Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture Q&A (HQ) 2/4

[the1qb]

Craig is a beast. He's going point for point with physicists and cosmologists

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Craig arguing with physicists and cosmologists is just pathetic. this professional hack fancies himself some kind of authority on Big Bang cosmology and just keeps on with his bullshit despite the fact that no scientist working in the relevant fields is bying his arguments and considers them even close to convincing.

how stupid you've got to be not to know when to quit! Craig is one big failure and no ammount of confidence and smuggnes can conceal that simple fact :)))

[Christianjr4]

@AgeOfReasonXXI

That's not actually true. Physicists such as Don Page and George Ellis have read and considered his view. In fact, both have recommended his scholarly work on time. Also, please keep in mind that his work is mostly philosophy, not strictly speaking science. The science he does bring up though is what mainstream scientists tend to hold to anyways so it's not like he's saying stuff completely incompatible with science. And Craig is an authority on this philosophical argument!

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@Christianjr4 I didn't say what he's saying is completely incompatible with science. just that scientists working in the relevant fields do not agree with his speculations at all.

Craig constantly uses the theoretical work done be scientists like Guth, Vikenkin, Hawking and others, yet those same scientists disagree with the conclusions he draws from their own theories. That fact (along with the fact that Kalam has been widely critisized by philosophers as well) should be a minor clue to him

[hexusziggurat]

@Christianjr4 hehehe complete truth. Thats the problem with physicists and cosmology of today (and even Einstein pointed it out in his time) ...they are poor philosophers and THAT is problem! There IS philosophy in science and this is where scienctists quite often have to come outside their proverbial bubble but stumble.

[GodTheHypothesis]

@Christianjr4

Almost no physicists in the modern world agree with this argument, it's crazy to suggest they do. Most nowadays don't think the big bang was the "beginning" in any real sense- that interpretation really went out in the last decade. The bottom line is that we don't have a theory that explains this area of physics so any argument that claims facts about it- is building upon ignorance.

[DigitalDecadence]

@AgeOfReasonXXI I don't really want to repeat what Christianjr4 said, but WLC makes it a point to keep well up to date on all mainstream scientific findings, papers and hypothesies. Saying no scientiest working in the relevant fields comes to the same conclusions is just boggling, and total nonsense. That would be the easiest thing to prove and refute, as Cjr4 has mentioned. :o

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@DigitalDecadence well I guess you can alway find a handful of cosmologists and astrophysicists who may agree that the best explanation for the Big Bang is that the Christian God did it. But by far most of them do not, and are not impressed at all by the speculations of apologists like Craig. Guth, Vilenkin, Borde, and Hawking being among them. So please..

[DigitalDecadence]

@AgeOfReasonXXI I think you misunderstand how people view the arguments, look at the audience he has at this lecture, the arguments are taken seriously - whether they are enough to make people change their mind, well it doesn't really matter. In regards to the 'God did it' idea, WLC has an advantage over the non-theist crowd in that he has an explanation for the cause, whereas at the moment no one else does. That doesn't make it true, just his explanatory power is greater, and so, better.

[Birdieupon]

Stenger is being such a jerk here!

[MaitreyaRocket]

@Birdieupon - Yeah, that whole logic & reason thing is a real party pooper ...

[Purushadasa]

6:45 that questioner is a rude, arrogant, impertinent little pseudo-intellectual punk with much less intelligence than he imagines himself to have.

[Purushadasa]

I meant 6:30.

[MetaphysicsAddict]

Agreed. And Craig handled it with such grace.

[Purushadasa]

That's true.

The atheist is very frustrated and angry, and this is due to his having already been utterly defeated many times over. He has been defeated so easily because he NEVER provides any evidence whatsoever for his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist.

Conversely, the Theists are confident, cheerful, polite, and coherent due to having a consistent, logical, rational worldview that has never been challenged with as much as a single shred of evidence.

atheist total fail

[tantzer]

What did the questioner say at 1:10 ?

[Christianjr4]

He said "that's how it's labeled, sir"

[GGDFan777]

I think he is in fact saying:

"That's highly debatable, sir"

Either way, great lecture by dr. Craig

[Christianjr4]

LOL....yeah you're right. I guess when you think about it, the other statement doesn't make much sense at all. Thanks for the correction.

[Purushadasa]

Yes, he said it's highly debatable, but he offered no evidence for that blunt assertion. Typical atheist, he expects the whole world to just accept his bizarre personal beliefs without any evidence at all, just because he says so.

[Slossius1983]

Mathematical trick... reminds me of Craig's "actual infinite" argument!

[arkoraa]

In the last 3 minutes, Dr. Craig sounds like a physicist lol

[regelemihai]

He really does. And keep in mind he was standing in an intellectual shooting range here, and he did more than fine.

The interesting thing is that he's not even remotely close to being a physicist. It just shows how broad his knowledge is in relation to the multiple fields that study metaphysics. He's proficient at cosmology, astrophysics, many branches of philosophy, and even historical knoweledge.

He's almost like a polymath.

[abrimestome]

Well he is a philosopher of science.

[Christianjr4]

Think of it along the lines of imaginary numbers (ie. square root of negative numbers) but a feature of quantum mechanics. It doesn't transcend space/time properly speaking but is rather a different dimension of time than what we experience. The question they are concerned with in the video is the ontological significance of imaginary time and whether it has any or not. Craig argues it does not, and that it is a mathematical trick, which cosmologists recognize as well.

[emopeacekid]

Christianjr4

What are they talking about when they say "imaginary time"? Do you know what they mean? Is it time that transcends the time in our space/time or what?