We've never seen ANYTHING "come into being" from a state of nothingness. We've never observed nothingness. Things constantly morph and change, but we haven't observed anything coming from nothing. Therefore we can't respectably and shouldn't confidently speculate about causation. Craig is like Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings. What a stumbling block to reason this man is. He should be ashamed. He's smart enough to know what he's doing to humanity. Singing Jesus for $. Shameful butthorn.
1: If a premise is incorrect in any sophmoric syllogism like Craig's Argument From The Beginning of the Universe syllogism, the argument necessarily fails.
2: Premise 1 in Craig's "Argument From The Beginning of the Universe"is embarrassingly poorly reasoned and entirely incorrect and worthless.
3: Therefore Craig's Argument From The Beginning of the Universe is logically invalid and the Argument fails.
I'm really surprised nobody calls William Lane Craig on his "disembodied mind" bullshit. His sole argument for that is "I don't know of anything else except numbers and minds", except of course that what mind we know of, we know to certainly require a brain. To suggest we're created by a somehow "disembodied mind", is equally nonsensical to claiming that we were created by numbers.
One thing people don't seem to understand is that once you start talking about "causes" of the universe, you can't rely on normal language/common sense. We don't even know what "exist" MEANS at that point. We can basically only use physics to try and describe it (MTheory or something). But we can never really fully comprehend it. To say you can reason out logically what the cause of the universe is is just ridiculous.
If god is timeless how could ever begin the universe, there would never be a start because god would be acting in a state of non-time. In which case god would have to be under some other type of physics to exist or even do anything. Also this timeless state argues against craigs christian god as it took him six days and had a beginning itself.
William Lane Craig in every debate, "the following are all infallible proof of a god: cosmological argument, teleological argument, personal experience of god." What a douche.
Well... why would god create whole universe just for us??!!!!! planet earth is close to zero on universe scale.. I feel philosophers should be taught science first..
Bullcrap! Why the fuck does he still use that tired old argument when he KNOWS it has been refuted.
The universe did not come into being, at 1 h-time expansion of the universe started from a dense state and we don't know what state the universe was in before that. We don't even know yet if time did or did not exist before this state.
NOTHING indicates that the universe itself came into being.
He's a dishonest, deceiving and manipulative, pathetic little man.
Craig seems to think that just because he is able to create grammatically correct sentences, he must necessarily be correct, but all he is spewing out is meaningless blather.
@Rarae192 The problem is that he never answers the questions. He usually starts by stating that everybody agrees with him and then finishes by declaring that the atheists are wrong and/or dishonest because they don't agree with him, or something to that effect.
@BartBVanBockstaele I've noticed he often likes to declare how "astonished" he is by his opponent's argument, as if they've said something incredibly stupid, when his arguments are almost entirely semantical, or abuse areas of science of which we know little about, e.g. whatever happened before the Big Bang. He goes completely gay over himself whenever he speaks, but it's all God of dé gaps iced over with his personal authentication via the Holy Ghost.
@Rarae192 I agree. This "astonishing" tactic seems to be quite common in members of the American Taliban. Somehow, they seem to think that when they use the wrong words to describe a situation, nobody will notice. And of course, that is in itself an application of a Biblical principle.
LOL I am actually going to do a video on the FIRST 2 MINUTES of this debate, and believe it or not, it is going to be ten minutes long. Craig is the best of the best at apologetics, and a recovering alcoholic and drug addict highschool dropout can make a 10 minute video pointing out every single fallacy the best apologist in the world makes in under two minutes of speaking. PATHETIC! And yes, I know Christians are going to attack me personally instead of what I have to say. .:-§-:.
"Craig is the best of the best at apologetics, and a ... highschool dropout can make a 10 minute video pointing out every single fallacy the best apologist in the world make... "
Don't waste your time making a video. There are dozens of videos on youtube already ripping Craig's fallcious arguments to pieces - but his fans will NOT watch them. I have just read a comment on another Craig video where one of his fans says: 'No one can refute Craig, no one ever has!"
@SAHBfan XD Good point.... but it's still fun to make videos... you might as well say not to make videos on any subject if the opposing side is unlikely to watch them.....
Of course, if it is fun then do it, by all means go ahead... Just commenting that it is just irritating that many of Craig's fans (or at least his theist fans) tend to just cheer-lead for him - as long as he 'wins' the debate that is the affirmation they seek. They really don't want to dig too deep into him arguments.
Winning a debate and winning the argument are of course two completely different things - but alas that distinction seems wasted on many of his supporters.
He needs to learn about m-theory and multi-universes explains alot of the problems he has pointed out. Why is it when Science at this stage cant explain what is happening people bring out the god argument. I
For something to "exist" based on the definition of the word it has to be physical and material. Everything that exists is natural and hence physical. Supernatural by its very definition cannot exist for it is non-physical and there is no such thing as non-physical. People who consistently say that something non-physical exists don't understand the criteria for something to exist.
This puts "god" in the same category as fairies, ghosts, goblins, santa clause, easter bunny, leprechaun, etc
"For something to "exist" based on the definition of the word it has to be physical and material" ? For example "There exists a real number that is the square root of 2". "There exists a solution to the four color problem". Which puts "god" in the same category as fairies, real numbers, memories, spacetime singularities, mathematical proofs, ghosts, perceptions, memories, chaotic attractors and friendships. Which conclusively shows that there is no God.
@Madz1987: From the dictionary: exist - "to have real being whether material or spiritual [immaterial, non-physical]". And you accuse the theist of circular reasoning?
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
These are the two I am concerned with.
There is no tangible definition of god. Everyone has their own opinion about what a supreme creator is. Infact most people believe in a personal god. Therefore it's subjective, just like unicorns and fairies.
@mypetsounds Whichever way you cut it, whether it's a biblical god, personal god, deistic god or indifferent god there is still no strict definition. It's the same thing for the supernatural realm, not defined. Where is it? What is it made of? Where does it come from? How was it formed? Endless questions that cannot be answered. If it isn't material it isn't real and don't say something like words are immaterial because thats just stupid. Give me an example of something immaterial that is real.
@mypetsounds Do you actually believe that physical evidence can exist for something non-physical? Science deals with the material, natural and physical. What method do you use to examine something that cannot be examined because it is immaterial? Please I would love to know.
If a unicorn existed it would cease being a mythical creature and be a real animal. An animal that we can dissect and examine. Don't mind if I cut your god open do ya? :)
Also as an astrophysics student I have noticed that when people get used to measure time in meters (common practice in relativity theory, we use the speed of light to convert between meters and seconds) they have a much easier time seeing why the so called "cosmological argument" is bogus. So I call for removing seconds from the SI units ^^
"Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects."
It also says: "A simple definition states that "time is what clocks measure"."
Whatever you think of it, it's definitely not supernatural.
@Madz1987 yea clocks MEASURE time, but they are obviously not time..or time creators or something like that. Anyway, not saying time is supernatural..but time is obviously not physical or material, in other words non-physical but yet it exists. so I don't see how you can still say "there is nothing as non-physical" and.."People who consistently say that something non-physical exists don't understand the criteria for something to exist."
@BinMac Yes, but time according to the current understanding of physics came into existence with the Big Bang. Everything that emerged from that is physical, material, natural. You can choose any one of those words it makes no difference. I guess if I said natural it would have made more sense since i'm arguing against the existence of the opposite; the supernatural.
Religious people are saying that there is a supernatural realm that "exists", I say existence is dependent on being natural.
@Madz1987 Oh okay then very well..you meant to argue for "natural." But I do think your wrong when saying "you can choose any one of those words it makes no difference." since it obviously does make a difference whether you use the word physical, material or natural as was just demonstrated with time..time being natural but not physical or material.
@Madz1987But either way,I don't agree that existence is dependent on being natural since as you said nature came into existence with the Big Bang and if it came into existence,that means there was a time or state when there was no "nature" which leaves nature just coming from nothing,but that never happens and nature couldn't of created itself since nature doesn't work that way,whenever nature creates "something" it uses already existing material to change and shape "something" to something else
@BinMac Well, now you are talking about stuff that scientists are still trying to figure out. I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist. So I can only recommend the latest books by Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss.
Search for the video: "A Universe From Nothing"
Also if you want to better understand my position look at the Wikipedia pages for Physicalism and Naturalism.
@Madz198 well I think something like what I mentioned(which we've observed from our universe..for example matter is not created or destroyed, yet it apparently was created since it began to exist) makes the super-natural seem not so far fetched.
Anyway I enjoyed this conversation very much, thank you for being patient with me.
@AdversusHaereses Yes. The thoughts and intentions originate in the neurons of my brain and my fingers hit the keys and I click "Post". The things that happen that allow my and your words to be on this page are all physical things that involve coding, cables, processors and servers at the large scale and atoms and subatomic particles at the small scale. You can play a semantic game and call it virtual but even virtual things are physical and depend on all the previous things that I noted.
@Madz1987 Actually I asked a simple question and you still have failed to answer it. Are the letters on the screen physical? If so they are actually occupying some space at a given time. The correct answer is of course not, letters, numbers and shapes are not physical things because they do not occupy space. What you usually find is that particular things made up of shapes and numbers can be physical because they are composed with other things. But letters in themselves are not physical.
@AdversusHaereses You mean I didn't give the answer you prefer? If you read my comment I answered your question with the very first word in my reply. If you don't like my answer than that is your problem not mine. You obviously have a different defintion of the word physical than I do.
My definition from the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
[having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature]
@Madz1987 You are correct about the letter, I must admit. Now the question is, are universals material? You would have to prove to me that somewhere in the physical universe such thing as "justice", "liberty", "freedom", "squareness", "roundness" and so on exist physically. This is the problem and shows how materialism is unattainable. The ideas grasped by the intellect do not physically exist. We can in fact conceive of things which don't materially exist yet they do exist in reality.
@AdversusHaereses Those things you listed are concepts, words, ideas. They exist in our brains, neurons and chemicals just like the words i'm typing exist in the form of computer code. People make a distinction between an object and a concept/word and say that the concept/word are not physical and I will happily agree with them based on the defintion of physical that they are using. I can say "pencil" and you can indeed go and find a pencil, if I say "glonkular poopshell" well that's not real.
@AdversusHaereses [We can in fact conceive of things which don't materially exist yet they do exist in reality.]
If by reality you mean in our thoughts then I agree with you. So far the objections to my comment up there have been: Time, Words and Concepts. Yet all of those things while you can't touch them are still a part of physical, material, natural reality. They still fit into the Merriam Webster dictionary definition and they aren't supernatural that's for sure.
@AdversusHaereses Oh and by the way squareness and roundness do exist as properties of certain objects, in so far as an a object is square or round or rather a sphere or a cube. It's just like something being wet/dry or hard/soft.
0:17 for those of you who already have your mind made up
Didn't you just commit that fallacy in the last video? I smell a bit of hypocrisy because he was already pretty certain Santa Claus doesn't exist without properly defining the properties of metaphysical and physical properties.
William Lane Craig's attempt to explain the nature of the universe is mind-numbing in its obfuscation and reckless assumption-making. "Yeah, let's change the constants of the universe. Look, now everything falls apart!" Yeah, well no shit when you change the universe then it stops looking like the universe anymore. Only someone with many degrees in the studies of the all-powerful sky-man can make that argument sound relevant at all.
"Your job is to weigh the evidence, to see which way the scales tip. That requires a thoughtful and reflective spirit."
-
Uh, it also requires some actual "evidence." Not conjecture, not reflection or assumptions, but real actual evidence. And as of today.... absolutely nothing.
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections...(con't)...
(con't) ...with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." - R Dawkins
What is so hard to understand? Us humans can design all sorts of things hence it would make sense that something even more intelligent designed us and the universe.
"Us humans can design all sorts of things hence it would make sense that something even more intelligent designed us."
This is a "same old problem" with the creationist position. Because we are cognizant and intelligent enough to design and build, does not give credence whatsoever to your "hence there must be a god." The "watchmaker/stonemaker" - (W. Paley, 1802) analogy was refuted long ago and ends up in the cul de sac of "then what created god?" It goes nowhere.
An argument for a pov, is not a refutation. He couldn't POSSIBLY prove that god wasn't created or exists at all. Are you not getting it? He can make an argument all he wants, but he can't bring an ounce of evidence to his "claims." 2000 years and the idiocy still persists. There is ZERO evidence to support creationism of any kind.
@nolobede Christianity is 100% true and Dr. Craig gives the best argument for it. No atheist has provided any good argument against it. We keep proving their stupid theories wrong though. Anyhow this debate will go on until Jesus comes again.
I see you are a complete waste of energy to even communicate with. Your mind is made up, have fun with it, but don't be dissapointed if jesus doesn't show up... you know, just like the last 2 centuries.
And where can I find this truth? If christianity is 100% true, then show me where this can be proven. I'll bite, I always keep an open mind, so show me. All I ask is one irrefutable shred of evidence.
@7tylerjb hey people back in the days said everything revolved around earth and that earth is in the center of the univers how much does since have to prove that people back in the day had no idea what they were talking about
@nolobede Maybe you are not paying attention. Do you realize this guy has published 30 books which are all of 1st class caliber? He keeps debating because no atheist provides a rational refuttal against his arguments, and nobody ever will.
I assure you, I have been paying attention to Craig since long before he began debating the theism issue, and yes I am aware of his publications. Dr. Seuss has written dozens of books too.
Authoring a book , or 50 does not infer credibility. So I hate to burst your crush bubble on the guy, but no theism debate has ended up anywhere but in the very same cloud of empty claims as has been the case since the dawn of mankind. Zero evidence for god, zilch, nada, never has never will.
And no doubt he is a skilled debator, that is his training. I gave him credit ti that in my statement. However, when breaking down his dialogue in any objective manner what is clearly apparent, is that he is very articulate and skilled at debating, however the actual content comes up empty of anything that can be deemed evidence. None of his points are not easily dismissed as anything more than skillful empty dialogue.
@nolobede To me there is evidence for God and Dr. Craig among other Christian philosophers, historians, mathematicians, scientists, and so on have provided us with alot. It may not seem like logical evidence to you stubborn atheists, but it is evidence nonetheless.
The question why? is the same as the question how? How come? Dah!!! There have been no answers given by believers in the There is No God theories that are satisfying and without a million other questions arising. How is that so when you have all the answers?
Graig still hasn't addressed the fact that his arguments have been refuted many times, and he still says the same shit like a used car salesman. The odds this universe is the way it is, is one and one. Graig doesn't have another universe for comparison to come up with any ratio, and nobody else does either.
Has this guy (Craig) ever read David Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" and Hume's discussion on Causation? His argument was one big fallacy. It does not follow that because something begins to exist that it was caused to exist. Causation is something we only determine through experience and it is not a priori true.
you guys are fine in bringing your opinions and discretions to the matter. But like Craig said 'which way to the scales tip'. If that's the question, it obviously goes to some sort of creator.
How is Craig such a respected intellectual? "Something comes from nothing, nothing comes from something, something made something, that something is clearly an omnipresent, nonmaterial guy with a beard that wants you not to work on the Sabbath and chuck rocks at apostates." He might as well repeat "non sequitur" for his entire time on the podium.
Just imagine waltzing into a university, knowing NOTHING about cosmology or high energy physics, getting up on stage and simply declaring that the universe must have a timeless external cause. Then ignoring the answers to your points given by the professor of physics.....balls the size of planets
You should also check out the debate between a new atheist (Szabo) and a Lutheran theologian (Gustavsson) at the Faculty of Arts Ljubljana, Slovenia - link:
why is there anything rather than nothing?.... well because there is. and why does it have to be the christian god that did this... why not a supernatural cockroach spraying the universe out of its anus with dense farts?.
Craig speaks like a minister from his pulpit. His overt reliance on abstract indefinite adjectives/adverbs like: "Extraordinary", "magnificent", "incomprehensible" make his speech and thus his argument sound, as it is, grasping and desperate. His assumption that "all things that exist have a cause" has absolutely no solid ground on which to stand...funny stuff
Odd idea mr. Craig has that an "intelligent mind" is independent of space and time... "intelligent" and "mind" are two linguistic terms made up to represent two abstract concepts thought up by humans... The only way they could be "beyond" or "larger" than the universe is if humans are. After all, they don't exist outside of human brains. So, humans created the universe..?
@SmalltimR I ussually skip Craig's arguements because they are the exact same ones he uses in every single debate. First Cause, fine tuning, jesus, personal experience and whatever the other one is.
So I guess you just accept that things pop into existence out of nothing? Can you show me some examples of where things pop into existence out of nothing? Hint: quantum mechanics won't help you here.
"So I guess you just accept that things pop into existence out of nothing?"
No. I don't. You, as a Christian, do though. It's right there in Genesis, creation ex nihilo. Creation from nothing.
William Lane Craig argues that there is actually a scientific basis for creation ex nihilo. He's wrong of course, but the mere fact that you have asked such a stupid question as a reply to a WLC debate video is just funny.
You guys are the ones arguing 'things just popped into existence', not us.
Nobody has ever proven that something can't come from nothing. Maybe there is no such thing as nothing. We shouldn't jump to conclusions and simply say God did it when we don't have scientific answers.
So in face of the evidence for red-light shift from distant galaxies, cosmic background radiation, along with other things (you'll find them if you dig around) you still favor the existence of an eternal universe? All these things point to the universe having a finite beginning. As for your other comment, things popping into existence uncaused from nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics. So does God as a cause mind you, but it's a supernatural cause from a mind of immense power.
hey you can't argue with him/her. it just doesn't work. take a look at his/her second to last comment; it's completely illogical. "no such thing as nothing" , something from nothing?! GOD is powerless against such stupidity
How can God be changeless? If he creates the universe isn't that a change? At point A he's just God without the universe, then at point B he's creating it. Don't you need TIME for that, and doesn't that mean change?
Just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible. Just because we can't explain how something works doesn't mean the default answer is "God did it". Craig also attempts to convince us that morality can only come from God, but the God of the bible is incredibly immoral. Most people are more moral than God. And why should we believe that God is eternal? Craig begs the question by saying it's necessary for God to be this way in order to prove God exists. WTF
if you kill your family, drive into a police station, steal weapons from their armory and shoot up office buildings til you are kill you are still less immoral than a god kills whole nations just because they don't worship him. Heck, the mere condemning of one man to one year in hell is less moral than the actions I mentioned.
This bloke must follow some cult from the Middle East, where gods appear before the universe.
If he had had a good European education, or had been to an Asian school, he would know that, in many cultures, gods appear after humans; they have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
I don't know why Dr Craig still uses the Kalaam cosmological argument for the existence of a god. First of all, anyone who uses this argument is not that familiar with the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Since the universe is made of energy, it was neither created nor destoryed but always existed. Thus, the argument that a god created is PROVEN false via the application of this most fundamental scientific law.
Actually, as I understand it, the gravitational field generates negative potential energy, so the issue is not quite so straightforward. There are arguments, by Hawking among others, that the total energy of the Universe is actually zero, or at least very close to zero, but there is no scientific concensus at the moment, to my knowledge. However, I do agree that the Kalaam argument doesn't explain anything.
A possible better explanation, in my opinion: If gravitation a.k.a. spacetime is quantum mechanical, it may well be that "nothing" is not stable (in quantum field theory, for example, the physical vacuum is not the state without particles, but a highly complicated mixture of all kinds of particles), and therefore we must have a Universe of some kind. But, without a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, this is of course only a wild heuristic speculation.
Yes, the basic discussion of vacuum fluctuations in quantum field theories should be found in any basic text book on the subject, but if you are not a physicist, then it may be more advisable to try to get some rudimentary understanding via Wikipedia - check for example the article 'Vacuum state'. The basic ingredients are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the possibility of particle creation in QFT's. The uncertainty of energy-momentum allows for constant creation and annihilation of...
Yes, a discussion on vacuum states in quantum field theories should be found in any basic text book on the subject, but if you are not a physicist, then it might be more advisable at first to try to get some rudimentary understanding via Wikipedia - check out, for example, the article 'Vacuum state'. The basic ingredients are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the possibility of creation and annihilation of particles in QFT.
Man, I just don't get how someone claiming to be so reasoned and all he did can go on to make such absurd arguments. It's all just old beat to death rationalizing to support a ridiculous idea. The fine tuned universe? Douglas Adams has just about the best slam down for that ill thought rubbish.
The only argument they resort to. Fine tuning. What if the constants were different? Life may still have emerged some other way. How can the theists claim that life would only emerge in this universe with its current structure.
No offense, but if you are to claim that Craig is somewhat misinformed, cite an expert. He has dealt with all the criticism that has been lodged against him. You people seem think that he doesn't anticipate these reponses? Similarly, the puddle example is an old one, not something that I would call "slam down." Philosophers haven't be able to slam it down, much less a cute little comedian. This becomes apparent in the fact that it's not even a defeater--it's a strawman argument.....
....The claim isn't that nature fits us so we can live. The argument is that the initial conditions allow life to exist in general, not just for homo sapiens. The fact that there is a hole that can accomodate the water cries out for an explanation in itself. Waht's more, a puddle is not fine-tuned at all. All forms of puddles can exist without them being fine-tuned. As for the initial conditions, if even one were just slightly different, not proverbial "puddle" would ever form.
...the example is a bad one. Water has no choice but to take the form of its container. It's not at all comprable to the fine-tuning where the conditions didn't have to be this way.
So not only does the universe have a cause, it has a "personal" cause. Why personal? Craig skips right past this. It's one false dichotomy, logical fallacyand tautology after another. He's also out of his league in science and cosmology. No, the Big Bang Theory doesn't offer an "absolute" origin of the Universe. (or something from nothing) It offers an explanation of the Universe in its current form.
Craig is speaking here as a layman. Moreover he implicitly suggests that most cosmologists agree with him about his cosmological argument. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cosmologists are some of the most godless buch of scientists on earth. Why aren't they convinced by his arguments? Could it be that he distorts or omits some scientific knowledge? Sorry Craig, just as creationists, you can convince ignorant laymen but not the actual experts.
This argument from existence just seems to be an induction incorrectly applied to realms of reality that have never been observed. You can speculate on the nature of the universe based on anecdotes about how buildings come to be.
For a 14 year old, the very fact that you're watching this video implies you know more than most your age. :-)
Your belief is not uncommon, but I'm affraid there's more evidence that something does exist after death then nothing... beyond that, from my personal experience (which admitedly is anecdotal), my faith came NOT from a fear, or desperate alternative to a possibility that there's 'nothing' after death - it came from my personal experience with Jesus Christ, and the Holy Bible.
Well there's measurable evidence that he last of the energy that passed through the body will go back to the universe as heat, and the chemical constituents of the body will be recycled into the earth and the bodies of other living things... but there's no scientific evidence for an after life and / or union with a personal God.
You're right, and dude, only a small % of christians believe becuase they're "scared of death". i don't know why so many atheists seem to think that only scared people believe in God. People believe in him becuase of personal experience and cause of the bible.
There is just a tiny problem with those classical arguments (the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, etc.), and that is: It leaves out the fine-tuner, the creator.
The rise of an infinetely powerful being by chance seems much less convincing than the spontaneous rise of a limited universe. But, I am waiting for Mr. Stengers response on this.
Unfortunately, the same problem arises from the belief that the universe popped into being from nothing. So in effect, both arguments end and meet at the same point.
One might be compelled to think so, but think again: Science (unlike religion) does not say that the universe popped into being from "nothing". Nothing like that. The most fundamental and simple laws actually forbid that something comes from nothing.
Check popular science books like Stephen Hawkins or similar for more info on that.
Else, I can only say that it is an "unknown". Simply saying "God dun it", does not help the problem or answer any question. Which is the problem we atheists have when people say: "Look, god made the big bang"
If so, I could ask the same question: What made god?
Well, then I shall quote here the great carl sagan:
"If we conclude, that god always existed, why not save a step, and conclude, that the universe always existed?"
If god can be eternal, the universe can as well, you can't have it both ways. (Note: Science makes no comment, at least until now, as to what happend before the big bang. There might just as well have been another universe then. It's simply an unknown.)
"What made god?" - 1) The question is a strawman. The kalaam cosmological argument, which Dr. Craig cites, says that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. If God is eternal, then logically the question does not apply. 2) If God had a cause, then logically He is not God at all. 3) If God requires a cause, then logically you have the problem of infinite regress. Logically you can NEVER have an infinite regress of events before the present, because then the present would never be reached. (cont.)
3, cont.) Example: Let's say I have an infinite amount of dominoes and I label one of those dominoes 'X'. Now if an infinite (endless) amount of dominoes begins to fall before X, then logically X will never fall over because the amount of dominoes before X is endless. If the X did fall over, then logically the amount of dominoes before X is finite.
Therefore your question of 'what made God' was asked so that you have an excuse to explain away God on YOUR terms, not in terms of logicality.
But you see there is the problem. "If god is eternal, the question does not apply."
We have no proof or evidence that the universe ever "not" existed. If god can be eternal, so can the universe. You can't have it both ways.
Or, to quote the great carl sagan: "we must of course ask the next question: where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unaswerable question, why not save a step, and conclude, that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question." (cont)
"If god can be eternal, so can the universe." - Well I think there is a problem with your reasoning behind this analysis. A) Logically speaking, to say that the universe had a cause avoids the fallacy of infinite regress because if the universe always existed, the present will never be reached, see #3 from my previous comment. Therefore if the universe always existed, then there DOES exist the problem of infinite regress. (cont.)
It's interesting that you use one rationalisation which also kills your argument.
"To say the universe always existed, the present will never be reached." If god is endless, then he also never reaches the present, and also never could have reached the point where he created the universe. It's the same problem. The word "god" is just substituted for "universe".
Oh yeah, to that last statement: "God is self-existant by definition." See cont.
We've never seen ANYTHING "come into being" from a state of nothingness. We've never observed nothingness. Things constantly morph and change, but we haven't observed anything coming from nothing. Therefore we can't respectably and shouldn't confidently speculate about causation. Craig is like Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings. What a stumbling block to reason this man is. He should be ashamed. He's smart enough to know what he's doing to humanity. Singing Jesus for $. Shameful butthorn.
mouthyweasel 2 weeks ago
1: If a premise is incorrect in any sophmoric syllogism like Craig's Argument From The Beginning of the Universe syllogism, the argument necessarily fails.
2: Premise 1 in Craig's "Argument From The Beginning of the Universe"is embarrassingly poorly reasoned and entirely incorrect and worthless.
3: Therefore Craig's Argument From The Beginning of the Universe is logically invalid and the Argument fails.
mouthyweasel 2 weeks ago
I'm really surprised nobody calls William Lane Craig on his "disembodied mind" bullshit. His sole argument for that is "I don't know of anything else except numbers and minds", except of course that what mind we know of, we know to certainly require a brain. To suggest we're created by a somehow "disembodied mind", is equally nonsensical to claiming that we were created by numbers.
devdissent 3 weeks ago
One thing people don't seem to understand is that once you start talking about "causes" of the universe, you can't rely on normal language/common sense. We don't even know what "exist" MEANS at that point. We can basically only use physics to try and describe it (MTheory or something). But we can never really fully comprehend it. To say you can reason out logically what the cause of the universe is is just ridiculous.
XZohar123 2 months ago
retarded fuck...dont bother watching this section
superlativewoman 2 months ago
i just got to 2:50, how did craig arrive at the conclusion that the universes creative force had a mind?
from what i heard, he said it was either a mind or an abstract thing, what about physical things outside the universe without minds?
im so confused, help?
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
If god is timeless how could ever begin the universe, there would never be a start because god would be acting in a state of non-time. In which case god would have to be under some other type of physics to exist or even do anything. Also this timeless state argues against craigs christian god as it took him six days and had a beginning itself.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
William Lane Craig in every debate, "the following are all infallible proof of a god: cosmological argument, teleological argument, personal experience of god." What a douche.
anvilheaded 5 months ago
Well... why would god create whole universe just for us??!!!!! planet earth is close to zero on universe scale.. I feel philosophers should be taught science first..
rahulnig123 7 months ago
All his arguments are weak except for the fine-tunning argument.
revo1974 7 months ago
Comment removed
jimmo42 8 months ago
I think a much deeper question would be whether or not nothing could exist. Is it possible for there to be nothing?
jb1262 11 months ago
@jb1262 Yes.
BlankVellum 10 months ago
"abstract objects don't cause anything" "Dr" Craig could've stopped there, and I wish he would've, could have saved everybody a few minutes.
ElPutasos 1 year ago
Numbers, Mr. Craig, are not objects. They are concepts. We caused them.
Dumbass.
shantih433 1 year ago 2
lol william craig just ruins all the fun in debating God.. hes too effing good at debating rofl
MrZaZoomy 1 year ago
"The universe came into being"
Bullcrap! Why the fuck does he still use that tired old argument when he KNOWS it has been refuted.
The universe did not come into being, at 1 h-time expansion of the universe started from a dense state and we don't know what state the universe was in before that. We don't even know yet if time did or did not exist before this state.
NOTHING indicates that the universe itself came into being.
He's a dishonest, deceiving and manipulative, pathetic little man.
balkan2k 1 year ago 2
Craig seems to think that just because he is able to create grammatically correct sentences, he must necessarily be correct, but all he is spewing out is meaningless blather.
BartBVanBockstaele 1 year ago 35
@BartBVanBockstaele Gramatically correct or logically valid statements?
wbarquez 9 months ago
@BartBVanBockstaele Is it meaningless blather? I can never pay attention when he speaks because he's so fucking boring.
Rarae192 3 months ago
@Rarae192 The problem is that he never answers the questions. He usually starts by stating that everybody agrees with him and then finishes by declaring that the atheists are wrong and/or dishonest because they don't agree with him, or something to that effect.
BartBVanBockstaele 2 months ago
@BartBVanBockstaele I've noticed he often likes to declare how "astonished" he is by his opponent's argument, as if they've said something incredibly stupid, when his arguments are almost entirely semantical, or abuse areas of science of which we know little about, e.g. whatever happened before the Big Bang. He goes completely gay over himself whenever he speaks, but it's all God of dé gaps iced over with his personal authentication via the Holy Ghost.
Rarae192 2 months ago
@Rarae192 I agree. This "astonishing" tactic seems to be quite common in members of the American Taliban. Somehow, they seem to think that when they use the wrong words to describe a situation, nobody will notice. And of course, that is in itself an application of a Biblical principle.
BartBVanBockstaele 2 months ago
LOL I am actually going to do a video on the FIRST 2 MINUTES of this debate, and believe it or not, it is going to be ten minutes long. Craig is the best of the best at apologetics, and a recovering alcoholic and drug addict highschool dropout can make a 10 minute video pointing out every single fallacy the best apologist in the world makes in under two minutes of speaking. PATHETIC! And yes, I know Christians are going to attack me personally instead of what I have to say. .:-§-:.
SageTheAtheist 1 year ago
@SageTheAtheist
"Craig is the best of the best at apologetics, and a ... highschool dropout can make a 10 minute video pointing out every single fallacy the best apologist in the world make... "
Don't waste your time making a video. There are dozens of videos on youtube already ripping Craig's fallcious arguments to pieces - but his fans will NOT watch them. I have just read a comment on another Craig video where one of his fans says: 'No one can refute Craig, no one ever has!"
^_^
SAHBfan 1 year ago
@SAHBfan XD Good point.... but it's still fun to make videos... you might as well say not to make videos on any subject if the opposing side is unlikely to watch them.....
SageTheAtheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
SAHBfan 1 year ago
@SageTheAtheist
Of course, if it is fun then do it, by all means go ahead... Just commenting that it is just irritating that many of Craig's fans (or at least his theist fans) tend to just cheer-lead for him - as long as he 'wins' the debate that is the affirmation they seek. They really don't want to dig too deep into him arguments.
Winning a debate and winning the argument are of course two completely different things - but alas that distinction seems wasted on many of his supporters.
SAHBfan 1 year ago
0:15 is william lane craig's mind already made up? yes. hypocrite =)
nickleus1977 1 year ago
He needs to learn about m-theory and multi-universes explains alot of the problems he has pointed out. Why is it when Science at this stage cant explain what is happening people bring out the god argument. I
vorgon2000 1 year ago
For something to "exist" based on the definition of the word it has to be physical and material. Everything that exists is natural and hence physical. Supernatural by its very definition cannot exist for it is non-physical and there is no such thing as non-physical. People who consistently say that something non-physical exists don't understand the criteria for something to exist.
This puts "god" in the same category as fairies, ghosts, goblins, santa clause, easter bunny, leprechaun, etc
Madz1987 1 year ago 47
@Madz1987
"For something to "exist" based on the definition of the word it has to be physical and material" ? For example "There exists a real number that is the square root of 2". "There exists a solution to the four color problem". Which puts "god" in the same category as fairies, real numbers, memories, spacetime singularities, mathematical proofs, ghosts, perceptions, memories, chaotic attractors and friendships. Which conclusively shows that there is no God.
llnoba 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypetsounds 1 year ago
@Madz1987: From the dictionary: exist - "to have real being whether material or spiritual [immaterial, non-physical]". And you accuse the theist of circular reasoning?
mypetsounds 1 year ago
@mypetsounds There are many definitions actually.
ex·ist
–verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
These are the two I am concerned with.
There is no tangible definition of god. Everyone has their own opinion about what a supreme creator is. Infact most people believe in a personal god. Therefore it's subjective, just like unicorns and fairies.
Cont.....
Madz1987 1 year ago 2
@mypetsounds Whichever way you cut it, whether it's a biblical god, personal god, deistic god or indifferent god there is still no strict definition. It's the same thing for the supernatural realm, not defined. Where is it? What is it made of? Where does it come from? How was it formed? Endless questions that cannot be answered. If it isn't material it isn't real and don't say something like words are immaterial because thats just stupid. Give me an example of something immaterial that is real.
Madz1987 1 year ago 2
@mypetsounds Do you actually believe that physical evidence can exist for something non-physical? Science deals with the material, natural and physical. What method do you use to examine something that cannot be examined because it is immaterial? Please I would love to know.
If a unicorn existed it would cease being a mythical creature and be a real animal. An animal that we can dissect and examine. Don't mind if I cut your god open do ya? :)
Madz1987 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Madz1987 Consciousness is not something that is material and physical. But it does not follow that it does not exist.
wbarquez 9 months ago
@Madz1987 Genius. Never thought of that.
Also as an astrophysics student I have noticed that when people get used to measure time in meters (common practice in relativity theory, we use the speed of light to convert between meters and seconds) they have a much easier time seeing why the so called "cosmological argument" is bogus. So I call for removing seconds from the SI units ^^
Robultronic 5 months ago
@Madz1987 Yea, Dr. Craig purposefully omitted "transcendent physical entity" for the very reason you gave.
nlytend1 4 months ago
@Madz1987 what about time?
BinMac 4 months ago
@BinMac Wikipedia's basic description says:
"Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects."
It also says: "A simple definition states that "time is what clocks measure"."
Whatever you think of it, it's definitely not supernatural.
Madz1987 4 months ago in playlist More videos from DrSim0nSayz
@Madz1987 yea clocks MEASURE time, but they are obviously not time..or time creators or something like that. Anyway, not saying time is supernatural..but time is obviously not physical or material, in other words non-physical but yet it exists. so I don't see how you can still say "there is nothing as non-physical" and.."People who consistently say that something non-physical exists don't understand the criteria for something to exist."
BinMac 4 months ago
@BinMac Yes, but time according to the current understanding of physics came into existence with the Big Bang. Everything that emerged from that is physical, material, natural. You can choose any one of those words it makes no difference. I guess if I said natural it would have made more sense since i'm arguing against the existence of the opposite; the supernatural.
Religious people are saying that there is a supernatural realm that "exists", I say existence is dependent on being natural.
Madz1987 4 months ago in playlist More videos from DrSim0nSayz 2
Comment removed
BinMac 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Madz1987 Oh okay then very well..you meant to argue for "natural." But I do think your wrong when saying "you can choose any one of those words it makes no difference." since it obviously does make a difference whether you use the word physical, material or natural as was just demonstrated with time..time being natural but not physical or material.
BinMac 4 months ago
@Madz1987But either way,I don't agree that existence is dependent on being natural since as you said nature came into existence with the Big Bang and if it came into existence,that means there was a time or state when there was no "nature" which leaves nature just coming from nothing,but that never happens and nature couldn't of created itself since nature doesn't work that way,whenever nature creates "something" it uses already existing material to change and shape "something" to something else
BinMac 4 months ago
@BinMac Well, now you are talking about stuff that scientists are still trying to figure out. I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist. So I can only recommend the latest books by Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss.
Search for the video: "A Universe From Nothing"
Also if you want to better understand my position look at the Wikipedia pages for Physicalism and Naturalism.
It was nice talking to you :)
Madz1987 4 months ago 2
@Madz198 well I think something like what I mentioned(which we've observed from our universe..for example matter is not created or destroyed, yet it apparently was created since it began to exist) makes the super-natural seem not so far fetched.
Anyway I enjoyed this conversation very much, thank you for being patient with me.
Regards
BinMac 4 months ago
@Madz1987 Are the letters that you are typing in the screen physical?
AdversusHaereses 4 months ago
@AdversusHaereses Yes. The thoughts and intentions originate in the neurons of my brain and my fingers hit the keys and I click "Post". The things that happen that allow my and your words to be on this page are all physical things that involve coding, cables, processors and servers at the large scale and atoms and subatomic particles at the small scale. You can play a semantic game and call it virtual but even virtual things are physical and depend on all the previous things that I noted.
Madz1987 4 months ago in playlist More videos from DrSim0nSayz 2
@Madz1987 Actually I asked a simple question and you still have failed to answer it. Are the letters on the screen physical? If so they are actually occupying some space at a given time. The correct answer is of course not, letters, numbers and shapes are not physical things because they do not occupy space. What you usually find is that particular things made up of shapes and numbers can be physical because they are composed with other things. But letters in themselves are not physical.
AdversusHaereses 4 months ago
@AdversusHaereses You mean I didn't give the answer you prefer? If you read my comment I answered your question with the very first word in my reply. If you don't like my answer than that is your problem not mine. You obviously have a different defintion of the word physical than I do.
My definition from the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
[having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature]
Your objection is merely a semantic one.
Madz1987 4 months ago in playlist More videos from DrSim0nSayz 2
@Madz1987 You are correct about the letter, I must admit. Now the question is, are universals material? You would have to prove to me that somewhere in the physical universe such thing as "justice", "liberty", "freedom", "squareness", "roundness" and so on exist physically. This is the problem and shows how materialism is unattainable. The ideas grasped by the intellect do not physically exist. We can in fact conceive of things which don't materially exist yet they do exist in reality.
AdversusHaereses 3 months ago
@AdversusHaereses Those things you listed are concepts, words, ideas. They exist in our brains, neurons and chemicals just like the words i'm typing exist in the form of computer code. People make a distinction between an object and a concept/word and say that the concept/word are not physical and I will happily agree with them based on the defintion of physical that they are using. I can say "pencil" and you can indeed go and find a pencil, if I say "glonkular poopshell" well that's not real.
Madz1987 3 months ago in playlist More videos from DrSim0nSayz
@AdversusHaereses [We can in fact conceive of things which don't materially exist yet they do exist in reality.]
If by reality you mean in our thoughts then I agree with you. So far the objections to my comment up there have been: Time, Words and Concepts. Yet all of those things while you can't touch them are still a part of physical, material, natural reality. They still fit into the Merriam Webster dictionary definition and they aren't supernatural that's for sure.
Madz1987 3 months ago
@AdversusHaereses Oh and by the way squareness and roundness do exist as properties of certain objects, in so far as an a object is square or round or rather a sphere or a cube. It's just like something being wet/dry or hard/soft.
Madz1987 3 months ago
love the atheist hate on here why bother lol
DeJay14 1 year ago
0:17 for those of you who already have your mind made up
Didn't you just commit that fallacy in the last video? I smell a bit of hypocrisy because he was already pretty certain Santa Claus doesn't exist without properly defining the properties of metaphysical and physical properties.
supersmash43 1 year ago
the broken record that is wlc
thekwizatshaderach 1 year ago
That cheesy shirt suits him.
jazzx251 1 year ago
William Lane Craig's attempt to explain the nature of the universe is mind-numbing in its obfuscation and reckless assumption-making. "Yeah, let's change the constants of the universe. Look, now everything falls apart!" Yeah, well no shit when you change the universe then it stops looking like the universe anymore. Only someone with many degrees in the studies of the all-powerful sky-man can make that argument sound relevant at all.
turbozed 1 year ago
My flying spaghetti monster has as much evidence of its existence than that of your god.
jarroddudley 1 year ago
Why does the cause have to be personal?!
Why does it have to be greater than it'S effect?!
I'm pretty certain that both sperms and eggs are somewhat smaller than the human that they "cause"
diekerze 1 year ago 3
I love the opening statement.
"Your job is to weigh the evidence, to see which way the scales tip. That requires a thoughtful and reflective spirit."
-
Uh, it also requires some actual "evidence." Not conjecture, not reflection or assumptions, but real actual evidence. And as of today.... absolutely nothing.
nolobede 1 year ago
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections...(con't)...
nolobede 1 year ago
(con't) ...with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." - R Dawkins
nolobede 1 year ago
What is so hard to understand? Us humans can design all sorts of things hence it would make sense that something even more intelligent designed us and the universe.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb
"Us humans can design all sorts of things hence it would make sense that something even more intelligent designed us."
This is a "same old problem" with the creationist position. Because we are cognizant and intelligent enough to design and build, does not give credence whatsoever to your "hence there must be a god." The "watchmaker/stonemaker" - (W. Paley, 1802) analogy was refuted long ago and ends up in the cul de sac of "then what created god?" It goes nowhere.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede Yes and Craig has already refutted the whole "who created God" thing. I can't find the video but it's on here somewheres.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb
An argument for a pov, is not a refutation. He couldn't POSSIBLY prove that god wasn't created or exists at all. Are you not getting it? He can make an argument all he wants, but he can't bring an ounce of evidence to his "claims." 2000 years and the idiocy still persists. There is ZERO evidence to support creationism of any kind.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede Christianity is 100% true and Dr. Craig gives the best argument for it. No atheist has provided any good argument against it. We keep proving their stupid theories wrong though. Anyhow this debate will go on until Jesus comes again.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
"@7tylerjb
Christianity is 100 percent true..." sigh.
I see you are a complete waste of energy to even communicate with. Your mind is made up, have fun with it, but don't be dissapointed if jesus doesn't show up... you know, just like the last 2 centuries.
Creationist ignorance is astounding.
nolobede 1 year ago
@7tylerjb
And where can I find this truth? If christianity is 100% true, then show me where this can be proven. I'll bite, I always keep an open mind, so show me. All I ask is one irrefutable shred of evidence.
nolobede 1 year ago
@7tylerjb hey people back in the days said everything revolved around earth and that earth is in the center of the univers how much does since have to prove that people back in the day had no idea what they were talking about
koolpost 1 year ago
@koolpost lol.. thats not as good an answer as you think it is... a thousand years from now people will frown upon our ignorance of our surroundings.
rizzumz 1 year ago
@7tylerjb
The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.
nolobede 1 year ago
why does it have to be personal? flowers come about without having personal emotions or intelligence
HugNow 1 year ago
Is it just me, or am I hearing Craig speak eloquently and articulately, yet saying absolutely nothing.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede Maybe you are not paying attention. Do you realize this guy has published 30 books which are all of 1st class caliber? He keeps debating because no atheist provides a rational refuttal against his arguments, and nobody ever will.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb
I assure you, I have been paying attention to Craig since long before he began debating the theism issue, and yes I am aware of his publications. Dr. Seuss has written dozens of books too.
Authoring a book , or 50 does not infer credibility. So I hate to burst your crush bubble on the guy, but no theism debate has ended up anywhere but in the very same cloud of empty claims as has been the case since the dawn of mankind. Zero evidence for god, zilch, nada, never has never will.
nolobede 1 year ago
And no doubt he is a skilled debator, that is his training. I gave him credit ti that in my statement. However, when breaking down his dialogue in any objective manner what is clearly apparent, is that he is very articulate and skilled at debating, however the actual content comes up empty of anything that can be deemed evidence. None of his points are not easily dismissed as anything more than skillful empty dialogue.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede To me there is evidence for God and Dr. Craig among other Christian philosophers, historians, mathematicians, scientists, and so on have provided us with alot. It may not seem like logical evidence to you stubborn atheists, but it is evidence nonetheless.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
The question why? is the same as the question how? How come? Dah!!! There have been no answers given by believers in the There is No God theories that are satisfying and without a million other questions arising. How is that so when you have all the answers?
dragondoubt 1 year ago
Graig still hasn't addressed the fact that his arguments have been refuted many times, and he still says the same shit like a used car salesman. The odds this universe is the way it is, is one and one. Graig doesn't have another universe for comparison to come up with any ratio, and nobody else does either.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago 2
Has this guy (Craig) ever read David Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" and Hume's discussion on Causation? His argument was one big fallacy. It does not follow that because something begins to exist that it was caused to exist. Causation is something we only determine through experience and it is not a priori true.
JonathanM00r3 1 year ago
you guys are fine in bringing your opinions and discretions to the matter. But like Craig said 'which way to the scales tip'. If that's the question, it obviously goes to some sort of creator.
bslinkymi112 1 year ago
How is Craig such a respected intellectual? "Something comes from nothing, nothing comes from something, something made something, that something is clearly an omnipresent, nonmaterial guy with a beard that wants you not to work on the Sabbath and chuck rocks at apostates." He might as well repeat "non sequitur" for his entire time on the podium.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
Just imagine waltzing into a university, knowing NOTHING about cosmology or high energy physics, getting up on stage and simply declaring that the universe must have a timeless external cause. Then ignoring the answers to your points given by the professor of physics.....balls the size of planets
pierramadre 1 year ago 3
Great video!
You should also check out the debate between a new atheist (Szabo) and a Lutheran theologian (Gustavsson) at the Faculty of Arts Ljubljana, Slovenia - link:
=_2SkxwvtRvE
Durano77 1 year ago
why is there anything rather than nothing?.... well because there is. and why does it have to be the christian god that did this... why not a supernatural cockroach spraying the universe out of its anus with dense farts?.
lukeism2 1 year ago
Craig speaks like a minister from his pulpit. His overt reliance on abstract indefinite adjectives/adverbs like: "Extraordinary", "magnificent", "incomprehensible" make his speech and thus his argument sound, as it is, grasping and desperate. His assumption that "all things that exist have a cause" has absolutely no solid ground on which to stand...funny stuff
fumerie 1 year ago 2
Odd idea mr. Craig has that an "intelligent mind" is independent of space and time... "intelligent" and "mind" are two linguistic terms made up to represent two abstract concepts thought up by humans... The only way they could be "beyond" or "larger" than the universe is if humans are. After all, they don't exist outside of human brains. So, humans created the universe..?
pedertyve 1 year ago
There goes Craig again with his usual charade. I will skip past to Stenger.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
lol - I take it you were of the first camp of positions mentioned in the video...
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR What?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
Flew right past you that one... :p
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR I ussually skip Craig's arguements because they are the exact same ones he uses in every single debate. First Cause, fine tuning, jesus, personal experience and whatever the other one is.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago 3
Thanks for posting,,,, I am an Atheist but thanks for this video I am now further away from an intelligent designer.
c1cter 2 years ago
I'm going to listen to the scientist. Philosophy tells us how the world SHOULD work. Science tells us how it DOES.
MST3KLives 2 years ago
blah blah blah, hey did god ever answer any of your prayers? NO!?! Then why worship a god who couldn't care less...
Ebuverthebicepcurler 2 years ago
I'll start taking Stenger seriously when he stops being a fine-tuning denialist.
Victory for Dr. Craig.
signatureinthecell 2 years ago
Just love this. Doofus takes on first-class physicist.
What's next? Sledgehammer vs. peanut?
nrubdarb 2 years ago 2
A timeless cause. An immaterial person.
God this guy talks some bullshit.
rhettboy 2 years ago
So I guess you just accept that things pop into existence out of nothing? Can you show me some examples of where things pop into existence out of nothing? Hint: quantum mechanics won't help you here.
timbobazaton 2 years ago
"So I guess you just accept that things pop into existence out of nothing?"
No. I don't. You, as a Christian, do though. It's right there in Genesis, creation ex nihilo. Creation from nothing.
William Lane Craig argues that there is actually a scientific basis for creation ex nihilo. He's wrong of course, but the mere fact that you have asked such a stupid question as a reply to a WLC debate video is just funny.
You guys are the ones arguing 'things just popped into existence', not us.
rhettboy 2 years ago
virtual particles pop into and out of existence
caposton 2 years ago
in a vacuum. a vacuum is not nothing.
timbobazaton 2 years ago
Nobody has ever proven that something can't come from nothing. Maybe there is no such thing as nothing. We shouldn't jump to conclusions and simply say God did it when we don't have scientific answers.
caposton 2 years ago
And why should we assume there had to be a beginning?
caposton 2 years ago
So in face of the evidence for red-light shift from distant galaxies, cosmic background radiation, along with other things (you'll find them if you dig around) you still favor the existence of an eternal universe? All these things point to the universe having a finite beginning. As for your other comment, things popping into existence uncaused from nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics. So does God as a cause mind you, but it's a supernatural cause from a mind of immense power.
timbobazaton 2 years ago
hey you can't argue with him/her. it just doesn't work. take a look at his/her second to last comment; it's completely illogical. "no such thing as nothing" , something from nothing?! GOD is powerless against such stupidity
imermiguel 2 years ago
they're 'virtual', does that mean they do not exist?
can we have virtual flying spagetti monsters or fairies at the bottom of the garden?
786hanif 2 years ago
What an absolute bunch of BS presented by Craig. There are so many errors I´d need something like a couple of pages of text to point them out.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
craig's shirt disproves god.
jowshh 2 years ago
How can God be changeless? If he creates the universe isn't that a change? At point A he's just God without the universe, then at point B he's creating it. Don't you need TIME for that, and doesn't that mean change?
Jugglable 2 years ago
Just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible. Just because we can't explain how something works doesn't mean the default answer is "God did it". Craig also attempts to convince us that morality can only come from God, but the God of the bible is incredibly immoral. Most people are more moral than God. And why should we believe that God is eternal? Craig begs the question by saying it's necessary for God to be this way in order to prove God exists. WTF
caposton 2 years ago
if you kill your family, drive into a police station, steal weapons from their armory and shoot up office buildings til you are kill you are still less immoral than a god kills whole nations just because they don't worship him. Heck, the mere condemning of one man to one year in hell is less moral than the actions I mentioned.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 2 years ago
This bloke must follow some cult from the Middle East, where gods appear before the universe.
If he had had a good European education, or had been to an Asian school, he would know that, in many cultures, gods appear after humans; they have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
LiberdadeHedonista 2 years ago
Public notice
Drcraigvideos has incredible gall to accuse Dawkins of fear while censoring and blocking dissent....
selectively.
EternalSkeptic77 2 years ago 4
@EternalSkeptic77 Very good point. You can´t rate or comment on his videos, even though he is sometimes belittling other people in them.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
William Lane Craig needs a large cock up his ass
rajeshj 2 years ago
Yea, he does. lol
yokosuberi 2 years ago
Ugh. Craig is such a pompous windbag.
Doesn't help that his arguments have been dead in the water for years.
scifisyko 2 years ago
I don't know why Dr Craig still uses the Kalaam cosmological argument for the existence of a god. First of all, anyone who uses this argument is not that familiar with the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Since the universe is made of energy, it was neither created nor destoryed but always existed. Thus, the argument that a god created is PROVEN false via the application of this most fundamental scientific law.
lamarjlp914 2 years ago 2
Actually, as I understand it, the gravitational field generates negative potential energy, so the issue is not quite so straightforward. There are arguments, by Hawking among others, that the total energy of the Universe is actually zero, or at least very close to zero, but there is no scientific concensus at the moment, to my knowledge. However, I do agree that the Kalaam argument doesn't explain anything.
Shoqqo 2 years ago 2
A possible better explanation, in my opinion: If gravitation a.k.a. spacetime is quantum mechanical, it may well be that "nothing" is not stable (in quantum field theory, for example, the physical vacuum is not the state without particles, but a highly complicated mixture of all kinds of particles), and therefore we must have a Universe of some kind. But, without a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, this is of course only a wild heuristic speculation.
Shoqqo 2 years ago 2
This sounds interesting may you please give me some sources where I may read on the vacuums as they pertain to quantum mechanics.
lamarjlp914 2 years ago
Yes, the basic discussion of vacuum fluctuations in quantum field theories should be found in any basic text book on the subject, but if you are not a physicist, then it may be more advisable to try to get some rudimentary understanding via Wikipedia - check for example the article 'Vacuum state'. The basic ingredients are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the possibility of particle creation in QFT's. The uncertainty of energy-momentum allows for constant creation and annihilation of...
Shoqqo 2 years ago 2
Yes, a discussion on vacuum states in quantum field theories should be found in any basic text book on the subject, but if you are not a physicist, then it might be more advisable at first to try to get some rudimentary understanding via Wikipedia - check out, for example, the article 'Vacuum state'. The basic ingredients are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the possibility of creation and annihilation of particles in QFT.
Shoqqo 2 years ago
Yeah, their are more indepth and philosphical arguments, but you basically just summed it up in a shortened way.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
Man, I just don't get how someone claiming to be so reasoned and all he did can go on to make such absurd arguments. It's all just old beat to death rationalizing to support a ridiculous idea. The fine tuned universe? Douglas Adams has just about the best slam down for that ill thought rubbish.
newcoyote 2 years ago 14
The only argument they resort to. Fine tuning. What if the constants were different? Life may still have emerged some other way. How can the theists claim that life would only emerge in this universe with its current structure.
felandath 2 years ago 2
@felandath Nobel prize physicist Steven Weinberg totally destroys this fine-tuning argument.
LiberdadeHedonista 2 years ago
@newcoyote
Which is...?
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Seeing as YT will not allow linking to it's own pages.enter in the search field:
The Origin of God - Douglas Adams
It's all good but our part starts around 3min 30 seconds in.
newcoyote 1 year ago
No offense, but if you are to claim that Craig is somewhat misinformed, cite an expert. He has dealt with all the criticism that has been lodged against him. You people seem think that he doesn't anticipate these reponses? Similarly, the puddle example is an old one, not something that I would call "slam down." Philosophers haven't be able to slam it down, much less a cute little comedian. This becomes apparent in the fact that it's not even a defeater--it's a strawman argument.....
regelemihai 1 year ago
....The claim isn't that nature fits us so we can live. The argument is that the initial conditions allow life to exist in general, not just for homo sapiens. The fact that there is a hole that can accomodate the water cries out for an explanation in itself. Waht's more, a puddle is not fine-tuned at all. All forms of puddles can exist without them being fine-tuned. As for the initial conditions, if even one were just slightly different, not proverbial "puddle" would ever form.
Plus...
regelemihai 1 year ago
...the example is a bad one. Water has no choice but to take the form of its container. It's not at all comprable to the fine-tuning where the conditions didn't have to be this way.
regelemihai 1 year ago
So not only does the universe have a cause, it has a "personal" cause. Why personal? Craig skips right past this. It's one false dichotomy, logical fallacyand tautology after another. He's also out of his league in science and cosmology. No, the Big Bang Theory doesn't offer an "absolute" origin of the Universe. (or something from nothing) It offers an explanation of the Universe in its current form.
hazydavey 2 years ago
Craig is speaking here as a layman. Moreover he implicitly suggests that most cosmologists agree with him about his cosmological argument. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cosmologists are some of the most godless buch of scientists on earth. Why aren't they convinced by his arguments? Could it be that he distorts or omits some scientific knowledge? Sorry Craig, just as creationists, you can convince ignorant laymen but not the actual experts.
GlueSniffer4Life 2 years ago
This argument from existence just seems to be an induction incorrectly applied to realms of reality that have never been observed. You can speculate on the nature of the universe based on anecdotes about how buildings come to be.
ainefairygoddess 2 years ago
I honestly believe that god is just an alternative that people believe in because they dont want to except that there is nothing after death.
But what do I know, im only 14
1TzRy4N 2 years ago 2
For a 14 year old, the very fact that you're watching this video implies you know more than most your age. :-)
Your belief is not uncommon, but I'm affraid there's more evidence that something does exist after death then nothing... beyond that, from my personal experience (which admitedly is anecdotal), my faith came NOT from a fear, or desperate alternative to a possibility that there's 'nothing' after death - it came from my personal experience with Jesus Christ, and the Holy Bible.
DarkfalzReturns 2 years ago
Well there's measurable evidence that he last of the energy that passed through the body will go back to the universe as heat, and the chemical constituents of the body will be recycled into the earth and the bodies of other living things... but there's no scientific evidence for an after life and / or union with a personal God.
nibbles1420 2 years ago
Patronising.
ChuckFresh89 2 years ago
You're right, and dude, only a small % of christians believe becuase they're "scared of death". i don't know why so many atheists seem to think that only scared people believe in God. People believe in him becuase of personal experience and cause of the bible.
RSstupidrules 2 years ago
How the fuck would you know stupid kid? Do you somehow magically know the mind of a billion other people?
RSstupidrules 2 years ago
Ah yes, the typical agruments for god.
There is just a tiny problem with those classical arguments (the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, etc.), and that is: It leaves out the fine-tuner, the creator.
The rise of an infinetely powerful being by chance seems much less convincing than the spontaneous rise of a limited universe. But, I am waiting for Mr. Stengers response on this.
TheGeekyChemist 2 years ago
Unfortunately, the same problem arises from the belief that the universe popped into being from nothing. So in effect, both arguments end and meet at the same point.
BloodOfRayne 2 years ago
Does it?
One might be compelled to think so, but think again: Science (unlike religion) does not say that the universe popped into being from "nothing". Nothing like that. The most fundamental and simple laws actually forbid that something comes from nothing.
Check popular science books like Stephen Hawkins or similar for more info on that.
Cheers.
TheGeekyChemist 2 years ago 2
Which I actually understand from different science debates and books (including Hawkins) that I've seen and read.
So basically we are still asking the same question.
BloodOfRayne 2 years ago
Then our discussion is concluded with this.
I wish you a pleaseant day.
TheGeekyChemist 2 years ago
Ditto. :)
BloodOfRayne 2 years ago
Then what caused time to begin?
RSstupidrules 2 years ago
Mathematically/Physically?
-The big bang.
Else, I can only say that it is an "unknown". Simply saying "God dun it", does not help the problem or answer any question. Which is the problem we atheists have when people say: "Look, god made the big bang"
If so, I could ask the same question: What made god?
TheGeekyChemist 2 years ago
No one, he always existed before the big bang and before time started
RSstupidrules 2 years ago
Well, then I shall quote here the great carl sagan:
"If we conclude, that god always existed, why not save a step, and conclude, that the universe always existed?"
If god can be eternal, the universe can as well, you can't have it both ways. (Note: Science makes no comment, at least until now, as to what happend before the big bang. There might just as well have been another universe then. It's simply an unknown.)
TheGeekyChemist 2 years ago
X existed "before" y means that x exists then time passes and then y exists. And you are seriously trying to say "he existed BEFORE time" ????
Do you not see how it´s impossible for time to pass before time exists???
rokkvi1 2 years ago
"What made god?" - 1) The question is a strawman. The kalaam cosmological argument, which Dr. Craig cites, says that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. If God is eternal, then logically the question does not apply. 2) If God had a cause, then logically He is not God at all. 3) If God requires a cause, then logically you have the problem of infinite regress. Logically you can NEVER have an infinite regress of events before the present, because then the present would never be reached. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
3, cont.) Example: Let's say I have an infinite amount of dominoes and I label one of those dominoes 'X'. Now if an infinite (endless) amount of dominoes begins to fall before X, then logically X will never fall over because the amount of dominoes before X is endless. If the X did fall over, then logically the amount of dominoes before X is finite.
Therefore your question of 'what made God' was asked so that you have an excuse to explain away God on YOUR terms, not in terms of logicality.
BassP86 2 years ago
But you see there is the problem. "If god is eternal, the question does not apply."
We have no proof or evidence that the universe ever "not" existed. If god can be eternal, so can the universe. You can't have it both ways.
Or, to quote the great carl sagan: "we must of course ask the next question: where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unaswerable question, why not save a step, and conclude, that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question." (cont)
TheGeekyChemist 2 years ago
"If god can be eternal, so can the universe." - Well I think there is a problem with your reasoning behind this analysis. A) Logically speaking, to say that the universe had a cause avoids the fallacy of infinite regress because if the universe always existed, the present will never be reached, see #3 from my previous comment. Therefore if the universe always existed, then there DOES exist the problem of infinite regress. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
It's interesting that you use one rationalisation which also kills your argument.
"To say the universe always existed, the present will never be reached." If god is endless, then he also never reaches the present, and also never could have reached the point where he created the universe. It's the same problem. The word "god" is just substituted for "universe".
Oh yeah, to that last statement: "God is self-existant by definition." See cont.
TheGeekyChemist 2 years ago