1. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: William Lane Craig's hypocrisy on evidence

[hangman994Videos]

Who said it has to be a supernatural, or someone? Why not something?

[derangius]

Even if you were granted the premise that sure there must be a god because the universe can not create itself. You never would be because it is an argument from ignorance. (by the way that is only one explanation of countless others) How do you go from there to saying that it was the god of the bible that was responsible? The argument was made by Muslims arguing for the existence of Allah. You don't see a conflict there?

[narutardtedr]

@derangius The argument isn't TRYING to claim it's god. It claims there is a supernatural being that is all omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Nothing says it has to be the christian god, there are other arguments there. So no i don't see a conflict, i see a youtube atheist who kinda missed the argument.

[philosophyetc]

Hahaha this series is brilliant. I enjoy reading some of his dialogues with philosophers and some of his debates, but I must admit I'm rather enjoying his taking a little time to respond to some of the drive-by-atheism that so dominates the internet.

[ukpete51]

Here is a quick edited summary of Craig's argument in favour of the existence of a god. This is taken from his Kalam Cosmological argument.

1. Stuff happens.

2. I suppose stuff that happens has to start to happen.

3. I have no idea why stuff happens, so I'll say goddidit.

4. Goddidit.

Why do people take this fool seriously? I've read better theology on the side of a breakfast cereal packet.

[drcraigvideos]

@ukpete51 Here is a quick edited summary of ukpete51's argument in favour of the existence of a god. This is taken from his shallow argument.

1. Stuff happens.

2. I suppose stuff that happens has to start to happen.

3. I have no idea why stuff happens, so I'll say blindandmindlessanddeadnatured­iditbychance.

4. blindandmindlessanddeadnatured­iditbychance.

Why do you take yourself seriously? I'm not surprised your getting your thinking on the side of a breakfast cereal packet.

[davidsfriend01]

@drcraigvideos Lets try it one more time, with feeling/

1. Stuff happens.

2. I suppose stuff that happens has to start to happen, with the awareness that I could be wrong about my supposition.

3. I have no idea why stuff happens. Perhaps if I research it a bit I'll find an answer, with the awareness that I may never find an answer.

4. I havent found an answer yet, so untill I do I promise I wont make stuff up.

5. I admit I dont know and continue looking.

Any thoughts?

[BGfromGB]

@ukpete51 So what's your response to WLC. The trouble is that you have no answer. If the truth hurts, naturally you'll shy away simply because you have no argument

[UniversalSleuth]

@ukpete51

This is gravely mistaken... You have convinced yourself that your silly misrepresentation is somehow an accurate depiction of his argument. It has nothing to do with "stuff happens." The universe either did or it did not begin to exist. Atheists (from Lucretius until the Big Bang was irrefutably confirmed) unanimously insisted that it had no beginning. Now that it is clear that the universe did in fact have a beginning, We must ask what sufficient cause there is.

[fmmetamc]

@ukpete51

ever heard of science of the gaps?



[wazaghun]

now the question of course is who would care about the worst counter"arguments" at all? It is allways the best counterargument that counts.

[drcraigvideos]

@wazaghun Because the worst are made popular by pseudo-intellects in youtube. Youtube atheists are probably the most unsophisticated group of people in the whole wide world!

[irishbear76]

A lot of the questions I see could easily be looked up. This man's time is valuable and I am sure he loves answering your questions, but it sinks in so much better if you do the research on your own. A video is a good start, it plants good seeds for good fruit trees, but you water the roots of your argument through revelation that comes personally with your own study as well. Dr. Craig ROCKS and his logic is irrefutable.

[Zackindy0846]

The cause is not necessary a God. Ever here of physics? Every hear of M- theory as a possible solution. You have not excluded the argument as being God as the only one possible cause.

[LaResistanceChannel]

@Zackindy0846 Read the Kalam Cosmological argument in the Blackwell Companion Of Natural Theology please.

[Mentat1231]

You have to love Dr. Craig for his persistence at trying to educate these fools. He explains basic Logic for everyone, in very simple terms, and yet they still can't seem to use it.

[DoctorTopper]

Oh my goodness... I imagined Dr. Craig's face with a black beard and stovepipe hat while listening to him speak so clearly... its just like Abraham Lincoln hahaha

[THEEVANTHETOON]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what does "efficient cause" mean?

[oneandonlyrisenangel]

@THEEVANTHETOON There's a video about that when you type in "How can god create something out of nothing" into the be search engine.

[tradershon]

meant ... "he cound ** not ** with any certainity say Jesus was not resurrected"

[tradershon]

my comments was not against Dr. Craig but towards robertmike57 in response to his last comment. by his reasoning he could never say with any certainty that Jesus was in fact resurrected from the dead. however, unlike his argument, we do have records of eyewitnesses who did in fact testify to seein the risen Christ

[Satarack]

@tradershon But he's an atheist, so he's not going to readily agree with the resurrection; since it would contradict his atheism. He would see that as an argument confirming his atheism, not as a counter-example showing that his argument is invalid.

[SavedFollower15]

Speaking of beards, out of curiosity John did you preffer Dr. Craig with a beard or without it? Just asking :P

[drcraigvideos]

@SavedFollower15 LOL! I prefer that Dr. Craig had the beard.

[scottpalmer444]

@SavedFollower15 the question should be....Did W.L.C. have his beard during the Jurassic period? lol

[robertmike57]

Craig's first premise is invalid. Let me correct this bloviating arrogant dipshit:

1. Everything we have observed beginning to exist has a cause.

2. We did not observe the universe begin to exist.

3. Therefore, we can not say the universe has a cause.

[drcraigvideos]

@robertmike57 The cause that Craig speaks of is an efficient cause. Besides, science has shown through the BVG theorem that the universe did indeed have a cause. Also, you weren't here for an eternity so you have no observation of an infinite universe. Barring that, you can't say that the universe did not have a cause... only it may or may not have a cause.

[KBrimstone]

@drcraigvideos Why when it comes to the KCA (or all things William Lane Craig, for that matter) do atheists feel the need to build straw-men and the attack them mercilessly?

[jeevesanthony]

@robertmike57 Neither have you observed your mother getting knocked up with your sorry self, so do you then believe on that basis that there was no cause, and thus the man you call daddy had nothing to do with it?

Also, we haven't seen things begin to exist into the future, so on your logic, how can we justify the belief that everything that WILL begin to exist, will do so as a result of some antecedent cause which brings it into existence?

[tradershon]

@robertmike57

1. No one we know has ever observed the resurrected Jesus

2. We did not observe the resurrected Jesus

3. Therefore, we can not say Jesus was not resurrected from the dead

[drcraigvideos]

@tradershon No one living today saw George Washington as our firs president let alone observe it first hand. So by your logic then Washington wasn't our president.

[martiendejong]

when you see something you are only observing light. so by your logic objects aren't really there.

[Antisyncretism]

@robertmike57 if the universe is causeless it is eternal if it is eternal then an infinite series of events preceded this event, since an infinite series cannot be traversed than this point in time could never have been reached. But this point in time has been reached therefore the universe began to exist, it has a cause and all the rest following on that.

[steffencollen]

@robertmike57 That is not a deductive argument. Yours is an invalid inductive argument, of which the conclusion does not logically follow. Imagine that your house burned down and no one saw it happen until after the fact. Since no one observed the cause of your house being burnt down does that mean that it happened of its own accord without any cause whatsoever? Your premises lead to contradictory statements that assume that everything that is not witnessed has no cause.

[maxavail]

@robertmike57 Your argument is blown apart if we can prove that things we did not observe to begin to exist did in fact have a cause. Coincidentally, that's a fairly easy task, think of the formation of planet Earth, or the solar system or the Milky Way, back then there was no human to see it happen but no man in his right mind would think these cosmic events did not have a cause. Inductive reasoning is a valid and effective tool to reach the truth in such cases.

[isviabraao]

@robertmike57 But you are putting words in his mouth. He never said the arguments that you presented.

[jordan6030]

Craig is just on another level! it's so obvious now that the reason Atheists are so pissed off with WLC is because he just simply PWNS!

[kaixjin]

@THEEVANTHETOON

You just made an appeal to authority and a straw man fallacy all in one statement. I don't think you have any right to criticism.

[TijdTekort]

The ad hominem argument seems to be the most used fallacy in modern society.

[lxAgnosticxl]

I love How people get so pissed at Craig , and yet he still pwns with a Smile

[THEEVANTHETOON]

I love it when Atheists say "Craig is wrong about science!" Yes, because I'm sure an angry, teenage, internet-Atheist knows more about the philosophy of science than someone with a doctorate in the field, right?

[ElAleman1234]

Thx for upload! Great as always.

(Poor Dr. Craig, his hair got all gray while dealing with stupid atheist objections.)

[karozans]

Dr. WLC is so brilliant that he first decimates his opponents logically weak arguments, then he fixes the logically weak arguments to make them logically sound, then he destroys the logically sound argument.

Dr. Craig is the Chuck Norris of philosophy and theology.

[kidasterorig111]

@karozans LOL

Would it still work if I call him the Bruce Lee of philosophy and theology?

(I'm asian)

[karozans]

@kidasterorig111

Absolutely. Bruce Lee knows how to kick butt and take names.

[bwest8888]

Yeah, people need to study more philosophy in general. They know absolutely zilch about logic and proper reasoning, then try to refute a professional philosopher like Craig and end up saying stupid shit like this. What Craig is talking about is so basic it's beyond belief. You will learn about ad hominem in any intro to logic or philosophy class.

Here's some advice from atheist to atheist if any are reading: put down the Dawkins and Hitchens shit and actually study some philosophy of religion.

[FamousDave2186]

that objection sounds like something an atheist youtuber would say and not some philosopher or do I give the atheist philosophers too much credit?

[Bigjon145]

True premises and a valid argument, atheists worsts enemy.

[unkledanbot]

God can make a unverifiable premise true because he is god.

[Equestions]

PLEASE tell me he's going to address some of Tdork's objections. He's the youtube hack scientist that all of a sudden thinks he can debate Craig when not even Dawkins will. It's obvious he's just trying to kiss Dawkin's butt for some chance at notoriety within the new atheist movement before the 'lack of reason rally' they're about to have but it'd be good for others to see the terrible philosophical ignorance he displays in his vids.

[SPR4GOD]

LOL. Check out that laugh when Dr. Craig said that he likes Abraham Lincoln because he had a beard.

[elitegumby]

Lol at 5.32. Dr. Craig should regrow his beard. That's when he's at his most dangerous intellectually. He struck fear into many an atheists heart when he possessed it.

[butchbutch66]

@elitegumby Troof.

[supermurloc64]

@elitegumby Hehehe, no no, he struck a negative force into a clump of matter that keeps the rest of the mass of matter functional.

[djs259]

@elitegumby Yes, but the beard also made him look a bit like a used car salesman.

I recall upon first seeing him of being reminded of the character from Die Hard who tried to broker a deal with the head terrorist to give up Bruce Willis and ended up getting shot.

Of course, they are nothing alike, but it made an impression on me.

I agree however that the beard was formidable, especially the way he kept it neatly trimmed, unlike Daniel Dennett, who looks as if he should be driving a sleigh.

[4hq]

he must be "on guard" 24/7..

been praying for him & will do so in the future.

may God be with him...

[drcraigvideos]

Hey guys: In the coming days I will be uploading responses Craig made to the pseudo-intellects (you know, youtube atheists) on the Kalam Cosmological argument. That's right, Craig actually responds to these intellectually shallow atheists. So, stay tuned! I'll be uploading them in parts and then the whole lecture will go up. By the way, this lecture is based on Craig's article "Objections So Bad I Couldn't Make Them Up" (or, "the World's Ten Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument").

[SPR4GOD]

@drcraigvideos Is there one on Tf00t?

[thrik]

@SPR4GOD There are many already on Tf00t. Search out TheCartesianTheist's channel to find some.

[SPR4GOD]

@thrik I have already see CT's videos on it. In actual fact, I could provide a response. However it would be funny/awesome to see Dr. Craig give a response.

[drcraigvideos]

@SPR4GOD This lecture was done back in 2010, so no. And if you watch tfoot's video he gave no refutation of KCA because he simply doesn't know if the universe had a cause. Furthermore, tfoot argued against deductive logic which automatically makes him a nincompoop. I liked this response: watch?v=D0M3eVk4ZBQ

[VlaDiDaDiY]

@drcraigvideos Where can I find that article?

[drcraigvideos]

@VlaDiDaDiY It's going to published in an upcoming book edited by Craig and Paul Copan. I believe it's called "Come Let Us Reason."

[VlaDiDaDiY]

@drcraigvideos Oh awesome. I've been waiting for that article for quite some time now haha. Thanks.

[Shadowlooker12]

@drcraigvideos What a coincidence, I never mentioned it till today to some Atheist in the comment section. I've always had a problem with youtube individuals who are not honest and for some reason hold their self in high standing. "Youtube extraordinaire" is what I called them. Everyone thinks they are experts in everything now that they have google and youtube. I've done 5 years of research, tons of vids personally and text and don't claim I know all nor am an expert.

[Shadowlooker12]

@drcraigvideos It's just coincidental I find your channel and your comment about the (youtube atheists) and psuedo-intellects on the only day I actually comment mentioning "youtube experts" (those who think google and a few quick searches make them intelligent) after being on youtube since 2007. Liked.

[MrVirtualCoder]

@drcraigvideos Looking forward to it. I love when self-proclaimed Atheists whine about Craig's superiority.

[Gustavogonzalezseda]

@drcraigvideos I'll like to know Dr. Craig thought's on the muslims allegations that Mohammed was foretold on the Old Testament. Is there a video or article or something?

[brantk81]

@drcraigvideos It's sad that Dr. Craig needs to address these sort of objections to the KCA.