William Lane Craig vs. Paul Draper (Existence of God) Part 1

[lukeism2]

an unprovable invisible space wizard created the universe from his anus, evolution is not true! and christianity is true!, oh wait.... he said theism, theism isn't a religion... he's like a deist posing as a theist.

[KBrimstone]

@lukeism2 You believe a unprovable space wizard created the Universe? That's silly.

By the way a theist is anyone who believes the stament "God exist" is true.

That includes Deists. A deist believes God didn't intervene in history so that means I'm not a deist.

[lukeism2]

@KBrimstone hmm, i've just always thought that theist meant a belief in a personal god.. not the god that thomas jefferson believed in, the deist god is just as you explained it.. is this the god that you believe in?.

oh and u know my post was very snarky... i wouldn't really go to a theologian to find out about the origins of the universe, i'd rather lawrence krauss, stephen hawking or brian greene...

[KBrimstone]

@lukeism2. The. theist does believe in a personal God. The deisism is a form of of theism. The deist beleives in a personal God as well. Personal meaning a God who has personhood. But the deist doesn't believe God is active in history or is involved in his creation. Polyentheist beleives in an impersonal God. Like a force instead of a mind. I'm a monotheist more specifically a Christian Monotheist.

[KBrimstone]

@lukeism2 As for Origins of the Universe. Yeah I'd go to a scientist too. Up to tthe Big Bang. After that Well I'd got to the Phylosophers. Because science stops at nature all the scientist can do is tell you about the big bang. It's up to the Phylosopher using the rules of logic to explain beyond the physical world.

[simw7]

beyond the physical world? how do we know such place exist? I mean and how would we know about such thing. using philosophy trying to talk about what we have no evidence for is really a waste of time. I mean philosophy is nothing but using human common sense and how we think about the world. I'd put my bet on science to actually find out if there's something beyond this universe. science might invent a new machine that might prove multiple universe theory if they exist, or other dimensions

[KBrimstone]

@simw7 No philosophy is not common sense. It's metaphysics, the canons of logic that govern all reason. You can't escape them and science is a slave to philosophy. It depends on philosophy to exist. The multiverse is a purely metaphysical postulation. We will never be able to observe them if they exist..

Surely you believe there are things outside of sciences domain.

[simw7]

..science and philosophy work together,.. in fact philosophy relies heavily on scientific finding don't you ever why even philosopher refer to scientific finding in the arguments? the reason why we have science is because we know that the way nature works is conterintuitive to the way we think, and so philosophy can't develop without science either. they need scientific founding to actually know what they're talking about. e.i age, size, cause of, human origins all scientific findings

[KBrimstone]

@simw7 No. You see Philosophy governs science. That's why you have a philosophy of science not a science of philosophy. Science can give us new data but philosophy then tells us what to conclude from those new data, You put the data into premises and then draw conclusion. But what I mean when I say science depends on philosophy is that science assumes certain philosophical principles. Science can never correct philosophy becuase it assumes philosophy (meta physics, epistemology, logic etc)

[simw7]

I agree kind of,..but when you use philosophy to describe what's behind the real world,..I mean as I asked you how do you know such place exist? how do you test that? sure science doesn't study what could be outside of the real world,..but even if you use philosophy how would you know,..wouldn't it just be simply speculation? if philosophy was able to actually find out what's beyond the real world, don't you think they'd find out about it already? in contrary science is actually doing the work

[Cromwell523]

why does craig like the military? aren´t they killing other people?

[Lanter1000]

That is a very good question. Why the hell is a christian who believes that is is objectively wrong to kill supporting a child killing military?

[ManicEightBall]

Since these arguments actually don't prove his god exists, why does he keep bringing them up?

[abrimestome]

Because they are good argument that lead you to logically to conclude that there is a God. No one has yet to refute him to date.

Now when you say "prove" you mean scientifically prove. Then no, science doesn't make any statement on the the existence of God.

There are many things that science cannot prove yet we are rational to believe.

[ManicEightBall]

"Now when you say "prove" you mean scientifically prove."

No, I don't. I wouldn't even use the word 'prove' with science. Science doesn't prove things. It just adds evidence for them (or perhaps disprove).

If you can use reasoning to prove a concept, then do it. What Craig has done is to give faulty arguments for the existence of his god, but a faulty argument is no better than no argument.

There is no rational reason, evidence, no proof, no support. It only has belief and faith.

[abrimestome]

I really disagree Dr. Craig's arguments have been shown to be very rational and I've yet to hear any good refutation of them.

I wonder what arguments in particular do you find "faulty?"

[ManicEightBall]

I wonder what arguments in particular do you find "faulty?"

The (Kalaam) Cosmological argument, the argument from morality, and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection all fail. I have some videos up on my channel where I go into detail about why they fail, although I only address him in particular with regards to the Kalaam.

[abrimestome]

@ManicEightBall I wish you'd tell me why they fail. Instead of mearly positing that it fails. Which premise do you disagree with?

[ManicEightBall]

@abrimestome "I wish you'd tell me why they fail. "

I have posted several videos on these topics. I didn't just make a claim. I've talked about it at length. Unfortunately, text responses don't allow that kind of room, so you'll have to watch some videos.

[abrimestome]

@ManicEightBall

Uh-huh. Write when you can figure out how to condence it. LOL.

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

I wonder why you don't find them "faulty". Craig is the one making the claim here so Craig, as well as anyone who agrees with him, is the one who needs to give us reasons to believe. Furthermore, Craig's arguments have been shown to be very irrational...so could you please explain to us why you think they are? Let's start with this one from G.W Liebenz: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Please explain to us why this makes sense to you.

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1 ROFL. What arguemnets of thie esteemed Philosopher has been shown to be irrational? Please tell me.

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

Lets go slow here since you seem to be having such a hard time. We'll start with G.W Liebenz question, the primordial existential question that Craig uses at lot: "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Do you see anything wrong with this just as it stands? You need an IQ of at least 70 to be able to see any problem with it.

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

You really want to talk about Liebenz don't you? Let me guess the so-called Anthropic principle? Fallacious! Wait. Forgive me lest I attack a strawman. Please oh wise athiest with an IQ above 70 tell me the poor dimwitted theist with this?

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

Are you an athiest? If so you need to give reasons to believe. Anyone who posits something needs to have positive reasons to believe it. Not to mention the fact that you mixed up Liebenzian cosmo with the Kalam cosmo. Why do athiests condesend on subjects they're clearly ignorant on?

[abrimestome]

@abrimestome

I can't believe I let some of this foolishness slide. I must have not been paying any real attention.

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

Since thiests are making a claim, the burden of proof is in your lap dude....

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

The burden of proof is on anyone who believes, posits, or makes a claim about something. So the athiest needs positive evidence in order to rationally hold their position and for theist to be convinced otherwise. So the burden of proof is in your "lap" as well assuming you're an atheist.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

That means that the burden of proof is NOT on anyone who does NOT believe, does NOT posit or does NOT make any claim about something....Craig is claiming there is a God. So who's burnden is it to prove something here?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

I agree. The burden of proof is not on some one who does not believe anything regarding the subject. (Agnostic) So the atheist has the burden of proof because to be an athiest is to posit, believe, and make the claim that there is no God.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

That doesn't make sense...sorry. 

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"So the atheist has the burden of proof because to be an athiest is to posit, believe, and make the claim that there is no God." This doesn't prove your point. Just reverse the logic. If there is a God, which is the claim here, lets see the damn proof! Its more than clear that you are doing all the claiming. Why do I have to prove that something doesn't exist when there is no prove that it exists? Answer that one smart guy...Can I first see the proof before I try to disprove it?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

You are not paying attention. Let ME take it slow... Both the theist and atheist must have positive reasons for their belief or statement on bhow the world is. Dr. Craig has given positive proofs for God existance BUT even if you could reject them youj still would have no reason to conclude atheism. You would need positive proofs that there is NO God. Without it the best you'd have is agnostisism.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

"Why do I have to prove that something doesn't exist when there is no prove that it exists? Answer that one smart guy...Can I first see the proof before I try to disprove it? "

I'm not asking you to disprove anything. I'm asking you to prove the that the statement "There is no God" is true. Why?

Because that is the only way to hold a veiw and be rational. Let me ask you do you believe the staement "There is no God" to be true or false?

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

I don't consider Craig's Kalam proof because it's not. Hardly convinceing to me one bit. The first premise is scientifically falsified and it is empirical evidence that wins with me every time. Philosophy is for your kind. I can't prove or disprove something that isn't real or I can't observe. I wish it was that obvious to me because it sure isn't....millions of other people feel the same.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

You don't consider it becuase you don't want to. You clearly ignored my arguement in defencse of the cosmological arguement so I'll repeat it.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

I'm not in the business of proveing statements. That's unproductive and a waste of time for me and all of your statements so far has further confirmed that for me. I look at empirical evidence. As it stands, the universe seems to indicate one that is void of God. Science shows this. I don't have to defend that either as science speaks for itself and answers to no one. If you don't like what science has to say about this then its clear you are a denialist...typical theist...

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Bwah ha ha ha ha! Are you kidding me? So basicaly you can't defend your position. You just believe it on faith Ha! What does science have to do with this? Science makes no comment on God either way. Are you saying you only believe what can be proved with empirical science.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

How does "the Universe sem to indicate one that is void of God?" The Kalam cosmological arguement stands. You have yet to show me anything that could come out of nothing.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

No it doesn't!

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause". This is not true damnit! I gave examples of things in nature that don't require causes to exist. This smashes the first premise and thus smashes the whole damn argument. "The universe began to exist" -- yes. "Therefore, the universe must have a cause". If the first premise is falsified, can we still make this conclusion?

[IntelEngineer1]

@IntelEngineer1

...Furthermore, as I have mentioned before. I hold to empirical evidence which is cosmologically encapsulated into physical models that describe how the universe came from a previous parallel universe on it's own.

Also, can we agree that nothingness is logically inconceivable? In order to assume nothingness is the natural state of things it must be conceivable meaning we can understand it. Since nothingness can't be unserstood, it doesn't make sense to....

[IntelEngineer1]

...believe nothingness was all there was before the universe was. So this question "why is there something rather than nothing?" never made any sense to me because you have to first assume nothingness was what existed before the universe did. We know from physics this isn't true. If you want to understand this you need to look into M-theory and study the Hartal-Hawking wave function. Understand how this works and you'll see why scientist make the claims they do. There are reasons for everything.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

If nothingnes is the absence of anything then yes if the Universe is existance before the Universe is nothing. Hartle-Hawking themselves construe their model as giving "the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing," and Hawking has asserted that according to the model the universe "would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe."

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

The question which arises for this construal of the model is whether such an interpretation is meant to be taken realistically or instrumentally. On this score, there can be little doubt that the use of imaginary quantities for time is a mere mathematical device without ontological significance.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Barrow observes, "physicists have often carried out this 'change time into space' procedure as a useful trick for doing certain problems in ordinary quantum mechanics, although they did not imagine that time was really like space. At the end of the calculation, they just swop [sic] back into the usual interpretation of there being one dimension of time and three . . . dimensions of . . . space."

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 48 In his model, Hawking simply declines to re-convert to real numbers. If we do, then the singularity re-appears. Hawking admits, "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities."

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

49 Hawking's model is thus a way of re-describing a universe with a singular beginning point in such a way that that singularity is transformed away; but such a re-description is not realist in character.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Hawking has recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking model non-realistically. He confesses, "I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is."50 Still more extreme, "I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

You are the second person on this forum that has ignored by response when I was asked why Kalam fails. I gave the response and reasons for why it fails and then no response at all. Instead you quickly changed the subject onto something else real fast...I find that very, very interesting....Kalam fails. And I'll take the fact that you ignored my reasons in my response as an admission of defeat!

[IntelEngineer1]

...As for Hartel-Hawking and M-theory, I have to give you credit for at least having a source. Most theists don't even have one, but you did. However you source is questionable and so is your understanding of it. You simply copied straight out of the William Lane Craig rookie handbook as if to assume I've never heard Craigs opinions about this matter. It's clear you don't know a lick about physics.....

[IntelEngineer1]

....and that completely explains why you are ever so quick to believe anything Craig, a denialist, has to say. Here is a good tutorial about Hawking's wave function:

[IntelEngineer1]

infidels.org/library/modern/qu­entin_smith/hawking.html

[IntelEngineer1]

....You're probably going to, no doubt, have trouble understanding it, but it clearly explains what this wave function means. It describes, not only the probability of a universe coming out of nothing, but explains how it’s possible. One more note then I'm done: The best explaination about anything is one that can be understood and explained. As long as there is a physical model that explain how the universe came out of nothing, this is the best explaination! Good luck and take care!

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 I've read Quintin Smith's actual article. Here is William Lane Craig's response

reasonablefaithDOTorg/site/New­s2?page=NewsArticle&id=5171

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"I've read Quintin Smith's actual article. Here is William Lane Craig's response"

Why do you like Craig's response better?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 You ever gonna answer my questions? Quintin's understanding of nothing is naive. The Universe didn"t come out of the vacuum it came out of nothing. Quitin ignores the standard model which is more established. He ignores the fact that Bord-Gouth-Velliekin Therom shows a space time boundary even on haskel-hawkins model... the list goes on.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 Why do you like Quintin's artcile, other than the fact that it concludes a world view you already assume?

[IntelEngineer1]

....Also, you're same thing by favoring Craig because he "concludes a worldview you already assume". We already are aware that both of us believe that the other's worldview is doing the assuming so this point really doesn't fit here. I think you're assuming God, thus needing evidence to prove otherwise, and I stand on the facts of what science is telling us about the universe and just flat out not seeing any place for a God. If science doesn not support that hypothesis, then screw it...

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Instead of attacking me and my "lack of knowledge" why don't you prove me wrong? I showed you that nothing comes into being uncaused. The Universe came into being out of nothing there needs to be a cause. Dude wake up. There was nothing before the Universe. No space no time nothing. Not some vacuum. NOTHING.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

For the third time now, the first premise fails because there are things in nature that do not require causes in order to exist. The examples I already gave you to which you forgot are the atomic transactions that produce light called photons. Those do not require a cause...ask any ph.d or ready any quantum mechanics book. Another example of something beginning to exist without a cause are alpha, beta and gama particals in nuclear decay....Kalam fails.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 Alpha, beta and gama particles most certainly do not pop into being out of nothing. Didn't you read my posts? You not refuting them but merely repeating. What does Quantum mechanics books have to do with Meta physics? Your refutation fails luaghably. LOL

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"What does Quantum mechanics books have to do with Meta physics? Your refutation fails luaghably. LOL" Physics and other sciences deal with what's real. I'm glad you acknowledge this as metaphysical. I will stick to what's real as being just that: real. Anything else isn't. If metaphysical can help us explain reality then to me what is real, the physical universe and the science that explains it, seems to explain it better. I hold my ground.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 Meta physics doesn't deal with what's real?

Let get this straight so I understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that science is the only way you can trust to know if something is real? Are you saying metaphysical statements are not real and only scientific statements are real? Please elaborate.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"Are you saying that science is the only way you can trust to know if something is real? Are you saying metaphysical statements are not real and only scientific statements are real? Please elaborate. " I have many times! To me, I favor science over anything which takes the higher authority on truth in my mind. Haven't I told you that???...

[IntelEngineer1]

...It seems aparent to me that you favor philosophy. Fine! But science makes more sense to me like it does with millions of others so, yes, being a natualist if something conflicts with science, it flat out isn't real in my mind until data shows otherwise. I'm open, as I'm proving by talking to you, but it has to agree with what's observed and verified.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 Right you've said that already. But there are things that science has no answer to and cannot answer. I'm not asking if you favor science but seems to me that you trying to fit a square in a round hole. These are philosophical questions that sceince can't answer. Sceince only observes the natural. It can't make comments on the supernatural. To assume that there isn't anything beyond the natural is to beg the question. That's basic philosophy.(logic).

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"Right you've said that already. But there are things that science has no answer to and cannot answer." Then to the naturalist the answers are still out there somewhere. We keep looking because we're skeptics and are open to new theories that fit data better and agree with observation to a higher accuracy. But it's pretty clear since "Science only observes the natural" as you pointed out and that it "can't make comments on the supernatural" that the idea of God is absurd...

[IntelEngineer1]

..."No you haven't you keep asserting that sceince some how shows that something can come out of nothing." No, wrong again. I said there are scientific models that fit current data and agree with observation that describe a universe that can come out of nothing. I further made the point that since there is a way to understand how this COULD be possible that this model is the best explaination since it is possible and it verifies all we know about the cosmos...

[IntelEngineer1]

...A good book on this is "The Comprehensible Cosmos" by Victor Stenger. Stenger shows a well-established model that shows one such model. "There is nothing in nature that is uncaused." Once again, I've given you several examples in nature. Your only response was "Alpha, beta and gama particles most certainly do not pop into being out of nothing" without any explanation. If you can explain to the scientific community where what causes them then I will acknowledge premise 1 of Kalam.

[IntelEngineer1]

...Once again, if you are so certain Alpha, beta and gama particals have a cause and the atomic transactions that produce light particals have a cause then it should be pretty easy for you to explain it to the scienticfic community what those causes are. But until then, Kalam fails, your philosophy arguments fail because science smashes them and we naturalists still have one more reason to laugh at you.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 Can you please answer these questions. What do you think it means to be caused? What do you think exists outside of the universe? What is your emprical eveidence for a multiverse?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 Alpha, beta and gama particles come out of the vacuum. Which as I said before is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and has a physical structure. Not nothing. Nothing is the absence of anything. Before the Universe there was nothing. Not empty space. NOTHING. Ex nihilo is impossible.

[lukeism2]

@KBrimstone so a magic man did it... i see you want evidence... can you give me evidence of this?

[KBrimstone]

@lukeism2 I can't because I don't believe a magic man did it. LOL

Go read the past six pages of comments.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1  If things could come out of nothing then why doesn't any and every thing pop out o nothing like Michael Jackson or root beer? Nothing has no properties so why is nothing so discriminatory?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

lol. Did you even watch the lecture I posted? Did you see Victor in the audience? Dude watch the debate between Stenger and Dr. Craig. Strenger gets schooled.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

Everything I've presented to you is nothing short from being reasonable. The reason you are saying I'm cluless is because that's your best defense. But I hold firm to the evidence and reasons I've given you becaue you are everything but convineing. I am now writing you off as a denialist who is starting to now piss me off...science is what it is. There are understandable models that describe how the universe came out of nothing and that being the best explaination!

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Don't even use the word reasonable seeing how you don't understand philosophy (the study of logic and reason). Science has no grounds here except in the second premise and on that we agree. Question: If something could come out of nothing than why doesn't any and everything pop into being uncuased out of nothing? Like Michael Jackson, Base balls, or Television shows. Why a Universe? Dude pick up a philosophy book.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"Dude pick up a philosophy book." I have, KBrimstone, and it doesn't seem to answer any questions for me except tell me what is right and wrong according to someone else's perspective. It doens't answer anything about the real world and that is why I prefer a physics book....Dido for you man: pick up a science book!

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"Instead of attacking me and my "lack of knowledge" why don't you prove me wrong? I showed you that nothing comes into being uncaused." I'm looking very closely over all your posts and it is clear that you did not. In fact, I have given you examples in nature of things that come out of nothing. I'm sorry but you need to refute those examples in order for me to buy what you're saying...

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 So your tactic is just ignore my arguements then? Sigh.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"So your tactic is just ignore my arguements then? Sigh." No. I've been addressing them all along trying to understand your point of view. Thought that'd be obvious to you! Sigh....Oh, and one other thing, if not being able to see your point of view, because mine happens to make more sense to me, makes me "clueless" or whatever, then I'm proudly that....at least I know and understand what and why I believe what I do..

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 No you haven't you keep asserting that sceince some how shows that something can come out of nothing. There is nothing in nature that is uncaused. Let me clearify you view point. So that I can have a greater understanding. what do you think it means to be caused? What do you think exists outside of the universe? What is your emprical eveidence for a multiverse?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Dude are you kidding me? You must be delusional or something. I've running circles around you boy-o. You have yet to give an example of something that comes into the being out of nothing uncuased. You can't do it. All you've shown is that the Universe began to exist out of nothing. Both you and I agree but to say assume it's uncaused is begging the question. I can't stress how silly you sound trying to undermine the first premise. LOL.

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

I already gave you those examples but you still are telling me I've yet to provide you with any and "can't do it". Typical theist response. If you still don't believe it, then I'm afraid you're at war with science and not me...I'm done with you on this....talk about delusional...Oh, by the way, that's a good book for you "The God Delusion"...

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Are kidding me? I've read it. Quiten Smith Dubbed it the worse arguement for atheism EVER! Dude you out of you league when it comes philosophy. Especially if you've got "the God Delusion" as a good peice of philosophy. These are not scientific principles these are Philosphical principles. It's clear you are ignorant of both.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

51 In assessing the worth of a theory, "All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements."52 The clearest example of Hawking's instrumentalism is his analysis of particle pair creation in terms of an electron quantum tunneling in Euclidean space (with time being imaginary) and an electron/positron pair accelerating away from each other in Minkowski space-time.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

53 This analysis is directly analogous to the Hartle-Hawking cosmological model; and yet no one would construe particle pair creation as literally the result of an electron's transitioning out of a timelessly existing four-space into our classical space-time. It is just an alternative description employing imaginary numbers rather than real numbers.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Significantly, the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models.54 This precludes their being construed realistically as accounts of the origin of the space-time universe in a timelessly existing four-space. Rather they are ways of modeling the real beginning of the universe ex nihilo in such a way as to not involve a singularity. What brought the universe into being remains unexplained on such accounts. -William Lane Craig

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 the multiple universe hypothesis is a bold venture in metaphysical cosmology. we have no evidence of the existence of multiple universes, we do have independent reasons for believing in the existence of an ultramundane designer of the universe, namely, the other arguments for the existence of God.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

M-theory, the theory which supposedly governs the multiverse, works only if there are exactly eleven dimensions—but it does nothing to explain why precisely that number of dimensions should exist.

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Dude if you are a sincere seeker of truth Watch this video of Dr. Craig giving a lecture to physicists at the University of Colorado.

/watch#!v=esqGaLSWgNc&feature=­related

[IntelEngineer1]

@KBrimstone

"How does the Universe seem to indicate one that is void of God?" Science is only concerned with the natural physical universe meaning it can't test or observe anything that is outside of the natural universe, i.e., a supernatural being commonly called God. Thus to science, it's impossible to know of one. This is why I'm holding my stance. If you say there is a God, then the burden of proof is in your lap. I'm open. The queston is can you provide evidence that science can examin?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Ok now we are getting somewhere. Scientism! One you are begging th question. You already assumed that the natural world is all there is. Two you've saying that science is the only way something can be believed to be true. Let me as you an you prove that very statement to be true using science?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1 Do you BELIEVE CLAIM or POSIT that there is no God? Then yes you have to prove it in order to be rational. Atheism means a = no theist = God. If you don't claim the belief that there is a God but merely lack belief that there is a God we are talking Agnostisim as in a = no gostisism = knowledge. Which is a claim of ignorance and you shouldn't have an opinion one way or the other. But I clearly see you pushing the "ofcourse there isn't a God!" No tell me why you believe that?

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

Not to mention that Manic8ball did infact make a claim i.e. "all of Dr. Craigs arguements fail" I asked him why. What you are asking is for Dr. Craig to explain his explanations without even a reason to why it's being objected to. Do you really want to go on record with that?

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause." Not true. I can give you examples. If the first premis is falsified, what does this mean for the argument? "The universe began to exist". True, but space and time did not when the universe came into existance. "Therefore, the universe has a cause"..Ya and God is the best explanation? There are models that show based on current cosmological data how it did not. We can understand this. Thus this are the best explanation!

[IntelEngineer1]

@IntelEngineer1

...So what is the best explanation? One that can be understood or one that can't? Since we can understand these physical models that confirm all we know about the cosmos, these natural explanations are the best ones...simply because we can understand them. There are millions of intelligent people who embrace this. A lot of them have Ph.Ds. If I don't get it and am confused, then they are too..But I will still stay with my position only because it makes more sense...

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

I"m going to assume you didn't read my answer fully. Go back and reread the entire post. I mention the space time boundry and I don't feel like repeating it. And yes God is the best explination for the cuase of the universe. But first read in full detail what I wrote. What is hard to understand about a mind?

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

Perhaps there is some confusion. Abrimestome = Kbrimstone. One in the same. Now I wrote a response (as abrimestome) to the space and time has no beginning (which is false) and science

[KBrimstone]

@IntelEngineer1

And I showed that no where in ohysic does thing come into nbeing uncuased or out of nothing. So read up and get back to me.

Oh and yes you are (and any atheist) making a claim that the statement There is no God is true and I want to know why. Because as it stands Dr. Craig has listed several arguements on his side and none of them havbe been refuted. While I havn't heard a single one on the atheist side. So far the only brational position to hold is Christian Theism.

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

Let's start simple since you seem to be having a hard time here. "Everything in the universe that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe had a cause." Atomic transactions that produce photons do not require a cause. When electrons go from low energy states to high states it happens spontaneously without no cause. Radio active decay happens all the time, natually without a cause to.

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1 I disagree. They have a cuase just becuase we don't now what they are gives you now reason to posit that they don't have one.

Understand that cuase is used in the phlosophical sense.

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

This has nothing to do with whether we agree or not about those examples. Your answer tells me you haven't taken much physics or know much about science for that matter. Otherwise you would't be "disagreeing". "Don't know what they are gives you no reason to positthat they don't have one [cause]"....uhh, I've studied physics man....Take quantum mechanics. Can you explain to me what causes them? I'll believe you if you can, scienctifically, that is...

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

First of all their bphylosophical statments. Anything that has a beginning has a cuase what you are proposing would destroy science.

You keep mentioning science but these are philosophical matters.

You seem to me to be a philosphical illiterate.

Do you only believe what can be scientifically verified?

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

"You keep mention science, but these are philosophical matters"...then why do so many people then say based on this argument or "matter" that science can be used to "prove" God?

"You seem to me to be a philosphical illiterate"...well, dido for you and science man. This argument mentions the universe. This will catch the scientific communities attention which explains why there is a controversy.

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

"Do you only believe what can be scientifically verified?" I think I know what you're tyring to ask here. I'll answer it this way: I will take empirical evidence any day over some a priori presupposition. When the well established methods of science predicts, based on empirical evidence, that some object will fall when some philosophical matter says it might fly up, if my life depended on the best explanation, which do you think any person would choose?...Does that answer your ??

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

I think you may be confused. This a logical inductive arguement based on current science. The Universe began to exist.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a philosophical statement. A basic one at that. LOL So why do you ask me to prove it scientifically? Science has no grounds here.

This is a logical conclution based on scientific findings i.e. "The Universe began to exist."

Nothing in reality goes against the causal principle.

[IntelEngineer1]

@abrimestome

Nope! Not confused one bit. So, it is based on current science? I thought you said "You keep mention science, but these are philosophical matters"? Now do you know why I "keep mentioning science"? This is the main beef. And I was right, you are not scientifically fluent and this is the main reason I have a huge beef with people like Criag because he misleads the public into believing something they want to....

[IntelEngineer1]

@IntelEngineer1

...and these age-old, well-circulated arguments that are "based on scientific findings" no longer work. The reason they no longer work is because this Kalam arguments has been falsified by current scientific data. This is where knowing the history of these arguements come in handy. ALL of Craig's arguments have been asked since Liebenze (see on the ultimate origin of things, 1697) for example.

[IntelEngineer1]

@IntelEngineer1

...Also, Craig published his book on Kalam in 1979. To this day he still uses those arguments. But science didn't stop advancing in 1979. Kalam now fails because we have physical examples of things beginning to exist without a cause (thus killing the first preface). The universe did begin to exist, yes, but there was NO singularity at the Big Bang, as we now know, meaning space and time did not begin to exist at that time.

[IntelEngineer1]

@IntelEngineer1

...This argument's ultimate purpose is to be used for an argument for God's existance with the conclusion being "God seems to be the best explanation" as Craig likes to say. But we now know from science that there are natural and physical explanations for the beginning of the universe that fit current data and verify everything we know about the universe....I could go on and on, but space is limited here...In short Craig-based arguments are outdated and baseless...

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

Indeed you are confused. The arguement is based on a scientific finds: "the Universe began to exist" You don't seem to disagree.

so the your probelm lies with Premis one: "Whatever begins to exist has a cuase" Wow! This is luaghable.

[abrimestome]

@abrimestome

1. For something to come into being without any cuase whatsoever would be to come out of nothing. That is impossible. To say that physics shows that something comes from nothing is wrong, This is a deliberate abuse of science. The vacuum is not nothing. The vacuum is a sea of flucuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure. Nothing does not mean just empty space. Nothingness is the absence of anything whatsoever, even empty space itself.

[abrimestome]

@abrimestome

Nothingness literally has no properties at all, since there isn't anything to have any properties! This is worse than magic! At least with magic there is a magician.

2. Two the Big Bang Model still includes the Singularity. What you mean to say is that the big band only extends to Planck time. i got that. So does William Lane Craig.

[abrimestome]

@abrimestome

"Although such models were hotly debated, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

[abrimestome]

@abrimestome

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—

[abrimestome]

@abrimestome

it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—

[abrimestome]

@abrimestome

indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it."

.

I don't understand this talk of Time and space existing before the Universe seeing how U = time and space.

Everything that has a beginning has a cuase. Universe began. Therfore the Universe has a cuase. Dude Criag's arguements have been around since 1979 becuase of the strength of the arguements

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

No. That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask which you prefer. I asked "do you only believe what can be scientificaly verified?" To which you said nothing. Apriori knowledge will never controdict science because science assumes them. Lol. So you evaded my question and created a false dilema.

[abrimestome]

@IntelEngineer1

By the way. The first premise goes as follows: Everything that begins to exist has a cuase. At least get that right. Maybe it's my low IQ why I expect you to attack the arguement presented not some strawman. LMAO. There is no exception to the cuasal princlple!

[hamsterdancepants]

uh

I thought people ran into walls when trying to talk about physics without knowing anything about it....

but apparently math is even more arcane

[WhiteLakeDan]

BTW, I can't wait for Hitchens to debate (read destroy) Craig this coming April.

[funincluded]

Awesome!

When/Where will it go down???

[WhiteLakeDan]

Biola University, April 4th.

[funincluded]

Awesome, do you know how one would be able to view it (other than waiting for it to come up on youtube)?

[WhiteLakeDan]

Not sure.. hopefully it will here, though.

[MiracleOfRealism]

What are they debating? Is there a specific topic yet?

[TimeEffect]

They are going to debate the Existence of God.

I'm hoping to get my hands on the debate/upload it. I'm pretty sure it will be up before I get a chance to even download it, but I cant wait for the debate

[MiracleOfRealism]

That is strange, that isn't Hitchens field. I like watching both of them debate, but my view is that of W.L. Craig.

I'll try to keep in touch with you because I am anxious to see it as well.

[TimeEffect]

Maybe I'm wrong, I also read they are discussing Christianity, so don't take my word for it.

All I ultimately know is that it's going to be one great debate. Craig is like the top apologist here on Youtube and Hitchens is one of the top atheists for sure.

[MiracleOfRealism]

Absolutely - well I don't remember getting an email of your comment to me so it's 2 weeks late and the debate has taken place. I totally agree with you and I cannot wait to see it. So yes, please, get it on here for us all :D

[TimeEffect]

Im trying to look as I right this actually and it is near IMPOSSIBLE to get! On top of that, putting it up on Youtube is going to break copyright laws or something (based off the Biola site). They want us to "purchase" it which I find is bull. Whatever happened to free education lol.

You know what, it's likely to pop up eventually, if I ever find it across the net, I will tell u

[braino2000]

Too bad that Craig actually destroyed Hitchens.

[WhiteLakeDan]

I thought his job was to prove god's existence. Has he done that? If so, I completely missed it.

[braino2000]

Well, he clearly won the debate if you hadn't seen it already. That's the only point I was making. It's sad to know you actually thought Hitchens stood a chance against him...

[TimeEffect]

From the debate he laid down his 5 conclusions that he usually has, and from general feedback, I found that most people, even atheists, weren't surprised that Hitchens failed to acknowledge or get a decent argument going.

Whether you feel that he proved a point seems null, seeing that he claimed to lay out 5 points without much opposition from Hitchens in regards to the 5 points Craig made.

I need to see the debate already.

[Lanter1000]

I´m an atheist but I agree. Hitchens was no problem för Craig to handle. I really don´t like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins when it comes to showing why God does not exist.

[WhiteLakeDan]

Simple. The very existence of atheism disproves the existence of god. If indeed there was a god, atheism would not - could not exist.

[funincluded]

How so?