Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture at UC (HQ) 1/6

[skuterixas91]

i love WLC what a great philosopher to listen to

[07Aristotle]

Are there any other WLC lectures?

[sirdelrio]

WLC asserts that the standard model 'predicts' a singularity and an 'absolute' beginning. That's completely false. The model is an aftermath of the bang, it says nothing about the singularity (which is a deduction from hawking-penrose theorem, that hawking himself modified later to include QM, ruling out the singularity), and says even less about what happened before or if there was no before. It also doesnt say there was 'nothing'. These are WLC interpolations and quote minings.

[wownov83]

@sirdelrio Absolutely correct. WLC has a habit of deforming science to suit his own arguments though. Typical apologist nonsense.

[iluvideos]

@wownov83

Really? which fields of science did he deform exaclly ??

[wownov83]

@iluvideos Cosmology.

[raoskaos]

The kalam cosmological argument is the same as the first cause argument.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." - Well everything(that we know of) began to exist at some point., so the premise is actually "everything has a cause". Everything can be traced as far as the BB.

[Ilikejpgs]

How well could WLC stand up in a debate with Stephen Hawking or another scientist?

[ThevilKing]

watch him vs peter atkins?

[MetaphysicsAddict]

I would love to see WLC vs Hawking. Maybe some day? At any rate, please know that WLC is*very informed about astrophysics and cosmology. He interacts with Hawking's arguments in his written work. He integrates insights from Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, etc.

That being said, I'm still not sure if I agree with WLC. I need to reflect on these issues further.

[menonfire12]

@MetaphysicsAddict

"I need to reflect on these issues further. " Very rational, good for you.

[Alexdurrant7]

@Ilikejpgs WLC debated with physicist Victor Stenger and lost. But I agree; a debate with Hawking would be very interesting.

[MegaVenom777]

@Alexdurrant7 me too, but he is too much of a coward after the whiping bill stang gave him in expelled.

[Alexdurrant7]

@MegaVenom777 What's expelled? And what happened in it that you're referring to?

[MegaVenom777]

@Alexdurrant7 Its a Bill Stang movie look it up and you'll see what i'm referring to.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Alexdurrant7 Did he really, do you have a link to this video perhaps? I'm a theist, but I'm always open to arguments and assessing things. Thanks in advance. :>

[MaltyT]

Did Craig seriously suggest that atheists refer to the eternal cosmos as the universe they live in? Wow, this guy is atrocious, there are lot better apologists out there, but then again this is just a general lecture so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Gotta say though I'm not liking this so far...

[shadow3772]

@MaltyT But they did. They don't anymore, but, at one point, the steady state theory, which proposed an eternal universe, was in vogue with atheists. It can't be anymore. 

[theonlyway2truth]

William Lane Craig is the best apologist of the 21st century.

[solomonBurkehalter]

I don't understand what you mean by the, is it half of theist? Or is it merely used to set up a description? I dont believe in God due to the word the

[pikechris1]

"And your (1) Everything except God has a cause is a misstatement."

its not mine! its an auxiliary kalam construction, thus its theistic. i dont need it the major argument is sufficiently exposed as question begging, if it does not allow for other NBE sets.

"There are all kinds of logical possibilities that fit into the set (abstract objects, other universes etc)."

you are saying that? now you are surprising me. dr craig denied that! look it up on his personal university page!

[Christianjr4]

"i dont need it the major argument is sufficiently exposed as question begging, if it does not allow for other NBE sets."

But IT DOES (do I have to keep repeating this?) allow for other sets. Even Dr. Craig understands that abstract objects are plausible entities (he almost always brings them up in his debates).

"you are saying that? now you are surprising me. dr craig denied that!"

Dr. Craig denies them based on evidence. To show circularity, you have to show NBE LOGICALLY = God remember?

[pikechris1]

tinyurl(.)com/7jghdw

some news from dr penrose. btw, he considers himself a materialist, platonist, without doctrinal stance. he makes here bold, yet testable predictions. in the years to come we will see how his hypothesis will play out.

btw, you were again wrong when claiming those "impossibilities"...

[matucon312]

Ultimately, Craig's argument is that whatever exists had a cause, and that since the universe "began" to exist, it had to have a cause, and this is the basis of his attempt to prove that God exists with quasi-science. Everything exists from pre-existing matter, (1st law of conservation of energy). Furthermore, cosmologists have no problem explaining the existence of the universe without a god, so to introduce one is redundant. He and his fans are trying to fit God in where he's not needed.

[Christianjr4]

That's not his argument. He even states that in the Q&A that he's not arguing the KCA here (so much for watching the whole thing). I guess you really are just out to rant against Theism and Dr. Craig without even considering his actual claims here.

So go find the ACTUAL argument and get back to me. Again, which premise do you deny? His argument (stated explicitly at the end), is logically air tight. The only way to avoid the conclusion is to dispute one of his premises (hint: it has 7 steps).

[matucon312]

Um, I've read and watched more than just this video, but regarding his "air tight" argument at the end, it is derived from his theistic beliefs; it is not an objective hypothesis, but rather a convoluted attempt to make god fit into the creation of the universe where no objective scientist has found any evidence supporting the need nor existence of such a being. Sorry if I trust experts more than some evangelical trying to make his god fit.

[Christianjr4]

Sorry, you're wrong. The argument Dr. Craig gives at the end is a deductive logical argument. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows with logical necessity. Therefore, if you have a problem with it, then IT IS YOU who needs to refute one of his premises. So, for the third time now, stop ranting on about nothing, and get straight to the point. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE ARGUMENT HE GIVES? Either do that, or don't bother commenting at all. You're wasting time.

[somor98]

That's easy. The problem with the argument is that he assumes that the universe cannot come from nothing. Yet, he has not specified what he means by nothing. So, one of his premisses cannot be taken as true, wherefore his argument is unsound.

[Christianjr4]

It's a probability/plausibility judgment concerning the Universe coming from nothing. For Dr. Craig and the vast majority of thinking individuals, it is inconceivable that the Universe could come from nothing. It may not be impossible, but he is not claiming such. Craig is only claiming that it is far more rational to believe the Universe had a cause than that it just came from nothing, and I stand behind him on that point 100%.

And nothing means exactly as it reads: nothing.

[pikechris1]

"from nothing nothing comes" cant be demonstrated in any way. claiming 100% certainty does not follow...

[somor98]

'And nothing means exactly as it reads: nothing.'

That is not good enough. Your definition is circular. If you want to make a probability estimate and make comparisons, then we at least need to know what we are comparing. So, how does he define 'nothing'?

[Christianjr4]

"That is not good enough. Your definition is circular."

I stated it that way because it should be obvious and self-evident to anyone as to what the word "nothing" means. What do you think "nothing" means?

If I say that there is nothing in the bag, does that imply something is in the bag? Clearly not. So to answer your question specifically then, to say that the Universe came from nothing is really to say that it came into being without a cause. It has no cause of its existence.

[pikechris1]

"I stated it that way because it should be obvious and self-evident to anyone as to what the word "nothing" means."

really? what does nothing mean?

"If I say that there is nothing in the bag, does that imply something is in the bag?"

sure. for example air is there, space is there.

"Clearly not."

wrong.

"the Universe came from nothing is really to say that it came into being without a cause."

yet when there is "no" time, we cant talk about a cause (relativity). qm makes it difficult too.

[Christianjr4]

"sure. for example air is there, space is there."

The word nothing doesn't imply there is air or space in the bag. It's just the context in which the bag exist implies those two.

Look, I'm not going to play silly childish word games with you. You and somor98 both know what "nothing" means. Try this one. If I say nothing exists, does that at all imply that something else exists (ie. air, the universe, people etc)? No, it doesn't.

Nothing= No thing, not anything (dictionary definition)

[terroil]

"The word nothing doesn't imply there is air or space in the bag. It's just the context in which the bag exist implies those two."

so what is in the bag? show me that bag! i wanna see a bag without vacuum space! you cant do that, im 100% convinced.

a fringe hypothesis says if you remove space you will get something. and believe it or not, in principle that one is testable. you only need to be (likely) a tpye 3-4 civilization.

within the context, there is always something in the bag.

[somor98]

'I stated it that way because it should be obvious and self-evident to anyone as to that the word "nothing" means.'

Actually, the term 'nothing' has troubled logicians for some time, so you need a definition of 'nothing' in order to use it in your premisses.

- Besides, it is a basic requirement of causation that the cause is empirically verified. You can't just claim that 'god did it'.

- Also, that there is 'nothing' in the bag might actually cause something. It might cause a surprise.

[Christianjr4]

The term "nothing" isn't that controversial or troubling as you make it out to be. Neither is it in that much dispute either among logicians or other philsophers. While there are some disputes in metaphysics concerning the nature of existence, and how "nothing" fits into it as well as it's implications in formal logic, for the most part it's trivial and definitions and understanding have been reached across the philosophical spectrum concerning the word.

I defined nothing above.

[somor98]

'The term "nothing" isn't that controversial or troubling'

-Obviously, you have not read any philosophy or had any training in logic if you think so.

[Christianjr4]

I just mentioned some of the issues relating to metaphysics and logic that involve the word nothing and the minor difficulties it implies. And yes, I have read philosophy and it's not controversial. You're incredible if you think the word "nothing" is like a major controversial word that logicians just can't figure out. Again, for the most part, there is an agreed understanding of the word. Also, I'm not talking about nothing as related to logic, I'm talking about it as in metaphysics.

[somor98]

Actually, I do not believe you have a real degree in philosophy. You may have a 'degere' from a christian university, but this does not add up to real philosophy, but only propaganda.

- You use the term 'nothing' as the negation of 'existence' and the question of the defintion of negation has puzzled logicians for at least a century.

- Furthermore, I fail to see how you can can address metaphysical problems without logic?

[Christianjr4]

I never said I had a degree in philosophy. Dr. Craig does (a Ph.D and he got it at a reputable institution along with another one in theology).

I said I've read philosophy and I have. (For your information I'm currently taking philosophy at the University of Waterloo).

Again, the definition of "nothing" has not puzzled logicians that much. Logicians have a generally agreed understanding of the term and how it is applied in formal logic. The troubling aspects do not apply in this case.

[somor98]

Actually, 'Dr.' Craig has only attended a evangelical christian seminary. Not what you would expect from a real seeker of truth/philosopher.

So, the definition of 'nothing' has not puzzled logicians that much? There's even a wikipedia page for the concept of 'nothing' in philosophy and logic.

'The troubling aspects do not apply in this case.'? How convenient!

[Christianjr4]

"Actually, 'Dr.' Craig has only attended a evangelical christian seminary. Not what you would expect from a real seeker of truth/philosopher."

I guess you don't much about Dr. Craig then. William Lane Craig received his doctorate in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England under the prominent philosopher John Hick and his second doctorate in Theology at the University of Munich in Germany under the prominent theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg.

[somor98]

Actually both John Hick and Wolfhart Pannenberg are both apologetic theologians. Not much philosopher there.

[Christianjr4]

They're both prominent figures. And neither John Hick nor Pannenberg are regarded as apologists, at least in any significant sense. They are known by their respective titles, a philosopher and theologian.

Look up them in wikipedia and familiarize yourself with them before you write off their credentials.

[Christianjr4]

And yes, there is a wikipedia page on nothing, and it interestingly enough indicates that there is common understanding of the word agreed to by logicians and other philosophers, which is exactly what I said.

The troubling aspects that you refer to really do not apply here. The KCA doesn't present the term nothing as a logical usage from one premise to another as in other "troubling" logical arguments. The only relevant area the word has here is in its metaphysical definition.

[somor98]

'...it interestingly enough indicates that there is common understanding of the word agreed to by logicians'

Then you need to read it again.

'The KCA doesn't present the term nothing as a logical usage from one premise to another as in other "troubling" logical arguments.The only relevant area the word has here is in its metaphysical definition.'

But nevertheless a definition you seem unwilling to give.

[Christianjr4]

"Then you need to read it again."

Try reading the 2nd and 3rd sections, they give a general understanding of it used by logicians and philosophers.

"But nevertheless a definition you seem unwilling to give."

What's with you in that I have to repeat everything a million times. I ALREADY GAVE a definition of the word. Stop pushing the conservation back by asking for what I already gave you.

To say the Universe came from nothing means the Universe has no cause.

Nothing= No thing, not anything

[Purushadasa]

Let the ignorant atheist access an online dictionary -- don't let him waste your valuable time with definitions that every kindergartener can easily grasp.

If he's too stupid to apprehend the meanings of simple words, just block the retard.

[Christianjr4]

And nice try on the bag, but the "nothing" in it isn't causing some other entity to come into existence. The element of surprise is a property that belongs to concrete objects (specifically persons) and cannot exist without them. Moreover, it's the knowledge of the state of affairs of the person that causes the surprise, not really the "nothing" in the bag

This isn't parallel to the argument anyways. If there isn't anything that exists, then no one can be surprised and no empty bag either.

[somor98]

'And nice try on the bag'

I was merely using the word 'nothing' in the same equivocally sense as you did. You still need to define 'nothing' if you are going to refute its existence. And you have not.

[Christianjr4]

"I was merely using the word 'nothing' in the same equivocally sense as you did. You still need to define 'nothing' if you are going to refute its existence. And you have not."

Apparently not, since you implied that nothing (as if something) could cause something else. I gave a definition of the word nothing already. Go find it below. Or better yet, just use common sense and you'll understand what I and everyone else understands it to be.

[somor98]

I did not imply that 'nothing' can cause anything. I was explicitely challenging your defintion of 'nothing'. And you have not any defintion of nothing below: you only gave an not very apt example of an empty bag.

Common sense won't do. If you are claiming that the the universe cannot come from nothing, then you need to make explicite what you mean by 'nothing'.

Everyone else understands what you mean by 'nothing'?; How do you know?

[Christianjr4]

So you're challenging my definition of nothing even though I didn't give any?

And I did provide a definition below. I said nothing = not thing, not anything (dictionary definition). And I stated that saying that nothing caused the universe is to say that there is no cause or alternatively, the universe is uncaused.

"Everyone else understands what you mean by 'nothing'?; How do you know?"

somor98, it's a very common word. It's like asking "how do you know that everyone knows what "hello" means

[somor98]

Yes, 'nothing' is a common word. But if you want to say that 'something' cannot come from 'nothing' then you should specify what you mean exactly by these terms.

-Now, if you use the term to mean 'not anything' then you are defining the term by its negation. And for this reason you run into the trouble of the meaning of 'negation'. So, if you want to say that 'nothing' is 'not anything' (which is hardly illuminating) then you need to address the meaning of negation.

[Christianjr4]

Again, most people understand what is said by nothing. There isn't any special philosophical definition that's being employed here. It's really the same as the general understanding of the word, which is why I never bother to define it.

There is troubling about the meaning of negation. And I'm not going to define negation for you. This is starting to get ridiculous now. Next thing I know I'll be defining words like "exists", "cause", "universe" or even "the". Stop going deeper than is needed.

[somor98]

'Again, most people understand what is said by nothing'

Now, you don't know that. Actually a lot of fallacies stem from using 'nothing' as a noun.

You don't bother defining the words you use? Sorry, but that is just not proper philosophy.

It would be nice with clear definitions of "exists", "cause", "universe", these terms are not crusial to your argument, so I'll just have a definition of 'nothing'.

[Christianjr4]

somore98, most people do know what nothing means. They perfectly understand what is meant when someone like Craig says the Universe could not come from nothing (ie. uncaused). I might define the word "nothing" briefly if I was writing a book on the subject. For general talk of the argument there really is no need.

And actually you're wrong. Those other words are apart of the KCA, whereas "nothing" isn't. It's a secondary concept of the first premise so if anything I don't need to define it.

[darrinrasberry]

Check Craig's reply to Oppy. "Uncaused out of nothing" doesn't mean there's this black, Neverending Story blob from which the Universe poops out - philosophically, it means the Universe is contingent and unexplained, since there is no nothing (logical contradiction - "nonexistence exists" - note this also refutes Leibniz)

[bigwhammyRocks]

"Now, you don't know that. Actually a lot of fallacies stem from using 'nothing' as a noun. "

Nothing is what rocks dream about.

[Purushadasa]

You are using the word "nothing" as a noun also, hypocrite.

[Purushadasa]

Next they'll ask you to define the word "define" or the word "is."

They're not serious thinkers -- exacylt like ticks, their only purpose here is to attempt to draw out your life-blood, by employing mental vampirism mixed with deep ignorance.

Just ignore them and delete their ignorant comments -- there's no use arguing with a tick.

[pikechris1]

with KCA, dr craig does not introduce (classical) theism. this is simply a misconception. he likely introduces deism and or other "isms". "theism" does not exclusively follow (nor can it be demonstrated).

his argument is not "logically air tight" but rather viciously circular, since the conclusion is already hidden in the premise. as well, dr craig hasnt been able to demonstrate potential virtuous circularity, which indeed would vindicate his position. wishful thinking doesnt "deliver" here.

[Christianjr4]

Dr. Craig already admits his KCA doesn't prove Christian Theism.

And his argument is indisputably an air tight argument. By air tight I mean it is logically valid and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. There's nothing in the premises that presupposes the truth of the conclusion. If you think there is then point it out specifically instead of just asserting it as such.

[pikechris1]

"Dr. Craig already admits his KCA doesn't prove Christian Theism."

oh, he does? good... will have to read up on that one.

"And his argument is indisputably an air tight argument."

which one? the KCA or some other one? i admit i havent watched yet this lecture in its entirety. im planning to do that. i know what you mean with "air tight". yet if you are referring to KCA, it surely aint air tight. i pointed out the possible mistakes. im not "asserting" here. i just follow the basic reasoning...

[Christianjr4]

"i know what you mean with "air tight". yet if you are referring to KCA, it surely aint air tight."

Then you don't know what I mean by air tight. By air tight I mean logically valid (the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises). In that sense, his arguments are air tight. Whether or not you disagree with the premises is an entirely different matter here.

[pikechris1]

"Then you don't know what I mean by air tight. By air tight I mean logically valid (conclusion follows necessarily from the premises)."

i know exactly what you mean by "air thight"... the problem is the conclusion does NOT necessarily follow in this case. if the "pre big bang set" contains only one possibility to chose form, then NECESSARILY the KCA is viciously circular. you can brake the circularity through proving "god", yet you cant do that through applying KCA. this is about the premises!

[Christianjr4]

"the problem is the conclusion does NOT necessarily follow in this case."

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises in a logically valid argument, which the KCA is. Are you denying formal logic now? Even in a circular argument, if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises then it's still considered a logically valid air tight argument.

As for it being circular, there is nothing circular about it? How does this nonsensical "pre-big" stuff you mention make it circular?

[terroil]

1. everything except god has a cause.

2. the universe is not god.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. the universe began to exist.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause.

[terroil]

1. "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). in order for this argument to work, NBE (if meaningful at all) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for god. if god is the only object allowed in NBE,

[Christianjr4]

"therefore: en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Circul ar_reasoning "your" argument is invalid!"

Again, a circular argument in which its conclusion follows from the premises is STILL a logically valid argument (it's just not a good one). Circular arguments are not considered in formal logic to be invalid. Please familiarize yourself with the principles of logic.

[pikechris1]

again... you dont prove anything... even in general relativity einstein used measurement to derive his conclusions, which indeed were based on deduction. tautology is likely a form of deduction. yet you have no measurement and you deny other possible sets. your reasoning is invalid. circulus vitiosus. you need some proof to make it "virtuous"...

[Christianjr4]

Again, you can't prove it's synonymous unless you prove that NBE LOGICALLY = God. Only when you do that then do you have a point. But you can't, since NBE can be other things. And I don't even necessarily deny the other sets. The point is, that NBE does not NECESSARILY equal God, and therefore you can't claim it's circular. If one were to deny the other sets through argumentation and evidence that would be perfectly legitimate.

[pikechris1]

i dont argue for god! lo! the KCA does! now its evident that the KCA conclusion does not follow.

"The point is, that NBE does not NECESSARILY equal God"

lo! yet dr craig claims the opposite! how come! as ive said, the argument is fallacious. there are as well other problems with its constructions. for example the universe cant be a set of itself. everything is a synonym for the universe.

[Christianjr4]

You're wrong on the logic again. The KCA conclusion follows from the premises. That will always be an indisputable and undeniable fact. Whether or not it's circular could possibly be argued. But I don't see any circularity here. You have to show where the terms amount to what has to be proved and you haven't. There isn't any synonymous statements or terms here.

Also, in one sense the KCA doesn't argue for God. It just argues for a cause. Trying to make the cause God comes later.

[pikechris1]

"The KCA conclusion follows from the premises."

this is irrelevant, since they are VICIOUSLY CIRCULAR and not VIRTUOUSLY. thats the key here.

"Trying to make the cause God comes later."

thats of course only a "trick" (salami method). ive shown here how it works and where the flaw lies.

[Christianjr4]

And NBE can be empty in the metaphysical sense. In order to make it completely synonymous with God you have to show logically that NBE = God only, which it definitely doesn't. There are all kinds of logical possibilities that fit into the set (abstract objects, other universes etc). The argument is therefore definitely not circular.

(BTW, I accidentally blocked your other account, it's unblocked so you can use that one now instead of the other)

[terroil]

2. then BE is merely a mask for the "creator", and the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to "everything except "god" has a cause." this puts "god" into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove gods existence, and we are back to begging the question.

[terroil]

therefore:

en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Circul­ar_reasoning

"your" argument is invalid!

[Christianjr4]

"therefore: en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Circul ar_reasoning "your" argument is invalid!"

Again, a circular argument in which its conclusion follows from the premises is STILL a logically valid argument (it's just not a good one). Circular arguments are not considered in formal logic to be invalid. Please familiarize yourself with the principles of logic.

And your (1) Everything except God has a cause is a misstatement. It's everything that begins to exist has a cause. It's thus not circular.

[pikechris1]

you cant prove with a circular argument what you wish to prove through applying it! you need proof from outside!

[pikechris1]

there is no misstatement:

(minor)

1. everything except god has a cause.

2. the universe is not god.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause.

(major)

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. the universe began to exist.

3. therefore, the universe has a cause.

this is a tautology. you cant prove through a tautology what you wish to prove. you just reiterate what is supposed to be. yet where is the proof (measurement, like in the case of GR for example)? none... thus invalid...

[Christianjr4]

OK, for the last time, neither circular arguments or tautologies make arguments invalid. Logic has to do with how a conclusion follows from the premises, not with whether or not it's a good argument. CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS AND TAUTOLOGIES are STILL VALID.

That said, there still is no circularity here. (1) Everything except God has a cause in know way follows or is characteristic of the KCA. In fact many advocates hold to platonism (uncaused abstract objects) so you're just wrong (1)

[pikechris1]

you dont understand...

uncaused abstract objects =! theistic god

im not wrong. any logician will follow the same line when refuting the vicious circularity of dr craigs KCA. g00gle it. thats the point VICIOUS CIRCULARITY.

[Christianjr4]

"you dont understand...

uncaused abstract objects =! theistic god"

No they do not. Try abstract objects like numbers which many Atheist philosophers believe to exist and are uncaused. You're just unfamiliar with such entities

"iany logician will follow the same line when refuting the vicious circularity of dr craigs KCA"

Well, then why has there not been a single philosopher who has argued that the KCA is circular like you (and I've read a lot of critiques)? It's because it's not circular

[pikechris1]

"Try abstract objects like numbers which many Atheist philosophers believe to exist and are uncaused. You're just unfamiliar with such entities"

oh my goodness.

again:

"uncaused abstract objects =! theistic god"

↑↑ this is a true statement. period.

"Well, then why has there not been a single philosopher who has argued that the KCA is circular like you (and I've read a lot of critiques)? It's because it's not circular"

no? are you sure? again wrong! e.g. dr michael l. martin

[Christianjr4]

I'm not defending it. I'm just pointing out the reality. And people aren't marking your comments as spam. They're just thumbing it down. I agree 100% with you that people shouldn't just go around marking all posts down that they don't agree with it. But one just has to accept that it'll happen.

[EtaCarinae22]

I can see the vote bots are out on this video too, trying to censor anyone who disagrees with religion.

[Christianjr4]

Welcome to YouTube man. Almost all videos are like that. Go to any Atheist video and you'll find that most of the dissenting voices are thumbed down. Take it with a grain of salt.

[EtaCarinae22]

Theres a difference between a thumbs down and just outright marking every post as spam. Don't try to defend it. You know it's down right dirty no matter if it was done by Atheist or Christian.

[GodKillerAtheist]

That's because people find atheism more logical then this silliness.

Its not vote bots, its people down voting because religion is killing the world, only you brainwashed fools cant see that.

Your religion debases science, with out science you would not even have the internet to bitch about it.

Your faith kills progress and keeps us in the dark ages, your faith is evil to society as society is defined by its progress, something religion is against. Its time to grow up and take responsibility

[EtaCarinae22]

Hang on there buddy, don't lump me in with these primitive people who still believe in sky men. It isn't my faith.

[GodKillerAtheist]

you do know that saying that a invisible man that lives in the sky that watches everything we do sounds more like nonsense.

there is a mother load of unscientific facts that have been disproved in the pedophile Mohammads Koran. But I'm sure your bias will not allow you to acknowledge this fact

[PobjedaIstine]

You are not capable enough to understeand what is dr.Craig talking about,dont wach this lecture enymore because this is for people with the intellect.Stick to "Dumb and Dumber" or "Freddy got fingered" that is more suitable for you.

[GodKillerAtheist]

And what you don't understand good sir is that DR Craig is not a doctor of science at all, but a theologists he hasn't the credentials to even talk about science.

He is a preacher acting like a scientist. Look him up and then tell me who the one being fooled is.

Any more comments from the Idiot gallery?

[EtaCarinae22]

"nonsence of Atheism"

Can you give examples based on logic as to why it's nonsense?

[GodKillerAtheist]

why is there always some uneducated preacher trying to act like scientists its so silly why does anything need a predefined purpose would that not go against the free will god supposedly gave us? I dont think Christians even know what their bible says its so silly

science = the search of knowledge

Religion = the search of ignorance

this guy cant even pronounce words correctly its so embarrassing LOL he must feel so dumb

[Christianjr4]

How is he "uneducated"? I'm frequently amazed at the ignorance of Atheist comments on certain videos. Dr. Craig barely even talks about religion until the end of his lecture and yet you're already stating your objections against him on the first part. I honestly doubt you could name one fault with his lecture so far. And which words did he pronounce incorrectly (as if that's the ultimate measure on intelligence anyways)??

[GodKillerAtheist]

He thinks that there was a BIG BANG but there is no evidence for this. There is only space expanding. His argument is "we don't know so god did it" although he disguises his words to sound credible saying that we must have come from something that created us that we cannot visualize. He wants us to believe we were created from nothing, but this goes totally against string theory in the first place. Although he may be intelligent he is still preaching. Thats why atheists have a problem =)

[RacerrX]

String theory isn't even fully developed yet. I'm suprised you would bring it up.

[GodKillerAtheist]

what version of string theory are you talking about?

[RacerrX]

Exactly my point. Thanks. =)

[Christianjr4]

It's not preaching if you use reason and evidence. If you call that preaching then so are all the Atheists who attack religion.

[GodKillerAtheist]

why because religion is nonsense? are you finally admitting it?

[Christianjr4]

What does that have to do with anything? I obviously wouldn't have put up this video if I thought religion is nonsense. I have nothing against preaching, as long as it's done in an appropriate context (ie. church or worship events). This lecture by Dr. Craig, however, is about using reason and evidence to argue for God's existence. That's not preaching.

[GodKillerAtheist]

He is clearly being deceptive as I have pointed out before he is no where close in education to a scientist and is out of place. Now if he were to admit that his lecture is theological I would understand but this is just deception to push his agenda and try and debase science. Thats all i'm saying

[Christianjr4]

It is science. When he argues that God created the universe then he is engaging in philosophy. But everything he says about cosmology is correct. If you think he is out of place then I would simply challenge you to state the mistake or error on his part. Thanks

[EtaCarinae22]

"When he argues that God created the universe"

By making that statement(trying to merge naturalism with religion) you've turned the whole lecture in to a theology lecture, not science. You can't mix Natural inquiry and Supernatural together.

[Christianjr4]

"You can't mix Natural inquiry and Supernatural together. "

He's not doing that in the first part of his lecture. The entire first part of his lecture is nothing but science. He doesn't argue against God or for God. He just states the contemporary view of cosmology.Even if he was, he could still be talking perfect science while using it to support his philosophical position. It's not at all hard to differentiate between the science that is being discussed and that of philosophy.

[GodKillerAtheist]

This guy has been discredited so many times, but since he is religious the religious people spread his errors all over the internet, destroying science for some poor young kid that will grow up to be an idiot. This only hurts the people that are indoctrinated and thats what Theists do brain wash brainwash brainwash its child abuse

[EtaCarinae22]

He's just like Hovind or Ham. Seems though there are going to be major changes. The Conservatives are already screaming bloody murder, they are scared. After 8 years of religious terrorism, things are looking better.

[Christianjr4]

"He's just like Hovind or Ham."

....Right....? So William Lane Craig, one of the top philosophers of religion in the world today as well as one of the top philosophers of Time today, is like Hovind and Ham? That's got to be one of the most ignorant comments on YouTube that I've seen.

[Christianjr4]

GodKillerAtheist, you're just being annoyingly paranoid. Dr. Craig isn't one of the top philosophers of religion today because he is destroying science. What exactly has he been discredited on?

[GodKillerAtheist]

"What exactly has he been discredited on? "

Everything, since hes not a scientist of any sort hes a theologian he has a degree in the bible not the big bang. Why cant you see this are you so brainwashed you deny reality all together?

Look him up on google and see for yourself.

If you feel that deception furthers your religious views by spreading ignorance like this then no one will ever take your religion seriously (not that they do anyhow) Thats all I have to say

[Christianjr4]

You clearly have nothing to say. You don't have to have a degree in science in order to talk good science. If that was the case then you couldn't even judge him because I'm betting you don't have a degree in cosmology either. What's ironic about this is Dr. Craig actually did do his doctorate on the subjects that he discusses in his lecture, so he's more qualified to discuss it than you think.

I ONCE AGAIN challenge you to answer my question of what specifically has Craig been discredited on?

[matucon312]

His doctorates are in theology and philosophy, not cosmology or physics. Try reading Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis". He covers all the pseudo-scientific angles people like this idiot try to use to fancy-talk credulous people like yourself into buying their tripe. And he IS an expert on physics and astronomy, ergo much more qualified on the topic than a theologian trying to force his sky fairy into where he's not needed. It's not science, and I refuse to respect it as such.

[Christianjr4]

Yes, and his doctorate in philosophy was on the cosmological evidence for the beginning of the universe, so he does know what he's talking about. Moreover, everything he says in this lecture is on the mainstream scientific understanding of the Big Bang, so why are you complaining about his views on the Big Bang, when THEY ARE the mainstream?

And once again, if you don't agree with Craig's conclusion, YOU HAVE TO DENY ONE OF HIS PREMISES. So get on with it already.

[Amadues777]

He is not a Cosmologist but he has studied Cosmology as a philospher of science.A scientist doesn't necessarly have any more credibility on these matters since the question of the origin of space and time always inevitably involves metaphysics.You cannot explain the origin of physical reality without appealing to some transcendant source or cause or by extrapolating a theoretical model of the universe to strectch space and time into the infinite past.This however,has never been unsucessful.

[matucon312]

I read a lot about Cosmology as well, and I'd never claim to have a better grasp of it (whether relating it to god or not) that actual professionals with doctorates in the field. You can see Victor Stenger is quite annoyed in the one Q&A video, and I don't blame him.

[matucon312]

Also, some "transcendent force" raises more problems than it solves. Basically it can be whatever you make up, with whatever attributes you want it to have - hardly the kind of things that has EVER helped us answer ANY questions throughout human history.

[Amadues777]

I wouldn't even consider him a laymen on this particular topic because he has studied it in great detail and he definitely understands these concepts just as you would expect from a scientist.Craig combines the scientific evidence with philosophical arguments to make a very sophisticated and compelling case for his belief.I seriously doubt you even understand these arguments and concepts yourself!

[ModernDrummer1234567]

are you planing on downloading the other parts of this video?

[Christianjr4]

Oh right lol I totally forgot about this. I recently formatted my laptop and unfortunately lost the video file for this lecture so I'll have to re-copy it again from the DVD which could take some time. I'll try to have the rest up within the week. Sorry about that.

[ModernDrummer1234567]

I didn't mean that as complant I just didn't make sense that there is only one video when it says 1/5 in the righthand corner.Quite an interesting video.I think Craig is by far one of the best apologist for Theism.

[Christianjr4]

Yeah no worries. I'm kind of embarrassed to say the least. I mean I've had part 1 up here for more than 2 months now so I should have been more diligent and mindful that the other parts needed to go up. Again I apologize for that. I'll let you know as soon as I get the other parts up.

[apologia100]

"How the FUCK can anything (including a mind) exist outside of time?"-By being transcedent like Logical absolutes and numbers they're not affected by time or space."That would mean it exists nowhere."-Nowhere and everywhere because they're conceptual by nature.And if you deny this then your refuting your generator because it has to exist outside of space or time if not then it needed a cause.

[apologia100]

"unembodied mind " where is the mind?"-Everywhere.2.)"what is its essence?"-It's immaterial.

The Bible teaches us that in all existence, from all eternity, there has been and always will be only one God. God was never created, is completely loving, completely just, completely holy, completely merciful, and that He desires the best for us. God is holy and He can have nothing to do with sin as the Bible says, "His eyes are too pure to look upon evil," (Hab. 1:13).

[apologia100]

"generator can be cause"-No it can't because There are only two things that exist that are immaterial and timeless :1.)abstract objects,like numbers or mathematical entities.However, abstract objects can't cause anything to happen.2.) A MIND ;a mind can be a cause, and so it makes sense that the universe is the product of an unembodied mind that brought it into existence.

[apologia100]

"Why don't you apply the same fucking skepticism to your god? Huh?"-I do and there is no inconsistency.2.)"And when did your god create the universe? When?"-I'm not sure but it's called the Big Band(which you seem to deny).3.)""Then the universes would be runing into each other or coalescing" and how do you know that?"-Well since in your view your generator has existed forever(without time) then there would be an infinite amount of universes so they would run into each other.

[apologia100]

" The universe generator is timeless, you dunt. The universes were created ONTOLOGICALLY prior to this universe."-I know it's timeless but That still doesn't account for time. The first universe that was made had to be made in a point in time.How was time your generator has to be outside of time.2.)"And if actual infinities are impossible, your god must've had a first thought. What sprang that first thought?"-God always knew everything he didn't have a first thought.And yes he knows everything

[apologia100]

There are so many problems with this hypothesis.1.)"It creates universes, all of which are different."-If you say that is "A spaceless, timeless universe generator." Then that implies an eternal generator which would result in a universe being formed at each point.Then the universes would be runing into each other or coalescing. Also how do you account for time? If you have universes coming into existence from eternity past we would have never reached this univeres's creation.

[apologia100]

Also there's a problem with your cause. There are only two things that exist that are immaterial and timeless :1.)abstract objects,like numbers or mathematical entities.However, abstract objects can't cause anything to happen.2.) A MIND ;a mind can be a cause, and so it makes sense that the universe is the product of an unembodied mind that brought it into existence.

[apologia100]

Can you explain ,at least some, how it created the universes or how it works? And how did you arive to this conclusion or hypothesis?

[apologia100]

Does this "timeless universe generator." have consciousness?

[apologia100]

Who do you think it was caused by? and did that thing have a cause?

[marephrem]

Yeah but with all due respect, that's still using logic. Any kind of knowledge you arrive at is a result of your reasoning, and nothing else. You've fallen in contradiction.

[megawolf7]

Lame.

[marephrem]

Why are using logic about what was before the Big Bang if it was created by the big bang? How could you use logic about what was before the Big Bang to let you know that logic doesn't work there? Logic is objective, it is our starting point for ALL knowledge.