Craig needs to read Lawrence Krauss's new book. It dissolves all his philosophical babble. Here, science trumps stone age beliefs born of fear and ignorance..
@kadene2 I'm sure he already read it and can debate him with out a problem...lol...he is an academic legend and great philosopher even atheist academics acknowledge this.
The "marble and statue"......that's just horrible. He's starting with the presupposition that the universe was a "work", like a statue, and not just something that occurs in nature, like a boulder. I'd be more apt the universe is akin to a boulder. Who would assume otherwise without evidence, at least more evidence than a very old book made by uneducated individuals?
@gvman3670 You need to keep up with is work. There IS evidence. There is very strong evidence that the universe had an ultimate beginning. Even if you believe in quantum vacuums or multiverses, the BVG theory establishes an absolute beginning.
@AegeanKing Only a beginning in a temporal sense. And not from nothing. The Big Bang is an expansion event. And NOTHING can't expand. LOL Whatever was there had mass and existed in reality, but time would have begun at that time.
Regardless, WLC treats the universe as a creation in a supposition. But I say it's not and it's just purely natural, like comparing a statue to a boulder. He has to prove design and purpose, and he hasn't even come close.
@gvman3670 Actually, it is from nothing. The BVG theory makes that perfectly clear. That is to say, no time, space or matter. The BVG theory shows that even the Quantum vacuum models, like the ones proposed by hawking, must have an ultimate beginning. So you believe that the the universe popped into existence from non-being? He doesn't have to PROVE anything. His arguments are not designed to do that.
@AegeanKing He's making the claim of a "creator" as a cause. That warrants prove or evidence.
He still presupposes that the universe is a "creation" and compares it to things we have created. That is a logical fallacy, regardless of what you think of him. It's dishonest. Why does the cause have to be a "who" and not start off with looking for a "what"? That would be more honest and wouldn't eliminate most options right out of the gate.
@gvman3670 I could be aware of this argument just now that people accuses you of being an atheist. Or maybe are not an atheist. But what good does it do when you are uncertain of your views eg agnostic. "I don't know" - is not an answer. Just heard how this protestant says something about "sheltering theology". I may put it, God is not science. But it sounds a bit of a compliment for me. How about science is not God.
@gvman3670 monotheism quite frankly had always believed in the same God only different doctrines. I would pick Catholicism over Islam or protestantism. It goes way back to the original Church fathers also to time of Christ.
People converted on the absence of forceful claims. Improbable events like the post mortem appearance of Christ may have contributed in this explosion of Christianity. Simple difference is, Osirus ceased being a god as it transforms.
@gvman3670 He did give evidence. If time, space and matter had a beginning, that means whatever created the universe must have been timeless, space-less and immaterial. Then he gives a solid argument on why that cause must be personal as well. Listen to him instead of being intellectually dishonest.
@AegeanKing I'm not being dishonest. His presuppositons are dishonest. We don't KNOW the universe was a creation, yet his entire argument presupposes it is. "the cause of the David"....don't you get it? The realistic way to view his argument is that the universe is a block of marble, not as the David. Get it?
@AegeanKing Furthermore, the more I listen to him the more I see him talking BS. No data, no references to data and so on. Just one assertion after another with nothing to back it up.
What is wrong with seeing the universe's beginnings, whatever they may be, being caused by natural laws? I would think the odds are extremely high that's the case, since nothing else is created by a who unless humans are the who.
@gvman3670 He's not making the claim for a deistic God. My point in telling you that Krauss and Dawkins say that a strong case can be made for a deistic God, is significant because they believe that a strong case can be made for a type of God. That assertion is miles away from the strong atheism they pretend to assert.
@AegeanKing No, those guys were being intellectually honest. No more and no less. They are still atheists (as in they don't believe any god claims). Just stating that a deistic god is a possibility doesn't mean they believe it. They do NOT believe in a personal god, though, and you couldn't make them believe that. No evidence and nothing but inconsistencies are why.
@gvman3670 No, they didnt just say it was a possibility. They said a STRONG case can be made for it. Thats much different than just declaring the possibility of it. Secondly, the reason its absurd to believe that the Universe popped into existence from non-being is because its metaphysically impossible. Non-being has no properties or potentialities. Craig cites many sources hundreds of times on his podcasts and debates. You need to research his work before criticizing him.
@gvman3670 The beginning of the Universe is so damaging to atheists that both Dawkins and Krauss have admitted PUBLICLY that a "very strong" case for a deistic God can be made.
So what WLC did was use the evidence obtained through science, then adds god into the equation...... God remains a belief, he can be use to assume an explanation, but it cannot extend any further. A giant floating penis could be staring down at him thining "sucker, i created you"
Theists, you don't get it. Even if all current theories of how the universe came to exist are wrong you can't say "god did it" until you actually provide clear evidence that gods even exist
So really, all these attacks on science aren't getting you any closer to proving your god(s) are real. We could be in a matrix, created by aliens, a figment of someones imagination, a science experiment sitting on someones desk; so using the visible "god" as the only option is a weak position
There wasn't any claim main by LadyAmaltheaUnicorn that needed proving, it is a self-evident rule of logic. Disproving X does not automatically prove Y, it only disproves X.
Just thought I could avoid you the hours of circular mental masturbation needed to prove something that did not need proving.
@toohuman90 "We could be in a matrix, created by aliens, a figment of someones imagination, a science experiment sitting on someones desk; so using the visible "god" as the only option is a weak position"- LadyAmaltheaUnicorn
Absolutely. What's wrong with that? Most cosmologists agree that the Universe (including space and time) began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. That was a point in time. The FIRST point in time, but a point nonetheless.
@Mentat1231 Yes, and what is furthermore worth emphacising is, that it would also would be the first point in TIME, thus not leading to an unreachable infinity (a point which Craig tries to make in another video, which would lead to it not being possible ever to reach the "time" of creation).
@Mentat1231 How can you create time at a certain point in time?
By the way, there is no guarantee at all that time came into existence at the moment of the big bang. When will you people realise that anything pre big bang is nothing but speculation at the moment? I know how much craig loves to claim that there was nothing before the big bang, but in actual fact - nobody knows.
1) I don't understand your question. In fact, I would ask the opposite. How is the first point in time not a point in time? In other words, how could you create (space)time, and yet say that event did not occur at some point in time (current best guess is about 14billion years ago).
2) Most cosmologists agree that the big bang would be the beginning of time (and space). But, even before the Big Bang theory, philosophers knew that time should logically have a beginning.
@Mentat1231 "Most cosmologists agree that the big bang would be the beginning of time (and space)"
1) I never said the first point in time was not a point in time. Im saying how can you create time itsself at a certain point in time? It isnt actually really a big deal.
2) I disagree i think most cosmologists would freely admit they are not sure. I also dont see a problem with time being infinite
1) Um.... If the first point in time (the point of its creation) is a point in time, then time was created a point in time.... This seems pretty obvious.
2) The cosmologists I've read and listened to are notorious for saying "to talk of 'before the Big Bang' is nonsense, since time was created then". But, even if they didn't feel that way, there is a logical problem with infinite time, since there would be infinite past events, and we'd never get to the present.
1) You don't get what i am saying, and it doesnt really matter.
2) The fact is that we dont know what happened prior to the big bang, or weather there have been other big bangs. If anyone is going to claim they know for sure when they actually don't, then they may aswell join a religion.
Going by your infinity problem, then how can there have been any past events if you can never get to any events? You do realise you can have points on an infinite timeline right?
2a) I agree that we don't know for sure whether anything predates the Big Bang, or what that could have been. It is simply common cosmological thinking that time and space originated there. My argument isn't contingent on that understanding
2b) You can have points there, yes. But, there is a real problem saying that for an infinity of time there was no Universe, and then (after that infinity was finished) the Universe began to exist.
To make my point #2 clearer, if there were an infinite number of points in time preceeding the Big Bang, then the Big Bang would never have happened. It would never have gotten around to happening, for lack of a better term. In other words, you can never complete an infinite amount of time (that's what "never" means), so the idea of infinite time is logically problematic, if not incoherent.
"Nothing," in cosmology, does not mean the absence of "everything." It refers to the absence of the type of "stuff" that exists now, eg, the matter & time that didn't exist before the big bang. Likewise, the type of stuff that existed before, no longer exists now. The BB is the reference point for this change from 1 fundamental state of existence to the altogether different state we observe today. What that state was, I am proud to say, "I don't know." (nor does WLC)
Give a reference on this, please. Every scientist I've read with regard to the Big Bang or Inflation Theory (such as Guth, Tyson, Sagan, Kaku, Feynman, etc) has said it was truly "ex nihilo". Energy, matter, space, and time all came into existence at the Big Bang.
If you've never stumbled across topics concerning the vacuum state, I highly doubt you've read any of those authors. If you are familiar with this concept and you are still comfortable in using those authors as supporters for true "ex nihilo," then you clearly don't understand what you read.
I have read those authors and more on these topics, and I'm fully aware of what they mean by the quantum vacuum state. But, if the vacuum isn't really nothing (it has energy and quantum potential) then you've only pushed the question back; you have no addressed the question directly. Where did that energy come from? And, even more problematic, if Universe's can spring up of their own accord at random, why aren't there random things popping up within the Universe right now?
In other words, why shouldn't I be worried, that an ACME anvil will suddenly fall out of the sky and land on my head? Quantum mechanics has not really substantiated this kind of absurd overextension of its uncertainty principle. Yes, a particle could pop up out of a quantum vacuum, but only along with its antiparticle, and they would annihilate instantly. And even that event requires some preexisting energy.
I can't wrap my mind around on how come WLC makes comments about Cosmology without being himself a Cosmologist, or not even a Scientist, but a Philosopher. Yes, we need Philosophy to make Science, but, hey! WE ALSO NEED SCIENCE and WLC lacks of credentials to make an educated opinion about it!
Having been chased across 14 billion years to the beginning of our universe William places his door to God.
William is essentially saying "You simply need to look past the beginning of space and time that's all! You fools, It couldn't be more obvious!"
What an excellent way to be forgotten in history William. If Newton hadn't also been a physicist would we remember the brilliant alchemical bullshit that he wrote?
Yea, I know believeing in a talking snake, a talking mule, angels, devils, heaven, hell, resurrections, a man living in the belly of a whale for three days, walking in water, divine healing, parting of the Red Sea is completely sane.
Gotta love them Christians and their judgmental attitudes. Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural to assert they believe in nothing is equivocating atheism with nihilism. And name calling doesn't help your position at all except to demonstrate that Christians are incapable of discussing a topic without resorting to childish immature name calling and religious certainty.
Craig is a very ignorant person. But as long as he sounds "rational" and "logic" there will be people following. His efforts to adjust Cristian mythology to modern cientific knowledge are ludicrous to say the least.
As with many of Craig's bogus arguments, his idea of "nothingness" is self-contradictory.
/watch?v=mjOAQbD-me0
Because supernatural phenomena are in violation of the laws of nature, it's clear that in order to make room for the supernatural, you have to make assumptions that make no sense.
Yes god made everything. He made parasites, he made disease, he made the incredible suffering that goes on in the amimal world. Does god enjoy watching a lion chase down and destroy a young gazzele? I geuss so because he made the world that way.
@07Aristotle "135 people don't understand Aristotle and efficient cause."
Quite the contrary: 137 people are aware that Aristotle did not have the knowledge that all of the atoms on planet Earth were synthesized in supernovae elsewhere in the cosmos billions of years before the condensation of our solar system.
It is so intelligently bankrupt to state a "magic man" did it. Lets be honest, no one knows for sure how the universe began. Christians delude themselves in to thinking they have the answers... Scientists gladly admit they don't have all the answers. That's why they keep doing research. Religious folk are happy to be stuck in the dark-ages. Can you imagine how much science will discover in next 2000 years?
@GawdOfThunder Maybe if YOU did some research, and actually understood why the "Christian" believes they know the answers, you wouldn't be making such an ignorant statement. Furthermore, science isn't disproving the Christian beliefs just in case you haven't noticed.. Just from what Craig says, it makes it understandable that the argument against there being a God is unprovable by science or any other means. science and archeology just back-up the Christian belief even more than the "dark-ages".
@alexuskings OK. please let me know why christian's think they have all the answers. I'm all ears...
It's not up to me to prove or disprove there are gods. You claim there are gods, the burden of proof is on you....and please don't say 'oh just look at the bird and the trees..' You kind of lost me on your last sentence... Science and archaeology back-up christian beliefs? I would need some proof on that one.
Please cite the scientific data which supports ribs turning into women, or talking snakes, or virgin births, or walking on water, or rising from the dead.
@GawdOfThunder magic man... magic wizard in the sky, etc... etc.. etc... zzzzzzz I get so tired of reading that cliche. At least try to present the Christian perspective in a way that I (as a christian) can at least follow, and attack that.
@MPaulHolmes Yes, I certainly know how tiring it is to hear the same old cliches.... you know 'virgin birth' 'demon possessed pigs', 'talking snakes', '6,000 year old earth'. 'Flooding the entire earth', 'heaven & hell'. I look at evidence before I believe something (especially stuff that sound bat-shit crazy... ie: see points above). So trying to present evidence to a christian is pointless. Your blinders are on too tight. Peace.
@GawdOfThunder I think you need to look up the word cliche before commenting on it. I'm just asking you to get a thesaurus out instead of cutting and pasting other peoples comments.
The list of a mix of supernatural events and caricatures of the christian faith (6000 year old earth, for example) aren't cliches.
@MPaulHolmes .... over used, predicable and/or lacks originality. That pretty much sums up the whole christian religion. I guess that would make your whole religion a cliche. You are correct, my examples did not quite fit the definition, but I think you get the picture.
@GawdOfThunder I do, actually. It tends to be in places where there is a lot of persecution. The U.S. is a terrible place to look. Please don't declare reality to be that which only you experience.
I don't get how he answered the question. What does it mean to say God brought the universe into being out of nothing, and how would that be any different than the universe appearing out of nothing itself apart from God willing that it happened? Does volition have causal power?
Why do cosmologists even bother doing research? Why not just call Craig and ask him what the Truth is as Craig seems to know the pitfalls and short comings of all cutting edge cosmological research...
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
the universe had a beginning and that beginning must have been created by god. No evidence or proof, i call that pretty lazy. Hey i dont know and dont want to do any research so ill just say god did it.
On a philosophical scale, I have nothing against anybody. You can never say for sure that God does not exist, just like you cannot say for sure Wotan, Thor or Imhotep do not exist. It is the political power of religion that I have a problem with.
Debating stuff like this with William Lane Craig would be great and I would respect him, just like I would respect any Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or Wotanist. As long as they keep their hands of me and my children with ''their' Gods.
Is anyone impressed by this? Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't, even craig admits we don't know for sure but IF it did then the bible got a 50/50 choice right (even less impressive as belief in an anthropomorphic god already implies a creation), and does that then mean we should take the rest of genesis seriously or just that bit that happens to agree with some cosmologists? Even if it can be shown that our universe began that still does not prove a god let alone his god.
Most of the most common elements are the working parts in life forms. That's about twenty universally interchangeable parts none of which could have caused their own design and function. The working parts that most of all matter in the univers is are also not able to order themselves without having a preexisting written word.
@JungleJargon Unless you forget to put the parking brake on.lol Come on. Being order? What about comets? No one order them to go.lol Wind too. lol you can't say god made them go,. We know what made them go. It wasn't a divine push.
What about when you leave your car on a hill. you walk away and it starts to roll. Gravity did not order it to go.
@SuperMrAtheist The car only rolls because it was made to roll.
Comets don't have any immediate intended function. They are there like everything else.
Most of the most common elements are working parts inside of us because they were made to be ordered to have essential functions inside of us that we cannot live without.
You can thank your great Maker for all of the functions of the elements that make possible your existence.
@JungleJargon You said objects never do anything without being ordered to do something. Nothing ordered the car to do something but it did something. Saying the car was made to roll has nothing to do with ordering it to do something. You're not making any sense. What about the parts of us we can live without. We can live without one kidney. Do you know what the common elements are?
They were made to be ordered? No...lol Those working parts you are talking about, don't always work.
@JungleJargon That theory is one of the worse theories out there. Its because of the lack of evidence. Just saying things are made to be ordered has no value as evidence. This theory would have to find some evidence on a molecular level to even come close to proven this. See... I know how these thing work. I know the D.N.A. has all the information needed to give (not ordered) everything in the body to make it work. Sometimes there something wrong with the D.N.A. A mutation, So that part....
cont... won't work right. This is how I know that D.N.A. has everything we need. To order something or some one to do something. Consciousness may be a factor in your theory. Can something give orders without a Consciousness? I have not seen it in nature, Sure we might think that the SCN5A gene orders the heart to keep a normal rhythm but That's is not how it happens. DNA controls the structure and function of the entire body. its in every cell. It contains genes that control protein...
Cont... production. The proteins they get shipped to their appriopriate destination in the body. So there's really nothing ordering anything else to do something. D.N.A. Controls not orders.
Comets do have a intended function. Earth is made up of of comets and asteroids. If they were not around. We would not be here.lol
there's no need for D.N.A. to order our bodies to do anything. Our bodies knows what to do by its self. The heart knows what to do. We can take it out of our bodies and still make it pump. That is because it knows what to do. We do not order it to pump. We help it pump by adding a electric current. Its everything working together in harmony.
@JungleJargon NOt order. You have no idea who it works. No orders are being given out.lol Everything works to together. Say you are running. Your hearts needs to beat faster to keep up. Nothing orders it to do that. The heart can tell if there's a lack of blood in the blood stream. The heart muscle needs O2. If its nothing getting enough, it beats harder and faster.
@JungleJargon Wall-e lol IF you watched the movie you would see he didn't follow his directive when he met the other robot. He quit doing his work for her. Since Wall-E is not real. Lets keep this in reality.lol That is how the heart evolved. Over millions and millions of years of evolution. Nothing orders evolution. It happens to adjust. Even our D.N.A. will change to adjust. Not by being ordered. With all this talk of ordering everything around. You sound like a fascist.
@SuperMrAtheist Wall-e only did not carry out his directives because they gave him a personality.A real robot would only carry out directives. Our computers do only what we order them to do.
There are not millions of years of actual verifiable history of life on earth. Even if there was, the genome is limited by the limited information that it has. They must not have taught you that in school.
Ever wonder why so many (all) life forms never changed at all? You're not considering the facts.
@JungleJargon Yes there is a mass amount of facts supporting evolution. There are fossils, oil and diamonds. Diamonds are between 1 to 3.3 billion years old. lol Where you home schooled? Did you get taught creationism?lol
Genomes are not limited. Genomes can change very quickly, over a lifetime or over several generations, These changes are called mutations. Mutations can be helpful, harmful or make no difference at all. With these changes can come new information.
@JungleJargon the age of the earth? oh boy. You are way off. No, Change does not destroy it.lol oh my.
Listen, if we are going to go any farther on this. you will have to get a biology book. A real one.lol I suggest Miller/Levine Biology. Study it. A lot. It doesn't make since to keep going when you have the wrong facts. I'm sorry but its pointless. I will have to keep explaining the right facts. Come back when you understand more about what you want to talk about.
@JungleJargon mutations are always bad? they always make people die? are you sure about that?
are you familiar with the mutations that has lead to people being immune to AIDS and can be traced back to Elyam during the Great Plague? not only did the mutation NOT kill the people but it actually allowed them to survive the plague that ravaged Europe and quite possibly the AIDS virus as well. I believe the mutation is the delta 32 (if memory serves me correct).
@1n354a How do you know that it's a mutation that's responsible and not a variation of information already in the genome? Why is there a need to always be lookiing to "mutations" to save us?
The sum total effect of mutations is always bad because it always alters our existing genome which is what makes possible our existence. Mutations eventually kill us. How's that a good thing?
Does that make someone a better person if the person does not die of AIDS?
@JungleJargon a variation of information already there? that would be a mutation. nobody is looking at mutations to save us, rather we are observing that mutations can be detrimental, beneficial or neutral.
Mutations don't always kill us...we have already covered that point. We have also already covered the fact that they can be beneficial, detrimental or neutral.
there is no better or worse. this is not a value judgement. this is just an observation of reality.
@1n354a If muttions are more often detrimental, and jutations are corredted, no wonder that in real life mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything. That is the observation, that is the reality.
Mutations do always kill every one of us that is not killed some other way. We always die of mutations.
@JungleJargon If it was limited, there would be no change at all. Since we know we change then it can't be limited. There's always room for change. That is a fact of life. It will always change. Its called evolution and yes, its a fact beyond a doubt. Its how things change that's up for debate.
So God creates the universe where galaxies collide, suns explode, mass destruction and annihilation....so us petty humans could exist today? All the pain and suffering that has happend over our slow evolution on this planet has happend with us in mind? So we can express our opinions on youtube? I could never be that arrogant.
@mouthyweasel we don't know that evolution happened either. we've never seen macro evolution. The point is that its more reasonable to believe that God exists.
You can argue that evolutionary theories make grander conclusions than evidence can support. Though it far easier to reason that "inventing" the christian god to explain physical phenomena is a conclusion far beyond anything the quality of evidence can support.
What a big fat red herring. God this, God that, God, God, God... you sound like children. Recognize that we don't know that there is a GOD. This renders ALL further speculation about the unproven entity ridiculous. William Lane Craig is a villain.
Can I ask, is the nothing WLC refers to as literal nothing or is he refering to the nothing scientists understand nothing to be - anti matter. CERN has only recently been able to study anti matter for a resonable amount of time to study it. Why not wait for some evidence before assuming an answer? Also I still dont understand how everthing was created from literal nothing but god wasnt created he was always there. It sounds like due to the lack of knowledge this is the only explainable option.
@benaberry There is a singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang that was all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle. Mass warps time. The pre-big bang singularity possessed all the mass in the universe, effectively bringing time to a standstill. Scientists don't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe. Scientific inquiry is limited by "Why" the universe exists.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. ~ Hebrews 11.3
I always find it amazing how anybody can present something they believe is the truth present as if they know it's the truth. Is it so hard to understand that no one can actually know how the cosmos came into existence, and even if that is what happened? Or can religion do that to you: make you no longer see the difference with what is real and what you believe that is real? Is it that much of a problem to say that you don't know because you simply can not know?
Interesting video! I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time
This theory is based on just two simple postulates
1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time photon by photon
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event
Why does anyone listen to this psychobabler. He is NOT a cosmologist! If you want a lesson in cosmology, listen to a astrophysicist or at least a scientist. All this guy does is confirms that he knows nothing, and believes in pink unicorns. All while being ripped off by poor church goers.
WOW finally a Craig video that has not disabled comments! Why is this guy such a chicken shit to allow anyone to make a comment on his idiotic babbling.
Craig doesn't disable comments on YouTube. He doesn't even own a channel. All the videos of Craig on YouTube are uploaded by other independent users. As for the reason why they disable comments, it's probably because there are so many users who resort to childish insults rather than engaging in a respectful and substantive discussion of the arguments. I can't say I haven't considered disabling comments on my video as well considering all of the immature nonsense that is posted.
@Christianjr4 You replied considerately to notnilccm's comment and you have earned a measure of respect from me.
You need a good & quick mind to extract the blatant falsehoods in WLC's arguments. I've spent 20 years questioning what Richard Dawkins professes. I've yet to find him promulgating a lie. It took me 20 hours to reject WLC's arguments.
I restate that you have my respect, irrespective of our differences.
@Christianjr4 " As for the reason why they disable comments, it's probably because there are so many users who resort to childish insults "
Ever heard of drcraigvideos? Put aside your bias and checkout the condescending and CHILDISH replies this grown and supposedly intelligent man leaves the guests to his videos, he's just one.
The irony is, the more erudite the Youtube theist, the bigger an immature jerk he tends to be. Considering disabling comments? How about not posting videos, period!
@Christianjr4 In the case of YT user Drcraigvideos, it is demonstrably not a case of disabling comments because of "childish insults". Drcraigvideos appears to have a sizeable chip on his shoulder and a low tolerance for disagreement. There are lots of rational responses to Craig's positions. Thanks for allowing comments.
@Christianjr4 though I am sure that there are offensive posts, I find that most Dr Craig video posters block people simply for criticizing what Craig preaches.
@Christianjr4 I don't see the point in trying to engage someone respectfully if they are not willing to offer the same respect of simply answering my questions without resorting to the "fail safe" that is faith. Craig is just as stupid, selfish, and careless as any other christian. What kind of sound argument is going to be presented by someone who always backs up on weak arguments and logical fallacy? This is why they disable comments...fear. I'm glad you aren't afraid of the ridicule.
I here this response all the time from atheists. Essentially it boils down to "if you don't agree with me, then I can insult you". I'm sorry, but insults, if anything, are for weak minded people. Rational adults who are sincerely looking to discuss the issues as objectively as possible will not engage in that kind of behavior. Think about the kind of people that insult. It's people who are being emotional and have an axe to grind. These are the least likely people to be objective.
@Christianjr4 Trust me, no christian is every going to give an objective argument for the bible and jesus and such. "Rational adults", don't believe in walking on water, two of every creature on a boat, and hair that makes you strong. Come on, the last people I would trust to give a rational objective argument would be christian. We just know that making fun of what they believe makes them tick; eventually they'll figure out how stupid it was and they'll thank us for it. I know I did.
You`re question begging! To say rational adults don`t believe in those things you listed is to just assume the rationality of your position and the irrationality of the other. And the point wasn`t that Christians (or anyone for that matter) are objective. The point was that people who insult are the LEAST likely to be objective.
And your assessment of the psychological worth of insulting is debatable. If anything, I think it has the opposite effect of making people hate atheists.
@Christianjr4 Are you saying that walking on water, hair makes you strong, and two of every species on earth can survive in a boat is rational? Are you not assuming people who insult are less likely to be objective? What evidence do you have? In any case, I'm sure you know you just can't argue with someone who ends their argument with "I believe because I believe because I believe!" It's stupid, and there isn't a rational basis. "I don't know", is at least honest.
Pseudoscientific and misapplication of principles...typical Christian appologist double-speak. Man can explain god becasue man created it. If there really was a god do you think a dweeb like this (or me for that matter) could sit around and explain it? Nope, no way. You all cling to myth and I be here in the present with all it reality.
@TheTruthGardian So you don't believe in evolution or the Big Bang, even though hundreds of years of theories and evidence, have brought us to this point in understanding. Many religions now even believe in these ideas. But YOU don't? Your reasoning completely unjustified and ridiculous at best.
@krandaman1 You haven't even heard my reasoning, but instead you go along with your presuppositions that evidence points to the earth being billions of years old as well as the universe. Nope, one must start a truthful search with a black slate. You believe what you do, not because you have gone out and discovered what you think is true, but you believe as you do because other have inserted presupposition into your mind through means of education and other social means.
@TheTruthGardian Actually, you haven't heard my reasoning, I have taken biology, astrology, physics, logic, chemistry and geology courses at the University of Auckland (a real one). Rather than taking peoples word word, I have witnessed proof in the making and performed experiments myself. I have gone out and discovered what I think is true, I do not 'presuppose' on blind faith...
@krandaman1 Of course you have been taught in those subjects, therefore you haven't actually gone out and discovered anything *brand* new. And I don't take your word that you have no presuppositions, everyone has them. You simply wear evolutionary glasses, and from that you do research.
@TheTruthGardian Sorry about the question, but what you are inferring is that you have discovered *brand* new knowledge, which gives you better and more realistic understanding than the vast majority of both the scientific community and most established religions? If so then what have you discovered? Also, you misread "I do not 'presuppose' on blind faith..." as "I do not 'presuppose'". I only presuppose with evidence, which isn't actually as unreasonable as you give the implication.
@TheTruthGardian "You simply wear evolutionary glasses", I hope you actually understand the colloquial version of 'theory' as in 'The Theory of Evolution' is very different to the scientific one. By the way research, I hope you know, IS the process of discovering *brand* new information.
@TheTruthGardian I said "I don't presuppose on BLIND FAITH". Taken out of context, wow! I presuppose on statistical probability and likely hypotheses, NOT 'blind faith'. I hope that you understand that 'research' is the discovery of *brand* new knowledge, because you seem in contradiction with yourself on a point made there.
"You simply wear evolutionary glasses, and from that you do research." - other way around, the research gave me glasses.
@krandaman1 "other way around, the research gave me glasses." - This clearly shows that you have no understanding or knowledge on the subject of world views.
@krandaman1 Again you making it more and more evident that you no very little or nothing about world views. Despite whether it is a classical study or not, how does that change it's meaning and purpose?
@TheTruthGardian A "world view" relates to the subjective cognitive orientation or view held by an individual that gives meaning and understanding to the universe and their place in it. Yes there are multiple "world views" but this is hardly relevant in any case.
Just because I have reasoned and researched my own "world view" it doesn't mean I am closed to others, however, you are hardly making a case for yourself.
Secondly, how am I making it more evident that I know nothing about this?
All things being equal, Nothing and Something is the same powerlessness in any set collection of things to emerge as anything appearing. Throw water into the Ocean and the water loses it's definition as a "something" and becomes a "nothing" visible. So, before Creation , what was the uniformity of all things the same, such as if all places were a thick dark cloud of mist and even if there was an observer, the observer is also made of thick mist, and so it equates to a state of Nothingness.
@MindTheHeart Frankly I have no interest in trying to make the blind see that which is plain to see. If you're happy to believe his smarmy, well rehearsed psuedo philosophical BS then good luck to you. He's a slick wordsmith with an agenda. If you expect me to explain to you in 500 characters how much is wrong with this mans arguments and thinking....well you're very deluded...it would take a book full of words. Better to leave you with your delusions.
The slick and deceptive ones are not those who know the boundaries of arguments and know how to use logic to build a case or to tear down something that isn't what it claims to be. The deceptive ones are people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who portray as smart guys but at the core has little more to present than simple mockery and ridicule.
Craig needs to read Lawrence Krauss's new book. It dissolves all his philosophical babble. Here, science trumps stone age beliefs born of fear and ignorance..
kadene2 2 weeks ago
@kadene2 I'm sure he already read it and can debate him with out a problem...lol...he is an academic legend and great philosopher even atheist academics acknowledge this.
DougsDreamDotCom 3 days ago
@DougsDreamDotCom He insists on using philosophical arguments when scientific explanations suffice.
kadene2 3 days ago
Comment removed
JuggernaughtJump 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
JuggernaughtJump 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
JuggernaughtJump 2 weeks ago
The "marble and statue"......that's just horrible. He's starting with the presupposition that the universe was a "work", like a statue, and not just something that occurs in nature, like a boulder. I'd be more apt the universe is akin to a boulder. Who would assume otherwise without evidence, at least more evidence than a very old book made by uneducated individuals?
gvman3670 3 weeks ago
@gvman3670 You need to keep up with is work. There IS evidence. There is very strong evidence that the universe had an ultimate beginning. Even if you believe in quantum vacuums or multiverses, the BVG theory establishes an absolute beginning.
AegeanKing 2 weeks ago
@AegeanKing Only a beginning in a temporal sense. And not from nothing. The Big Bang is an expansion event. And NOTHING can't expand. LOL Whatever was there had mass and existed in reality, but time would have begun at that time.
Regardless, WLC treats the universe as a creation in a supposition. But I say it's not and it's just purely natural, like comparing a statue to a boulder. He has to prove design and purpose, and he hasn't even come close.
gvman3670 2 weeks ago
@gvman3670 Actually, it is from nothing. The BVG theory makes that perfectly clear. That is to say, no time, space or matter. The BVG theory shows that even the Quantum vacuum models, like the ones proposed by hawking, must have an ultimate beginning. So you believe that the the universe popped into existence from non-being? He doesn't have to PROVE anything. His arguments are not designed to do that.
AegeanKing 2 weeks ago
@AegeanKing He's making the claim of a "creator" as a cause. That warrants prove or evidence.
He still presupposes that the universe is a "creation" and compares it to things we have created. That is a logical fallacy, regardless of what you think of him. It's dishonest. Why does the cause have to be a "who" and not start off with looking for a "what"? That would be more honest and wouldn't eliminate most options right out of the gate.
gvman3670 2 weeks ago
@gvman3670 I could be aware of this argument just now that people accuses you of being an atheist. Or maybe are not an atheist. But what good does it do when you are uncertain of your views eg agnostic. "I don't know" - is not an answer. Just heard how this protestant says something about "sheltering theology". I may put it, God is not science. But it sounds a bit of a compliment for me. How about science is not God.
JuggernaughtJump 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gvman3670 monotheism quite frankly had always believed in the same God only different doctrines. I would pick Catholicism over Islam or protestantism. It goes way back to the original Church fathers also to time of Christ.
People converted on the absence of forceful claims. Improbable events like the post mortem appearance of Christ may have contributed in this explosion of Christianity. Simple difference is, Osirus ceased being a god as it transforms.
JuggernaughtJump 2 weeks ago
@gvman3670 He did give evidence. If time, space and matter had a beginning, that means whatever created the universe must have been timeless, space-less and immaterial. Then he gives a solid argument on why that cause must be personal as well. Listen to him instead of being intellectually dishonest.
AegeanKing 2 weeks ago
@AegeanKing I'm not being dishonest. His presuppositons are dishonest. We don't KNOW the universe was a creation, yet his entire argument presupposes it is. "the cause of the David"....don't you get it? The realistic way to view his argument is that the universe is a block of marble, not as the David. Get it?
gvman3670 2 weeks ago
@AegeanKing Furthermore, the more I listen to him the more I see him talking BS. No data, no references to data and so on. Just one assertion after another with nothing to back it up.
What is wrong with seeing the universe's beginnings, whatever they may be, being caused by natural laws? I would think the odds are extremely high that's the case, since nothing else is created by a who unless humans are the who.
gvman3670 2 weeks ago
@gvman3670 He's not making the claim for a deistic God. My point in telling you that Krauss and Dawkins say that a strong case can be made for a deistic God, is significant because they believe that a strong case can be made for a type of God. That assertion is miles away from the strong atheism they pretend to assert.
AegeanKing 2 weeks ago
@AegeanKing No, those guys were being intellectually honest. No more and no less. They are still atheists (as in they don't believe any god claims). Just stating that a deistic god is a possibility doesn't mean they believe it. They do NOT believe in a personal god, though, and you couldn't make them believe that. No evidence and nothing but inconsistencies are why.
gvman3670 2 weeks ago
@gvman3670 No, they didnt just say it was a possibility. They said a STRONG case can be made for it. Thats much different than just declaring the possibility of it. Secondly, the reason its absurd to believe that the Universe popped into existence from non-being is because its metaphysically impossible. Non-being has no properties or potentialities. Craig cites many sources hundreds of times on his podcasts and debates. You need to research his work before criticizing him.
AegeanKing 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AegeanKing 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gvman3670 The beginning of the Universe is so damaging to atheists that both Dawkins and Krauss have admitted PUBLICLY that a "very strong" case for a deistic God can be made.
AegeanKing 2 weeks ago
So what WLC did was use the evidence obtained through science, then adds god into the equation...... God remains a belief, he can be use to assume an explanation, but it cannot extend any further. A giant floating penis could be staring down at him thining "sucker, i created you"
NickLiang 3 weeks ago
"Both matter and energy and time was created at a certain... point... in time..."
- William Lane Craig
Eirikofs 3 weeks ago
craig is such a stupid boner..
Mritsonlyaname 3 weeks ago
There are no gods.
wowamonn 1 month ago
i hate the sound that goes into my ears when he is opening his mouth
masterobiwonkenobi 1 month ago
Science and theology, test or believe……you decide
raywingfield 1 month ago
Theists, you don't get it. Even if all current theories of how the universe came to exist are wrong you can't say "god did it" until you actually provide clear evidence that gods even exist
So really, all these attacks on science aren't getting you any closer to proving your god(s) are real. We could be in a matrix, created by aliens, a figment of someones imagination, a science experiment sitting on someones desk; so using the visible "god" as the only option is a weak position
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn Can you prove any of your premises?
flameboy1236 1 month ago
@flameboy1236 STOP TROLLING FLAMEBOY!
toohuman90 1 month ago
@toohuman90 *sigh* Man, you can't talk to an unbeliever without being screamed at.
flameboy1236 1 month ago
@flameboy1236 you cant argue with a christian without them either walking away,making up some bullshit. or completely ignoring you
TheAidenFace 4 weeks ago
@flameboy1236
There wasn't any claim main by LadyAmaltheaUnicorn that needed proving, it is a self-evident rule of logic. Disproving X does not automatically prove Y, it only disproves X.
Just thought I could avoid you the hours of circular mental masturbation needed to prove something that did not need proving.
toohuman90 4 weeks ago
@toohuman90 "We could be in a matrix, created by aliens, a figment of someones imagination, a science experiment sitting on someones desk; so using the visible "god" as the only option is a weak position"- LadyAmaltheaUnicorn
There's much explanation to do.
flameboy1236 4 weeks ago
1:55 "God created space and time themselves" ... "Was brought into being by god at a certain point in time"
So he created time, at a certain point in time?
luker4459 2 months ago
@luker4459
Absolutely. What's wrong with that? Most cosmologists agree that the Universe (including space and time) began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. That was a point in time. The FIRST point in time, but a point nonetheless.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
@Mentat1231 Yes, and what is furthermore worth emphacising is, that it would also would be the first point in TIME, thus not leading to an unreachable infinity (a point which Craig tries to make in another video, which would lead to it not being possible ever to reach the "time" of creation).
Flutesrock8900 2 months ago
@Mentat1231 How can you create time at a certain point in time?
By the way, there is no guarantee at all that time came into existence at the moment of the big bang. When will you people realise that anything pre big bang is nothing but speculation at the moment? I know how much craig loves to claim that there was nothing before the big bang, but in actual fact - nobody knows.
luker4459 2 months ago
@luker4459
1) I don't understand your question. In fact, I would ask the opposite. How is the first point in time not a point in time? In other words, how could you create (space)time, and yet say that event did not occur at some point in time (current best guess is about 14billion years ago).
2) Most cosmologists agree that the big bang would be the beginning of time (and space). But, even before the Big Bang theory, philosophers knew that time should logically have a beginning.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
@Mentat1231 "Most cosmologists agree that the big bang would be the beginning of time (and space)"
1) I never said the first point in time was not a point in time. Im saying how can you create time itsself at a certain point in time? It isnt actually really a big deal.
2) I disagree i think most cosmologists would freely admit they are not sure. I also dont see a problem with time being infinite
luker4459 2 months ago
@luker4459
1) Um.... If the first point in time (the point of its creation) is a point in time, then time was created a point in time.... This seems pretty obvious.
2) The cosmologists I've read and listened to are notorious for saying "to talk of 'before the Big Bang' is nonsense, since time was created then". But, even if they didn't feel that way, there is a logical problem with infinite time, since there would be infinite past events, and we'd never get to the present.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
@Mentat1231
1) You don't get what i am saying, and it doesnt really matter.
2) The fact is that we dont know what happened prior to the big bang, or weather there have been other big bangs. If anyone is going to claim they know for sure when they actually don't, then they may aswell join a religion.
Going by your infinity problem, then how can there have been any past events if you can never get to any events? You do realise you can have points on an infinite timeline right?
luker4459 2 months ago
@luker4459
1) I apologize. I must have misunderstood.
2a) I agree that we don't know for sure whether anything predates the Big Bang, or what that could have been. It is simply common cosmological thinking that time and space originated there. My argument isn't contingent on that understanding
2b) You can have points there, yes. But, there is a real problem saying that for an infinity of time there was no Universe, and then (after that infinity was finished) the Universe began to exist.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
@luker4459
To make my point #2 clearer, if there were an infinite number of points in time preceeding the Big Bang, then the Big Bang would never have happened. It would never have gotten around to happening, for lack of a better term. In other words, you can never complete an infinite amount of time (that's what "never" means), so the idea of infinite time is logically problematic, if not incoherent.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
Considering one a philosopher does not one a scientist make.
WLC is full of shit. Nothing he says about and gods has any foundation in reality.
Hornadayfan 2 months ago
"Nothing," in cosmology, does not mean the absence of "everything." It refers to the absence of the type of "stuff" that exists now, eg, the matter & time that didn't exist before the big bang. Likewise, the type of stuff that existed before, no longer exists now. The BB is the reference point for this change from 1 fundamental state of existence to the altogether different state we observe today. What that state was, I am proud to say, "I don't know." (nor does WLC)
Give me a gap, not a god.
eyeammi 2 months ago
@eyeammi
Give a reference on this, please. Every scientist I've read with regard to the Big Bang or Inflation Theory (such as Guth, Tyson, Sagan, Kaku, Feynman, etc) has said it was truly "ex nihilo". Energy, matter, space, and time all came into existence at the Big Bang.
Mentat1231 2 months ago
@Mentat1231
If you've never stumbled across topics concerning the vacuum state, I highly doubt you've read any of those authors. If you are familiar with this concept and you are still comfortable in using those authors as supporters for true "ex nihilo," then you clearly don't understand what you read.
eyeammi 1 month ago
@eyeammi
I have read those authors and more on these topics, and I'm fully aware of what they mean by the quantum vacuum state. But, if the vacuum isn't really nothing (it has energy and quantum potential) then you've only pushed the question back; you have no addressed the question directly. Where did that energy come from? And, even more problematic, if Universe's can spring up of their own accord at random, why aren't there random things popping up within the Universe right now?
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@eyeammi
In other words, why shouldn't I be worried, that an ACME anvil will suddenly fall out of the sky and land on my head? Quantum mechanics has not really substantiated this kind of absurd overextension of its uncertainty principle. Yes, a particle could pop up out of a quantum vacuum, but only along with its antiparticle, and they would annihilate instantly. And even that event requires some preexisting energy.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
God acted on nothing to produce something....what?
HorrorIllogium 2 months ago
I can't wrap my mind around on how come WLC makes comments about Cosmology without being himself a Cosmologist, or not even a Scientist, but a Philosopher. Yes, we need Philosophy to make Science, but, hey! WE ALSO NEED SCIENCE and WLC lacks of credentials to make an educated opinion about it!
maujo2009 2 months ago
Having been chased across 14 billion years to the beginning of our universe William places his door to God.
William is essentially saying "You simply need to look past the beginning of space and time that's all! You fools, It couldn't be more obvious!"
What an excellent way to be forgotten in history William. If Newton hadn't also been a physicist would we remember the brilliant alchemical bullshit that he wrote?
rlmcviii 3 months ago
Can we stop hurling insults and have some sensible comments please.
franklinb81 3 months ago
@franklinb81 Relgion is false! and we must educate people to get rid of this plague!!! end of religion 2012!!!!!!
Typho0n86 3 months ago
@Typho0n86 you seem to be correct, I can't find a definition for the word relgion anywhere.
LettuceReason 3 months ago
@Tripockets
BTW, I am sure WLC and most Christians would not approve of your behavior and name calling supposedly being a "Christian".
theGroveMan 3 months ago
@Tripockets
Yea, I know believeing in a talking snake, a talking mule, angels, devils, heaven, hell, resurrections, a man living in the belly of a whale for three days, walking in water, divine healing, parting of the Red Sea is completely sane.
theGroveMan 3 months ago
@Tripockets
Gotta love them Christians and their judgmental attitudes. Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural to assert they believe in nothing is equivocating atheism with nihilism. And name calling doesn't help your position at all except to demonstrate that Christians are incapable of discussing a topic without resorting to childish immature name calling and religious certainty.
theGroveMan 3 months ago
That guy really knows how to talk out of his ass. Wow.
SlowhandDan1 4 months ago
Craig is a very ignorant person. But as long as he sounds "rational" and "logic" there will be people following. His efforts to adjust Cristian mythology to modern cientific knowledge are ludicrous to say the least.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
As with many of Craig's bogus arguments, his idea of "nothingness" is self-contradictory.
/watch?v=mjOAQbD-me0
Because supernatural phenomena are in violation of the laws of nature, it's clear that in order to make room for the supernatural, you have to make assumptions that make no sense.
drgoldteef 4 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig
Comment removed
Dacurath 4 months ago
my mom thinks this guys is a genius .. Fuck I hate my life..
sonuEEE 4 months ago
@sonuEEE Oh jebus christ... that must suck!
GawdOfThunder 4 months ago
Yes god made everything. He made parasites, he made disease, he made the incredible suffering that goes on in the amimal world. Does god enjoy watching a lion chase down and destroy a young gazzele? I geuss so because he made the world that way.
mdo686 4 months ago
@mdo686 That's called anthropomorphism. I bet that young gazelle really misses his dad when he leaves for work.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
135 people don't understand Aristotle and efficient cause.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@07Aristotle "135 people don't understand Aristotle and efficient cause."
Quite the contrary: 137 people are aware that Aristotle did not have the knowledge that all of the atoms on planet Earth were synthesized in supernovae elsewhere in the cosmos billions of years before the condensation of our solar system.
drgoldteef 4 months ago
It is so intelligently bankrupt to state a "magic man" did it. Lets be honest, no one knows for sure how the universe began. Christians delude themselves in to thinking they have the answers... Scientists gladly admit they don't have all the answers. That's why they keep doing research. Religious folk are happy to be stuck in the dark-ages. Can you imagine how much science will discover in next 2000 years?
GawdOfThunder 4 months ago
@GawdOfThunder Maybe if YOU did some research, and actually understood why the "Christian" believes they know the answers, you wouldn't be making such an ignorant statement. Furthermore, science isn't disproving the Christian beliefs just in case you haven't noticed.. Just from what Craig says, it makes it understandable that the argument against there being a God is unprovable by science or any other means. science and archeology just back-up the Christian belief even more than the "dark-ages".
alexuskings 4 months ago
@alexuskings OK. please let me know why christian's think they have all the answers. I'm all ears...
It's not up to me to prove or disprove there are gods. You claim there are gods, the burden of proof is on you....and please don't say 'oh just look at the bird and the trees..' You kind of lost me on your last sentence... Science and archaeology back-up christian beliefs? I would need some proof on that one.
GawdOfThunder 4 months ago
@alexuskings Science backs up christianity? LOL.
Please cite the scientific data which supports ribs turning into women, or talking snakes, or virgin births, or walking on water, or rising from the dead.
punnet2 4 months ago
@GawdOfThunder magic man... magic wizard in the sky, etc... etc.. etc... zzzzzzz I get so tired of reading that cliche. At least try to present the Christian perspective in a way that I (as a christian) can at least follow, and attack that.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
@MPaulHolmes Yes, I certainly know how tiring it is to hear the same old cliches.... you know 'virgin birth' 'demon possessed pigs', 'talking snakes', '6,000 year old earth'. 'Flooding the entire earth', 'heaven & hell'. I look at evidence before I believe something (especially stuff that sound bat-shit crazy... ie: see points above). So trying to present evidence to a christian is pointless. Your blinders are on too tight. Peace.
GawdOfThunder 4 months ago
@GawdOfThunder I think you need to look up the word cliche before commenting on it. I'm just asking you to get a thesaurus out instead of cutting and pasting other peoples comments.
The list of a mix of supernatural events and caricatures of the christian faith (6000 year old earth, for example) aren't cliches.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
@MPaulHolmes .... over used, predicable and/or lacks originality. That pretty much sums up the whole christian religion. I guess that would make your whole religion a cliche. You are correct, my examples did not quite fit the definition, but I think you get the picture.
GawdOfThunder 4 months ago
@GawdOfThunder Love your enemies. Do good to those who spitefully use you. etc... Overused?! Have you seen the world?! What planet are you from?
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
@MPaulHolmes Same planet as you bud. And yes, those are also over used, and rarely ever put in to practice. Even by most christians.
GawdOfThunder 4 months ago
@GawdOfThunder They are by definition put into practice by Christians.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
@MPaulHolmes Well, to be a christian you must love. You don't get to do whatever you want. You may not have met very many christians in your life.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
@MPaulHolmes By definition but not in reality. If you happen know christians that do follow those rules, then you know better christians than I.
GawdOfThunder 4 months ago
@GawdOfThunder I do, actually. It tends to be in places where there is a lot of persecution. The U.S. is a terrible place to look. Please don't declare reality to be that which only you experience.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
I don't get how he answered the question. What does it mean to say God brought the universe into being out of nothing, and how would that be any different than the universe appearing out of nothing itself apart from God willing that it happened? Does volition have causal power?
ericbwonder 5 months ago
how can god create himself out of nothing,explain this without saying he just appeared.What about heat chemistry matter(dark)
bonesandanne 5 months ago
Why do cosmologists even bother doing research? Why not just call Craig and ask him what the Truth is as Craig seems to know the pitfalls and short comings of all cutting edge cosmological research...
...
1n354a 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
the universe had a beginning and that beginning must have been created by god. No evidence or proof, i call that pretty lazy. Hey i dont know and dont want to do any research so ill just say god did it.
lordrazr 5 months ago
On a philosophical scale, I have nothing against anybody. You can never say for sure that God does not exist, just like you cannot say for sure Wotan, Thor or Imhotep do not exist. It is the political power of religion that I have a problem with.
Debating stuff like this with William Lane Craig would be great and I would respect him, just like I would respect any Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or Wotanist. As long as they keep their hands of me and my children with ''their' Gods.
PsychedelicShamanism 5 months ago
Wow I've seen some good dancing but he did the cha cha cha around that subject.lol
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
Is anyone impressed by this? Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't, even craig admits we don't know for sure but IF it did then the bible got a 50/50 choice right (even less impressive as belief in an anthropomorphic god already implies a creation), and does that then mean we should take the rest of genesis seriously or just that bit that happens to agree with some cosmologists? Even if it can be shown that our universe began that still does not prove a god let alone his god.
1empathy 6 months ago
Most of the most common elements are the working parts in life forms. That's about twenty universally interchangeable parts none of which could have caused their own design and function. The working parts that most of all matter in the univers is are also not able to order themselves without having a preexisting written word.
watch?v=yAL-jRO6hjE
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon I watch that video. Its was horrible.lol
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist You are not saying anything.
Objects never do anything without being ordered to do something.
Your car will go only if you make it go.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Unless you forget to put the parking brake on.lol Come on. Being order? What about comets? No one order them to go.lol Wind too. lol you can't say god made them go,. We know what made them go. It wasn't a divine push.
What about when you leave your car on a hill. you walk away and it starts to roll. Gravity did not order it to go.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist The car only rolls because it was made to roll.
Comets don't have any immediate intended function. They are there like everything else.
Most of the most common elements are working parts inside of us because they were made to be ordered to have essential functions inside of us that we cannot live without.
You can thank your great Maker for all of the functions of the elements that make possible your existence.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon You said objects never do anything without being ordered to do something. Nothing ordered the car to do something but it did something. Saying the car was made to roll has nothing to do with ordering it to do something. You're not making any sense. What about the parts of us we can live without. We can live without one kidney. Do you know what the common elements are?
They were made to be ordered? No...lol Those working parts you are talking about, don't always work.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@JungleJargon That theory is one of the worse theories out there. Its because of the lack of evidence. Just saying things are made to be ordered has no value as evidence. This theory would have to find some evidence on a molecular level to even come close to proven this. See... I know how these thing work. I know the D.N.A. has all the information needed to give (not ordered) everything in the body to make it work. Sometimes there something wrong with the D.N.A. A mutation, So that part....
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
cont... won't work right. This is how I know that D.N.A. has everything we need. To order something or some one to do something. Consciousness may be a factor in your theory. Can something give orders without a Consciousness? I have not seen it in nature, Sure we might think that the SCN5A gene orders the heart to keep a normal rhythm but That's is not how it happens. DNA controls the structure and function of the entire body. its in every cell. It contains genes that control protein...
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
Cont... production. The proteins they get shipped to their appriopriate destination in the body. So there's really nothing ordering anything else to do something. D.N.A. Controls not orders.
Comets do have a intended function. Earth is made up of of comets and asteroids. If they were not around. We would not be here.lol
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
there's no need for D.N.A. to order our bodies to do anything. Our bodies knows what to do by its self. The heart knows what to do. We can take it out of our bodies and still make it pump. That is because it knows what to do. We do not order it to pump. We help it pump by adding a electric current. Its everything working together in harmony.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist ...and where did your body get the information to know what to do by itself?
The heart was made and ordered to do what it does. Ordered also means assembled.
All of the information came from DNA. All of the material consists of most of the most common elements that are the working parts inside of us.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon NOt order. You have no idea who it works. No orders are being given out.lol Everything works to together. Say you are running. Your hearts needs to beat faster to keep up. Nothing orders it to do that. The heart can tell if there's a lack of blood in the blood stream. The heart muscle needs O2. If its nothing getting enough, it beats harder and faster.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist You said, "The heart can tell..." How can the heart know what to do without orders?
It is no different than the "directives" that Wall-e has. He knows nothing only that he has directives to follow.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Wall-e lol IF you watched the movie you would see he didn't follow his directive when he met the other robot. He quit doing his work for her. Since Wall-E is not real. Lets keep this in reality.lol That is how the heart evolved. Over millions and millions of years of evolution. Nothing orders evolution. It happens to adjust. Even our D.N.A. will change to adjust. Not by being ordered. With all this talk of ordering everything around. You sound like a fascist.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist Wall-e only did not carry out his directives because they gave him a personality.A real robot would only carry out directives. Our computers do only what we order them to do.
There are not millions of years of actual verifiable history of life on earth. Even if there was, the genome is limited by the limited information that it has. They must not have taught you that in school.
Ever wonder why so many (all) life forms never changed at all? You're not considering the facts.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Yes there is a mass amount of facts supporting evolution. There are fossils, oil and diamonds. Diamonds are between 1 to 3.3 billion years old. lol Where you home schooled? Did you get taught creationism?lol
Genomes are not limited. Genomes can change very quickly, over a lifetime or over several generations, These changes are called mutations. Mutations can be helpful, harmful or make no difference at all. With these changes can come new information.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist The apparent age of the earth has nothing to do with the known age of life on earth.
Since when do genomes have an unlimited bank of information? Mutations do not account for uniform variations that are part of the genome.
Any change to the information destroys it. It is mutations that make people die. That is the reason it is a good thing that mutations are corrected.
Mutations can only corrupt the preexisting word that makes life forms.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
Since when aren't genomes capable of change? since never. they always could mutate, ergo the possibilities to have new information is ulimited.
There are no uniform variations. fuck... you can't even FIND examples to provide support to your made up claims! you ignorant little ape!
SILENT MUTATIONS - WHEN INFORMATION IS NOT DESTROYED AND CHANGES!
just fucking google it! you moronic fucked up ape!
over 90% of mutations are NEUTRAL, they don't corrupt anything.
You lose again
transtlantic 6 months ago
@JungleJargon the age of the earth? oh boy. You are way off. No, Change does not destroy it.lol oh my.
Listen, if we are going to go any farther on this. you will have to get a biology book. A real one.lol I suggest Miller/Levine Biology. Study it. A lot. It doesn't make since to keep going when you have the wrong facts. I'm sorry but its pointless. I will have to keep explaining the right facts. Come back when you understand more about what you want to talk about.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist You are not saying anything, proving anything or addressing anything.
People lose their jobs over "the right facts" as I have given here and you're ignoring them.
Again, it is not about the age of the earth. It is about the age of life on earth.
People have spent entire lives trying to cause beneficial mutations and mutations only cause harm.
Uniform variation of species is not from mutations. It is from preexisting information in the genome which is limited in what it can do
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon You have never studied biology have you.
alianchild 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alianchild You are not saying or proving anything.
See if you can tell me what it is that you believe in your own words.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon mutations are always bad? they always make people die? are you sure about that?
are you familiar with the mutations that has lead to people being immune to AIDS and can be traced back to Elyam during the Great Plague? not only did the mutation NOT kill the people but it actually allowed them to survive the plague that ravaged Europe and quite possibly the AIDS virus as well. I believe the mutation is the delta 32 (if memory serves me correct).
thoughts?
1n354a 5 months ago
@1n354a How do you know that it's a mutation that's responsible and not a variation of information already in the genome? Why is there a need to always be lookiing to "mutations" to save us?
The sum total effect of mutations is always bad because it always alters our existing genome which is what makes possible our existence. Mutations eventually kill us. How's that a good thing?
Does that make someone a better person if the person does not die of AIDS?
For everything gained, there's a loss..
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon a variation of information already there? that would be a mutation. nobody is looking at mutations to save us, rather we are observing that mutations can be detrimental, beneficial or neutral.
Mutations don't always kill us...we have already covered that point. We have also already covered the fact that they can be beneficial, detrimental or neutral.
there is no better or worse. this is not a value judgement. this is just an observation of reality.
1n354a 5 months ago
@1n354a If muttions are more often detrimental, and jutations are corredted, no wonder that in real life mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything. That is the observation, that is the reality.
Mutations do always kill every one of us that is not killed some other way. We always die of mutations.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon If it was limited, there would be no change at all. Since we know we change then it can't be limited. There's always room for change. That is a fact of life. It will always change. Its called evolution and yes, its a fact beyond a doubt. Its how things change that's up for debate.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
So God creates the universe where galaxies collide, suns explode, mass destruction and annihilation....so us petty humans could exist today? All the pain and suffering that has happend over our slow evolution on this planet has happend with us in mind? So we can express our opinions on youtube? I could never be that arrogant.
leon327 6 months ago
@leon327 couldn't have said it better.
idreamtofflight 6 months ago
@mouthyweasel we don't know that evolution happened either. we've never seen macro evolution. The point is that its more reasonable to believe that God exists.
CloverfieldMonster95 6 months ago
@CloverfieldMonster95
You can argue that evolutionary theories make grander conclusions than evidence can support. Though it far easier to reason that "inventing" the christian god to explain physical phenomena is a conclusion far beyond anything the quality of evidence can support.
MrNobrat 6 months ago
What a big fat red herring. God this, God that, God, God, God... you sound like children. Recognize that we don't know that there is a GOD. This renders ALL further speculation about the unproven entity ridiculous. William Lane Craig is a villain.
mouthyweasel 6 months ago
Can I ask, is the nothing WLC refers to as literal nothing or is he refering to the nothing scientists understand nothing to be - anti matter. CERN has only recently been able to study anti matter for a resonable amount of time to study it. Why not wait for some evidence before assuming an answer? Also I still dont understand how everthing was created from literal nothing but god wasnt created he was always there. It sounds like due to the lack of knowledge this is the only explainable option.
benaberry 7 months ago
@benaberry There is a singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang that was all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle. Mass warps time. The pre-big bang singularity possessed all the mass in the universe, effectively bringing time to a standstill. Scientists don't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe. Scientific inquiry is limited by "Why" the universe exists.
shizzleman8 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Answer:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. ~ Hebrews 11.3
jasondotmobi 7 months ago
I always find it amazing how anybody can present something they believe is the truth present as if they know it's the truth. Is it so hard to understand that no one can actually know how the cosmos came into existence, and even if that is what happened? Or can religion do that to you: make you no longer see the difference with what is real and what you believe that is real? Is it that much of a problem to say that you don't know because you simply can not know?
Plopkap 7 months ago
Why must the cause of the universe be sentient? Any arguments for this besides affirmation of the consequent fallacy?
sonicBlue00 7 months ago
Interesting video! I am an artist on YouTube trying to promote my theory on the dynamics of light and time
This theory is based on just two simple postulates
1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time photon by photon
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event
nickharvey7 7 months ago
Why does anyone listen to this psychobabler. He is NOT a cosmologist! If you want a lesson in cosmology, listen to a astrophysicist or at least a scientist. All this guy does is confirms that he knows nothing, and believes in pink unicorns. All while being ripped off by poor church goers.
notnilccm 7 months ago
Does no one constantly notice how similar humans look to monkeys? I cant help but feel that we are no different...
krandaman1 8 months ago
WOW finally a Craig video that has not disabled comments! Why is this guy such a chicken shit to allow anyone to make a comment on his idiotic babbling.
notnilccm 8 months ago
@notnilccm
Craig doesn't disable comments on YouTube. He doesn't even own a channel. All the videos of Craig on YouTube are uploaded by other independent users. As for the reason why they disable comments, it's probably because there are so many users who resort to childish insults rather than engaging in a respectful and substantive discussion of the arguments. I can't say I haven't considered disabling comments on my video as well considering all of the immature nonsense that is posted.
Christianjr4 8 months ago
@Christianjr4 Interesting how videos that ARE nonsense tend to be the ones with comments disabled.
notnilccm 8 months ago
@notnilccm dude were burned with Christianjr4's comment. Just stop.
emmthreejonny 7 months ago
@emmthreejonny So you are saying you want my ability to comment disabled?
notnilccm 7 months ago
@Christianjr4 You replied considerately to notnilccm's comment and you have earned a measure of respect from me.
You need a good & quick mind to extract the blatant falsehoods in WLC's arguments. I've spent 20 years questioning what Richard Dawkins professes. I've yet to find him promulgating a lie. It took me 20 hours to reject WLC's arguments.
I restate that you have my respect, irrespective of our differences.
GuillemotWatcher 6 months ago
@Christianjr4 " As for the reason why they disable comments, it's probably because there are so many users who resort to childish insults "
Ever heard of drcraigvideos? Put aside your bias and checkout the condescending and CHILDISH replies this grown and supposedly intelligent man leaves the guests to his videos, he's just one.
The irony is, the more erudite the Youtube theist, the bigger an immature jerk he tends to be. Considering disabling comments? How about not posting videos, period!
TryTheRedPill 6 months ago
@Christianjr4 In the case of YT user Drcraigvideos, it is demonstrably not a case of disabling comments because of "childish insults". Drcraigvideos appears to have a sizeable chip on his shoulder and a low tolerance for disagreement. There are lots of rational responses to Craig's positions. Thanks for allowing comments.
drumrnva 6 months ago
@Christianjr4 though I am sure that there are offensive posts, I find that most Dr Craig video posters block people simply for criticizing what Craig preaches.
1n354a 5 months ago
@Christianjr4 LOL. Good point.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
@Christianjr4 I don't see the point in trying to engage someone respectfully if they are not willing to offer the same respect of simply answering my questions without resorting to the "fail safe" that is faith. Craig is just as stupid, selfish, and careless as any other christian. What kind of sound argument is going to be presented by someone who always backs up on weak arguments and logical fallacy? This is why they disable comments...fear. I'm glad you aren't afraid of the ridicule.
Dacurath 4 months ago
@Dacurath
I here this response all the time from atheists. Essentially it boils down to "if you don't agree with me, then I can insult you". I'm sorry, but insults, if anything, are for weak minded people. Rational adults who are sincerely looking to discuss the issues as objectively as possible will not engage in that kind of behavior. Think about the kind of people that insult. It's people who are being emotional and have an axe to grind. These are the least likely people to be objective.
Christianjr4 4 months ago
@Christianjr4 Trust me, no christian is every going to give an objective argument for the bible and jesus and such. "Rational adults", don't believe in walking on water, two of every creature on a boat, and hair that makes you strong. Come on, the last people I would trust to give a rational objective argument would be christian. We just know that making fun of what they believe makes them tick; eventually they'll figure out how stupid it was and they'll thank us for it. I know I did.
Dacurath 4 months ago
@Dacurath
You`re question begging! To say rational adults don`t believe in those things you listed is to just assume the rationality of your position and the irrationality of the other. And the point wasn`t that Christians (or anyone for that matter) are objective. The point was that people who insult are the LEAST likely to be objective.
And your assessment of the psychological worth of insulting is debatable. If anything, I think it has the opposite effect of making people hate atheists.
Christianjr4 4 months ago
@Christianjr4 Are you saying that walking on water, hair makes you strong, and two of every species on earth can survive in a boat is rational? Are you not assuming people who insult are less likely to be objective? What evidence do you have? In any case, I'm sure you know you just can't argue with someone who ends their argument with "I believe because I believe because I believe!" It's stupid, and there isn't a rational basis. "I don't know", is at least honest.
Dacurath 4 months ago
@notnilccm
Fear has it's use but cowardice has none.
And yes, Independent users are also frightened of being disproved and falsified. SAD.
DrErkencho 7 months ago
Pseudoscientific and misapplication of principles...typical Christian appologist double-speak. Man can explain god becasue man created it. If there really was a god do you think a dweeb like this (or me for that matter) could sit around and explain it? Nope, no way. You all cling to myth and I be here in the present with all it reality.
AtheistSongs 8 months ago
I don't believe in the Big Bang or evolution.
TheTruthGardian 8 months ago
@TheTruthGardian You spelled guardian wrong. =]
UnusAbsqueDeus 8 months ago
@UnusAbsqueDeus Yes, I know lol. I would probably correct my user name now if I could.
TheTruthGardian 8 months ago
@TheTruthGardian I do, I believe in logic too.
krandaman1 8 months ago
@krandaman1 I believe in logic also, just not the concept in which you feet your logic. If you see what I mean?
TheTruthGardian 8 months ago
@TheTruthGardian So you don't believe in evolution or the Big Bang, even though hundreds of years of theories and evidence, have brought us to this point in understanding. Many religions now even believe in these ideas. But YOU don't? Your reasoning completely unjustified and ridiculous at best.
krandaman1 7 months ago
@krandaman1 You haven't even heard my reasoning, but instead you go along with your presuppositions that evidence points to the earth being billions of years old as well as the universe. Nope, one must start a truthful search with a black slate. You believe what you do, not because you have gone out and discovered what you think is true, but you believe as you do because other have inserted presupposition into your mind through means of education and other social means.
TheTruthGardian 7 months ago
@TheTruthGardian Actually, you haven't heard my reasoning, I have taken biology, astrology, physics, logic, chemistry and geology courses at the University of Auckland (a real one). Rather than taking peoples word word, I have witnessed proof in the making and performed experiments myself. I have gone out and discovered what I think is true, I do not 'presuppose' on blind faith...
krandaman1 7 months ago
@krandaman1 Of course you have been taught in those subjects, therefore you haven't actually gone out and discovered anything *brand* new. And I don't take your word that you have no presuppositions, everyone has them. You simply wear evolutionary glasses, and from that you do research.
TheTruthGardian 7 months ago
@TheTruthGardian Sorry about the question, but what you are inferring is that you have discovered *brand* new knowledge, which gives you better and more realistic understanding than the vast majority of both the scientific community and most established religions? If so then what have you discovered? Also, you misread "I do not 'presuppose' on blind faith..." as "I do not 'presuppose'". I only presuppose with evidence, which isn't actually as unreasonable as you give the implication.
krandaman1 7 months ago
@TheTruthGardian "You simply wear evolutionary glasses", I hope you actually understand the colloquial version of 'theory' as in 'The Theory of Evolution' is very different to the scientific one. By the way research, I hope you know, IS the process of discovering *brand* new information.
krandaman1 7 months ago
@TheTruthGardian I said "I don't presuppose on BLIND FAITH". Taken out of context, wow! I presuppose on statistical probability and likely hypotheses, NOT 'blind faith'. I hope that you understand that 'research' is the discovery of *brand* new knowledge, because you seem in contradiction with yourself on a point made there.
"You simply wear evolutionary glasses, and from that you do research." - other way around, the research gave me glasses.
krandaman1 7 months ago
@krandaman1 "other way around, the research gave me glasses." - This clearly shows that you have no understanding or knowledge on the subject of world views.
TheTruthGardian 7 months ago
@TheTruthGardian 1) "World view(s)" is not a classical studied subject
2) A world view is a subjective experience, saying I don't have understanding on a subjective experience is a null argument.
krandaman1 7 months ago
@krandaman1 Again you making it more and more evident that you no very little or nothing about world views. Despite whether it is a classical study or not, how does that change it's meaning and purpose?
TheTruthGardian 7 months ago
@TheTruthGardian A "world view" relates to the subjective cognitive orientation or view held by an individual that gives meaning and understanding to the universe and their place in it. Yes there are multiple "world views" but this is hardly relevant in any case.
Just because I have reasoned and researched my own "world view" it doesn't mean I am closed to others, however, you are hardly making a case for yourself.
Secondly, how am I making it more evident that I know nothing about this?
krandaman1 7 months ago
All things being equal, Nothing and Something is the same powerlessness in any set collection of things to emerge as anything appearing. Throw water into the Ocean and the water loses it's definition as a "something" and becomes a "nothing" visible. So, before Creation , what was the uniformity of all things the same, such as if all places were a thick dark cloud of mist and even if there was an observer, the observer is also made of thick mist, and so it equates to a state of Nothingness.
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
WLC is a very slick, very smooth, transparently deceptive bullshitter. I'm amazed he can't see through his own nonsense-speak.
kalsolarUK 8 months ago
@kalsolarUK
Can you explain exactly why you mean this? Or are you just another atheistic noisemaker?
MindTheHeart 8 months ago
@MindTheHeart Frankly I have no interest in trying to make the blind see that which is plain to see. If you're happy to believe his smarmy, well rehearsed psuedo philosophical BS then good luck to you. He's a slick wordsmith with an agenda. If you expect me to explain to you in 500 characters how much is wrong with this mans arguments and thinking....well you're very deluded...it would take a book full of words. Better to leave you with your delusions.
kalsolarUK 8 months ago
@kalsolarUK
The slick and deceptive ones are not those who know the boundaries of arguments and know how to use logic to build a case or to tear down something that isn't what it claims to be. The deceptive ones are people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who portray as smart guys but at the core has little more to present than simple mockery and ridicule.
MindTheHeart