If christians are so in love with "kalams comological argument" perhaps they should consider the fact that the muslims are correct in not only this argument but in that Allah is the one true god and Jesus was only a prophet that didnt die on the cross. If they are correct about one thing then surely they can be correct about the other things too? no?? Christians?? Wanna bow down to Allah? Its the same god as yours!
Trying to use physics to justify the existence of a higher intelligence is jumping the gun, we don't know everything yet, so why believe in God, nevermind believe he or she cares about us. Your argument is faith, Dr Craig, using scientific terms does not change the fact that its based on nothing but faith in what other mammals have told you.
I dont know if this is the same debate vs. Hew or not but on this exact topic Craig gives quotes from steaphen hawking and other profound atheist scientists disagreeing with you
He resorts to special pleading in allowing an uncaused cause to pre-exist every caused cause. Moreover, what authority does Craig have to speak on any other cause than physical? His 'proof' relies on begging to our common sense and intuition to ignore the unfathomable, counter-intuitive nature of reality. virtual pairs are physically demonstrable examples of something coming from what we interpret as 'nothing'. logically valid syllogisms can and in this case are, demonstrably false.
(1) Find gaps in your scientific interpretation of the evidence .
(2) Ask a "why" question.
(3) Then, fill that gap with "we don't know" (Ignorance of the Gaps} or "chance did it" (Chance of the Gaps) or "Given enough time everything is possible" (Time of the Gaps) and when all else fails there is the Multiverse (Stupidity of the Gaps).
.
As you can see soldiers, there is a vast arsenal of logic at your disposal, now go and fight with it.
@ozredneck22 You must be a troll. no intellectually honest person who abides by the scientific process, accepts 'I don't know' as an answer. They seek out more knowledge and follow evidence. Being plain about one's current lack of knowledge is a responsible and honest statement. creationist hijack this with a phrase that seems to validate them and makes them feel better: 'God did it'. The space that God has been able to squeeze into has grown ever smaller-- He'd better be fasting.
@TehDarkPrince says "The space that God has been able to squeeze into has grown ever smaller-- He'd better be fasting."
.
As all the discoveries of science show that life cannot form 'naturally' the gaps are getting bigger and bigger, but that doesn't stop those that subscribe to naturalism (the central tenet of atheism) since they have ALREADY CONCLUDED that life must form naturally, but the evidence leads in the other direction. It's no wonder there is not many anti-theists around.
@ozredneck22 You assume the possible conclusions are bi-polar. I don't know the evidence you speak of, but I will be broad: If we found a unicorn fossil in the Cambrian layer, and it led to reworking or even destroying the theory of evolution, that doesn't conclude a very--VERY-- specific deity in a partially forged largely immoral text is the creator of the universe. As Aristotle's idea that aphids grew out of dew falling on plants changed, better observation will reform theory.
@ozredneck22 I wasn't asserting evolution as false if that's what you took from it. Given current evidence along with my understanding of it, I subscribe to neo-darwinian evolution via natural selection predated by abiogenesis (the specific version of which is still open). I was trying to suggest that the debate of the previously mentioned theory vs. creationism conjures a false dichotomy where only one or the other is true. Was that not conveyed?
@ozredneck22 you overextend the atheistic position by its having 'tenets', seem to be unaware of non-belief's status as the largest growing N.A and European demographic, seem to completely misunderstand the objective of a previous post, now you want an animation students scientific opinion. I was compelled to defend you from being marked as spam, but you keep dancing. Revise your statements and address the intent of my last post about false dichotomy without caricaturing it.
There could quite literally be billions of other universes besides our own -- so-called "multiverses" -- that we can never observe let alone visit! They could be fine-tuned to completely different parameter-settings and therefor produce vastly different lifeforms (or none at all) than our universe does. Nothing of which proves or even necessitates the existence of a creator deity … but it logically makes the whole argument "from design" obsolete because it relies on flawed propositions.
I am a puddle. This hole that I am in fits me PERFECTLY! I have specific bends and curves in me, and the ground is exactly that shape! It fits me so perfectly, that I must conclude that it was made for me!
@vaguevocalist17says " I am a puddle..... It fits me so perfectly, that I must conclude that it was made for me!"
The puddle will eventually realize that a blind, pitiless, and indifferent universe should not be expected to produce that which is not blind, not pitiless, and not indifferent. Instead what is seen is order. We comprehend that which should not be comprehendible and this speaks to purposeful order.
@correctionguy @ hydrogen molecules and a water molecule hooked up - you really don't know how water gets put together?. They found a dust particle that gave them enough mass to fall to earth?
@correctionguy Which is exactly why Criag's argument fails - you can replace God with anything and still keep his argument valid. A question is not a refutation "what made all that?" - natural processes - no God needed. Do you and Craig enjoy looking foolish?
@jcgadfly A failure to answer what made each prior substance refutes your case by having a lack of proof, not the question. It doesn't necessarily disprove the claim itself but it certainly discredits the person who put forth the theory and If credibility isn't a determinative for refuting someone then what's the point of saying something can be refuted at all? Your entire perception could be wrong and you could never know, so nothing is ever technically proven or disproved.
@correctionguy But you get no closer to your war god by embracing nihilism. All you're doing is promoting unwarranted skepticism towards proven fact. Scientists know perfectly well that aboslute certainty can't be achieved. But that doesn't mean they should dismiss the very discipline that gave us every useful innovation we currently enjoy, and it certainly doesn't mean that they should adopt the creationist argument from ignorance. The xtian god is internally inconsistent; it is impossible.
@jcgadfly The fact that he can't support his argument makes it invalid. I don't support or believe the same as things as Craig. I don't see why you keep grouping me in with him when you were the one who posted an argument that supported him.
@correctionguy I think it had to do with you're trying to "take the piss" out of a so-called weak argument that slaps Craig's position around caused the misunderstanding. Apologies.
@jcgadfly Douglas Adams' "puddle argument is used to take the piss out of Craig's position by spoofing the anthropic principle. Misunderstandings all around.
@jcgadfly I have to apologise doubly as much. I realised after a few of your replies that I had been dyslexic and swapped around 'humans' with 'God', making me think you were supporting Craig, and then I kept arguing anyway.
No, you are NOT a puddle! You are a 'hole". Your born through a "hole".You see through "holes", you eat through a "hole", you hear through "holes", you breath through "holes", you piss through a "hole", you smell through "holes", you crap through a "hole" you fuck through a" hole" and your dead in a "hole"! YOU are NOT a PUDDLE. YOU are a HOLE!
Gods greatest invention, "THE HOLE", and that is the whole "hole" truth!
What a strange argument - the odds of life and the universe are small - So small that it must have been a god. But that begs the question: "what are the odds of an omniscient, omnipresent, and all powerful god existing to create this universe? Surely that is even less probable?
Craig is probably the most learned christian apologist but his arguments are still laughably bad. It's funny how he uses probability of fine tuning as evidence for God yet refuses to accept probability when it is used to argue against Christ's resurrection.. Like all theists he seizes upon the slightest scientific argument he can find to justify his pre-existing beliefs despite claiming that scientific proof isn't necessary if you have faith.
I would ask him to claim that Euler's identity e^(πi) + 1=0, being not true to an extremely improbably infinitesimal degree of accuracy, but absolutely true with no error whatsoever, and that this bafflingly mysterious formula also just chances to contain some of the most important elements of mathematics (ln, pi, i, 1, 0, addition) to boot, could only be the divine handiwork of God who designed it so.
The fine tuning argument is a tautology: if life was possible at all values, then god made sure we were possible in every possible universe. If possible in narrow range, then he made sure they were placed in such range. If possible in an moderately wide range, then he took care to make life possible in enough scenarios. Congratulations for your logic, dear 'dr' Craig.
@ea86tr Craigs arguments are deductive arguments, he doesn't use "God of the gaps" reasoning. The conclusion that "God did it" simply follows from the premises and is not used in a gap of scientific knowledge.
@tomdenman His premises are based on scientific ignorance (combined with his ignorance). Moreover, his deduction is full of logical fallacies and/or intellectual dishonesty.
@ea86tr Even if I were to concede that his premises are false, that still wouldn't mean he is using "God of the gaps" reasoning. My point would still stand, as his arguments are still in logically valid form and do NOT ever state that since we "don't know" therefore "God did it".
@tomdenman How come his premise is not based on the gap in our scientific understanding? (Premise: We don't yet know how/why such and such constants take such and such values in our equations. Conclusion: God did it.)
(1) I tease and mock delusional people and their nonsensical claims.
(2) I use logical reasoning to crush illogical nonsense. And, you cannot achieve meaningful existence through arrogance and self-deception.
(3) Based on logical inconsistencies and conflicting facts, I can disprove particular arguments for "God". I'm just falsifying such arguments, not making metaphysical claims myself. (So, Godel's incompleteness theorem is totally irrelevant.)
3. is a fallacy. Science having problems with certain base aspects does not invalidate the assumption which is based on entirely different data aka that there is no measurable, repeatable, observable event of God's action or his existance. Since there is no indication the assumption - based on the current data - the only conclusion is the non existance of God. The assumption there is a God however is entirely speculative until actual data is provided.
All this guy does is take something that OTHER PEOPLE have figured out, i.e. any law he references; like gravity, then says "no-one listening to me knows where that came from, how/why that works or who/what did it, therefore on the basis that YOU cannot disprove MY design argument, I must be right."
Any rational person can see the fantastically warped logic in that.
He feigns intellect and knowledge relative on other peoples ignorance /lack of education and manipulates human intuition
"the laws of nature are consistent with a large range of values of these constants".How does he know that?Just because he can imagine other values doesn't mean there actually can be other values.Even still, since we know life exists and apparently requires a specific universe,we need to know the proportion of universes like ours caused by supernatural causes over natural causes to estimate the probability of any theory, and we don't have this information. useless argument under Bates theorem
Why does he consider it fine-tuning? Also, why does he even consider that the conditions could be there by "chance"? He's a doctor of philosophy, isn't he? Some kind of physical condition had to exist, and it does. It is what it is, and on this tiny planet, tucked away in a corner of an ordinary galaxy within a incalculably vast Universe, the conditions just happened to be right to support us. Why does "design" even enter into it?
@jerico641 Well Evolution theory, even though is a wide supported and firm Science Theory for instance, explains very well what is observed when you got life going, but AS FAR AS I KNOW it does not come across that well when it tries to explain where it all began, there are still rough spots that need to be worked on, so it is not that far fetched considering other options, even if they turn out to be wrong, but you do have to get the evidence together to back it up.
Evolution by Natural Selection addresses nothing about "where it all began"; it isn't supposed to. It's a theory explaining the diversity of life on Earth, nothing else.
@jerico641 Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago.
@am101171 This is taken from wikipedia. In the second paragraph it says "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal ancestor". Evolution also tries to explain the origin of life. I do not pretend to know a lot on this but in my biology class centuries ago I seem to remember that it was Darwin himself that offered the famous organic or primordial soup hipothesis as the starting point of life.
@am101171 If interested look for abiogenesis in wikipedia or another source. This is from this topic in wikipedia:
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[16] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"
@am101171 I don´t think there is anything wrong with what I have said. that is just the way science is. And what I stated is just a mere explanation based on this information, nothing against Evolution theory or so. It is scientific to look for diferent avenues and test them untill the criteria is met.
I love how he attributes this "fine tuning" of his to the entire Universe, as if we had any idea at all what's out there beyond this little corner of our own Galaxy, or how it might operate.
BTW, EVIL by definition does not exist, only Gd does. EVIL is to live backwards. Anything that is, is also good. Nothing is evil, literally, for evil is the lack of something, which cannot also exist, again, by definition. FREEWILL is Gd. . You are talking about animals. WE-R humans... Elevate friend: goo.gl / GN4D
Intelligent life has evolved according to the environment it finds itself in. If the constants of the universe were different, it may still have evolved, just differently but accordingly within its environment.
to sum up,
The conditions of the universe are not necessarily fine tuned for intelligent life,
Intelligent life has evolved to exist within the laws of nature.
And as far as we know it took over 13.5 BILLION YEARS so it's hardly that fine tuned!
Well he makes a somewhat adequate argument for deism, which can be defended, but thats as far as he can go. As soon as you argue for the existence of a supernatural it can be anything. A collective of fairies are as likely to have "fine tuned" the Universe as a god or blob or anything. He essentially pokes holes in reasonable arguments and then says that god follows necessarily. He is so obviously trying to prove himself correct that its kind of sad.
We only know of one single type of carbon-based life; there may be literally billions of different types of life which could evolve in Universes with different constants, thus his argument for "fine tuning" of our Universe is impotent.
@am101171 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
@emailpobox666 I do not go that far, I just want to know if the Universe is indeed fine tuned, if it is true or false, after that is somewhat established based on enough evidence. Then I will see what it entails. So far even though scientists as Hawkings have considered that it SEEMS that it is, as I said before the jury is still out,
@am101171 I particularly like the simulations done on super computers where 25% of the fundamental constants could be tweaked and still get star generation, though that means at least 75% of these constants can not be changed that much
@runalongnowhoney I am just and interested party. On the subject of the origin, If I was trying to say something it would be I don´t know for sure what is the answer, and I would like to know, even though I´ve taken some formal classes on quantum physics and I have my own opinions, I don´t see any real answers on neither camp, for the time being.
On this specific video I am just gathering information forth and against.
Actually as far as I understood and researched, there were some modeling done on super computers of these constants and it seems that 25% of them could be tweaked significantly different than their actual values still providing a universe that could create stars, which does not guarantee life genesis but still is a good indicator of the possibility. Perhaps he needs to do more homework, in the best interest of the debate.
@am101171 Of course these models could be wrong, but one has to try and keep working on it, have some faith in science and scientists ( just kidding).
We would need the probability density to be able to say if it is probable or not, and we wouldn´t be able to say neither with out it. But just let´s say we have it and it is very probable, then the next question is why? and that one is still rolling. Like the multiver theory that does not need a Creator for the universe, but needs a set of meta laws to allow the many universes to pop up and where this meta laws come from and why. I don´t why or why not if ,that I can say.
"One would need to demonstrate that these quantities could be altered for this line of argument to have a meaning" . Good point. I think the multiverse theory states that they can be set, different from other universes when a new one pops up, even though multiverse theory is used to support a non creator entity Universe.
@am101171 There have been also physicists that have considered the possibility that these constants and even physics laws to be somewhat local ones. I honestly don´t know if in the present this is still a valid point. I will try to research.
Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
William Lane Craig makes arguments like Kent Hovind's tax attorney: They sound GREAT to somebody who wants to BELIEVE what he's saying, but at the end of the day, they're nothing more than so much bullshit....
@GetMeThere1 Perhaps you would discuss the reasons that make you sure a creator could not possibly exist (I don't mean an argument for or against religion - that would not interest me - just the concepts of there possibly being some creative force beyond our understanding and why it could not be)
@jrmaximus : I don't know what gave you the idea that I'm "sure a creator could not possibly exist." My comment was meant to remark that Craig's argument is poor (VERY).
In fact, a creator god is an superficially fitting answer to ALL questions. As we've progressed, however, we've come to find that answers to previously intractable-appearing problems have been answered by standard causal reasons, and it's been seen over and over (and OVER) that the "creator answer" is not needed or useful.
When put into perspective the universe is very poor at creating life-permiting conditions, one very small planet in one solar system amongst billions of stars is hardly fine tuned, Also many animals are adapted to their environment not the other way around (e.g. the polar ice caps are not adapted for polar bears it's the other way around) Also how can they know that changing these values would create a universe containing less life, it could create one containing more.
It should not make any difference what the universal constants are. An omnipotent being, as described by most theists, should be able to create any kind of life in any kind of universe given any value for the universal constants. Even if the constants were not constant but instead random variables this should pose no challenge to this type of being.
I love your username! drcraigvideos is a douche! But let's not be too hasty and lets grant Craig his claim that the cosmos has a grand designer. Because now he has the burden of trying to justify how his absurd belief system (Christianity) has anything at all to do with this supernatural, unknown, and unknowable presence. I totally agree the Big Bang is the result of a supernatural event. But watching Craig try and est a connection between this transcendence and Christianity is funny as hell!
Why are we not assuming that it was a "miracle" when we are dealt a bridge hand? Because in that case we don't put the same subjective significance on the event. We put significance on life, because it concerns ourselves, yet from an objective perspective there is no difference in significance between say a particular combination of one trillion sand grains forming a particular pattern somewhere and life evolving. This subjective deception is what creates the "fine tuning" illusion.
I study physics and the argument Dr. Craig is making here is EXTREMELY unclear if it is correct or not. What he is claiming is unknown and if anything, at the current state of knowledge, it is more likely to be false than to be true. The comments here aren't big enough for me to explain. If you would like to me to explain feel free to message me.
but probably you are just so offended in your insecure naturalist belief-system, that you just seek some odd form of personal salvation by putting up these rants. i mean even your account name... you seem to be totally obsessed. haha so funny, and those people call themself "rationalists"...
@MBsaturnus I study math and physics and this claim in the video does make it sound like Dr. Craig is not well suited to be discussing far reaching scientific ideas. Changing the constants in physics would produce a drastically different universe, but to claim those universes would not be life permitting is an EXTREMELY large leap in logic.
@Siedlerdeo I agree with what you have said. While it does not prove evolution, I do think that the strongest 2 arguments for evolution are the chromosomal similarities that you mentioned and the similarity of retrotransposons between humans and apes.
I don't know why people find it so hard to grasp that there are two parts to this argument. Not only is the universe improbable, BUT it also fits with a specific pattern,namely, the pattern to allow for intelligent life. By the analogy, getting dealt 13 random cards is very improbable but so what. Getting dealt a straight run of 13 is a big deal because it is improbable and fits a specific pattern. And for anyone who thinks that life wouldn't require a significant patter, go take a science class
@smitty0521 This whole argument is flawed on a very shallow level, which is quite entertaining to me. The thing is that we do not have any solid evidence for the existence of any other universes. Therefore you cannot induce anything provable on this matter, since initial observation cannot be the proof or even a validation. This is called circular reasoning. Welcome. Both atheists and theists are wrong; Craig is making a fool of himself; I'm trying to go to sleep and fail at it.
@Valholm I'm not sure what you are saying, but that may have to do with the sleepiness part. I think that the cosmological argument as well as a few other things like thermodynamics show that the natural world cannot be eternal. Logic then takes me the rest of the way to saying that naturalism cannot be true.
Well, your logic is based on a number of assumptions, just like the naturalists logic. Your logic might be fine, it's your assumptions, that you probably claim as self-evident, that I am concerned about.
Cosmological argument is just that - an argument - it has not been validated, let alone proved, to ANY reasonable degree. If you think it has been, your reasoning is clearly flawed. [1]
Alexander Vilenkin- (Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University) “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
@smitty0521 Just because I have a cause, or anything else for that matter has a cause, doesn't mean that Universe necessarily has a cause. It's just play of words, nothing more. Universe and God are in their own playing field, which we know practically nothing about. On an evolutionary scale, human beings are in the middle of the process of identifying the problem of the research, not even identifying the location of the information that we have to gather, let alone actually gathering it. [2]
@Valholm You should pay more attention to the argument. It is not that everything has a cause. It is that anything which has a beginning has a cause. This one of the foundations of rational thought. Otherwise you might as well go on thinking that this post was put here by nothing or that your world is made up of nothing.
It is then quite easy now-a-days to show that the universe had a beginning, what with all the evidence pointing to it and all.
@smitty0521 "anything which has a beginning has a cause." While that is true for things that are on the same "playing field" as us, where is the evidence for that rule to apply to the Universe? Universe might not be on the same "playing field" as things that it produced. There is no evidence for the contrary, if there is - I don't know about it, please enlighten me. Just because argument is rational when applied to our "pf", does not necessarily make it so to things beyond it.
@Valholm And I think that is the most reasonable way to think. I started that way. Initially I couldn't wrap my head around some of the problems with infinity, but the more I thought about it, the more confident I have become that Craig is onto something.
And I do hope that i am not coming across as abrasive or arrogant. I struggle with those.
@smitty0521 That is not the most reasonable way to think. There is a place for models to exist in our reasoning, and models are tremendously important in our day-to-day and global human affairs, but the more vague and unknown the concept is, the more is the error that the natural limitation of models would produce.
@smitty0521 natural limitation of models being that the designer of the model cannot account for certain variables that "he does not know he does not know". You logic is too simplistic, in my opinion.
@Valholm I admit that we don't know everything. I admit that models are innately simpler than what they try to demonstrate, but I do think that there come a point where a person must make some sort of conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I just got done watching a sherlock holmes movie and I think that he is a good example of this. Is this way of thinking a little risky and presumptuous, yes, but these limitations will always be there. For me the evidence is enough. Thanks for our dialogue.
@smitty0521 you are welcome. However, I cannot agree with you that there comes a point where a person must make some sort of a conclusion on these matters. I will most likely die without submitting myself to a certain conclusion on this matter. There is no such point, in my opinion. It is a mere theistic illusion, that your spiritual leaders have put into your mind using fear of suffering.
@Valholm I do object to your assumptions about the origin of my beliefs.
First off, that is a logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy to discount beliefs based on their origins. Second, my own beliefs on the matter come largely from personal spiritual experience, being bolstered by philosophical and scientific arguments. Third, as a father, i know that fear of suffering is one of the ways (but certainly not the only one) that humans learn things and should not be discounted all together.
@smitty0521 First off, my reasoning is free from genetic fallacy, since I do not "discount" belief (unproven hypothesis based on induction) in God on the basis of it's origin. I "discount" it on the merit of it not standing up to simple deductive exercises.
@smitty0521 Secondly, even my personal spiritual experience of prayer and bliss, empowered by the number of philosophical arguments that are always there, like vultures, is outweighed by the deductive exercises of my logic.
@smitty0521 Third, assuming your model that God is 'father' and we are His 'children', do you understand the magnitude of suffering that HE ALLEGEDLY imposes on his own children? What kind of a father would do that? This does not stand up to simple deduction. If God is, then he is not from fear, but from knowledge. Simple as that. Not "readings," actual knowledge, meaning the "physical power of the brain" to comprehend.
From my p.o.v., you, justifying Hell, is simply proving my original point.
Replying only to the part about a father letting a child suffer. I let my kids make mistakes all the time, and sometimes they hurt. I don't enjoy it but I've seen what happens to bubble-wrap kids when they enter University - they're incapable of thinking, earning by merit, and have an amazing sense of entitlement. My kids learn hard lessons, but at nine years old, even they understand why, and the value of their lessons. And, they know I love them unconditionally.
Belief is actually a commitment to a certain unproven inductive hypothesis. Hypothesis itself is not belief, it is just that - a hypothesis. Furthermore, faith is a measure of that commitment and a measure of the readiness to commit to unproven.
@smitty0521 Sherlock Holmes is a very bad example, because he dealt with different problems of survival. He dealt with physical personal and national/species survival, but not the survival of his consciousness. These are not the same concepts. If you are running away from a bear, or making a decision on whether to declare war to Germany after it attacked Poland - you MUST act on an incomplete model. But I would argue that with personal death you don't have to act on an incomplete model.
@smitty0521 It takes the most courage, in my opinion, not to accept any incomplete model in order to provide comfort for yourself during your death. That is what pushes people to accept a theistic or an atheistic point of view.
@smitty0521 Science still has a huge (I mean HUGE) way to go to the perfect understanding of the human condition.
Now, when we talk about this "probability problem", which states that the margins for intelligent life are so narrow, that this fact alone points to the validity of Design; when we talk about this, what do we understand under the "intelligent life" or "life" at all, for that matter? [3]
@Valholm Now while I admit that I have only had a few college physics classes and this is not my area of expertise, it is my understanding that small changes in the fundamental constants and characteristics of the universe would do things like: make stars impossile or make atoms larger than hydrogen unstable or make subatomic particles not even come together at all. So no matter how broadly you define intelligent life, I think that it would require atoms larger than hydrogen for example.
@smitty0521 I am no expert on physics myself, but I will still allow myself to reply to your posting. As far as the changes in the fundamental constants go, consider the following: what you are talking about is changing a few of the constants independently from the others and the nature of matter itself. Since, arguably, there is but one source for all of that, what if it just doesn't happen that way?
@smitty0521 Alas, nothingness is not a desert and universe is not bread. In fact, there is no effective model of those things that our minds can produce.
@Valholm I agree to some extent. Many scientists are currently looking for the "theory of everything" in such ideas as string theory. To me though, even if such a model was found, it would still point to design. This is true for the "universe generator" models as well.
Example: You see a hundred loaves of bread out in the desert. You conclude that there was some intelligent cause. You later find an automatic bread maker in the desert. This explains the bread and still points to a designer.
@smitty0521 You ("all of us") are generalizing a set of rules on the basis of limited observations. (my original point) I cannot accept even a plausible, but yet unproved hypothesis on such a serious matter as the cause of the Universe. Simple play of words is not proof; words are but a model of the world and a model of true reasoning. Not the world and reason itself.
@Valholm What I hear you saying is "yes, the evidence currently points to one thing, but I disagree with the conclusion so I will wait for further evidence or complain about semantics"
The reason that theists speak of faith is because we realize that we don't know everything yet, but what we do observe and know points toward a transcendental cause of the universe, and we are willing to act, by faith, as if that were true.
And the principle of causality is not playing with words.
@smitty0521 videos like these, and comments posted on this website, are an embarrassment for the human mind. Craig would have been fired from any serious job that would require proper reasoning ability and intellectual honesty.
Of course because all science can prove is physical shit. Not anything meaningful and intuitive. He doesn't need to understand it.
SudanCarib 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If christians are so in love with "kalams comological argument" perhaps they should consider the fact that the muslims are correct in not only this argument but in that Allah is the one true god and Jesus was only a prophet that didnt die on the cross. If they are correct about one thing then surely they can be correct about the other things too? no?? Christians?? Wanna bow down to Allah? Its the same god as yours!
The1VoiceOfReason 2 days ago
the universe if fine tuned for suffering and death. thank god its no other way . . . .
quantum8kid 2 days ago
Scientific knowledge with all its proofs and evidences is ALWAYS wrong! Religion totally based on BELIEF is ALWAYS right! Huh?
EGMAG 3 days ago
He probably never heard about survivorship bias either......
Cheeryble
cheeryble 6 days ago
oh wow! a video containing WLC, not uploaded by a creationist - with comments enabled??? how can this be!
grexory 6 days ago
@grexory Yes they are rare occurrences but they do happen occasionally
emailpobox666 6 days ago
The constants that describe nature are independent of nature? Say what?
Also:
We have a sample set of one universe. How do you know anything about the probabilities?
Craig is either a liar and/or an idiot.
kilroy1964 1 week ago
there is no balance between antimatter and matter in the universe. also if there are infinite universes(which there might be) than chance is logical
martystreets 1 week ago
Trying to use physics to justify the existence of a higher intelligence is jumping the gun, we don't know everything yet, so why believe in God, nevermind believe he or she cares about us. Your argument is faith, Dr Craig, using scientific terms does not change the fact that its based on nothing but faith in what other mammals have told you.
supernoodlerage 1 week ago
WLC forgets he is baselessly asserting that our constants can possibly be any other way.
His argument boils down to "If things were different, then things would be different, therefore god designed everything in his everything factory"
Feralus69 1 week ago 2
ljl
MrQuransunnah 1 week ago
Please don't mark ozredneck22 as spam.
TehDarkPrince 1 week ago
I dont know if this is the same debate vs. Hew or not but on this exact topic Craig gives quotes from steaphen hawking and other profound atheist scientists disagreeing with you
kb24crazylaker 1 week ago
He resorts to special pleading in allowing an uncaused cause to pre-exist every caused cause. Moreover, what authority does Craig have to speak on any other cause than physical? His 'proof' relies on begging to our common sense and intuition to ignore the unfathomable, counter-intuitive nature of reality. virtual pairs are physically demonstrable examples of something coming from what we interpret as 'nothing'. logically valid syllogisms can and in this case are, demonstrably false.
TehDarkPrince 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3-Steps for proving Naturalism correct:
(1) Find gaps in your scientific interpretation of the evidence .
(2) Ask a "why" question.
(3) Then, fill that gap with "we don't know" (Ignorance of the Gaps} or "chance did it" (Chance of the Gaps) or "Given enough time everything is possible" (Time of the Gaps) and when all else fails there is the Multiverse (Stupidity of the Gaps).
.
As you can see soldiers, there is a vast arsenal of logic at your disposal, now go and fight with it.
ozredneck22 1 week ago
@ozredneck22 You must be a troll. no intellectually honest person who abides by the scientific process, accepts 'I don't know' as an answer. They seek out more knowledge and follow evidence. Being plain about one's current lack of knowledge is a responsible and honest statement. creationist hijack this with a phrase that seems to validate them and makes them feel better: 'God did it'. The space that God has been able to squeeze into has grown ever smaller-- He'd better be fasting.
TehDarkPrince 1 week ago
@TehDarkPrince says "The space that God has been able to squeeze into has grown ever smaller-- He'd better be fasting."
.
As all the discoveries of science show that life cannot form 'naturally' the gaps are getting bigger and bigger, but that doesn't stop those that subscribe to naturalism (the central tenet of atheism) since they have ALREADY CONCLUDED that life must form naturally, but the evidence leads in the other direction. It's no wonder there is not many anti-theists around.
ozredneck22 1 week ago
@ozredneck22 You assume the possible conclusions are bi-polar. I don't know the evidence you speak of, but I will be broad: If we found a unicorn fossil in the Cambrian layer, and it led to reworking or even destroying the theory of evolution, that doesn't conclude a very--VERY-- specific deity in a partially forged largely immoral text is the creator of the universe. As Aristotle's idea that aphids grew out of dew falling on plants changed, better observation will reform theory.
TehDarkPrince 1 week ago
@TehDarkPrince "You assume the possible conclusions are bi-polar"
.
So what is the conclusion on the origin of life?
ozredneck22 1 week ago
@ozredneck22 I wasn't asserting evolution as false if that's what you took from it. Given current evidence along with my understanding of it, I subscribe to neo-darwinian evolution via natural selection predated by abiogenesis (the specific version of which is still open). I was trying to suggest that the debate of the previously mentioned theory vs. creationism conjures a false dichotomy where only one or the other is true. Was that not conveyed?
TehDarkPrince 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TehDarkPrince "If we found a unicorn fossil in the Cambrian layer, and it led to reworking or even destroying the theory of evolution.."
.
Do you think the finding of soft Dino veins and collagen destroyed the theory of how long proteins can be preserved in nature?
ozredneck22 1 week ago
@ozredneck22 you overextend the atheistic position by its having 'tenets', seem to be unaware of non-belief's status as the largest growing N.A and European demographic, seem to completely misunderstand the objective of a previous post, now you want an animation students scientific opinion. I was compelled to defend you from being marked as spam, but you keep dancing. Revise your statements and address the intent of my last post about false dichotomy without caricaturing it.
TehDarkPrince 1 week ago
There could quite literally be billions of other universes besides our own -- so-called "multiverses" -- that we can never observe let alone visit! They could be fine-tuned to completely different parameter-settings and therefor produce vastly different lifeforms (or none at all) than our universe does. Nothing of which proves or even necessitates the existence of a creator deity … but it logically makes the whole argument "from design" obsolete because it relies on flawed propositions.
macmarine 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
macmarine 2 weeks ago
So... the complexity of a system implies divinity? Argumentum ad divintas? Argumentum ad divintas.
recalibration 2 weeks ago
"One would need to demonstrate that these quantities could be altered" sums up the complete fail of fine tuning. Well done...
Hornadayfan 2 weeks ago
wuhaha, i don't like him, but of course he is a very good and well trained debater, but he is fucking to dumb for math, pure self embarrassment
kosand1984 2 weeks ago
I am a puddle. This hole that I am in fits me PERFECTLY! I have specific bends and curves in me, and the ground is exactly that shape! It fits me so perfectly, that I must conclude that it was made for me!
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago 18
@vaguevocalist17says " I am a puddle..... It fits me so perfectly, that I must conclude that it was made for me!"
The puddle will eventually realize that a blind, pitiless, and indifferent universe should not be expected to produce that which is not blind, not pitiless, and not indifferent. Instead what is seen is order. We comprehend that which should not be comprehendible and this speaks to purposeful order.
ozredneck22 1 week ago
@ozredneck22 The rain that now makes the puddle made the hole in which the puddle rests. Much like humans created God.
jcgadfly 1 week ago
@jcgadfly What made the rain?
correctionguy 1 week ago
@correctionguy @ hydrogen molecules and a water molecule hooked up - you really don't know how water gets put together?. They found a dust particle that gave them enough mass to fall to earth?
jcgadfly 1 week ago
@jcgadfly Then what made all that?
And no, I understand, but I'm taking the piss out of your weak argument.
correctionguy 1 week ago
@correctionguy It's so weak that neither you or Craig can refute it? What would you do with a strong argument?
jcgadfly 1 week ago
@jcgadfly *nor
jcgadfly 1 week ago
@jcgadfly I just did refute it... Why would Craig want to refute it? Swap 'man' and 'God' around and it's the same argument for him.
correctionguy 5 days ago
@correctionguy Which is exactly why Criag's argument fails - you can replace God with anything and still keep his argument valid. A question is not a refutation "what made all that?" - natural processes - no God needed. Do you and Craig enjoy looking foolish?
jcgadfly 3 days ago
@jcgadfly A failure to answer what made each prior substance refutes your case by having a lack of proof, not the question. It doesn't necessarily disprove the claim itself but it certainly discredits the person who put forth the theory and If credibility isn't a determinative for refuting someone then what's the point of saying something can be refuted at all? Your entire perception could be wrong and you could never know, so nothing is ever technically proven or disproved.
correctionguy 3 days ago
@correctionguy But you get no closer to your war god by embracing nihilism. All you're doing is promoting unwarranted skepticism towards proven fact. Scientists know perfectly well that aboslute certainty can't be achieved. But that doesn't mean they should dismiss the very discipline that gave us every useful innovation we currently enjoy, and it certainly doesn't mean that they should adopt the creationist argument from ignorance. The xtian god is internally inconsistent; it is impossible.
SammyHales 3 days ago
@SammyHales I don't have a war God and that was my exact point.
correctionguy 2 days ago
@jcgadfly The fact that he can't support his argument makes it invalid. I don't support or believe the same as things as Craig. I don't see why you keep grouping me in with him when you were the one who posted an argument that supported him.
correctionguy 3 days ago
@correctionguy I think it had to do with you're trying to "take the piss" out of a so-called weak argument that slaps Craig's position around caused the misunderstanding. Apologies.
jcgadfly 3 days ago
@jcgadfly Douglas Adams' "puddle argument is used to take the piss out of Craig's position by spoofing the anthropic principle. Misunderstandings all around.
jcgadfly 3 days ago
@jcgadfly I have to apologise doubly as much. I realised after a few of your replies that I had been dyslexic and swapped around 'humans' with 'God', making me think you were supporting Craig, and then I kept arguing anyway.
correctionguy 1 day ago
@vaguevocalist17 I LOVE IT!
laitho90 4 days ago
@vaguevocalist17 I am a puddle <<
No, you are NOT a puddle! You are a 'hole". Your born through a "hole".You see through "holes", you eat through a "hole", you hear through "holes", you breath through "holes", you piss through a "hole", you smell through "holes", you crap through a "hole" you fuck through a" hole" and your dead in a "hole"! YOU are NOT a PUDDLE. YOU are a HOLE!
Gods greatest invention, "THE HOLE", and that is the whole "hole" truth!
EGMAG 3 days ago
lol, 2 citations talking about mathematics ... he actually has a trollface.jpg
bardiche1989 2 weeks ago
What a strange argument - the odds of life and the universe are small - So small that it must have been a god. But that begs the question: "what are the odds of an omniscient, omnipresent, and all powerful god existing to create this universe? Surely that is even less probable?
Ag8MrE 2 weeks ago
Craig is probably the most learned christian apologist but his arguments are still laughably bad. It's funny how he uses probability of fine tuning as evidence for God yet refuses to accept probability when it is used to argue against Christ's resurrection.. Like all theists he seizes upon the slightest scientific argument he can find to justify his pre-existing beliefs despite claiming that scientific proof isn't necessary if you have faith.
flackz16 2 weeks ago
People have to understand that "Dr." Craig has a PhD. in theology (i.e. fairy tales) not science. That explains the BS he spouts.
jezmundberserker 2 weeks ago
@sidlentz777,
Easy for you to say. Why dont you arrange a debate with Dr. Craig? Are you too bizzee too?
glipzik 2 weeks ago
@glipzik
My 'debate' with WLC would be very short.
I would ask him to claim that Euler's identity e^(πi) + 1=0, being not true to an extremely improbably infinitesimal degree of accuracy, but absolutely true with no error whatsoever, and that this bafflingly mysterious formula also just chances to contain some of the most important elements of mathematics (ln, pi, i, 1, 0, addition) to boot, could only be the divine handiwork of God who designed it so.
Oh, the 'improbability'! "God did it!!"
Tubeistdan 2 weeks ago
@glipzik Craig won't debate anyone who has less than a Ph.D He also has exhorbitant speaking fees. Craig's the coward here.
jcgadfly 1 week ago
The fine tuning argument is a tautology: if life was possible at all values, then god made sure we were possible in every possible universe. If possible in narrow range, then he made sure they were placed in such range. If possible in an moderately wide range, then he took care to make life possible in enough scenarios. Congratulations for your logic, dear 'dr' Craig.
sirdelrio 2 weeks ago
3-Step Formula for Proving the Existence of God:
(1) Find gaps in scientific understanding.
(2) Ask a "why" question.
(3) Then, fill that gap with God.
ea86tr 2 weeks ago 31
@ea86tr Craigs arguments are deductive arguments, he doesn't use "God of the gaps" reasoning. The conclusion that "God did it" simply follows from the premises and is not used in a gap of scientific knowledge.
tomdenman 1 week ago
@tomdenman His premises are based on scientific ignorance (combined with his ignorance). Moreover, his deduction is full of logical fallacies and/or intellectual dishonesty.
ea86tr 1 week ago
@ea86tr Even if I were to concede that his premises are false, that still wouldn't mean he is using "God of the gaps" reasoning. My point would still stand, as his arguments are still in logically valid form and do NOT ever state that since we "don't know" therefore "God did it".
tomdenman 1 week ago
@tomdenman How come his premise is not based on the gap in our scientific understanding? (Premise: We don't yet know how/why such and such constants take such and such values in our equations. Conclusion: God did it.)
ea86tr 1 week ago
@ea86tr got use this one lmao
martystreets 1 week ago
@ea86tr 3 step formula for disproving God
1 Tease and mock spiritual believers
2 Use science to crush their claims of meaningful existence
3 Then assume there is no god because lack of physical evidence when science can't even prove or explain mathematical truths or metaphysical.
SudanCarib 1 day ago
@SudanCarib
(1) I tease and mock delusional people and their nonsensical claims.
(2) I use logical reasoning to crush illogical nonsense. And, you cannot achieve meaningful existence through arrogance and self-deception.
(3) Based on logical inconsistencies and conflicting facts, I can disprove particular arguments for "God". I'm just falsifying such arguments, not making metaphysical claims myself. (So, Godel's incompleteness theorem is totally irrelevant.)
ea86tr 9 hours ago
@ea86tr As a Deist, fair enough.
SudanCarib 8 hours ago
@SudanCarib
3. is a fallacy. Science having problems with certain base aspects does not invalidate the assumption which is based on entirely different data aka that there is no measurable, repeatable, observable event of God's action or his existance. Since there is no indication the assumption - based on the current data - the only conclusion is the non existance of God. The assumption there is a God however is entirely speculative until actual data is provided.
kMondrakken 26 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is it just me but does anyone else think William Lane Craig is actually David Lee Roth?
watch?v=3WfQ-hV3WtA
ninjamojo711 2 weeks ago
All this guy does is take something that OTHER PEOPLE have figured out, i.e. any law he references; like gravity, then says "no-one listening to me knows where that came from, how/why that works or who/what did it, therefore on the basis that YOU cannot disprove MY design argument, I must be right."
Any rational person can see the fantastically warped logic in that.
He feigns intellect and knowledge relative on other peoples ignorance /lack of education and manipulates human intuition
Peace x
Henry36540 2 weeks ago
Holy crap, that argument was a load of bird poo.
314Aurelius 2 weeks ago
"the laws of nature are consistent with a large range of values of these constants".How does he know that?Just because he can imagine other values doesn't mean there actually can be other values.Even still, since we know life exists and apparently requires a specific universe,we need to know the proportion of universes like ours caused by supernatural causes over natural causes to estimate the probability of any theory, and we don't have this information. useless argument under Bates theorem
adstanra 2 weeks ago
Why does he consider it fine-tuning? Also, why does he even consider that the conditions could be there by "chance"? He's a doctor of philosophy, isn't he? Some kind of physical condition had to exist, and it does. It is what it is, and on this tiny planet, tucked away in a corner of an ordinary galaxy within a incalculably vast Universe, the conditions just happened to be right to support us. Why does "design" even enter into it?
jerico641 2 weeks ago
@jerico641 Well Evolution theory, even though is a wide supported and firm Science Theory for instance, explains very well what is observed when you got life going, but AS FAR AS I KNOW it does not come across that well when it tries to explain where it all began, there are still rough spots that need to be worked on, so it is not that far fetched considering other options, even if they turn out to be wrong, but you do have to get the evidence together to back it up.
am101171 2 weeks ago
@am101171
Evolution by Natural Selection addresses nothing about "where it all began"; it isn't supposed to. It's a theory explaining the diversity of life on Earth, nothing else.
jerico641 2 weeks ago
@jerico641 Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago.
am101171 2 weeks ago
@am101171 This is taken from wikipedia. In the second paragraph it says "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal ancestor". Evolution also tries to explain the origin of life. I do not pretend to know a lot on this but in my biology class centuries ago I seem to remember that it was Darwin himself that offered the famous organic or primordial soup hipothesis as the starting point of life.
am101171 2 weeks ago
@am101171 And then in the yeares to come Evolutionist have offered and tested other hyphotesis ( or theories not sure) on the origins of life.
am101171 2 weeks ago
@am101171 If interested look for abiogenesis in wikipedia or another source. This is from this topic in wikipedia:
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[16] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"
am101171 2 weeks ago
@am101171 I don´t think there is anything wrong with what I have said. that is just the way science is. And what I stated is just a mere explanation based on this information, nothing against Evolution theory or so. It is scientific to look for diferent avenues and test them untill the criteria is met.
am101171 2 weeks ago
@am101171
OK, I agree; what's the problem?
jerico641 2 weeks ago
@jerico641 none at all. thanks for sharing, you made me realize I need to read more on the subject. Have a good life. regards
am101171 2 weeks ago
I love how he attributes this "fine tuning" of his to the entire Universe, as if we had any idea at all what's out there beyond this little corner of our own Galaxy, or how it might operate.
jerico641 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BTW, EVIL by definition does not exist, only Gd does. EVIL is to live backwards. Anything that is, is also good. Nothing is evil, literally, for evil is the lack of something, which cannot also exist, again, by definition. FREEWILL is Gd. . You are talking about animals. WE-R humans... Elevate friend: goo.gl / GN4D
roboeco 2 weeks ago
William Lane Craig is SUCH a Prick
free2thinkspeak 2 weeks ago
@free2thinkspeak The tone of voice he uses when debating is so patronizing. I think he needs to get laid.
runalongnowhoney 2 weeks ago
@runalongnowhoney he seems like a desperately insecure man who needs to feel loved.
and yeah his debating tactics are vile
free2thinkspeak 2 weeks ago
Intelligent life has evolved according to the environment it finds itself in. If the constants of the universe were different, it may still have evolved, just differently but accordingly within its environment.
to sum up,
The conditions of the universe are not necessarily fine tuned for intelligent life,
Intelligent life has evolved to exist within the laws of nature.
And as far as we know it took over 13.5 BILLION YEARS so it's hardly that fine tuned!
111RockNRoll111 3 weeks ago
Well he makes a somewhat adequate argument for deism, which can be defended, but thats as far as he can go. As soon as you argue for the existence of a supernatural it can be anything. A collective of fairies are as likely to have "fine tuned" the Universe as a god or blob or anything. He essentially pokes holes in reasonable arguments and then says that god follows necessarily. He is so obviously trying to prove himself correct that its kind of sad.
Mryukon91 3 weeks ago
We only know of one single type of carbon-based life; there may be literally billions of different types of life which could evolve in Universes with different constants, thus his argument for "fine tuning" of our Universe is impotent.
runalongnowhoney 3 weeks ago
@runalongnowhoney It is not impotent, it is something that scientist are still discussing and investigating, the jury is out.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 If the jury is still out, then why does Craig use "fine tuning" as evidence for the existence of God?
runalongnowhoney 3 weeks ago
@runalongnowhoney Oh, I think I know that one, because he probably picked the scientists side that defend it to base his allegations.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 Fine tuning begs the question and assumes the universe has a purpose Moral objective argument circular reasoning. Ontological incoherent definition of maximal greatness, cosmological causality is incapable of being discussed prior to the universe. The most interesting of them is the Cosmological Craig admitted that the argument fails but still uses it.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 I do not go that far, I just want to know if the Universe is indeed fine tuned, if it is true or false, after that is somewhat established based on enough evidence. Then I will see what it entails. So far even though scientists as Hawkings have considered that it SEEMS that it is, as I said before the jury is still out,
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 I particularly like the simulations done on super computers where 25% of the fundamental constants could be tweaked and still get star generation, though that means at least 75% of these constants can not be changed that much
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 I'm not clear on what you are trying to say
runalongnowhoney 3 weeks ago
@runalongnowhoney I am just and interested party. On the subject of the origin, If I was trying to say something it would be I don´t know for sure what is the answer, and I would like to know, even though I´ve taken some formal classes on quantum physics and I have my own opinions, I don´t see any real answers on neither camp, for the time being.
On this specific video I am just gathering information forth and against.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 For and against what?
runalongnowhoney 2 weeks ago
@runalongnowhoney the subject theism, atheism, mainly Mr. Craig statements in this specific case.
am101171 2 weeks ago
Actually as far as I understood and researched, there were some modeling done on super computers of these constants and it seems that 25% of them could be tweaked significantly different than their actual values still providing a universe that could create stars, which does not guarantee life genesis but still is a good indicator of the possibility. Perhaps he needs to do more homework, in the best interest of the debate.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 Of course these models could be wrong, but one has to try and keep working on it, have some faith in science and scientists ( just kidding).
am101171 3 weeks ago
This clown is in way over his head. He needs to leave this to the professional physicists and biologists, not the "professional philosophers."
choochtrain 3 weeks ago
We would need the probability density to be able to say if it is probable or not, and we wouldn´t be able to say neither with out it. But just let´s say we have it and it is very probable, then the next question is why? and that one is still rolling. Like the multiver theory that does not need a Creator for the universe, but needs a set of meta laws to allow the many universes to pop up and where this meta laws come from and why. I don´t why or why not if ,that I can say.
am101171 3 weeks ago
"One would need to demonstrate that these quantities could be altered for this line of argument to have a meaning" . Good point. I think the multiverse theory states that they can be set, different from other universes when a new one pops up, even though multiverse theory is used to support a non creator entity Universe.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 There have been also physicists that have considered the possibility that these constants and even physics laws to be somewhat local ones. I honestly don´t know if in the present this is still a valid point. I will try to research.
am101171 3 weeks ago
@am101171 there you go World wide web science.unsw.edu.au/news/across-the-universe-does-physics-have-local-by-laws/
am101171 3 weeks ago
Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
am101171 3 weeks ago
William Lane Craig makes arguments like Kent Hovind's tax attorney: They sound GREAT to somebody who wants to BELIEVE what he's saying, but at the end of the day, they're nothing more than so much bullshit....
GetMeThere1 3 weeks ago 32
@GetMeThere1 Perhaps you would discuss the reasons that make you sure a creator could not possibly exist (I don't mean an argument for or against religion - that would not interest me - just the concepts of there possibly being some creative force beyond our understanding and why it could not be)
jrmaximus 2 weeks ago
@jrmaximus : I don't know what gave you the idea that I'm "sure a creator could not possibly exist." My comment was meant to remark that Craig's argument is poor (VERY).
In fact, a creator god is an superficially fitting answer to ALL questions. As we've progressed, however, we've come to find that answers to previously intractable-appearing problems have been answered by standard causal reasons, and it's been seen over and over (and OVER) that the "creator answer" is not needed or useful.
GetMeThere1 2 weeks ago
When put into perspective the universe is very poor at creating life-permiting conditions, one very small planet in one solar system amongst billions of stars is hardly fine tuned, Also many animals are adapted to their environment not the other way around (e.g. the polar ice caps are not adapted for polar bears it's the other way around) Also how can they know that changing these values would create a universe containing less life, it could create one containing more.
mancno1 3 weeks ago
@bestvalue- "So because he's smarter than you he's dishonest?"
Same logic he is trying to peddle. If you knew what a professional debater was, you wold discover what is REALLY dishonest.
That being your desire to stay ignorant. Kiss the ass of truth, not the ass of Craig.
Rocketryman 3 weeks ago
It should not make any difference what the universal constants are. An omnipotent being, as described by most theists, should be able to create any kind of life in any kind of universe given any value for the universal constants. Even if the constants were not constant but instead random variables this should pose no challenge to this type of being.
japlha 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love your username! drcraigvideos is a douche! But let's not be too hasty and lets grant Craig his claim that the cosmos has a grand designer. Because now he has the burden of trying to justify how his absurd belief system (Christianity) has anything at all to do with this supernatural, unknown, and unknowable presence. I totally agree the Big Bang is the result of a supernatural event. But watching Craig try and est a connection between this transcendence and Christianity is funny as hell!
LoganFiive 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
LoganFiive 3 weeks ago
hallucinations: hearing or seeing God, Satan, demons, and angels;
delusions of grandiosity: belief that he is the salvific Christ/Messiah with miraculous powers and apocalyptic foreknowledge;
delusions of persecution: temptation by Satan; opposition by demons;
an insidious reduction in external relations and interests: nomadic asceticism; estrangement from his family.
Nietzschean1000 3 weeks ago
the Son can do nothing by himself
the Father loves the Son
the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
the Father sent the Son
the Father has granted the Son to have life in him
the Father has given him authority to judge
I seek not to please myself but him who sent me
Nietzschean1000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why are we not assuming that it was a "miracle" when we are dealt a bridge hand? Because in that case we don't put the same subjective significance on the event. We put significance on life, because it concerns ourselves, yet from an objective perspective there is no difference in significance between say a particular combination of one trillion sand grains forming a particular pattern somewhere and life evolving. This subjective deception is what creates the "fine tuning" illusion.
xknowledgeisfreex 3 weeks ago
@xknowledgeisfreex Not Spam.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
An argument for God is not God. It is a hustle.
Craig is slick and polished, but he is a salesman with an empty box.
sidlentz777 3 weeks ago 17
@sidlentz777 hes slick?
zdunichme 3 weeks ago
and what makes you think the probability of universe being this way could be extremely high?
9906197439 3 weeks ago
I think you don't know that he is not here to demonstrate how these quantities could be altered. His point is something else.
9906197439 3 weeks ago
The maker of this video fails at life.
bestvalue 3 weeks ago
I study physics and the argument Dr. Craig is making here is EXTREMELY unclear if it is correct or not. What he is claiming is unknown and if anything, at the current state of knowledge, it is more likely to be false than to be true. The comments here aren't big enough for me to explain. If you would like to me to explain feel free to message me.
Fand421 3 weeks ago
but probably you are just so offended in your insecure naturalist belief-system, that you just seek some odd form of personal salvation by putting up these rants. i mean even your account name... you seem to be totally obsessed. haha so funny, and those people call themself "rationalists"...
MBsaturnus 3 weeks ago
seems like YOU are actually not understanding math and science if you are trying to prove any point against Dr. Craig with this video
MBsaturnus 3 weeks ago
@MBsaturnus I study math and physics and this claim in the video does make it sound like Dr. Craig is not well suited to be discussing far reaching scientific ideas. Changing the constants in physics would produce a drastically different universe, but to claim those universes would not be life permitting is an EXTREMELY large leap in logic.
Fand421 3 weeks ago 2
Actually, the odds are 1/6,227,020,800.
They are 100% when it happens.
scienceandmusiclover 3 weeks ago
@Siedlerdeo I agree with what you have said. While it does not prove evolution, I do think that the strongest 2 arguments for evolution are the chromosomal similarities that you mentioned and the similarity of retrotransposons between humans and apes.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
I don't know why people find it so hard to grasp that there are two parts to this argument. Not only is the universe improbable, BUT it also fits with a specific pattern,namely, the pattern to allow for intelligent life. By the analogy, getting dealt 13 random cards is very improbable but so what. Getting dealt a straight run of 13 is a big deal because it is improbable and fits a specific pattern. And for anyone who thinks that life wouldn't require a significant patter, go take a science class
smitty0521 4 weeks ago
@smitty0521 This whole argument is flawed on a very shallow level, which is quite entertaining to me. The thing is that we do not have any solid evidence for the existence of any other universes. Therefore you cannot induce anything provable on this matter, since initial observation cannot be the proof or even a validation. This is called circular reasoning. Welcome. Both atheists and theists are wrong; Craig is making a fool of himself; I'm trying to go to sleep and fail at it.
Valholm 4 weeks ago
@Valholm I'm not sure what you are saying, but that may have to do with the sleepiness part. I think that the cosmological argument as well as a few other things like thermodynamics show that the natural world cannot be eternal. Logic then takes me the rest of the way to saying that naturalism cannot be true.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
Well, your logic is based on a number of assumptions, just like the naturalists logic. Your logic might be fine, it's your assumptions, that you probably claim as self-evident, that I am concerned about.
Cosmological argument is just that - an argument - it has not been validated, let alone proved, to ANY reasonable degree. If you think it has been, your reasoning is clearly flawed. [1]
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@Valholm Here is a quote for you
Alexander Vilenkin- (Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University) “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 Just because I have a cause, or anything else for that matter has a cause, doesn't mean that Universe necessarily has a cause. It's just play of words, nothing more. Universe and God are in their own playing field, which we know practically nothing about. On an evolutionary scale, human beings are in the middle of the process of identifying the problem of the research, not even identifying the location of the information that we have to gather, let alone actually gathering it. [2]
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@Valholm You should pay more attention to the argument. It is not that everything has a cause. It is that anything which has a beginning has a cause. This one of the foundations of rational thought. Otherwise you might as well go on thinking that this post was put here by nothing or that your world is made up of nothing.
It is then quite easy now-a-days to show that the universe had a beginning, what with all the evidence pointing to it and all.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 "anything which has a beginning has a cause." While that is true for things that are on the same "playing field" as us, where is the evidence for that rule to apply to the Universe? Universe might not be on the same "playing field" as things that it produced. There is no evidence for the contrary, if there is - I don't know about it, please enlighten me. Just because argument is rational when applied to our "pf", does not necessarily make it so to things beyond it.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 I am just being cautious; I do not commit myself to any of the two presetned points of view, since both of them are somewhat feasible.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@Valholm And I think that is the most reasonable way to think. I started that way. Initially I couldn't wrap my head around some of the problems with infinity, but the more I thought about it, the more confident I have become that Craig is onto something.
And I do hope that i am not coming across as abrasive or arrogant. I struggle with those.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 That is not the most reasonable way to think. There is a place for models to exist in our reasoning, and models are tremendously important in our day-to-day and global human affairs, but the more vague and unknown the concept is, the more is the error that the natural limitation of models would produce.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smitty0521 "but the more MASSIVE, vague and unknown the concept is, the more is the error that the natural limitation of models would produce"
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 natural limitation of models being that the designer of the model cannot account for certain variables that "he does not know he does not know". You logic is too simplistic, in my opinion.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@Valholm I admit that we don't know everything. I admit that models are innately simpler than what they try to demonstrate, but I do think that there come a point where a person must make some sort of conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I just got done watching a sherlock holmes movie and I think that he is a good example of this. Is this way of thinking a little risky and presumptuous, yes, but these limitations will always be there. For me the evidence is enough. Thanks for our dialogue.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 you are welcome. However, I cannot agree with you that there comes a point where a person must make some sort of a conclusion on these matters. I will most likely die without submitting myself to a certain conclusion on this matter. There is no such point, in my opinion. It is a mere theistic illusion, that your spiritual leaders have put into your mind using fear of suffering.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@Valholm I do object to your assumptions about the origin of my beliefs.
First off, that is a logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy to discount beliefs based on their origins. Second, my own beliefs on the matter come largely from personal spiritual experience, being bolstered by philosophical and scientific arguments. Third, as a father, i know that fear of suffering is one of the ways (but certainly not the only one) that humans learn things and should not be discounted all together.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 First off, my reasoning is free from genetic fallacy, since I do not "discount" belief (unproven hypothesis based on induction) in God on the basis of it's origin. I "discount" it on the merit of it not standing up to simple deductive exercises.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 Secondly, even my personal spiritual experience of prayer and bliss, empowered by the number of philosophical arguments that are always there, like vultures, is outweighed by the deductive exercises of my logic.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 Third, assuming your model that God is 'father' and we are His 'children', do you understand the magnitude of suffering that HE ALLEGEDLY imposes on his own children? What kind of a father would do that? This does not stand up to simple deduction. If God is, then he is not from fear, but from knowledge. Simple as that. Not "readings," actual knowledge, meaning the "physical power of the brain" to comprehend.
From my p.o.v., you, justifying Hell, is simply proving my original point.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
Replying only to the part about a father letting a child suffer. I let my kids make mistakes all the time, and sometimes they hurt. I don't enjoy it but I've seen what happens to bubble-wrap kids when they enter University - they're incapable of thinking, earning by merit, and have an amazing sense of entitlement. My kids learn hard lessons, but at nine years old, even they understand why, and the value of their lessons. And, they know I love them unconditionally.
TPain79lawguy 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 I would like to correct myself.
Belief is actually a commitment to a certain unproven inductive hypothesis. Hypothesis itself is not belief, it is just that - a hypothesis. Furthermore, faith is a measure of that commitment and a measure of the readiness to commit to unproven.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 Sherlock Holmes is a very bad example, because he dealt with different problems of survival. He dealt with physical personal and national/species survival, but not the survival of his consciousness. These are not the same concepts. If you are running away from a bear, or making a decision on whether to declare war to Germany after it attacked Poland - you MUST act on an incomplete model. But I would argue that with personal death you don't have to act on an incomplete model.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 It takes the most courage, in my opinion, not to accept any incomplete model in order to provide comfort for yourself during your death. That is what pushes people to accept a theistic or an atheistic point of view.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 Science still has a huge (I mean HUGE) way to go to the perfect understanding of the human condition.
Now, when we talk about this "probability problem", which states that the margins for intelligent life are so narrow, that this fact alone points to the validity of Design; when we talk about this, what do we understand under the "intelligent life" or "life" at all, for that matter? [3]
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@Valholm Now while I admit that I have only had a few college physics classes and this is not my area of expertise, it is my understanding that small changes in the fundamental constants and characteristics of the universe would do things like: make stars impossile or make atoms larger than hydrogen unstable or make subatomic particles not even come together at all. So no matter how broadly you define intelligent life, I think that it would require atoms larger than hydrogen for example.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 I am no expert on physics myself, but I will still allow myself to reply to your posting. As far as the changes in the fundamental constants go, consider the following: what you are talking about is changing a few of the constants independently from the others and the nature of matter itself. Since, arguably, there is but one source for all of that, what if it just doesn't happen that way?
Valholm 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 Alas, nothingness is not a desert and universe is not bread. In fact, there is no effective model of those things that our minds can produce.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Valholm I agree to some extent. Many scientists are currently looking for the "theory of everything" in such ideas as string theory. To me though, even if such a model was found, it would still point to design. This is true for the "universe generator" models as well.
Example: You see a hundred loaves of bread out in the desert. You conclude that there was some intelligent cause. You later find an automatic bread maker in the desert. This explains the bread and still points to a designer.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 You ("all of us") are generalizing a set of rules on the basis of limited observations. (my original point) I cannot accept even a plausible, but yet unproved hypothesis on such a serious matter as the cause of the Universe. Simple play of words is not proof; words are but a model of the world and a model of true reasoning. Not the world and reason itself.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Valholm What I hear you saying is "yes, the evidence currently points to one thing, but I disagree with the conclusion so I will wait for further evidence or complain about semantics"
The reason that theists speak of faith is because we realize that we don't know everything yet, but what we do observe and know points toward a transcendental cause of the universe, and we are willing to act, by faith, as if that were true.
And the principle of causality is not playing with words.
smitty0521 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@smitty0521 videos like these, and comments posted on this website, are an embarrassment for the human mind. Craig would have been fired from any serious job that would require proper reasoning ability and intellectual honesty.
Valholm 3 weeks ago
@Valholm - Craig is a snake oil salesman and nothing more then a professional debater.
Rocketryman 3 weeks ago