

What logic are you referring to?

As said before: Humans have the tendency to believe, that everything has a cause. But that's belief. Not logic.

[Slossius1983]

Exactly. Remember that for one think to be logically entailed by another, it must itself be contained as part of the definition of the other thing. It can't simply be "intuition", or "based on evidence".

[Christianjr4]

Experience tends to support that everything has a cause and that itself is evidence. If it's not then people couldn't make simple claims like "the sun will rise tomorrow" since that is based on experience. Since we all accept experience as evidence in that case, then there is no reason for denying it in the former. You must make a leap in both cases.

[grits011]

That's an interesting characterization of faith. I suppose faith is always an assumption based on experience. One can state that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that assertion will almost certainly prove correct, but therein lies an assumption that the universe will continue to behave as it has in the past. I suppose it's just a matter of the degree of certainty in the assumption.

I've enjoyed your posts. These debates are interesting.

[Christianjr4]

To be clear, I wasn't characterizing faith here. I was using experience as an argument in support of the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (ie. that everything that begins to exist has a cause).

Thanks for your comment!

[SuperAtheistBrothers]

@Christianjr4

The problem here is that Craig is making a deductive argument, and it if is possible that one premise may be false, then the argument is unsound. If one of the premises relies on experience (induction), and it may be false (virtual particles in Quantum mechanics) then the argument doesn't necessarily follow. If you were to resurrect this argument as an inductive argument it might actually have some weight though, but deductively I am pretty confident in saying it is unsound.

[RonaldMcAtheist]

Craig's Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. is his downfall.

Says who?

This philosophical statement is highly debatable.

Humans might thnk, that there has to be a cause. That is the core of their existence. And that's why they invented Gawd.

The kalam cosmological argument fails because it is just like the Buy-Bull: The Buy-Bull is true because it says so. The kalam cosmological argument is valid because it says so. I am not falling for this.

[hawke123]

Wonderful strawman of the argument.

[Nascentthinker]

If he had said 'everything that exists has a cause' then the statement is debatable. Otherwise, as he's said 'everything that *begins* to exist, there isn't much debate". Your thinking is slightly confused as to what Craig is saying.

[Slossius1983]

Well, if "an actual infinite can't exist" then surely everything began to exist and therefore the words "that begins to exist" in P1 can be removed!

Although RonaldMcAtheist actually DID quote Craig accurately.

[Nascentthinker]

Craig speaks of actual infinites in physical reality. Speaking of a supernatural state of affairs, Craig would not make the same claim. Hence the necessity of saying, 'Everything that begins to exist...' (God did not *begin* to exist).

[Slossius1983]

Then Craig should formulate the argument better. P1 should be "Everything in physical reality had a cause". I suppose the reason why he doesn't put it like this is that it looks like cheating in advance!

[Nascentthinker]

It's quite clear this is what Craig means.

[Slossius1983]

It may be clear to you, but only because (I assume) you are familiar with the concept of a supernatural realm where "anything goes"! I myself cannot conceive of such an environment. Anyway, is metaphysics necessarily "physical reality", or could that be exempt (along with the gods)?

[RonaldMcAtheist]

@Nascentthinker. Nope. It doesn't make a difference. Who says "everything that begins to exist must have a cause"? Craig? You? I don't see it. This statement is false. I claim Not everything that begins to exist doesn't necessarily have to have a cause".

Now what?

[Nascentthinker]

Because it *began* to exist (whether its cause it itself or something external to itself, i.e. it's contingent). This is basic logic. If it *did not* begin to exist, then it doesn't necessarily have a cause.

[RonaldMcAtheist]

Nope. You fail. You don't make sense. Beginning of existence of something doesn't have to have a cause.

Just because you and Craig believe so, doesn't make it so.

You and Craig fail.

[grits011]

'Beginning of existence of something doesn't have to have a cause.'

Can you give an example of when something in nature has come into existence without a cause? Do you have any known observations to back this up?

[RonaldMcAtheist]

Me! I did not come into existance with a cause. And neither did you. Or anyone else or anything else for that matter.

This "cause"-thing is starting to irritate me. None of the existing things or beings are important enough to have a cause.

[grits011]

Are you suggesting that we just appeared out of the either? I don't know about you, but I came from a long line of primates dating back millions of years. And I don't think they came from nothing either. Everything has a cause.

'Nothing comes from nothing,

nothing ever could'

The Sound of Music, lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II.

[Birdieupon]

"Me! I did not come into existance with a cause."

So you had no parents?

[11Angst11]

What do you mean you didn't come into existence? I sure hope you don't bring this kind of reasoning to Metaphysics 101.

You need to learn what  "essential predication" is.

Could you please explain what you mean by your last bit on "cause?"

Thanks.

[Esandero]

I know what essential predication means.

I also know that fine tuning is inescapable. And an initial space time singularity is the best we have thus far.

End of story. We can dream up all kinds of models but none have the conditions to support life thus far.

Coming up with scientific sounding hypothesis and showing them sound are two different things.

[someguy2525]

shows us god...whoops lost again

[Esandero]

If one could see God one would be forced.

There's no way around that.

Doesn't prove God exists but proves if he does he has to be hid from our eyes for us to be truly free.

[someguy2525]

ah the old" i don't need eveidence and logic because im retarded" comeback

[Esandero]

Ok,whats your evidence for atheism?

[someguy2525]

if you really have to ask then im not going to bother.........

[deauvillimus]

You are turning it around! People who claim that "when something in nature has come into existence" has to have a cause do have the burdon of proof. Not the other way around. Cheap shot.

Ronald has stated it clearly. And if you claim your existence has a cause you are taking yourself way too important.

[grits011]

I'm not sure which comment you are responding to. How does claiming my existence has a cause make myself important? Everything in the universe has a cause. Cause doesn't make me more or less important than anything else in the universe. I don't get it.

[deauvillimus]

"Everything in the universe has a cause".

Says who?

I don't think so.

I consider that a bold claim that can not be justified. If my existence would have a cause I could derive from that something like "meaning" or "reason". But I don't see evidence for that.

[grits011]

There have never been any scientific observations for causeless events in the laboratory, in nature, or anywhere else. There is no reason to assume that anything happens in the natural world that doesn't directly result from the universe's natural laws regarding the movement and interaction of energy. Everything that is known to exist in the universe follows from all previous temporal events as far back as the best and brightest scientific minds are able to glimpse, with no known exceptions.

[deauvillimus]

You keep repeating the same argument. That doesn't make it convincing.

Try not do babble. Try to convince me, all right?

I am looking for facts as much as you do. So help me with facts. Statements of belief are of no help.

Thank you.

[grits011]

I don't know how else to tell you. Do you know of any evidence to suggest that anything in the universe is causeless?

[deauvillimus]

I said that before: Me. I do not have a cause. Just the fact that my parents "made" me is not a cause. I don't except that. If my father would have ejaculated a split-second earlier or later I would not have come into existence. I have just the unspeakable luck of being. Being a part of the universe. But I do not have a cause.

I am under the impression, we are not too far apart.

What bugs me is, that people derive from that cause-debate a necessity for a creator.

[grits011]

I think we just differ on the definition of the word. I wasn't really attaching any kind of personal meaning to the word. They use the cause idea for the cosmological argument, which doesn't make sense anyway. I agree with you on this: You do not have any kind of special purpose in the universe other than occupying your own particular energy. (Am I agreeing with you?)

[deauvillimus]

I guess we are on the same track.

I appreciate the discussion with you.

[ronhudsonjr]

it does have a cause, my parents did it.

same with yours. everything does has a cause. hes not saying everything has a spiritually inspired reason for being here, hes saying CAUSE

[deauvillimus]

Yep, and that's whishywashy. Trivial. To say the least.

But still not clear, whether it is true or not. A mere, trivial statement.

[Birdieupon]

"Beginning of existence of something doesn't have to have a cause."

Lol, I should find it depressing to hear atheists say that something can come from nothing, but actually it just makes me laugh.

Aren't there any better counter-arguments out there?

[Esandero]

The irony of your statement.

[Slossius1983]

I agree that Premise 1 is the faultiest of the two! Name one thing that "begins to exist" in the same way that the universe "begins to exist"!

[hawke123]

It's a logical necessity. If there is no first cause of the universe then there's no way for the rest of the chain of events to follow.

[Slossius1983]

I don't see how it's a LOGICAL necessity. A first cause could be IN the universe - not necessarily OF the universe. That's the very question at issue.

[hawke123]

Why do you think a first cause would be in the universe if the universe is the very thing that began to exist? What you are suggesting is incoherent.

[Slossius1983]

I'm saying that if there was a "first cause", then it could be in the universe, rather than outside the universe (and don't forget, all the causes we observe are temporal and in the universe!).

[Slossius1983]

Let's not forget, we're talking about terminating an endless chain of causes so if the universe itself is uncaused, then the "first" cause must be in (or part of) the universe. There's nothing incoherent with that.

[hawke123]

I agree that the act of creation would itself by the cause would be a temporal event. What I contest are incoherent notions of the universe creating itself ex nihilo with no external sufficient conditions to bring it into being. The cause cannot be something bound by space-time.

[Slossius1983]

That's the very question! I hold that the universe didn't have a cause, or at least there is no reason to think it did. I don't believe it "created itself ex nihilo". "Creating itself out of nothing" necessarily requires a state of nothing and, given that Time itself is part of the universe, that state "never" existed.

[hawke123]

It would seem I'm not explaining things properly.

Without the universe God exists and there is no time. However, his gesture to create the universe with a beginning is a temporal act that begins time. So, the cause exists apart from time but when the cause initiates an effect this moment is the first instance in and of time.

What is this "necessary" nothing you refer to? The rest of your your last line is merely a semantics game.

[Slossius1983]

I'm saying that the universe did not "pop into being out of nothing", as Craig frequently claims. For if it did, then necessarily there would have to be a state of nothingness before Time began, which would be literally nonsense.

[hawke123]

I do wish you would specify what you mean when you say "before" the BB. Do you mean in a literal sense or just a manner of speaking?

If it is just a manner of speaking then I do not see how it would be nonsense.

[Slossius1983]

I don't say "before the BB" (since I understand the absurdity and self-contradiction of such a relation). I'm saying that if (as Craig says) the universe "popped into being out of nothing", then there must have been a state of nothingness. Otherwise it didn't "pop into being out of nothing".

[theonlyway2truth]

i love the suspenders!

[ThGreatSilence]

For the first minute or so I thought Dr. Craig was going to turn into a "standup philosopher". :)

[raoskaos]

"How did the universe begin?"

- Well, that's simple, we don't know!!!!!

[hawke123]

It's called the Big Bang Theory. Are you not aware of it?

[raoskaos]

I was talking about before the big bang. We don't know what was before, and this baboon knows it.

[hawke123]

There is no before the BB. Time began at the BB. Try listening to his arguments rather than making ridiculing remarks.

[raoskaos]

We don't know what was "before" the big bang, and every scientist will tell you that.

This arrogant prick(a compliment) is just speculating.

[regelemihai]

No moron, every scientist will tell you it's pointless to talk about what was before the Big Bang because the notion of time didn't exist before it.

All physical presence and energy and time came into being at the BB.

So your gratuitous insults ( reminiscent of a mentally deranged 6 year old) don't add to your credibilty one iota.

[hawke123]

Show me the error in his arguments. How is it just speculation?

[raoskaos]

I agree that the universe had a cause, but that is as far as it goes. To talk about something that was "before" the big bang is speculating and by Hawking pointless.

And that is what Craig is doing.

[hawke123]

WLC is not talking about a temporal state "prior" to the universe. He is arguing that there must be something outside of the universe itself that possesses the sufficient conditions to have brought the universe into being.

[raoskaos]

And he is speculating...

But let me ask you this: how can something timeless do anything???

He is making an assumption that an action can be made without time.

[hawke123]

You still have not shown how it is speculation. When will you support this claim?

You clearly misunderstand the argument. Have you actually followed his work or not? The first moment of time would be when the act of creation took place.

[raoskaos]

How can there be an action without time???

[hawke123]

No one said or or implied anything about action without time accept yourself. Please read my previous response to you.

[raoskaos]

God,who is timeless, created the universe without time. Craig is implying...

[hawke123]

His act of creation would be the first moment in time since he would be bringing about the universe at t=0. What exactly is your complaint?

[raoskaos]

You said "act of creation". And you would agree that a creation is an action. And every action(as we know it) requires time.

You are making an assumption that an action can be made without time.

[hawke123]

No I have not made that assumption. Please read my previous post again.

[raoskaos]

YES, I have read it. And you said that god created the universe(t=0) WITHOUT time.

He is using time or he isn't using it. And because he is timeless my guess is on isn't using. Agree???

[hawke123]

No, that is not what I said. Do stop your strawmen fallacies please. I said that God's gesture of bringing the universe into being is itself the first moment of time. Again, what exactly is your complaint.

[raoskaos]

Simple question for you to answer: Did god(if he did) use time or not???

Don't dodge...

[hawke123]

I have not dodged anything. Either you are not understanding my response or you simply do not like it. I have already explained to you that God's gesture of creation is itself the first moment in time. If you still do not understand then I'm clueless how to help you.

[raoskaos]

If your not dodging it, ANSWER the question.

[hawke123]

I've answered you already, what sort of answer do you want?

[raoskaos]

Yes or no answer...

[raoskaos]

I'm waiting for your answer...

[hawke123]

I've answered you time and time again but all you do is keep demanding an answer that has already been given to you. It would seem you merely do not like the answer. If you have some kind of refutation of the kalam cosmological argument the let's hear it.

[raoskaos]

So the answer is no.

Then how can god "do something" without time???(answer it!!!)

[hawke123]

LOL seriously dude chill out. I should be the upset one here. I've explained to you numerous times already that God's act to create the universe is ITSELF the first moment of time. The first moment of change. He is changing a timeless state "prior" to the universe to a temporal one. This act itself is temporal.

[raoskaos]

I'm chilled, : )

Ok, the act was temporal.

But then how can you say that time was created when it was used at the same time?

[hawke123]

In order for time to exist events must be taking place. We know from the Big Bang that matter, energy, space, and time began to exist so events could take place. So when the universe began obviously time did as well because it is a property of the universe. The kalam cosmological argument prescribes a cause for the beginning of the universe.

[BassP86]

Haha, that assumes that time existed before time began, which is like asking the question, "what does nothing look like."

[raoskaos]

Yes, and he assumed that.

[BassP86]

Actually, you're assuming that in your question. If time did not exist at a certain point, then logically time was not used in its own creation. Dr. Craig never claimed that time was used in order to create time. That's a strawman on your part.

If God CREATED time, then how do you conclude that therefore He must have USED time in order to do it. Time cannot exist BEFORE it begins. ;)

[RonaldMcAtheist]

The kalam cosmological argument is a hoax.

Simple as that.

[hawke123]

An assertion but no argument to support it.

[Slossius1983]

Time began at the Big Bang, and forms part of the universe itself, I fully agree.

However it follows that there was no time when the universe did not exist. Craig says that the universe "popped into being out of nothing". There was never nothing if the universe existed at every point in time!

[hawke123]

Semantics games are quite a blast, eh? There was never nothing in a TEMPORAL sense.

[Slossius1983]

So in what sense "was" there nothing?

[hawke123]

No matter, energy, space, or time.

[xchampx]

No atheist can debate William Lane Craig logically.

[ObsidianTeen]

Austin Dacey. John Shook. And some more.

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

I agree with Dacey, but Shook got dominated

[hawke123]

This.

[grits011]

There is no doubt, he is impressive. But I don't think he defeats atheists through logic. I believe he defeats them through charisma. I mean, he just looks better in a debate, doesn't he? It's a lot like Barack Obama debating Hilary Clinton. Hilary obviously has more knowledge of government than Barack, but Barack just COMES OFF better. He defeated her with his charisma. Don't get me wrong, Craig is a smart guy, and he knows a lot about science. But it's his charm, not logic, that wins the day.

[hawke123]

I would say it's both. His arguments are just plain better.

[xchampx]

No, I meant what I said. WLC's explainations make sense. The logic in something being created out of nothing before time itself makes no sense. WLC or the theistic view is just common sense, although the Lord does harden peoples heard because they hate God.

[grits011]

I don't know about your theory about hardened hearts or the idea of a magical deity occupying the realm of common sense, but I will say this. WLC represents a great progress in ID philosophy, in my opinion. He seems to have a healthy respect for science, and his faith is strong enough not to be threatened by scientific knowledge. I wish more ID proponents would listen to Craig instead of the early earth clowns that dominate the debate today. I wish him well.

[grits011]

Correction:YOUNG earth clowns.

[Slossius1983]

Craig is a better debater than most, but debating is a more of a game than a thorough search for truth!

That said, I like Arif Ahmed's performance against him (why do we speak of debates like they are boxing matches?!). Craig relies on the "debate format" and time constraints to "defeat" his opponents.

[philochristos]

Brains AND personality. How can you not love him?

[ThePeaceMaker7]

LOL, has Dr. Craig become a suspenders-wearing Christian rockstar?

[regelemihai]

Not that I don't already know how this lecture is gonna take its course, based on many of his debates I've seen and on his written work which I have also read, but it's nice nontheless to hear him speak.

Too bad you don't have to entire presentation.

But thanks for sharing this moment :-)

[Christianjr4]

I do have the entire presentation but I wasn't sure if I could upload the entire thing as I don't have their permission nor do I know about their copyright policy. I'll see if I can get permission to post the whole thing but for now I'll wait. I don't want to risk getting my account suspended.

[regelemihai]

Smart move. Especially nowadays when ppl are being dropped from YouTube like hot potatoes.

I'll survive :-P

Thanks again.

[Christianjr4]

LOL, yeah....exactly what I thought when I first saw this.