william lame craig is a snake charmer, he's good with words, tries to mix mathematical equations (incorrect), laws of physics in his arguments to create an illusion that they hold weight. but if you analyse his arguments, for example in this vid, they all turn out to be BS. he talks like he knows everything about universe like he has conducted experiments in his lab, but all his knowledge bout universe is given to him by science and he's tryin to refute the same science. whatta clown..!!
@IZeromusI Maybe if you did not respond to my comment response to someone else I would know what you mean. Nope sorry the idiocy is still on you. Maybe you should learn to be more clear as to what you speak of. Go back and take some english classes.
@smpunditz Actually that would be in the long-term memory as it wasn't a few moments ago but a day ago. I guess you have just proved my point. Good fight bub.
@IZeromusI I'm sorry I thought you were capable of following the half a dozen comments you made within the span of less then 2 days. Sorry I won't make the mistake of overestimating your intelligence again since a day qualifies as longterm for you.
I also take it that you concede the fact that you were full of shit when you claimed that I insulted you under no grounds since the best retort you could come back with was a comment about what defines longterm vs short term lol
Please stop before you embarrass yourself further. It's bad enough you've already bitched and moaned about being insult just after slinging insults of your own and accused me of making blind assumptions due to your failure to make a point.
@smpunditz Lol funny thing, I just assumed you be intelligent enough to know the definitions of the words you use. My Grandfather has short-term memory loss, He cannot remember things that happened within a span of a few moments e.g 5-15 seconds.
So actually that makes you idiotic, please don't embarrass yourself. I guess someone with limited intellect such as yourself would stoop so low as to try to play these kind of games.
@smpunditz Someone sounds a bit angry. Guess it's just frustration of your idiocy, idiots are often frustrated when they can't understand things. Don't worry so much. I guess this is why you are frustrated, because you're an idiot.
go to his website... Reasonable faith and say what you need to say.. he will be glad to respond rather than you just talking in front of a camera for others to dispute
I think what is more interesting is that you should debate craig, here he can't talk back here, I say if invite him to a debate. Bet he would pwn you instead.
this is really good, however craig was not trying to prove christianity here, just the existance of God. I want to know what craig would say back to this....
Craig is so full of bullshit it just comes pouring out of his mouth whenever he opens it. Thanks for debunking his crap - I wish more of Craig's acolytes would watch these videos to realize how asinine their positions are.
Anyway - great video, precise and to the point. Craig should be embarassed to call himself a philosopher with his appalingly low standards of intellectual rigour.
"And if you think it's "disputed" that everything that begins to exist has a cause, then I can only suppose that you think it makes perfect sense that something can begin to exist uncause."
Matter energy do not have known causes time/space simply had a beginning in our universe. Nothing begin's to exists within our universe in any material since, it is simply restructured in new ways. The atoms that make up your body were around billions of years ago.
On that note there are plenty of physicists who believe the universe did not have a cause, Hawking among them who states that the big bang is not an event ( it did not occur within a space/time context because it is how space/time came about) and thus needs not a cause in any causal since.
Get real and listen to actual experts in the field, not a philosopher who thinks he can teach physics because he's been to Barnes and Nobles a few times.
Craig is not saying "the universe must have began to exist because everything within the universe began to exist". He's saying the universe began to exist because it had a cause. The first premise is unfalsifiable! And if you think it's "disputed" that everything that begins to exist has a cause, then I can only suppose that you think it makes perfect sense that something can begin to exist uncause. In terms of the problem of the infinite God: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc. Get real.
Isn't it hilarious that they posit an eternal, all-knowing god that would logically have to transcend time and space and thus know every possible thing that could ever happen, but still allowed, as apologists love to call it, the "Fall" of man to happen? And then they try to come up with some inane, specious theodicy (or Theoidiocy if you ask me) to try to dodge the fact that this christian god, if truly infinite, would have forseen the suffering it would cause before it created us!
Thank you! I've always confronted theists on this ridiculous notion that a mind is the most likely candidate for a first cause. But everything we know about minds is that they are the result of so many physical and biological processes over a great amount of time! A mind is nowhere near the beginning of anything, the primate mind is new on the scene.
you forgot to mention that techincally things in the universe that begin to exist only begin to exist in a certain form, there's a law of thermodynamics which states matter cannot be created or destroyed, matter only changes from one thing into another... so the logical extension of this, is that the big bang was simply the universe changing from one thing into another, right?
Move your finger from one key to another on your keyboard. Say it moves a total distance d. For each integer n > 0, define E(n) to be the event when your finger has moved exactly the distance d/n during this motion. These E(n)'s are then a list of an infinite number of actual and distinct events.
I've heard apologists talk quite a lot about "actual infinities." More often than not, what they say is silly.
I wonder what people mean by an "eternal" being existing outside of time. Eternity is a property of time and time began at the beginning of the universe. If "eternal" means existing from the beginning of time, then by that definition the universe is eternal. If it means before the beginning of time, then it actually means nothing.
My main problem with theologians like Craig is they try to work their layman understanding of science into their argument. They make sense only if have no understanding of the subjects he tries to wedge in.
For someone with so many degrees it'd be nice if he did some study in the area of calculus and physical cosmology.
This is what I mean when I say there are perfectly good rebuttals to WLC's talking points. I wish the atheists he debates against would actually address them (as you did.)
I've watched plenty of debates of his where all these claims just go uncontested.
Another contradiction which no one ever seems to call WLC on is: a mind as we know it exists WITHIN time. Something outside of time is necessarily static, which a mind is not. If time came into being with the big bang, a mind could not exist to cause it.
Wait. Damn. I can't see time as not existing. And I get the impression it has the same indestructible quality as matter and energy. Do you understand time well enough to explain it to someone with my context of knowledge? I understand time to be a measure of the sequential periods between events. I would understand events to be the interactions of entities. Our observations being comparative, we usually choose cyclicality for convenience. Does long periods between events mean no time? It can't.
Wow - that was very weak Craig's argument is nonsense.
when he said it had to be a being of immense power I face-palmed. Where did that leap in logic come from? It seemed there were several steps missed out there in his argument.
It seems that he cannot even make a case for a deistic god.
Everything possible (I don't just mean in this universe, but in total - even in an idea or concept) must be logical at its most fundamental, and so God is therefore impossible. This does make an assertion, but God cannot make a square circle... It is illogical ergo impossible because it has contradictory definitions.
Apologetics and it's bag of theological chicanery is for Philosophical Bottom Feeders.. it's for Righteous Defense of Faith, not formal deductive reasoning and probing truths about the nature of Reality.. Philosophy is concerned with truth, not rationalization of preexisting beliefs. In Philosophy as well as Science, if you have your answer ahead of your question.. your a dick.
"Infinity minus infinity is self contradictory!" is incorrect. Infinity minus infinity is (drum roll), INFINITY! Don't ask a Theist with no qualifications in a given field any questions about that field. He can;t answer them.
I would have appreciated a warning though. When that pic first showed up, it made my spill my drink all over the table. I'm lucky I missed the keyboard.
A Theist once sent me Craig's over-complicated version of the First Cause arguement. Ironically, he ended up actually convincing me that that the empty Universe Hypothesis (I.e. the idea that there ever was a Universe with nothing in it) is even more rediculous and more unproven than the God hypothesis.
He argues that metaphysical time must have a beginning!
His criterion is:
x comes into being at t ≡ x exists at t; t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any time t*<t at which x existed by a nondegenerate, temporal interval; and x's existing at t is a tensed fact.
Seriously, 1 minute into the video and you completely misrepresented him.
As usual, even if we accept *all* his claims without question, we are left with the insoluble problem of getting from "some kind of physically transcendent thing" to "my personal vengeful cosmic zombie who wants to burn you forever out of love".
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, probably among the greatest who ever lived, but that does not mean that he was right always right. Gödel proved him wrong professionally, and Hilberts opinion on infinity as expressed in this video - was just that - an opinion and not an established mathematical or scientific fact.
Of course I'm not arguing that Hilbert was wrong about infinity, only that Craig's "argument" is dumb. On the positive side, I have no reason to think it's taken out of context.
BTW, I think something like 86% of NAS mathematicians are atheists. Curious that they are not persuaded by Graig's argument. Maybe they don't understand enough about mathematics and physics to follow Craig's insights.
This is the Christian version of Dr. Zakir Naik. He uses a bastardized version of science to attempt to prove the existence of God. (not a Christian God either) Technically he's not like Dr. Zakir because he's not arguing for the existence of his God. He does however bastardize facts already known to intellectually honest physcists.
I like that word 'bastardize,' its befitting for what the religious do to knowledge.
In my video (or somewhere) I pointed out that everything coming into existence is totally different from things rearranging preexisting materials, so it's wrong to compare the two.
So when he says "Everything that begin to exist has a beginning" he either means not counting the universe, or only the universe, and if he means only the universe, then he can't have the conclusion that it has a cause by citing the same thing (universe) as another example.
his first premise is actually that whatever comes into existence has a cause, not everyTHING that comes into existence has a cause.
But I agree about the rearranging materials part. But I would say that its true that universe requires a cause IF it came into existence. I would however argue that the universe in fact did not came into existence at all.
I would love to hear more on how the you think the universe is uncaused, but you don't seem to think the singularity is actually an uncaused cause. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what your saying?
I hold to static time philosophy; also called the B theory of time. (which according to Craig himself would be a definite defeater of the kalam argument)
I have a 8 part series on the kalam argument. You can find it on my page. The main flaw of the kalam is the view of time it presupposes
"Cosmologists don't regard the standard model as in conflict with the Conservation Law because the law only applies within the universe—as our videographer would put it, it "always" holds. But it is not violated if the whole spacetime arena in which it holds comes into being, for that is outside the domain of its application." William Lane Craig
He has addressed all of these objections on his website "reasonablefaith". Search for "question 70" if your interested.
The law of conservation of energy is applicable anywhere there is invariance of action with respect to time. Craig's assertion that it is only applicable within the universe is unfounded, uneducated, and demonstrably false.
In short, WLC quite literally doesn't know what he's talking about. If you want to know about physical cosmology you ask a physical cosmologist; not a theologian.
ok the last thing: in this specific video Craig doesnt really give any arguments for the cause of the universe being a personal agent apart from the metaphysical possibility and deduction of it being a mind, but he often gives some arguments to support the idea of the cause being a mind.
He actually has some scholarly work on his you can find on his website regarding the necessity of agent causation to get from atemporality to temporality. Difficult stuff but very interesting
Lol I'm sorry to be a pain in the ass. But again I have to disagree with you. The law of conservation only applies within the spacetime arena. So if space/time began to exist than necessarily energy/matter began to exist. The first law of thermodynamics only hold within the space/time arena. So no, matter/energy is not eternal by definition at all.
Ofcourse I dont agree at all with Craig that the space/time arena came into existence.
"The singularity existed before space/time so in order for the Big Bang theory to be valid energy had to exist at least before space/time did."
then you misunderstand the big bang. The singularity didnt exist BEFORE the universe, but is simply the first point of spacetime.
Well to be more precise the actual singularity didnt exist at all, since the singularity itself is literally nothing (zero volume). It merely marks the boundry of spacetime
I'm not trying to be a nuisance smp, as you might know I'm an atheist myself. I just thought it would be helpful to clear up some missunderstandings I see many of my fellow atheist have regarding the big bang, cosmology, etc. And I see many of your objections are based on missunderstandings.
I'm not talking down on you or anything, I'm only trying to help
I don't need any hell. Time did not always exist. Time did not always pass. All energy was tightly placed into the singularity and as far as we know the singularity wasn't "created".
I wasnt expecting it, but I actually disagree with your second objection as well. Christians dont believe God is infinite. But as maximally great. He has no attribute that is actually infinite.
But even if he did, IF God exists he would basically exist in a sort of Platonic realm (the supernatural) in which there is no temporality or space meaning that infinity in such a realm wouldnt necessarily lead to self contradictions.
I've never heard a Christian say that God is not infinite. I'd imagine that these assertions are only made by apologists and those who listen to them which would make up a very small minority.
well the philosophers are the only ones who really think about the nature of God, most christians are mindless sheep so what they believe is quite irrelevant.
But Craig also has some articles on how God is not infinite at all.
I actually cannot name any infinite attribute of how God supposed is myself to be honest. He has maximum knowledge, maximum power etc. but nothing of him would be infinite if you ask me
I actually have to disagree with your first objection. The universe actually IS the sum of its parts. The universe is not so to say the box in which matter/energy, space and time exist, but matter/energy, space and time ARE the universe. The universe is equal to the collection of its parts. So I would say that IF time,space,matter/energy began to exist then the universe began to exist.
I never said the universe wasn't the sum of it's parts. The point that I was making is that all because something (or even everything) within the universe has a cause doesn't mean the universe itself has a cause.
Especially since causation as we understand it did not exist prior.
I understand your point. but I would say it is necessarily falacious to say that if the universe is the sum of its parts, and the universe is the sum of its parts and all those parts came into existence, then the universe itself doesnt necessarily came into existence.
If the matter,energy,space/time came into existence then the universe came into existence.
Now the question is, DID they come into existence. Which I would argue that they didnt, but that is irrelevant to this specific point
"The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges."
well I disagree with dan barker since the universe is not like a box containing matter/energy, space and time, so if you take away those components you still have to box. The universe is equal to its parts meaning that if all the parts came into existence, the universe necessarily needs to have come into existence as well
How do you know that the universe isn't like a box exactly? How are you defining universe? How do you know that the universe is equal to all its parts?
because the universe is defined as the spacetime arena. The universe IS matter/energy, time and space. what "container" would you want to propose for the universe to be existing inside of?
Yea I wouldn't know. I don't know if we could even know if we were stuck in a universe container either. I am defiantly not well versed in the Kalam argument thanks for trying to clear up some of my misconceptions.
1:24 "Philosophically the idea of an infinite past seems absurd"
The idea of spacetime and quantum mechanics seem to be absurd too, but they're real. Just because our minds can't comprehend it doesn't mean it can't exist. And unlike god, spacetime and quantum mechanics have the evidence to back them up even as absurd as they seem to be.
No individual has made the link between Religion and Science. Anyone that has tried has failed miserably. I see all of those religious types trying to justify their religion through the rationale of science. Muslims and Christians seem the most hardcore in regards to vindicating their beliefs at their genesis story. I'm sorry but the idea of an anthropomorphic snake posing as the ultimate evil is pretty retarded and would only make sense in a child's book. Its all BS that they try to justify.
Behavioral science tells us the roots of religious beliefs. Religion is a uniquely human thing. Almost all peoples have some sort of god belief system, and the cause of this can be traced back to human evolution and the brain.
I'll PM you a link with a good video on the subject.
Obviously Craig's something from nothing statement is ridiculous. Prior to the universe existing as we know it, it existed in the form of the singularity, but some theists argue that the big bang would require a Banger that was not confined by time, since cause, and effect could not happen in a timeless singularity.
Maybe the universe is in a constant big bang - big crunch cycle. If doubly special relativity is correct, then the universe did exist before the big bang, because the notion of a singularity is based on the fact that Einstein's theory of special relativity breaks down into a singularity when you go back in time, where as doubly special relativity doesn't. So if the plank length is constant and variable speed of light is true, then going back doesn't break down into a singularity.
"Obviously Craig's something from nothing statement is ridiculous."
You need not look farther than a Vacuum Fluctuations. Empirical data of something coming from nothing.
Another point to make is that we really have never observed 'nothing,' since basically everything in natural realm is something. So to make that assertion, "Something cannot come from nothing," is actually unfounded on anything besides intuition (which could easily be incorrect).
I was referring to Crag's statement in reference to the universe having come from nothing, as though the singularity wasn't there.
The fact that particle's can seemingly come out of nothing, and the apparent uncased cause seen in radioactive decay are legitimate refutations of the requisite "big banger" that theists postulate. A single particle coming out of nothing could have caused the singularity to become unstable resulting ion the big bang.
In aboigenisis theory, the early cells were self replicating proteins that were utilizing lipids as a primitive cell wall.
There have been recent advances in abiogenisis research that have yealded self replicating rna like structures with materials similar to what was available in proto-earth conditions.
The "expert" Craig quoted as saying "the universe came from nothing, by nothing [etc]" is Sir Anthony John Patrick Kenny. Craig mentions that he is from Oxford, true, but he is a philosopher. He is definitely not an expert in physics.
So, this quotation of Craig's is completely irrelevant.
the guy who is stupid enough to believe in magical dude in the sky is pretending to understand the properties of universe. isn't he precious, oh yes he is ooooh yeees he iiiisssssss!
Got into the same argument with workingclasstheist with Das's stickam last night. There is really no way to say something cannot be infinite and then believe in an infinite mind or god. Probably why he changed the subject as soon as he could.
william lame craig is a snake charmer, he's good with words, tries to mix mathematical equations (incorrect), laws of physics in his arguments to create an illusion that they hold weight. but if you analyse his arguments, for example in this vid, they all turn out to be BS. he talks like he knows everything about universe like he has conducted experiments in his lab, but all his knowledge bout universe is given to him by science and he's tryin to refute the same science. whatta clown..!!
chinamanspeakenlis 5 months ago
dude, you are very confused and it is clear your brain functions like entangled hair. what is your point? do you have a point?
sthcrox 1 year ago
@sthcrox I'm sorry but I don't have time to break it down for the brain dead.
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz
i thought so...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaa
sthcrox 1 year ago
@smpunditz lol and this is why nobody will believe you, because you try to belittle others opinions when they don't agree with you.
You are a Pseudo-intellectual.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI What are you talking about. sthcrox didn't give any meaningful opinions he tried to be funny. You're an idiot.
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz Lol so you call me an idiot yet know not what I mean. in my book that's blind assumption.
Meaningful opinion? is there even such a thing? ah man. looks like the only idiot here = you.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI Maybe if you did not respond to my comment response to someone else I would know what you mean. Nope sorry the idiocy is still on you. Maybe you should learn to be more clear as to what you speak of. Go back and take some english classes.
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz actually it's on you since you insulkted me with no actual grounds. nice try. idiot.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI insulted*
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI You mean other then the fact that you called me a pseudo-intellectual? Someone needs to check their short-term memory.
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz Actually that would be in the long-term memory as it wasn't a few moments ago but a day ago. I guess you have just proved my point. Good fight bub.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI I'm sorry I thought you were capable of following the half a dozen comments you made within the span of less then 2 days. Sorry I won't make the mistake of overestimating your intelligence again since a day qualifies as longterm for you.
smpunditz 1 year ago
I also take it that you concede the fact that you were full of shit when you claimed that I insulted you under no grounds since the best retort you could come back with was a comment about what defines longterm vs short term lol
Please stop before you embarrass yourself further. It's bad enough you've already bitched and moaned about being insult just after slinging insults of your own and accused me of making blind assumptions due to your failure to make a point.
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz Lol funny thing, I just assumed you be intelligent enough to know the definitions of the words you use. My Grandfather has short-term memory loss, He cannot remember things that happened within a span of a few moments e.g 5-15 seconds.
So actually that makes you idiotic, please don't embarrass yourself. I guess someone with limited intellect such as yourself would stoop so low as to try to play these kind of games.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@smpunditz Someone sounds a bit angry. Guess it's just frustration of your idiocy, idiots are often frustrated when they can't understand things. Don't worry so much. I guess this is why you are frustrated, because you're an idiot.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI Nice comeback. (yawn)
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz Like yours was anything either. I could only suspect you would act so childish. Whatever fag.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI Ignorant and bigoted. Allow me a moment to feign surprise.
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz Lol, change the fucking record already.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
@IZeromusI (yawn)
smpunditz 1 year ago
go to his website... Reasonable faith and say what you need to say.. he will be glad to respond rather than you just talking in front of a camera for others to dispute
777fordGT 1 year ago
I think what is more interesting is that you should debate craig, here he can't talk back here, I say if invite him to a debate. Bet he would pwn you instead.
IZeromusI 1 year ago
this is really good, however craig was not trying to prove christianity here, just the existance of God. I want to know what craig would say back to this....
goldingd123 1 year ago
EXCELLENT video!
Craig is so full of bullshit it just comes pouring out of his mouth whenever he opens it. Thanks for debunking his crap - I wish more of Craig's acolytes would watch these videos to realize how asinine their positions are.
Anyway - great video, precise and to the point. Craig should be embarassed to call himself a philosopher with his appalingly low standards of intellectual rigour.
singring76 1 year ago
"And if you think it's "disputed" that everything that begins to exist has a cause, then I can only suppose that you think it makes perfect sense that something can begin to exist uncause."
Matter energy do not have known causes time/space simply had a beginning in our universe. Nothing begin's to exists within our universe in any material since, it is simply restructured in new ways. The atoms that make up your body were around billions of years ago.
smpunditz 1 year ago
On that note there are plenty of physicists who believe the universe did not have a cause, Hawking among them who states that the big bang is not an event ( it did not occur within a space/time context because it is how space/time came about) and thus needs not a cause in any causal since.
Get real and listen to actual experts in the field, not a philosopher who thinks he can teach physics because he's been to Barnes and Nobles a few times.
smpunditz 1 year ago
Craig is not saying "the universe must have began to exist because everything within the universe began to exist". He's saying the universe began to exist because it had a cause. The first premise is unfalsifiable! And if you think it's "disputed" that everything that begins to exist has a cause, then I can only suppose that you think it makes perfect sense that something can begin to exist uncause. In terms of the problem of the infinite God: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc. Get real.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
Craig is non-sequiteur-tastic.
snipermagoo 2 years ago
Isn't it hilarious that they posit an eternal, all-knowing god that would logically have to transcend time and space and thus know every possible thing that could ever happen, but still allowed, as apologists love to call it, the "Fall" of man to happen? And then they try to come up with some inane, specious theodicy (or Theoidiocy if you ask me) to try to dodge the fact that this christian god, if truly infinite, would have forseen the suffering it would cause before it created us!
nylonhead116 2 years ago
i recommend the Dr. John Shook ,Bill Cooke and
Peter Slezak. debates.
10sodot 2 years ago
Thank you! I've always confronted theists on this ridiculous notion that a mind is the most likely candidate for a first cause. But everything we know about minds is that they are the result of so many physical and biological processes over a great amount of time! A mind is nowhere near the beginning of anything, the primate mind is new on the scene.
Staunts 2 years ago
Killed him dead at 2.50 (ish).
He's dead, he's getting smelly, but keep kicking, just for the hell of it. :)
philhellenes 2 years ago
lol
smpunditz 2 years ago
Great vid. I wish someone would wipe that arrogant sneer off WLC's face.
Perrine234 2 years ago
Infinity-Infinity=0
zndprophet 2 years ago
W. L. Craig........it's like facepalm after facepalm with him
bobble12221 2 years ago
Actually from what I saw the argument presented by Craig was sound (not that I know anything about it).
It's the guy who posted this video that didn't make any damn sense... :/
SaintJimmyI 2 years ago
Awesome! Craig irritates me so.
agnosticman77 2 years ago
you forgot to mention that techincally things in the universe that begin to exist only begin to exist in a certain form, there's a law of thermodynamics which states matter cannot be created or destroyed, matter only changes from one thing into another... so the logical extension of this, is that the big bang was simply the universe changing from one thing into another, right?
and don't forget time doesn't objectively exist
IzzyBunneh 2 years ago
great job, im liking this series
freethinker3161 2 years ago
Re: actual infinities
Move your finger from one key to another on your keyboard. Say it moves a total distance d. For each integer n > 0, define E(n) to be the event when your finger has moved exactly the distance d/n during this motion. These E(n)'s are then a list of an infinite number of actual and distinct events.
I've heard apologists talk quite a lot about "actual infinities." More often than not, what they say is silly.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
I wonder what people mean by an "eternal" being existing outside of time. Eternity is a property of time and time began at the beginning of the universe. If "eternal" means existing from the beginning of time, then by that definition the universe is eternal. If it means before the beginning of time, then it actually means nothing.
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
SMP...Did you lube prior to this ass rape of Craig? It is, the proper thing to do you know! He should be fine however as he knows the secret.
mtsac1 2 years ago
My main problem with theologians like Craig is they try to work their layman understanding of science into their argument. They make sense only if have no understanding of the subjects he tries to wedge in.
For someone with so many degrees it'd be nice if he did some study in the area of calculus and physical cosmology.
Dashes000 2 years ago
Very nice, SM. This is a very good response.
This is what I mean when I say there are perfectly good rebuttals to WLC's talking points. I wish the atheists he debates against would actually address them (as you did.)
I've watched plenty of debates of his where all these claims just go uncontested.
darktango78 2 years ago
(cont.)
Another contradiction which no one ever seems to call WLC on is: a mind as we know it exists WITHIN time. Something outside of time is necessarily static, which a mind is not. If time came into being with the big bang, a mind could not exist to cause it.
darktango78 2 years ago
Wait. Damn. I can't see time as not existing. And I get the impression it has the same indestructible quality as matter and energy. Do you understand time well enough to explain it to someone with my context of knowledge? I understand time to be a measure of the sequential periods between events. I would understand events to be the interactions of entities. Our observations being comparative, we usually choose cyclicality for convenience. Does long periods between events mean no time? It can't.
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Great video smp. 5*'s
RichardRoy2 2 years ago
Wow - that was very weak Craig's argument is nonsense.
when he said it had to be a being of immense power I face-palmed. Where did that leap in logic come from? It seemed there were several steps missed out there in his argument.
It seems that he cannot even make a case for a deistic god.
pete975 2 years ago
It means God is illogical, which is impossible.
Everything possible (I don't just mean in this universe, but in total - even in an idea or concept) must be logical at its most fundamental, and so God is therefore impossible. This does make an assertion, but God cannot make a square circle... It is illogical ergo impossible because it has contradictory definitions.
xtremerandomness 2 years ago
I love how apologists think that this guy is an intelligent philosopher with legitimate points.
Is this the best you can do christians?
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
Apologetics and it's bag of theological chicanery is for Philosophical Bottom Feeders.. it's for Righteous Defense of Faith, not formal deductive reasoning and probing truths about the nature of Reality.. Philosophy is concerned with truth, not rationalization of preexisting beliefs. In Philosophy as well as Science, if you have your answer ahead of your question.. your a dick.
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
"Infinity minus infinity is self contradictory!" is incorrect. Infinity minus infinity is (drum roll), INFINITY! Don't ask a Theist with no qualifications in a given field any questions about that field. He can;t answer them.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Of all the pictures of him you could have used, you had to use that one. Absolutely brilliant.
Alexoneil 2 years ago
I would have appreciated a warning though. When that pic first showed up, it made my spill my drink all over the table. I'm lucky I missed the keyboard.
DancingInChains 2 years ago
hahaha
JoelDMRY5150 2 years ago
A Theist once sent me Craig's over-complicated version of the First Cause arguement. Ironically, he ended up actually convincing me that that the empty Universe Hypothesis (I.e. the idea that there ever was a Universe with nothing in it) is even more rediculous and more unproven than the God hypothesis.
dechha1981 2 years ago
Fallacy of composition? Are you nuts?
He argues that metaphysical time must have a beginning!
His criterion is:
x comes into being at t ≡ x exists at t; t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any time t*<t at which x existed by a nondegenerate, temporal interval; and x's existing at t is a tensed fact.
Seriously, 1 minute into the video and you completely misrepresented him.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
You have really good videos man.
I'm subscribed. Hope to see even more quality stuff soon.
GodWantsBlood 2 years ago
top notch, Smarty Arty. I was just about to do a cosmological vid, but no use now, you made all the points I would have.
way to kill it.
AHughman08 2 years ago
Superb as always.
AuntieDiluvian 2 years ago
creepy laugh around 4 minutes, lol
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
brilliant video!
jehovasinz 2 years ago
As usual, even if we accept *all* his claims without question, we are left with the insoluble problem of getting from "some kind of physically transcendent thing" to "my personal vengeful cosmic zombie who wants to burn you forever out of love".
gremlinn7 2 years ago
nice job. love your videos man.
1casey1brady1 2 years ago
Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician, probably among the greatest who ever lived, but that does not mean that he was right always right. Gödel proved him wrong professionally, and Hilberts opinion on infinity as expressed in this video - was just that - an opinion and not an established mathematical or scientific fact.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Of course I'm not arguing that Hilbert was wrong about infinity, only that Craig's "argument" is dumb. On the positive side, I have no reason to think it's taken out of context.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
BTW, I think something like 86% of NAS mathematicians are atheists. Curious that they are not persuaded by Graig's argument. Maybe they don't understand enough about mathematics and physics to follow Craig's insights.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Religion and Logic r 2 opposing forces. They can not coexist. =b
<3<3<3
onlykindnessmatters 2 years ago
This guy sounds like talkie toaster off red dwarf.
XChillX42 2 years ago
This is the Christian version of Dr. Zakir Naik. He uses a bastardized version of science to attempt to prove the existence of God. (not a Christian God either) Technically he's not like Dr. Zakir because he's not arguing for the existence of his God. He does however bastardize facts already known to intellectually honest physcists.
I like that word 'bastardize,' its befitting for what the religious do to knowledge.
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
Nice work man.
UtopiaLtd 2 years ago
Good job, btw
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
In my video (or somewhere) I pointed out that everything coming into existence is totally different from things rearranging preexisting materials, so it's wrong to compare the two.
So when he says "Everything that begin to exist has a beginning" he either means not counting the universe, or only the universe, and if he means only the universe, then he can't have the conclusion that it has a cause by citing the same thing (universe) as another example.
His argument is so full of holes.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
his first premise is actually that whatever comes into existence has a cause, not everyTHING that comes into existence has a cause.
But I agree about the rearranging materials part. But I would say that its true that universe requires a cause IF it came into existence. I would however argue that the universe in fact did not came into existence at all.
Knowntje 2 years ago
I would love to hear more on how the you think the universe is uncaused, but you don't seem to think the singularity is actually an uncaused cause. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what your saying?
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
I hold to static time philosophy; also called the B theory of time. (which according to Craig himself would be a definite defeater of the kalam argument)
I have a 8 part series on the kalam argument. You can find it on my page. The main flaw of the kalam is the view of time it presupposes
Knowntje 2 years ago
I'll defiantly check it out, thanks!
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
allthough its somewhat irrelevant as long as premise 2 is false. Which I would say it is. So the conclusion wouldnt follow anyway
Knowntje 2 years ago
"Cosmologists don't regard the standard model as in conflict with the Conservation Law because the law only applies within the universe—as our videographer would put it, it "always" holds. But it is not violated if the whole spacetime arena in which it holds comes into being, for that is outside the domain of its application." William Lane Craig
He has addressed all of these objections on his website "reasonablefaith". Search for "question 70" if your interested.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
The law of conservation of energy is applicable anywhere there is invariance of action with respect to time. Craig's assertion that it is only applicable within the universe is unfounded, uneducated, and demonstrably false.
In short, WLC quite literally doesn't know what he's talking about. If you want to know about physical cosmology you ask a physical cosmologist; not a theologian.
Dashes000 2 years ago
ok the last thing: in this specific video Craig doesnt really give any arguments for the cause of the universe being a personal agent apart from the metaphysical possibility and deduction of it being a mind, but he often gives some arguments to support the idea of the cause being a mind.
He actually has some scholarly work on his you can find on his website regarding the necessity of agent causation to get from atemporality to temporality. Difficult stuff but very interesting
Knowntje 2 years ago
Good vid. I'm so glad you and others are doing these vids against Lame Craig.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Lol I'm sorry to be a pain in the ass. But again I have to disagree with you. The law of conservation only applies within the spacetime arena. So if space/time began to exist than necessarily energy/matter began to exist. The first law of thermodynamics only hold within the space/time arena. So no, matter/energy is not eternal by definition at all.
Ofcourse I dont agree at all with Craig that the space/time arena came into existence.
Knowntje 2 years ago
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
smpunditz 2 years ago
well its a natural law that only can be applied to the natural world ofcourse
Knowntje 2 years ago
The singularity existed before space/time so in order for the Big Bang theory to be valid energy had to exist at least before space/time did.
The creation or destruction of energy has never been witnessed so to our best understanding it IS eternal.
smpunditz 2 years ago
"The singularity existed before space/time so in order for the Big Bang theory to be valid energy had to exist at least before space/time did."
then you misunderstand the big bang. The singularity didnt exist BEFORE the universe, but is simply the first point of spacetime.
Well to be more precise the actual singularity didnt exist at all, since the singularity itself is literally nothing (zero volume). It merely marks the boundry of spacetime
so I guess you missunderstand the BB
Knowntje 2 years ago
I didn't say the singularity existed BEFORE the universe I said it existed before space/time did.
smpunditz 2 years ago
the universe IS spacetime
Knowntje 2 years ago
I'm not trying to be a nuisance smp, as you might know I'm an atheist myself. I just thought it would be helpful to clear up some missunderstandings I see many of my fellow atheist have regarding the big bang, cosmology, etc. And I see many of your objections are based on missunderstandings.
I'm not talking down on you or anything, I'm only trying to help
Knowntje 2 years ago
I don't need any hell. Time did not always exist. Time did not always pass. All energy was tightly placed into the singularity and as far as we know the singularity wasn't "created".
smpunditz 2 years ago
hmm, my last comment didnt show up, so ill redo it
"I don't need any help."
sorry, I'm trying to be degrading or anything.
"Time did not always exist. Time did not always pass."
well. I dont know to what philosophy of time you hold. (btw time by definition did ALWAYS exist since the word always is a word in relation to time)
"and as far as we know the singularity wasn't "created"."
I absolutely agree
Knowntje 2 years ago
I mean I guess you would agree that matter and energy are contingent upon the existence of space/time?
Knowntje 2 years ago
Also the eternality of God is suppoosed to be a timeless eternity and not a omnitemporal eternity. so timelessness has no properties of infinity.
Knowntje 2 years ago
I wasnt expecting it, but I actually disagree with your second objection as well. Christians dont believe God is infinite. But as maximally great. He has no attribute that is actually infinite.
But even if he did, IF God exists he would basically exist in a sort of Platonic realm (the supernatural) in which there is no temporality or space meaning that infinity in such a realm wouldnt necessarily lead to self contradictions.
so I dont agree with that either I'm sorry to say
Knowntje 2 years ago
I've never heard a Christian say that God is not infinite. I'd imagine that these assertions are only made by apologists and those who listen to them which would make up a very small minority.
smpunditz 2 years ago
well the philosophers are the only ones who really think about the nature of God, most christians are mindless sheep so what they believe is quite irrelevant.
But Craig also has some articles on how God is not infinite at all.
I actually cannot name any infinite attribute of how God supposed is myself to be honest. He has maximum knowledge, maximum power etc. but nothing of him would be infinite if you ask me
Knowntje 2 years ago
Dang knowntje, you said that better than I could have.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
You really destroyed him, that was good.
NoNcOnFoRMiSt26 2 years ago
I actually have to disagree with your first objection. The universe actually IS the sum of its parts. The universe is not so to say the box in which matter/energy, space and time exist, but matter/energy, space and time ARE the universe. The universe is equal to the collection of its parts. So I would say that IF time,space,matter/energy began to exist then the universe began to exist.
So I disagree with that.
Ofcourse premise 2 is indeed false
Knowntje 2 years ago
I never said the universe wasn't the sum of it's parts. The point that I was making is that all because something (or even everything) within the universe has a cause doesn't mean the universe itself has a cause.
Especially since causation as we understand it did not exist prior.
smpunditz 2 years ago
I understand your point. but I would say it is necessarily falacious to say that if the universe is the sum of its parts, and the universe is the sum of its parts and all those parts came into existence, then the universe itself doesnt necessarily came into existence.
If the matter,energy,space/time came into existence then the universe came into existence.
Now the question is, DID they come into existence. Which I would argue that they didnt, but that is irrelevant to this specific point
Knowntje 2 years ago
"The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges."
-Dan Barker
see: Russell's paradox
It is a composition fallacy.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
well I disagree with dan barker since the universe is not like a box containing matter/energy, space and time, so if you take away those components you still have to box. The universe is equal to its parts meaning that if all the parts came into existence, the universe necessarily needs to have come into existence as well
Knowntje 2 years ago
How do you know that the universe isn't like a box exactly? How are you defining universe? How do you know that the universe is equal to all its parts?
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
because the universe is defined as the spacetime arena. The universe IS matter/energy, time and space. what "container" would you want to propose for the universe to be existing inside of?
Knowntje 2 years ago
Yea I wouldn't know. I don't know if we could even know if we were stuck in a universe container either. I am defiantly not well versed in the Kalam argument thanks for trying to clear up some of my misconceptions.
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
"his first premise is actually that whatever comes into existence has a cause, not everyTHING that comes into existence has a cause."
I don't see how that matters.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
its to avoid semantics games, for people who want to argue that the universe as a whole is not a "thing".
Knowntje 2 years ago
so russel's paradox simply doesnt apply to the universe at all.
Knowntje 2 years ago
(oh btw, dan barker is a terrible source. He is really uneducated if you ask me especially regarding philosophy)
Knowntje 2 years ago
Great vid, thanks <3
Dafariii 2 years ago
Nice work smpunditz!
Marchawc 2 years ago
1:24 "Philosophically the idea of an infinite past seems absurd"
The idea of spacetime and quantum mechanics seem to be absurd too, but they're real. Just because our minds can't comprehend it doesn't mean it can't exist. And unlike god, spacetime and quantum mechanics have the evidence to back them up even as absurd as they seem to be.
quinn2469 2 years ago
Sweet, merciful fuck I love it when you do that laugh.
WizardJim 2 years ago
No individual has made the link between Religion and Science. Anyone that has tried has failed miserably. I see all of those religious types trying to justify their religion through the rationale of science. Muslims and Christians seem the most hardcore in regards to vindicating their beliefs at their genesis story. I'm sorry but the idea of an anthropomorphic snake posing as the ultimate evil is pretty retarded and would only make sense in a child's book. Its all BS that they try to justify.
Azraelseraphim 2 years ago 3
Behavioral science tells us the roots of religious beliefs. Religion is a uniquely human thing. Almost all peoples have some sort of god belief system, and the cause of this can be traced back to human evolution and the brain.
I'll PM you a link with a good video on the subject.
happysplodie 2 years ago
Agreed Azraelseraphim...
P.S.
Cool video...★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Obviously Craig's something from nothing statement is ridiculous. Prior to the universe existing as we know it, it existed in the form of the singularity, but some theists argue that the big bang would require a Banger that was not confined by time, since cause, and effect could not happen in a timeless singularity.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago 2
Maybe the universe is in a constant big bang - big crunch cycle. If doubly special relativity is correct, then the universe did exist before the big bang, because the notion of a singularity is based on the fact that Einstein's theory of special relativity breaks down into a singularity when you go back in time, where as doubly special relativity doesn't. So if the plank length is constant and variable speed of light is true, then going back doesn't break down into a singularity.
totdos 2 years ago
"Obviously Craig's something from nothing statement is ridiculous."
You need not look farther than a Vacuum Fluctuations. Empirical data of something coming from nothing.
Another point to make is that we really have never observed 'nothing,' since basically everything in natural realm is something. So to make that assertion, "Something cannot come from nothing," is actually unfounded on anything besides intuition (which could easily be incorrect).
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
@SuperAtheistBrothers
I was referring to Crag's statement in reference to the universe having come from nothing, as though the singularity wasn't there.
The fact that particle's can seemingly come out of nothing, and the apparent uncased cause seen in radioactive decay are legitimate refutations of the requisite "big banger" that theists postulate. A single particle coming out of nothing could have caused the singularity to become unstable resulting ion the big bang.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
I hearing this from theists "atheists believe something can come from nothing". And then you drop this:
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but changes from one form to another"
I dunno how important this point is, but I keep getting the nagging feeling its telling me something.
TurboDally 2 years ago 3
Question: what was a cell before it changed into a cell.
Azraelseraphim 2 years ago
In aboigenisis theory, the early cells were self replicating proteins that were utilizing lipids as a primitive cell wall.
There have been recent advances in abiogenisis research that have yealded self replicating rna like structures with materials similar to what was available in proto-earth conditions.
Science wins again.
:-)
happysplodie 2 years ago 2
matter was not present because the energy was too hot to form matter
tooltime9901 2 years ago
I didn't know that. That would make since though.
smpunditz 2 years ago
Again with the fake laughs? :)
Those laughs really cracks me up..
Landofjello 2 years ago 2
Dude your laugh is f*ckin evil :D
TurboDally 2 years ago
The "expert" Craig quoted as saying "the universe came from nothing, by nothing [etc]" is Sir Anthony John Patrick Kenny. Craig mentions that he is from Oxford, true, but he is a philosopher. He is definitely not an expert in physics.
So, this quotation of Craig's is completely irrelevant.
antybu86 2 years ago
Hmmm I got the impression that he was another scientist. Maybe that's the impression Craig want's his listeners to have.
smpunditz 2 years ago
That's almost definitely the impression he wants to impart to his listeners.
antybu86 2 years ago
It never ceases to amuse me how by properly using their own logic, they define god/s out of existence.
MrKrov 2 years ago 2
the guy who is stupid enough to believe in magical dude in the sky is pretending to understand the properties of universe. isn't he precious, oh yes he is ooooh yeees he iiiisssssss!
yamimakaiz 2 years ago 2
Got into the same argument with workingclasstheist with Das's stickam last night. There is really no way to say something cannot be infinite and then believe in an infinite mind or god. Probably why he changed the subject as soon as he could.
Thejugglingbum 2 years ago