You can argue for or against any point. This and Dawkins's work are both pointless, except to rally the people who already hold their respective opinion. Even if you get caught up in the arguments and start wondering if you're on the wrong side, it doesn't make any difference in the world. The problems of humanity will exist whether religions or a god exist or not.
@muphart That's right! People would have started the religious crusades with or without religion. Let's face it, there are people who would strap bombs to their chest and run into a crowded area even if they didn't think doing so would get them a bunch of virgins and eternal salvation. The fact of the matter is that not one single death or social bigotry can be put on the shoulders of religion. Good argument, bro.
Nobody knows, but at least science can say "I don't know". I think if we can see the universe on its grand scale and realize how small and insignificant we really are it may put things into perspective. I like to think that that "something greater out there" is the universe. The universe is an unthinking frighteningly awesome beauty of nature. It cares very little if a tiny organism on a tiny meaningless spec in a distant galaxy thinks they were put there for a reason.
@Sailor1010 I'm just wondering... how would we know for sure whether "something greater out there" (whatever it is) cares about us? Agreed, it often seems as though we humans are rather insignificant, and the universe doesn't care much (or at all) about us. Or is "it" (the universe?) is even capable of caring about anything?
So is that the "truth?" Perhaps it's neither right nor wrong, but instead is a personal decision each of us makes regarding how we choose to see things.
I think if you gave it more of your OWN thought--instead of just repeating something Carl Sagan forced down your throat...you'd see that the fact that your talking about the universe demands you are more than an insignificant speck in it.
THINK, for cryin out loud, the shit your shoveling. Cant you see how flawed the logic is by relating the Cosmos size to a Mind?
@Personmr To me the most interesting question you asked is #3, whether the cause of the universe has to be a personal actor (i.e. God) or could it be a non-personal actor? This has me wondering: What exactly is the difference between a personal and a non-personal actor? Is the distinction well-defined? If one sees "whatever caused the universe" as having some kind of personality (i.e. God) or not, perhaps that is just a choice of how to see it, neither right nor wrong, not an objective fact.
OK, but what, exactly, is an "unembodied mind"? To his credit Craig insists on some level of plausibility. But in the end his argument seems to hinge on this difficult (and some might say, implausible) concept.
@WyldeMax To me it's implausible that a mind can exist without some kind of physical body. How can such a mind manifest itself? How can we come into contact with it? How can it make itself known to us? How can it take any action in the real world we live in? How can an "unembodied mind" affect us in any way?
When Dr Craig gets down to the crux of his argument, and says that the universe was caused by something he calls an "unembodied mind" I just don't understand what that means.
It was great at first, but then he went on to say that the "creator" which assumingly cant cant have a cause has a great 'mind', i started to regret that i wasted my 9 minutes watching this video for a very weak argument that can be sum up as, "blah blah.. God did it. Not just any god but a personal god. Probably a christian god too." yep. Thats the conclusion.
@LearnToThinkFree Craig went in depth as to why God has to be personal. Why not try listening with an open-mind instead of a pretend-unbiased attitude. If you're satisfied with "blah blah... blind and mindless and dead nature did it" then suit yourself.
@drcraigvideos not "mindless", nature is just indifferent. For some reason theists think that humans are something "more" than our fellow mammals, and thus need a "divine purpose".
Besides, it's mighty interesting that ppl like craig enjoy so much this "argument" thing, wich is basically playing with words. We never see those people pointing out facts.
@URTemplar Uh, yeah, nature has a mind, you know, like trees, right? And boy are humans crazy for thinking we matter more than animals like ants. If you want to chose a mammal instead, well, I guess we're not that more important than a puppy dog.
@URTemplar What you're inferring is that humans are nothing more than relatively advanced primates; that we are on an equal plane with all mammals. In the animal kingdom, there are no objective morals or moral duties. Animals are Amoral. On the Atheistic and Naturalist view, You and I are just animals, and there is no basis to say that torturing and raping an innocent child is wrong or evil. Think about the moral and ethical absurdities that arise when you assert that humans are JUST mammals.
@chemo4life15 How do you know that animals are "amoral," with no objective morals or duties? How would one demonstrate that? Many animals (such as primates, dogs, elephants, dolphins) show a very strong sense of compassion, they are very protective of others, they are loyal and loving, they clearly have a highly advanced sense of fairness, they sacrifice their own well-being for others. No absurdities here. Both humans and animals have what can be considered a "moral" side to them.
@chemo4life15 So you're saying that the only reason that you don't rape and murder is because God told you to? I'm safe to say there have been more numerous deaths over religion than that of corruption (excluding psychopaths who have mental issues).
@LearnToThinkFree I know...it's like they installed 95% of the program then critical error and incomplete download...try again.
So close, then they discount themselves. I feel I have more answers than this fellow.
Problem is he was "Saved by Christ" at a young age and feels he cannot go back on his resolve...but in due time his Universal understanding will pull him out of any delusions he might currently have.
I just learned about Dr, Craig a few weeks ago. I find his work very hard to understand. Maybe it is because English is my second language. Nevertheless, what i do understand it is very informative and strengthening. God bless this man's work. It si much needed in this time in history.
Even if there was a first cause to the universe, I don't think man-made religions, including holy books invented in the bronze age has anything to do with it....
So first, God creates everything 13,7 billion years ago. Then he waits 9 billion years for some reason, until creating the Earth. Then he waits another 4,5 billion years until making himself manifested through words put down in the middle east in a primitive time in human history. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
@aboyborninjune Uh, okay, let's take the atheist scenario, 13.7 billion years ago, nothing did everything. And billions of years of evolution has brought you to make fun of and strawman religion. Typical.
@aboyborninjune I think the way you are actually thinking about it is limited, which makes it sound stupid. I see all lot of comics, images and quotes bashing religion and it's no wonder people think it's "below" them when they think along those silly narrow minded terms. Don't be so hostile towards the possiblitly of a greater being, search for the true, not what backs up your beliefs. Try to be a little nicer too ;)
Just a quick observation on the comment below. If the natural laws of the universe are a result after the Big B. That needs to explain this premise. Scientific laws require mathematics. Therefore, all the equations that are involved during the early stages of the BB had to be fully functional i.e working exactly when needed. They are not experimental i.e could fail. Some of these equations are very complex. So, who did the maths? Some intelligence had already been involved.
@ergatis1001 "So, who did the maths?" It is not necesary to DO math in order for math to be true. I may be ignirant of math but that does not have an effect on equasions.
Premise 1 of the Kalam argument refers to objects in our Universe, it is them that behave according to natural laws and that do not simply pop into existence uncaused. But this is not true of the Big Bang. There were no laws when in happened, order, restrictions and and natural regularities came only AFTER the BG.
Everything requires a designer period! Even a child knows this.Rebellion embraces untruth (lies). Exp,a criminal will lie to justify his immoral actions. Son of, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not, they have ears to hear and hear not, for they are of a rebellious house.. Ezekiel 12:2
This bloke is totally deluded. Yes Richard Dawkins has dealt death to god.This guy is just waffling on about crap..Using "big words" and confusing dialogue.Total crap this guy is talking bullshit
@timdnwd Really? I suppose Dr. Craig is being flown to England on a lark then? One would also suppose that his opponents function at the level of a pre-adolescent, as surely this is all that is required to...wait.... if Dawkins already killed God, then just what ARE they doing then? Your non-'big boy words' aren't really clarifying anything, now are they?
What, specifically, do you mean? Please don't respond e.g. 'you have stupid hair', as our puny, tiny, brains, unlike yours, don't get it.
what is wrong with saying that we don't know how the universe started? saying that a god did it is much more absurd then saying that it just happened or it has always been there. if i see a mountain in the distance i don't say that somebody must have put it there, i assume it has always been there (in the more recent context of course). this god character is probably the most impossible thing i can think of
@l337pwnage Well, don't mix the two. Just be open to the evidence. Last I heard atheists have been telling me the universe popped into existence out of nothing. If that isn't magic, I don't know what is.
@drcraigvideos whats so hard to believe that something popped into existence and evolved to what it is now, than to believe that something as complicated as a god just popped into existence? both are wild ideas but one actually has evidence to support it
@Fewsandpiper Well, if you think it doesn't take any faith that something can just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing then suit yourself. Just beware of the tiger that may JUST pop into existence out of nowhere. And as far as I can tell no Christian I know of would say that God popped into existence out of nothing. Last I heard he's eternal and infinite. The universe isn't eternal and infinite because science has prove then universe has a beginning and it's about 13.7 billion years old.
@l337pwnage Saying that everything must have a cause and then asserting that there is a sentient uncaused cause for the universe's existence is not good or reasonable logic in any circumstance. It is self-controdictory at best. How can something come out of nothing? How can something sentient have always existed and then created something out of nothing when he had no time to think in or create it in? You god hypothesis begs more questions than it answers. Hawking already debunked this argument
@rockhoof Really, you didn't hear that the universe simply popped into existence out of nothing, did you? That's the atheist fairy tale. Please, don't mix that up with Christianity.
I bet there are lot's of atheist who are angry at this.. lol hahaha! I bet most of them who are trying to argue about this have only seen like 2 min of the video lol!
So does this guy "think for himself" like most atheists claim, or does he follow his idol, dawkins. This guy seems like robot to me. Actually, anyone who is fooled into thinking for themselves through dawkins is a robot. Wake up people.
OMG, nobody says the universe comes from nothing. The universe is everything in existence, our temporal 4 dimensional is all we know. We don't know very much about anything outside of this manifestation of existence. We don't even understand what time is. To assume that there is a personal creator is making an assumption. We have never experienced a disembodied mind. There are no examples of such a thing. some form of complexity innately exist, this does not have to be a personal god though!.
@ultradevon04 (2) Basically the arguments put forth in this video make to many unjustified assumptions about what is behind the reality we experience. The god answer just begs the question when there are so many unknowns involved. I cant make up a bunch of things that are not personal gods that would answer the question just as well. Lets just accept that we have no idea why existence is the way it is or why we are here. Its fascinating question but we should accept there is no answer.
The fundamental flaw with the initial argument is that it if full of casuistry. Craig attempts to apply supposedly "self evident" principles that we experience in everyday life to quantum occurrences like The Big Bang and causation. Turns out you can have things that appear out of nothing. This is the basis for Hawking Radiation in Black Holes and We experience it everyday in the form of light: the photons are created when electrons in hydrogen atoms in the sun fall back into their ground states
new atheists don´t want to reason or discuss matters about God existence. they're just angry at God and religion and most of these comments show this. There isnt a single good argument atheists can present.
@leojasuos - sigh, fuckin' hell... where do I start?
How can we Atheists be angry at a god that we don't believe exists? Are YOU angry at Lord Bramah? Apollo? Zeus? Ookami Amaterasu? Quetzelcoatl? Amun Ra? Minerva? Mithrah? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
NO - because YOU are just as much an Atheist as I am, except I just go one deity further an include Yahweh into that equation.
And WE aren't the ones making a claim. It's your Christian duty to prove your god's existance.
@freakystyley4000 no , you are making a claim: you claim that God doesnt exist. if you werent, you would be an agnostic who wouldnt engage in debate or argumentation, because when you dont claim anything, you dont argue against anything. but you try to argue. the problem is you havent one single good argument to present
@bommobiel Uh, yeah, Craig is making things up along the way that's why he continuously quotes from Dawkins' book. Nothing gets passed you, smart guy.
True atheists, those who recognize their ignorance, should be thankful to the fatc that Dawkins in not technically an Atheist, rather he is a new atheist, delluded, dishonest and incorrect as only they can be.
I love how so many of these religious types have the fixed expression of disgust that repressed homosexuals have, nttawwt, just go be gay and live your life!
1) "Everything" can be negated by one example of non-causility. It does not require "Beethoven & bicycles to pop into existance". That's a clear example of faulty logic.
2) Who says the Universe had a beginning as we understand time? Time is not a simple concept on a cosmological scale. Another flaw.
The man is a liar or idiot and as he is obviously pretty clever I have to go with liar. Liar for God.
@believeordoubt..I dont think this is quite begging the question.Considering its not the conclusion hes assuming, yet I must agree that further inquiry concerning the immaterial reality would be fitting in support to the claim.
A great argument. It's no wonder that the moron Dawkins doesn't want to debate Dr. Craig. For someone with a Phd, Dawkins does not understand logic at all. I have yet to meet a consistent atheist who is able to construct a logically defense of their position. This is because it can't be done. The only logical position is an all powerful eternal being who created everything.
what makes a good argument 1: obeys the rules of logic- conclusion follows the premise 2: premise is true 3. premise is more logicle then their opposites okay: premise: all men will die premise: all cats will die conclusion: all men are cats and all cats are men premise: all cell phones have batteries premise: all personal messager have batteries conclusion: all cell phones are personal messagers i like these rules of a good argument
@wargokeith i can continue. the premise does not need to be true, "the premises doesn't need to be certainly true" and the "conclusion doesn't need to be 100% accurate."
premise: an = sign makes everything true. evidence 1=1. 2=2.
conclusion: 1=2
premise: hot glass is a liquid. premise: humans need to drink liquids to survive. conclusion: humans need to drink glass
premise: there is a god. premise: there are beds. conclusion: we sleep on god
"premise: hot glass is a liquid. premise: humans need to drink liquids to survive. conclusion: humans need to drink glass" premise 1 and 2 are fine...conclusion: humans "might" be able to drink hot glass to survive. (see how the conclusion is intact following the premises...to vallidate it you would go on to prove/disprove that)
"premise: there is a god. premise: there are beds. conclusion: we sleep on god"
both premises are fine,conclusion: unrelated premises
@wargokeith Your making a very fair point.Rules of Logic dictate that no conclusion follows from two particular premises.(Nihil sequitur geminis ex particularibus unquam).
@wargokeith His syllogism is an example of petitio principii(a sophism).It is a violation of the basic rule of logical reasoning.To clarify,that rule suggests: A syllogism must have three terms, neither more nor fewer.
@wargokeith "i can continue. the "conclusion doesn't need to be 100% accurate."
hmm...I think he said 2:34 an arguement doesn't need to prove its conclusion with 100% certainty to be a GOOD arguement. Rather it must meet 3 conditions
1 It obeys the rules of logic, the conclusions must follow LOGICALLY from the premises
2 It premises are true
3 The premises are more plausible than their opposites (or negations)
premises an = sign does not make everything true if both sides are not =
@hexusziggurat yes but the point i'm making is that i don't agree with his 3 laws. and thank you for correcting me. where is the source for them. who is the great philosopher(s) who uses these 3 laws of argument as the basis for their teachings and life work?
@wargokeith "conclusion: all men are cats and all cats are men"
corrected conclusion: all men & cats are living creatures, all men and cats have a life span, all men and cats die with uncertain reasons for their deaths.
"conclusion: all cell phones are personal messagers"
corrected conclusion: all cell phones & personal messangers utilize electricity, both possibly won't operate when the battery runs down or at least some funsctions won't, both classified as electrical devices
@hexusziggurat continued here are the laws as defined by aristotle, you can find them by researching the law of thought. 1. The law of identity. 2. The law of non-contradiction. 3. The law of the excluded middle. feel free to do some research on these laws. you will find that theselaws that guides and underline everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc..
@hexusziggurat continued 2: what is more, wether god exists or not is a scientiic debate, not a philosophic one. to paraphrase darwin on this, science often contradicts logic. for centuries we believed that universe revolved around the world. after all, the earth stood still and the sun and stars moved.
@wargokeith "wether god exists or not is a scientiic debate, not a philosophic one. to paraphrase darwin on this, science often contradicts logic"
I'll agree with you there that science (sometimes) contradicts logic. Though i do believe that science falls short of proofing God until fringe thinkers adopt an open mind and new technology that can translate "miracles" or evidence of God's handiwork into quantifiable data.
Nothing exists outside of the universe since "universe" is by definition the totallity of everything that exists.Suggesting that an "entity" created the universe is obviously utter nonsense.A quantum fluctuation is by far more logical than what you theorise so try Edwards Nelson's paper.Never quite understood why you religious lads never try to actually study physics first and then adopt ad placitum facts.
I love the irony of him saying something from nothing is bad because it's appeal to magic then goes on to say god must therefore have poofed it into existance from nothing...
So magic is absurd but magic from a god is less absurd...
@dlandon2000 I love the irony in your comment. At least for the Christian, there's a magician to make the magic work. For the atheist, there is no magician. Just POOF and out came something from nothing. Houdini eat your heart out.
@drcraigvideos Or how about the third option; that we don't have the answer yet. Inventing answers to questions is never acceptable, no matter how much you want an answer.
@drcraigvideos Excuse me, it is not obvious. History shows us conclusively that things we used to attribute to the supernatural do indeed have natural explanations. One cannot say that they KNOW the answer (the root of all evil) when they do not. The most we can say is that based on the history of science, there must be a naturalistic explanation -- even if we do not yet know what it is (although there have been great strides in recent years).
@captain150 But we do have the answer for the existance of God. Nobody yet has been able to make a more solid case for the existance of life or make an argument against the Bible. People have tried to discredit the Bible for hundreds of years and never been able to develop a sound argument.
@oodlesofosz - Genesis: the earth was created before the sun = bible is discredited.
And the bible doesn't prove god. Just because it features a very vile, calculating, vengeful and cruel character called Yahweh doesn't mean that there is in fact a god, and he happens to be the deity of a warmongering tribe of Bronze Aged Jews.
Other holy books make the same claims, yet none of them has met their burden of proof either.
So repent! Otherwise Lord Ganesh may reincarnate you as a rat!
According to Victor Stenger there's actually a 60% chance of something coming out of nothing, naturally. According to Stephen Hawking, nothing is unstable and because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Stenger also make a point in passing, why is there God rather than nothing?
Stephen hawkings didn't prove it numerically, it's a speculation as it remains, where did you get the proof of 60% of anything coming out of nothing, u can't be serious about it, do you really believe this...unbelievable. anyone and i say anyone, is at best agnostic "atheists" or at worst agnostic "theists". the fact that you argue or even frequent this video makes u an agnostic who rely on others's mode of day dreaming to form a pseudo-opinion so to feel less guilty of anythin
@warrior4just I got it from a lifetime physicist; watch it, your cynicism is overflowing. One can make a point and because it cannot be proved wrong, the denier of the claim is suddenly an agnostic. What nonsense.
in sofar as atheism it acknowledges the lack of any deity, that in itself is a claim, if u can't prove it, it makes u at best agnostic in the sense that once u acknowledge a possibility that such being exist. but if you say no he does not, it becomes a worthless opinion, but to claim it for others, u r required to provide proof, if u dont then it's a mere opinion, but in essence we r all agnostics, u have ur faith and others do.
In logic, there are two propositions to god existence. He exists or he does not, if someone said there is god, u'd say no he doesn't, now the latter is propositon from logical sense, u aren't required to prove it, but if u attempt to prove it to counter the positive claim of god existence, then u wouldn't know or would answer that the likelihood of him not existing is more likely which create a probability. that probibility is what agnosticism is about. to contnue..
...so essentially while u may identify urself as an atheist, once u acknowledge a possibility then u are an agnostic at best from the logical standing.
ur very existence is toxic to the world ya twat. why would anybody be an anti one's right, u wanna take animal behavior ur moral compass, or rely on science, knock urself up. i consider myself a critical thinker who believes on Math/logic rather than biology. my tool is probability, and it makes a case for there being something rather than nothing. an agnostc gets respect at least in view of his humbelness of not pretending to know. Atheists flat out deny the possibility.
@drcraigvideos That depends on your definition of "nothing" is it an absolute nothing or is it what we would perceive as nothing? Furthermore if you cannot define the nothing then it isn't actually logical to assume that the "nothing" has an intelligent source behind it because you have not defined if there is indeed an "absolute nothing". Sorry Craig does not impress me with this argument. Journey to False Dichotomy Land.
@drcraigvideos@anarimus The Big Bang is not the creation of the universe out of nothing, but because it was a singularity (it had an infinite density) we cannot know what happened before the big bang, and therefor we speak of it as ´the beginning´ most of the time.
@drcraigvideos Actually, you don't need a magician. Measuring all the energy and negative energy in the universe and the amount you come to is... 0. Nothing. Which means that at the beginning of time there can have been nothing and all it would have taken was a quantum fluctuation to spark "something".
@techroomnz Yeah, I read that same stuff over and over again. Just because the negative energy balances with the positive energy, it doesn't mean you have no energy. Look up Craig's debate with Atkins where they debate this.
But he doesn't say that "god must therefore have poofed it into existence from nothing..." You can't refute an argument if you don't understand what it is. Watch the video again (around 04;00) for the correct and accurate formulation of the argument.
@dlandon2000 what magic is, is where an event occurs with no explanation whatsoever. God is the explanation. Nope no magic at all. Did you listen to his whole argument? The fact that your comment got 15 thumps up almost scares me.
@dlandon2000 Actually Craig's argument clearly states that whatever caused the universe to exist must have always existed and have never had a beginning. Something that has always existed does not require a cause.
@dlandon2000 You didn't listen to Dr. Craig. He didn't say the universe was created by magic. He said that things popping into being, uncaused out of nothing, is WORSE than magic. He didn't say God poofed the universe into existance from from nothing. He said that God used his POWER to create the universe. If I have a blank hard drive, there is NO information on it. After I program a game onto the hard drive there is now something on it. Something from nothing? Yet I also made the hard drive.
@dlandon2000 The true irony is that you atheists will bash magic and the supernatural because it doesn't correspond with your naturalist mentality, but on the other hand you defend the big bang theory with "it just happened" aka magic. Yes, it doesn't make sense for a portrait to appear unless there is a painter, that's just common sense. Atheism is just one contradiction after another.
@orphyborphy Dr. Craig is't a Christian fundamentalist, genius. He isn't a young-earth creationist. He isn't a dispensationalist. He doesn't think the Bible should be taken literally. I can go on and on to prove that Dr. Craig is not a fundamentalist. In fact, he's against it. Please try to be more wise in your comments, ok?
I'm an agnostic atheist, so this was actually enjoyable to watch. While I believe based on our current knowledge the likelihood of a supernatural power to be slim, we just don't know enough to be able to rule it out entirely.
Furthermore, it's nice to see an argument about the possible existence of a higher power without any religious overtone. If a higher power exists or ever did exist there's no reason that it has to directly have anything to do our morals or social culture.
Allow me to disprove this argument...as no other atheists have....(hint other atheists have).
He says premise one seems obviously true. Well we have never seen anything start to exist and as a result we can't assume that anything that has begun to exist would have a cause. Beyond that point Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest scientists of our time, has clearly stated that our universe can and likely did create itself.
@AtheistrEvolutionist, and what have created these "first" universe? Dear believer (yes, yours atheism is regilion!), do not mix phisysc with philosophy (methaphysisc to be more specificial).
@metal87power According to Hawking (again he is one of the greatest minds on the topic today) the answer is gravity. I am not going to sit here and teach you go to school and learn.
BTW I don't believe anything. I asses evidence. The position that has the best evidence is the one I support until it is shown that another position has more evidence. Atheism is a response to theistic claims. It is merely a rejection of your assertion that a god or gods exist. No belief required.
@AtheistrEvolutionist Hawking is my hero too. I mean what a revelation: he proudly claims "The laws of science created themselves and then the universe out of nothing" I mean what could be more profound than a philosophical, science-of-the-gaps proclamation about the origin, existence & purpose of universal, immaterial immutableLAWS defined by absurdly complex abstract mathematical formulae. No wonder he wrote in the same book that the future of knowledge lies not in philosophy but in science
Excellent arguments as always. Craig lays down the law in a very to the point, logically following manner on how the new atheist philosophy is full of holes, even outright falsehoods by claiming things in science that "science" itself has not revealed.
Keep the smackdown coming, Craig =P I would personally be shocked if Richard Dawkins manned up for a debate with him...
I wouldn't say the law was laid down. As he states himself at the start, a good argument doesn't necessarily have to be true. In fact, his hypotheses are just as difficult to prove as any other 'beginning of the universe' theory.
It's arguably the most mysterious mystery about the universe, so it'll take mankind a long time to uncover the truth (if it ever does). While Dr Craig highlights that there's potential a higher power was involved, he definitely doesn't prove it.
But I would insist you agree that the evidence for agency is also fairly strong, especially on the deeper interpretation of the consequences of the KCA.
I won't agree that the evidence is strong, but that there is actually very little evidence on either side of the argument. Basically, at this stage of human knowledge its just theories based on what we know, when really there is heaps we don't.
I have no problem admitting that a higher power is possible though. =)
"It must be unimaginably powerful" - Technically speaking, all the energy in the universe adds up to be within one Planck unit of zero, meaning that it only would need as much power as a quantum fluctuation.
"It can't change because there's no time" - There's no time, but it could change as another thing happens; something analogous to time. We can't know anything about the nature of its existence, just that it wouldn't exist in matter or energy or time in the same way OUR universe does. (This whole thing is assuming that this thing caused us, which is not necessarily the case per my comment below).
Everything that begins to exist has a cause WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE; it's a property OF the universe, not of what caused or didn't cause the universe itself.
i like how great thinking theists like dr. craig and john lennox go much deeper than most atheists and expose atheists self-refuting statements which they themselves don't even pick up on, lol.
If you were invited to a feast with all kinds of good meats, would you believe that there has been no one to cook them? But nature is a banquet prepared for us! You have tomatoes & peaches & apples & milk & honey. Who has prepared all these things for mankind? Nature is blind. If you believe in no God, how can you explain that blind nature suceeded in preparing just the things that we need in such plenitude and variety? If you desire more, email me at 1thevoiceoftruth@gmail.com. God is real
@1TheVoiceofTruth that one is painfully easy. It would make no sense for those that couldn't digest the foods that are available to survive. However, those that could would survive and pass on their digestive genes. As for milk however, some people CAN'T digest it. Why? Because the traits for digesting lactose weren't passed onto them. However, they are slowly being weeded out as the larger more fit population takes over. Evolution in action.
@shldflght. Interesting. Then how had they survived up to that point if they could not digest the then available foods? Where they eating other foods? Sounds like a little bit of a stab in the dark for an answer. Let's think about this though. You believe in evolution. So do I. I believe that we adapt to our environment. However, adapting to your environment is known as micro-evolution (such as Eskimos having thicker layers of fatty tissue in their skin to survive in colder conditions).
@1TheVoiceofTruth Well being that the organisms up to that point were microorganisms like bacteria that can eat just about anything I hardly see what the problem is. "Micro" and "Macro" are the same thing just different time scales. To say "macro" is not possible is like saying its possible to walk 20 feet by not 20 miles. Its the same process one just takes longer. And please actually read up on what evolution IS before you try to ridicule it. You just look ignorant when you say things like
@shldflght Lol. I noticed you dodged my question. Show me the proof. Where are your missing intermediate links? If you want to use little analogies...saying macro is possible b/c micro is, is like saying since it is possible that since you have observed someone jump and get off the ground, it is probably possible that some humans can fly too.
P.S. Possessing a degree in Biology, I believe I have a pretty good handle on what evolution is. I have studied it for years...indepth. It's a lie.
@1TheVoiceofTruth Ok first off Jumping and flying are COMPLETELY different mechanisms. Whereas walking 5 feet and walking 5000 feet are the SAME mechanism. Just as genetic variation over 1000 years with natural selection is the SAME mechanism as genetic variation over 10000000 years with natural selection. Dodged your question? But sir they are ALL intermediate links! Every one of them is a precursor to something else. Did you want a specific lineage? I can do that too!
@shldflght. Macro-evolution (evolution on a large scale - horses to humans) is a completely different story. We see and observe micro-evolution in nature even NOW all the time. Creatures adapt to their environment. Obvious. However, there is absolutely 0% percent proof for Macro-evolution. If you wish to challenge me, show me the proof. Where are the millions of missing intermediate links from the past billions of years? Answer: They can't find them because they don't exist.
@1TheVoiceofTruth (Cont..) "horses to humans." Humans did not evolve from horses, nor did we evolve from chimpanzees. We evolved from a primate hominid that had both ape and human features (aka Lucy). Evidence for this? How about the fact that we are STILL primate hominids RIGHT NOW! *gasp* Evolution doesn't change you into anything else. Your still a hominid, your still a primate, your still a mammal, your still a vertebrate, your still a chordate, and your STILL an animal.
no wonder why dawkins wont debate Craig, he already refuted all of his arguments. LOL
bobcatallstar7 1 week ago
You can argue for or against any point. This and Dawkins's work are both pointless, except to rally the people who already hold their respective opinion. Even if you get caught up in the arguments and start wondering if you're on the wrong side, it doesn't make any difference in the world. The problems of humanity will exist whether religions or a god exist or not.
muphart 1 month ago in playlist New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted
@muphart That's right! People would have started the religious crusades with or without religion. Let's face it, there are people who would strap bombs to their chest and run into a crowded area even if they didn't think doing so would get them a bunch of virgins and eternal salvation. The fact of the matter is that not one single death or social bigotry can be put on the shoulders of religion. Good argument, bro.
titans091052 1 month ago
Nobody knows, but at least science can say "I don't know". I think if we can see the universe on its grand scale and realize how small and insignificant we really are it may put things into perspective. I like to think that that "something greater out there" is the universe. The universe is an unthinking frighteningly awesome beauty of nature. It cares very little if a tiny organism on a tiny meaningless spec in a distant galaxy thinks they were put there for a reason.
Sailor1010 1 month ago
@Sailor1010 I'm just wondering... how would we know for sure whether "something greater out there" (whatever it is) cares about us? Agreed, it often seems as though we humans are rather insignificant, and the universe doesn't care much (or at all) about us. Or is "it" (the universe?) is even capable of caring about anything?
So is that the "truth?" Perhaps it's neither right nor wrong, but instead is a personal decision each of us makes regarding how we choose to see things.
georgedonin 1 month ago
@Sailor1010
I think if you gave it more of your OWN thought--instead of just repeating something Carl Sagan forced down your throat...you'd see that the fact that your talking about the universe demands you are more than an insignificant speck in it.
THINK, for cryin out loud, the shit your shoveling. Cant you see how flawed the logic is by relating the Cosmos size to a Mind?
Rizzy55 1 month ago
im going to play devils advocate (im a strong agnostic)
1. if everything has a cause then why dosn't god, if you cant apply a argument to the universe how can it apply to god?
2. just because science has no perfect explanation for the begining dosn't prove that it was god.
3. if you can assume that god can have the power to create the universe why can't a non-personal actor have that power?
i will continue on the next video, im not posting until i have typed a comment on the others
Personmr 1 month ago
@Personmr To me the most interesting question you asked is #3, whether the cause of the universe has to be a personal actor (i.e. God) or could it be a non-personal actor? This has me wondering: What exactly is the difference between a personal and a non-personal actor? Is the distinction well-defined? If one sees "whatever caused the universe" as having some kind of personality (i.e. God) or not, perhaps that is just a choice of how to see it, neither right nor wrong, not an objective fact.
georgedonin 1 month ago
@Personmr You really are the Devil's advocate. Trying to turn people from the true Christian faith.
werebee 1 month ago in playlist New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted
@Personmr god doesn't need a caues by god being god he all being. god is what made a cause to cause things to happen
GTKDYLAN 3 weeks ago
OK, but what, exactly, is an "unembodied mind"? To his credit Craig insists on some level of plausibility. But in the end his argument seems to hinge on this difficult (and some might say, implausible) concept.
georgedonin 2 months ago
@georgedonin Why is that implausible?
WyldeMax 2 months ago
@WyldeMax To me it's implausible that a mind can exist without some kind of physical body. How can such a mind manifest itself? How can we come into contact with it? How can it make itself known to us? How can it take any action in the real world we live in? How can an "unembodied mind" affect us in any way?
When Dr Craig gets down to the crux of his argument, and says that the universe was caused by something he calls an "unembodied mind" I just don't understand what that means.
georgedonin 2 months ago
Wow, I really like this guy....
Four30 2 months ago
It was great at first, but then he went on to say that the "creator" which assumingly cant cant have a cause has a great 'mind', i started to regret that i wasted my 9 minutes watching this video for a very weak argument that can be sum up as, "blah blah.. God did it. Not just any god but a personal god. Probably a christian god too." yep. Thats the conclusion.
LearnToThinkFree 2 months ago
@LearnToThinkFree Craig went in depth as to why God has to be personal. Why not try listening with an open-mind instead of a pretend-unbiased attitude. If you're satisfied with "blah blah... blind and mindless and dead nature did it" then suit yourself.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago 8
@drcraigvideos not "mindless", nature is just indifferent. For some reason theists think that humans are something "more" than our fellow mammals, and thus need a "divine purpose".
Besides, it's mighty interesting that ppl like craig enjoy so much this "argument" thing, wich is basically playing with words. We never see those people pointing out facts.
URTemplar 2 months ago
@URTemplar Uh, yeah, nature has a mind, you know, like trees, right? And boy are humans crazy for thinking we matter more than animals like ants. If you want to chose a mammal instead, well, I guess we're not that more important than a puppy dog.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago 2
@URTemplar What you're inferring is that humans are nothing more than relatively advanced primates; that we are on an equal plane with all mammals. In the animal kingdom, there are no objective morals or moral duties. Animals are Amoral. On the Atheistic and Naturalist view, You and I are just animals, and there is no basis to say that torturing and raping an innocent child is wrong or evil. Think about the moral and ethical absurdities that arise when you assert that humans are JUST mammals.
chemo4life15 2 months ago
@chemo4life15 How do you know that animals are "amoral," with no objective morals or duties? How would one demonstrate that? Many animals (such as primates, dogs, elephants, dolphins) show a very strong sense of compassion, they are very protective of others, they are loyal and loving, they clearly have a highly advanced sense of fairness, they sacrifice their own well-being for others. No absurdities here. Both humans and animals have what can be considered a "moral" side to them.
georgedonin 1 month ago
@chemo4life15 So you're saying that the only reason that you don't rape and murder is because God told you to? I'm safe to say there have been more numerous deaths over religion than that of corruption (excluding psychopaths who have mental issues).
warofnature 1 month ago
@LearnToThinkFree I know...it's like they installed 95% of the program then critical error and incomplete download...try again.
So close, then they discount themselves. I feel I have more answers than this fellow.
Problem is he was "Saved by Christ" at a young age and feels he cannot go back on his resolve...but in due time his Universal understanding will pull him out of any delusions he might currently have.
JahElJah 2 months ago
I just learned about Dr, Craig a few weeks ago. I find his work very hard to understand. Maybe it is because English is my second language. Nevertheless, what i do understand it is very informative and strengthening. God bless this man's work. It si much needed in this time in history.
ApologeticoPR 3 months ago
Where are the arguments ??
maotzetof 3 months ago
@maotzetof It's in the video. It would be a good idea to watch it. That helps.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago 12
Even if there was a first cause to the universe, I don't think man-made religions, including holy books invented in the bronze age has anything to do with it....
So first, God creates everything 13,7 billion years ago. Then he waits 9 billion years for some reason, until creating the Earth. Then he waits another 4,5 billion years until making himself manifested through words put down in the middle east in a primitive time in human history. Yeah, makes perfect sense.
aboyborninjune 4 months ago
@aboyborninjune Uh, okay, let's take the atheist scenario, 13.7 billion years ago, nothing did everything. And billions of years of evolution has brought you to make fun of and strawman religion. Typical.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago 3
@drcraigvideos Uh, okay, let's take the theist scenario, 13.7 billion years ago, nothing made god and then god made everything. Typical.
turb0m0nk3y 3 months ago
@turb0m0nk3y Actually, factual. It's just common sense. Nothing cannot make anything as the atheist would have us believe.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago 2
@drcraigvideos factual???? are you serious? i'm currently a theist, but it's not fact. fact implies knowing, and no one knows for sure...
xnobody777x 2 months ago
@xnobody777x Uh, yeah, no one knows that nothing cannot make anything. You're very smart.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@xnobody777x do you know for sure that no one knows for sure? lol
zelda0521 2 months ago
@aboyborninjune I think the way you are actually thinking about it is limited, which makes it sound stupid. I see all lot of comics, images and quotes bashing religion and it's no wonder people think it's "below" them when they think along those silly narrow minded terms. Don't be so hostile towards the possiblitly of a greater being, search for the true, not what backs up your beliefs. Try to be a little nicer too ;)
lateralaus 3 months ago
Just a quick observation on the comment below. If the natural laws of the universe are a result after the Big B. That needs to explain this premise. Scientific laws require mathematics. Therefore, all the equations that are involved during the early stages of the BB had to be fully functional i.e working exactly when needed. They are not experimental i.e could fail. Some of these equations are very complex. So, who did the maths? Some intelligence had already been involved.
ergatis1001 4 months ago
@ergatis1001 "So, who did the maths?" It is not necesary to DO math in order for math to be true. I may be ignirant of math but that does not have an effect on equasions.
girtkaz 3 months ago
Premise 1 of the Kalam argument refers to objects in our Universe, it is them that behave according to natural laws and that do not simply pop into existence uncaused. But this is not true of the Big Bang. There were no laws when in happened, order, restrictions and and natural regularities came only AFTER the BG.
Downshifting07 4 months ago
Everything requires a designer period! Even a child knows this.Rebellion embraces untruth (lies). Exp,a criminal will lie to justify his immoral actions. Son of, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not, they have ears to hear and hear not, for they are of a rebellious house.. Ezekiel 12:2
flatop59 5 months ago
This bloke is totally deluded. Yes Richard Dawkins has dealt death to god.This guy is just waffling on about crap..Using "big words" and confusing dialogue.Total crap this guy is talking bullshit
timdnwd 5 months ago
@timdnwd Just because you're not sophisticated enough to understand Dr. Craig it doesn't mean he's wrong. Try learning something for a change.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@timdnwd Really? I suppose Dr. Craig is being flown to England on a lark then? One would also suppose that his opponents function at the level of a pre-adolescent, as surely this is all that is required to...wait.... if Dawkins already killed God, then just what ARE they doing then? Your non-'big boy words' aren't really clarifying anything, now are they?
What, specifically, do you mean? Please don't respond e.g. 'you have stupid hair', as our puny, tiny, brains, unlike yours, don't get it.
m1chae15 4 months ago
@timdnwd Dawkins argues about as strongly as you do. :p
patrckhh20 4 months ago
@timdnwd Oh look another potty mouth angry atheist.
Watch it Aussie. Unless your frighten from information.
watch?v=7CJKX60xX2o
George0025 4 months ago
what is wrong with saying that we don't know how the universe started? saying that a god did it is much more absurd then saying that it just happened or it has always been there. if i see a mountain in the distance i don't say that somebody must have put it there, i assume it has always been there (in the more recent context of course). this god character is probably the most impossible thing i can think of
ilikelazers 5 months ago
Anyone to is trying to prove the existence of god, and yet criticizes "magic", automatically loses.
l337pwnage 5 months ago
@l337pwnage Well, don't mix the two. Just be open to the evidence. Last I heard atheists have been telling me the universe popped into existence out of nothing. If that isn't magic, I don't know what is.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago 2
@drcraigvideos whats so hard to believe that something popped into existence and evolved to what it is now, than to believe that something as complicated as a god just popped into existence? both are wild ideas but one actually has evidence to support it
Fewsandpiper 4 months ago
@Fewsandpiper Well, if you think it doesn't take any faith that something can just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing then suit yourself. Just beware of the tiger that may JUST pop into existence out of nowhere. And as far as I can tell no Christian I know of would say that God popped into existence out of nothing. Last I heard he's eternal and infinite. The universe isn't eternal and infinite because science has prove then universe has a beginning and it's about 13.7 billion years old.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
@l337pwnage Saying that everything must have a cause and then asserting that there is a sentient uncaused cause for the universe's existence is not good or reasonable logic in any circumstance. It is self-controdictory at best. How can something come out of nothing? How can something sentient have always existed and then created something out of nothing when he had no time to think in or create it in? You god hypothesis begs more questions than it answers. Hawking already debunked this argument
XKaliber2097 5 months ago
I have yet to hear a coherent and logical reason why god exists
red666111 5 months ago 4
@red666111 Well, if you want to hear it, all you have to do is unplug your ears. That helps.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos no i tried doing that and all i heard was a fairytale for kids
rockhoof 5 months ago
@rockhoof Really, you didn't hear that the universe simply popped into existence out of nothing, did you? That's the atheist fairy tale. Please, don't mix that up with Christianity.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@red666111 I have a question which you have probabley been asked before but how did the universe come into existence?
Monica91894 5 months ago
@red666111 Are you a naturalist?
Hoogz20 4 months ago in playlist New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted
why anything exist would be better question?
girtkaz 3 months ago
@red666111 ofcourse, cause you take something like love, or fear and measure it with a ruler right?
islandhappenings 2 months ago
@red666111 Take your fingers out of your ears.
empreme 2 months ago
@red666111 The kalam is undeniably coherent and logical. You can say it is unsound if you like but it is both coherent and logical.
mattschol 2 months ago
Amazing guy! Gotta love WLC!
lukehase 5 months ago
Bless you sir, and dont ever stop, i am with you also!
Goodtimes1333 6 months ago
How about some “less recent” Atheist arguments against God’s existence:
God Does Not Exist!
/watch?v=--yegQWhCu0
Uh-oh! Someone objected!
Re: God Does Not Exist!
/watch?v=MH6CyJTyq9Y
joehardysr 6 months ago
I bet there are lot's of atheist who are angry at this.. lol hahaha! I bet most of them who are trying to argue about this have only seen like 2 min of the video lol!
WSSIIWarlordII 6 months ago
So does this guy "think for himself" like most atheists claim, or does he follow his idol, dawkins. This guy seems like robot to me. Actually, anyone who is fooled into thinking for themselves through dawkins is a robot. Wake up people.
HaydenDrist 7 months ago
"Imaginationland" is a wonderful place.
ezzstreet 7 months ago
@ezzstreet Yea, the land of atheist.
LaResistanceChannel 6 months ago
OMG, nobody says the universe comes from nothing. The universe is everything in existence, our temporal 4 dimensional is all we know. We don't know very much about anything outside of this manifestation of existence. We don't even understand what time is. To assume that there is a personal creator is making an assumption. We have never experienced a disembodied mind. There are no examples of such a thing. some form of complexity innately exist, this does not have to be a personal god though!.
ultradevon04 7 months ago
@ultradevon04 (2) Basically the arguments put forth in this video make to many unjustified assumptions about what is behind the reality we experience. The god answer just begs the question when there are so many unknowns involved. I cant make up a bunch of things that are not personal gods that would answer the question just as well. Lets just accept that we have no idea why existence is the way it is or why we are here. Its fascinating question but we should accept there is no answer.
ultradevon04 7 months ago
I agree with the guy in the video.
ryanellis000 7 months ago
Dr. Craig has been working out!
oodlesofosz 7 months ago
The fundamental flaw with the initial argument is that it if full of casuistry. Craig attempts to apply supposedly "self evident" principles that we experience in everyday life to quantum occurrences like The Big Bang and causation. Turns out you can have things that appear out of nothing. This is the basis for Hawking Radiation in Black Holes and We experience it everyday in the form of light: the photons are created when electrons in hydrogen atoms in the sun fall back into their ground states
BarbierNicholas 8 months ago
new atheists don´t want to reason or discuss matters about God existence. they're just angry at God and religion and most of these comments show this. There isnt a single good argument atheists can present.
leojasuos 8 months ago
@leojasuos - sigh, fuckin' hell... where do I start?
How can we Atheists be angry at a god that we don't believe exists? Are YOU angry at Lord Bramah? Apollo? Zeus? Ookami Amaterasu? Quetzelcoatl? Amun Ra? Minerva? Mithrah? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
NO - because YOU are just as much an Atheist as I am, except I just go one deity further an include Yahweh into that equation.
And WE aren't the ones making a claim. It's your Christian duty to prove your god's existance.
freakystyley4000 7 months ago
@freakystyley4000 no , you are making a claim: you claim that God doesnt exist. if you werent, you would be an agnostic who wouldnt engage in debate or argumentation, because when you dont claim anything, you dont argue against anything. but you try to argue. the problem is you havent one single good argument to present
leojasuos 7 months ago
I D I O T
TheSultan03 8 months ago
Wtf sounds like he's making it up as he goes along
bommobiel 8 months ago 4
@bommobiel Uh, yeah, Craig is making things up along the way that's why he continuously quotes from Dawkins' book. Nothing gets passed you, smart guy.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@bommobiel LOOL So your atheist argument fails and so you decide to criticise him on the pace in which he uses his vocal cords?
oodlesofosz 7 months ago
True atheists, those who recognize their ignorance, should be thankful to the fatc that Dawkins in not technically an Atheist, rather he is a new atheist, delluded, dishonest and incorrect as only they can be.
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
Its great to see so many Atheists checking out this channel!
virtualguitarist 8 months ago
I love how so many of these religious types have the fixed expression of disgust that repressed homosexuals have, nttawwt, just go be gay and live your life!
Simplejidad 9 months ago
Just saw his first invalid argument so far.
1) "Everything" can be negated by one example of non-causility. It does not require "Beethoven & bicycles to pop into existance". That's a clear example of faulty logic.
2) Who says the Universe had a beginning as we understand time? Time is not a simple concept on a cosmological scale. Another flaw.
The man is a liar or idiot and as he is obviously pretty clever I have to go with liar. Liar for God.
MorgothBBO 9 months ago in playlist New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted
@believeordoubt..I dont think this is quite begging the question.Considering its not the conclusion hes assuming, yet I must agree that further inquiry concerning the immaterial reality would be fitting in support to the claim.
DeandresPerez1991 9 months ago
4. That cause is the Big Bang.
jroyals26 1 year ago
@jroyals26 where did the matter come from for the Big Bang?
greeneyedqt011 5 months ago
I just want to say he looks incredibly fit, makes me envious
worldpeace32 1 year ago
A great argument. It's no wonder that the moron Dawkins doesn't want to debate Dr. Craig. For someone with a Phd, Dawkins does not understand logic at all. I have yet to meet a consistent atheist who is able to construct a logically defense of their position. This is because it can't be done. The only logical position is an all powerful eternal being who created everything.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
You can see that the utube atheist doofus possey has been here with all the dislikes
agnostaxian 1 year ago
By the way, I'm postulating intelligence which is not a wholly new kind of thing.
revo1974 1 year ago
wargokeith 1 year ago
@wargokeith i can continue. the premise does not need to be true, "the premises doesn't need to be certainly true" and the "conclusion doesn't need to be 100% accurate."
premise: an = sign makes everything true. evidence 1=1. 2=2.
conclusion: 1=2
premise: hot glass is a liquid. premise: humans need to drink liquids to survive. conclusion: humans need to drink glass
premise: there is a god. premise: there are beds. conclusion: we sleep on god
wargokeith 1 year ago
@wargokeith I can continue
"premise: hot glass is a liquid. premise: humans need to drink liquids to survive. conclusion: humans need to drink glass" premise 1 and 2 are fine...conclusion: humans "might" be able to drink hot glass to survive. (see how the conclusion is intact following the premises...to vallidate it you would go on to prove/disprove that)
"premise: there is a god. premise: there are beds. conclusion: we sleep on god"
both premises are fine,conclusion: unrelated premises
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@wargokeith i can continue. the "conclusion doesn't need to be 100% accurate."
premise: an = sign makes everything true. evidence 1=1. 2=2.
conclusion: 1=2
premise: hot glass is a liquid. premise: humans need to drink liquids to survive. conclusion: humans need to drink glass
premise: there is a god. premise: there are beds. conclusion: we sleep on god
wargokeith 1 year ago
@wargokeith Your making a very fair point.Rules of Logic dictate that no conclusion follows from two particular premises.(Nihil sequitur geminis ex particularibus unquam).
binarybear9 1 year ago
@wargokeith His syllogism is an example of petitio principii(a sophism).It is a violation of the basic rule of logical reasoning.To clarify,that rule suggests: A syllogism must have three terms, neither more nor fewer.
binarybear9 1 year ago
@wargokeith "i can continue. the "conclusion doesn't need to be 100% accurate."
hmm...I think he said 2:34 an arguement doesn't need to prove its conclusion with 100% certainty to be a GOOD arguement. Rather it must meet 3 conditions
1 It obeys the rules of logic, the conclusions must follow LOGICALLY from the premises
2 It premises are true
3 The premises are more plausible than their opposites (or negations)
premises an = sign does not make everything true if both sides are not =
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat yes but the point i'm making is that i don't agree with his 3 laws. and thank you for correcting me. where is the source for them. who is the great philosopher(s) who uses these 3 laws of argument as the basis for their teachings and life work?
wargokeith 1 year ago
@wargokeith "conclusion: all men are cats and all cats are men"
corrected conclusion: all men & cats are living creatures, all men and cats have a life span, all men and cats die with uncertain reasons for their deaths.
"conclusion: all cell phones are personal messagers"
corrected conclusion: all cell phones & personal messangers utilize electricity, both possibly won't operate when the battery runs down or at least some funsctions won't, both classified as electrical devices
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat continued here are the laws as defined by aristotle, you can find them by researching the law of thought. 1. The law of identity. 2. The law of non-contradiction. 3. The law of the excluded middle. feel free to do some research on these laws. you will find that theselaws that guides and underline everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc..
wargokeith 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat continued 2: what is more, wether god exists or not is a scientiic debate, not a philosophic one. to paraphrase darwin on this, science often contradicts logic. for centuries we believed that universe revolved around the world. after all, the earth stood still and the sun and stars moved.
wargokeith 1 year ago
@wargokeith "wether god exists or not is a scientiic debate, not a philosophic one. to paraphrase darwin on this, science often contradicts logic"
I'll agree with you there that science (sometimes) contradicts logic. Though i do believe that science falls short of proofing God until fringe thinkers adopt an open mind and new technology that can translate "miracles" or evidence of God's handiwork into quantifiable data.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
Nothing exists outside of the universe since "universe" is by definition the totallity of everything that exists.Suggesting that an "entity" created the universe is obviously utter nonsense.A quantum fluctuation is by far more logical than what you theorise so try Edwards Nelson's paper.Never quite understood why you religious lads never try to actually study physics first and then adopt ad placitum facts.
binarybear9 1 year ago
I love the irony of him saying something from nothing is bad because it's appeal to magic then goes on to say god must therefore have poofed it into existance from nothing...
So magic is absurd but magic from a god is less absurd...
dlandon2000 1 year ago 37
@dlandon2000 I love the irony in your comment. At least for the Christian, there's a magician to make the magic work. For the atheist, there is no magician. Just POOF and out came something from nothing. Houdini eat your heart out.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
Ohh look, it's *this* comment again.
BNPisFTW 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Or how about the third option; that we don't have the answer yet. Inventing answers to questions is never acceptable, no matter how much you want an answer.
captain150 1 year ago 31
@captain150 Then don't answer with the third option if the REAL answer is obvious.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Excuse me, it is not obvious. History shows us conclusively that things we used to attribute to the supernatural do indeed have natural explanations. One cannot say that they KNOW the answer (the root of all evil) when they do not. The most we can say is that based on the history of science, there must be a naturalistic explanation -- even if we do not yet know what it is (although there have been great strides in recent years).
Zimnyification 11 months ago
@captain150 But we do have the answer for the existance of God. Nobody yet has been able to make a more solid case for the existance of life or make an argument against the Bible. People have tried to discredit the Bible for hundreds of years and never been able to develop a sound argument.
oodlesofosz 7 months ago
@oodlesofosz - Genesis: the earth was created before the sun = bible is discredited.
And the bible doesn't prove god. Just because it features a very vile, calculating, vengeful and cruel character called Yahweh doesn't mean that there is in fact a god, and he happens to be the deity of a warmongering tribe of Bronze Aged Jews.
Other holy books make the same claims, yet none of them has met their burden of proof either.
So repent! Otherwise Lord Ganesh may reincarnate you as a rat!
freakystyley4000 7 months ago
@freakystyley4000 I've emailed you my response.. The character count won't give my response justice.
oodlesofosz 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Houdini was quite the man, lmao
According to Victor Stenger there's actually a 60% chance of something coming out of nothing, naturally. According to Stephen Hawking, nothing is unstable and because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Stenger also make a point in passing, why is there God rather than nothing?
Zimnyification 11 months ago
@Zimnyification
Stephen hawkings didn't prove it numerically, it's a speculation as it remains, where did you get the proof of 60% of anything coming out of nothing, u can't be serious about it, do you really believe this...unbelievable. anyone and i say anyone, is at best agnostic "atheists" or at worst agnostic "theists". the fact that you argue or even frequent this video makes u an agnostic who rely on others's mode of day dreaming to form a pseudo-opinion so to feel less guilty of anythin
warrior4just 9 months ago
@warrior4just I got it from a lifetime physicist; watch it, your cynicism is overflowing. One can make a point and because it cannot be proved wrong, the denier of the claim is suddenly an agnostic. What nonsense.
Zimnyification 9 months ago
@Zimnyification
in sofar as atheism it acknowledges the lack of any deity, that in itself is a claim, if u can't prove it, it makes u at best agnostic in the sense that once u acknowledge a possibility that such being exist. but if you say no he does not, it becomes a worthless opinion, but to claim it for others, u r required to provide proof, if u dont then it's a mere opinion, but in essence we r all agnostics, u have ur faith and others do.
warrior4just 9 months ago
@warrior4just
You define atheism incorrectly, then make a false assertion.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity, and claims nothing else.
The lack of belief is not a belief in itself.
Neither is it an assertive claim, requiring evidence.
That's like saying '0 = 1'; infact zero is the absence of one.
It means the evidence being proposed for a particular deity is so poor, it is unbelievable.
matt7kiwi 9 months ago
@matt7kiwi
In logic, there are two propositions to god existence. He exists or he does not, if someone said there is god, u'd say no he doesn't, now the latter is propositon from logical sense, u aren't required to prove it, but if u attempt to prove it to counter the positive claim of god existence, then u wouldn't know or would answer that the likelihood of him not existing is more likely which create a probability. that probibility is what agnosticism is about. to contnue..
warrior4just 9 months ago
@matt7kiwi
...so essentially while u may identify urself as an atheist, once u acknowledge a possibility then u are an agnostic at best from the logical standing.
warrior4just 9 months ago
@warrior4just
Its a fine line between the definition of atheist and agnostic.
I think agnostics entertain the idea of a deity, but don't believe it can be defined or known.
In contrast, an atheist doesn't really believe there are deities.
Personally I'm an antitheist.
I assert there's nothing super natural in our natural universe.
And i believe the net effect on humans thru history, of the pursuit of fictional religions has been evil.
In short, religion is toxic to humans.
matt7kiwi 9 months ago
@matt7kiwi
ur very existence is toxic to the world ya twat. why would anybody be an anti one's right, u wanna take animal behavior ur moral compass, or rely on science, knock urself up. i consider myself a critical thinker who believes on Math/logic rather than biology. my tool is probability, and it makes a case for there being something rather than nothing. an agnostc gets respect at least in view of his humbelness of not pretending to know. Atheists flat out deny the possibility.
warrior4just 9 months ago
@matt7kiwi
Atheist and "anti-theist" are the exact same thing.
RetSquid 8 months ago in playlist New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted
@drcraigvideos That depends on your definition of "nothing" is it an absolute nothing or is it what we would perceive as nothing? Furthermore if you cannot define the nothing then it isn't actually logical to assume that the "nothing" has an intelligent source behind it because you have not defined if there is indeed an "absolute nothing". Sorry Craig does not impress me with this argument. Journey to False Dichotomy Land.
anarimus 11 months ago
@anarimus Oh, of course, Dr. Craig doesn't impress you. anarimus-poo. Besides, Dr. Craig does define nothing here: watch?v=RsYitVJMYOM
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos @anarimus The Big Bang is not the creation of the universe out of nothing, but because it was a singularity (it had an infinite density) we cannot know what happened before the big bang, and therefor we speak of it as ´the beginning´ most of the time.
bommobiel 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos Actually, you don't need a magician. Measuring all the energy and negative energy in the universe and the amount you come to is... 0. Nothing. Which means that at the beginning of time there can have been nothing and all it would have taken was a quantum fluctuation to spark "something".
Science, you lack it.
techroomnz 9 months ago
@techroomnz Yeah, I read that same stuff over and over again. Just because the negative energy balances with the positive energy, it doesn't mean you have no energy. Look up Craig's debate with Atkins where they debate this.
Knowledge, you need it.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@dlandon2000 something does come from nothing. it happens all the time. the field of quantom physics has made great leaps and bounds to explain why
wargokeith 1 year ago
@dlandon2000 Your an idiot
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@dlandon2000
But he doesn't say that "god must therefore have poofed it into existence from nothing..." You can't refute an argument if you don't understand what it is. Watch the video again (around 04;00) for the correct and accurate formulation of the argument.
andre1066 1 year ago
@dlandon2000 what magic is, is where an event occurs with no explanation whatsoever. God is the explanation. Nope no magic at all. Did you listen to his whole argument? The fact that your comment got 15 thumps up almost scares me.
22complexity 11 months ago
@dlandon2000 Actually Craig's argument clearly states that whatever caused the universe to exist must have always existed and have never had a beginning. Something that has always existed does not require a cause.
marveymarker 9 months ago
@dlandon2000 asuming God used magic which is not the case that craig is using.
supermurloc64 9 months ago
@dlandon2000 so nothing caused nothing is better them
20kevron 8 months ago
@dlandon2000 You didn't listen to Dr. Craig. He didn't say the universe was created by magic. He said that things popping into being, uncaused out of nothing, is WORSE than magic. He didn't say God poofed the universe into existance from from nothing. He said that God used his POWER to create the universe. If I have a blank hard drive, there is NO information on it. After I program a game onto the hard drive there is now something on it. Something from nothing? Yet I also made the hard drive.
Quintapus 8 months ago
@dlandon2000 If you're trying to compare God's power of Holy Spirit to... idk, a witchdoctor performing spells, then your thinking is what is absurd.
oodlesofosz 7 months ago
@dlandon2000
Magic without a magician is extremely absurd, don’t you think? Don’t you?
joehardysr 6 months ago 2
@dlandon2000 The true irony is that you atheists will bash magic and the supernatural because it doesn't correspond with your naturalist mentality, but on the other hand you defend the big bang theory with "it just happened" aka magic. Yes, it doesn't make sense for a portrait to appear unless there is a painter, that's just common sense. Atheism is just one contradiction after another.
tDISCIPLEt 5 months ago
Annoying high pitch noise in this video.
gotitans999 1 year ago
Thank you very much for uploading this!
metal87power 1 year ago
Comment removed
orphyborphy 1 year ago
@orphyborphy Dr. Craig is't a Christian fundamentalist, genius. He isn't a young-earth creationist. He isn't a dispensationalist. He doesn't think the Bible should be taken literally. I can go on and on to prove that Dr. Craig is not a fundamentalist. In fact, he's against it. Please try to be more wise in your comments, ok?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
I'm an agnostic atheist, so this was actually enjoyable to watch. While I believe based on our current knowledge the likelihood of a supernatural power to be slim, we just don't know enough to be able to rule it out entirely.
Furthermore, it's nice to see an argument about the possible existence of a higher power without any religious overtone. If a higher power exists or ever did exist there's no reason that it has to directly have anything to do our morals or social culture.
jaxsonbateman 1 year ago
I enjoy listening to Dr. Craig. I wish I could speak that well.
terminat1 1 year ago
Allow me to disprove this argument...as no other atheists have....(hint other atheists have).
He says premise one seems obviously true. Well we have never seen anything start to exist and as a result we can't assume that anything that has begun to exist would have a cause. Beyond that point Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest scientists of our time, has clearly stated that our universe can and likely did create itself.
AtheistrEvolutionist 1 year ago
@AtheistrEvolutionist, and what have created these "first" universe? Dear believer (yes, yours atheism is regilion!), do not mix phisysc with philosophy (methaphysisc to be more specificial).
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power According to Hawking (again he is one of the greatest minds on the topic today) the answer is gravity. I am not going to sit here and teach you go to school and learn.
BTW I don't believe anything. I asses evidence. The position that has the best evidence is the one I support until it is shown that another position has more evidence. Atheism is a response to theistic claims. It is merely a rejection of your assertion that a god or gods exist. No belief required.
AtheistrEvolutionist 1 year ago
@AtheistrEvolutionist Hawking is my hero too. I mean what a revelation: he proudly claims "The laws of science created themselves and then the universe out of nothing" I mean what could be more profound than a philosophical, science-of-the-gaps proclamation about the origin, existence & purpose of universal, immaterial immutableLAWS defined by absurdly complex abstract mathematical formulae. No wonder he wrote in the same book that the future of knowledge lies not in philosophy but in science
dashan091 11 months ago 3
Excellent arguments as always. Craig lays down the law in a very to the point, logically following manner on how the new atheist philosophy is full of holes, even outright falsehoods by claiming things in science that "science" itself has not revealed.
Keep the smackdown coming, Craig =P I would personally be shocked if Richard Dawkins manned up for a debate with him...
MorpheusOmikron 1 year ago
@MorpheusOmikron
I wouldn't say the law was laid down. As he states himself at the start, a good argument doesn't necessarily have to be true. In fact, his hypotheses are just as difficult to prove as any other 'beginning of the universe' theory.
It's arguably the most mysterious mystery about the universe, so it'll take mankind a long time to uncover the truth (if it ever does). While Dr Craig highlights that there's potential a higher power was involved, he definitely doesn't prove it.
jaxsonbateman 1 year ago
@jaxsonbateman
I guess I'd actually have to agree.
But I would insist you agree that the evidence for agency is also fairly strong, especially on the deeper interpretation of the consequences of the KCA.
MorpheusOmikron 1 year ago
@MorpheusOmikron
I won't agree that the evidence is strong, but that there is actually very little evidence on either side of the argument. Basically, at this stage of human knowledge its just theories based on what we know, when really there is heaps we don't.
I have no problem admitting that a higher power is possible though. =)
jaxsonbateman 1 year ago
"It must be unimaginably powerful" - Technically speaking, all the energy in the universe adds up to be within one Planck unit of zero, meaning that it only would need as much power as a quantum fluctuation.
Venaloid 1 year ago
"It can't change because there's no time" - There's no time, but it could change as another thing happens; something analogous to time. We can't know anything about the nature of its existence, just that it wouldn't exist in matter or energy or time in the same way OUR universe does. (This whole thing is assuming that this thing caused us, which is not necessarily the case per my comment below).
Venaloid 1 year ago
Everything that begins to exist has a cause WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE; it's a property OF the universe, not of what caused or didn't cause the universe itself.
Venaloid 1 year ago
Notice how a lot of these religious videos have more thumbs down than thumbs up?
Venaloid 1 year ago
i like how great thinking theists like dr. craig and john lennox go much deeper than most atheists and expose atheists self-refuting statements which they themselves don't even pick up on, lol.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
If you were invited to a feast with all kinds of good meats, would you believe that there has been no one to cook them? But nature is a banquet prepared for us! You have tomatoes & peaches & apples & milk & honey. Who has prepared all these things for mankind? Nature is blind. If you believe in no God, how can you explain that blind nature suceeded in preparing just the things that we need in such plenitude and variety? If you desire more, email me at 1thevoiceoftruth@gmail.com. God is real
1TheVoiceofTruth 1 year ago
@1TheVoiceofTruth that one is painfully easy. It would make no sense for those that couldn't digest the foods that are available to survive. However, those that could would survive and pass on their digestive genes. As for milk however, some people CAN'T digest it. Why? Because the traits for digesting lactose weren't passed onto them. However, they are slowly being weeded out as the larger more fit population takes over. Evolution in action.
shldflght 1 year ago
@shldflght. Interesting. Then how had they survived up to that point if they could not digest the then available foods? Where they eating other foods? Sounds like a little bit of a stab in the dark for an answer. Let's think about this though. You believe in evolution. So do I. I believe that we adapt to our environment. However, adapting to your environment is known as micro-evolution (such as Eskimos having thicker layers of fatty tissue in their skin to survive in colder conditions).
1TheVoiceofTruth 1 year ago
@1TheVoiceofTruth Well being that the organisms up to that point were microorganisms like bacteria that can eat just about anything I hardly see what the problem is. "Micro" and "Macro" are the same thing just different time scales. To say "macro" is not possible is like saying its possible to walk 20 feet by not 20 miles. Its the same process one just takes longer. And please actually read up on what evolution IS before you try to ridicule it. You just look ignorant when you say things like
shldflght 1 year ago
@shldflght Lol. I noticed you dodged my question. Show me the proof. Where are your missing intermediate links? If you want to use little analogies...saying macro is possible b/c micro is, is like saying since it is possible that since you have observed someone jump and get off the ground, it is probably possible that some humans can fly too.
P.S. Possessing a degree in Biology, I believe I have a pretty good handle on what evolution is. I have studied it for years...indepth. It's a lie.
1TheVoiceofTruth 1 year ago
@1TheVoiceofTruth Ok first off Jumping and flying are COMPLETELY different mechanisms. Whereas walking 5 feet and walking 5000 feet are the SAME mechanism. Just as genetic variation over 1000 years with natural selection is the SAME mechanism as genetic variation over 10000000 years with natural selection. Dodged your question? But sir they are ALL intermediate links! Every one of them is a precursor to something else. Did you want a specific lineage? I can do that too!
shldflght 1 year ago
@shldflght. Macro-evolution (evolution on a large scale - horses to humans) is a completely different story. We see and observe micro-evolution in nature even NOW all the time. Creatures adapt to their environment. Obvious. However, there is absolutely 0% percent proof for Macro-evolution. If you wish to challenge me, show me the proof. Where are the millions of missing intermediate links from the past billions of years? Answer: They can't find them because they don't exist.
1TheVoiceofTruth 1 year ago
@1TheVoiceofTruth (Cont..) "horses to humans." Humans did not evolve from horses, nor did we evolve from chimpanzees. We evolved from a primate hominid that had both ape and human features (aka Lucy). Evidence for this? How about the fact that we are STILL primate hominids RIGHT NOW! *gasp* Evolution doesn't change you into anything else. Your still a hominid, your still a primate, your still a mammal, your still a vertebrate, your still a chordate, and your STILL an animal.
shldflght 1 year ago