William Lane Craig vs Ronald De Sousa 7/16 (York University)

[Purushadasa]

The atheist states that we can infer absolutely nothing from the fact that the universe has a beginning. Unfortunately, that is a self-defeating argument because the statement itself is an attempt at inference from the fact that the universe has a beginning.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

The current universe had a beginning does not mean that all energy and matter had a beginning.

[anakrinontes]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

Are you saying that there exists matter from eternity past?

[anakrinontes]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

How do you define universe?

[chebob2009]

@Purushadasa

The fact that the universe had a beginning shows that it had a beginning- THAT'S ALL. We don't jump to conclusions in science.

[Recordscience]

@Purushadasa

The atheist does not even *know* that the universe had a beginning, because the big bang is only a scientific theory, not an empirically demonstrated fact. To say that it had to have a beginning, and then to further explain that beginning, actually amounts to nothing. Likewise, to claim that there had to be a God for this beginning to be possible, is to make a completely non-productive and unnecessary statement that doesn't really cause progress in any direction whatsoever.

[Purushadasa]

The fact that the atheist has determined, though whatever method, that the number that actually manifests is such-and-such "unlikely" to occur, and yet that very number has really manifested, proves only that whatever method he used before the number occurred was inaccurate.

The proof of his method's inaccuracy is that, in reality, the number that actually manifested was demonstrably 100% likely to manifest.

[Purushadasa]

All he has really managed to prove is that his own arbitrary method is incorrect (the one he used for determining the supposed "unlikelihood" of that specific number manifesting).

[Recordscience]

@Purushadasa The event is unlikely to occur, because it can't be unlikely to occur, due to the mere fact that we don't live in a deterministic universe, so even if it were to occur, no one is at all is in a position to say that it would occur but only present the likelihood of the event to occur. The actual occurrence of the event doesn't at all invalidate this idea, but it does require that you abandon your deterministic ideas.

[guidobambino]

haha! de lousa! i like you and your joke lol

[KnoxKnowsBest]

WOW that was grrrrate! good for you Dr. Craig.

[oneearth22222]

I don't understand how you can say this.

[dmpeyton]

His name is De Sousa.

[philopathy]

hmm. The number on the board is incredibly improbable, therefore it could not have happened merely by chance. Rather, someone had to bring about that number by design. Oh wait, somebody did bring about that the number was written on the board, namely the bellowing, angry, vapid idiot of an atheist on camera. So how is this proof supposed to work? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[DuctTapeMyFace]

Hi friend, you miss the point, which is were looking at the improbability of the Universe from retrospect, which is exactly how we look at the written numbers on the board. Shuffle the cards and deal out some, it is improbable you will do it again the same, though the cards dealt out were entirely probable. This is the fallacy of an improbable Universe taken from a retro-active standpoint. Give me some of those pills...

[trenton1980]

Your analogy of cards being dealt does not address the argument.

I would use your card analogy if I had more room ... so I'm switching.

Say for example the lottery. What is the probability that only 1 person plays and wins? It's conceivable that millions of people play and lose, while one of them wins. But it's not conceivable of 1 playing and winning.

Unless you would like to argue that there are millions of universes and ours is life enabling.

[DuctTapeMyFace]

First i think you should at least give one reason why the card analogy does not address the argument.

It doesnt address exactly why the constants are the way they are but that wasn't attempted, but we could speculate on a few idea's.

[trenton1980]

The argument gives numerous necessities for a life permitting universe. Using your card analogy, make only 1 kind of hand a winner, shuffle ... then deal 5 cards to yourself and tell me if you get the 5 that you said was the only winner. If you do, i'll say you rigged it that way.