William Lane Craig vs Ronald De Sousa 1/16 (York University)

[BeBoBli]

William proposes a catch-all magic conscious creature that created the universe. He provides no proof and worse yet, thinks it's more logical to believe this. That there is very little reason to believe otherwise. There being no proof of said absurd claims is good enough reason for me.

[Kep0v]

@BeBoBli but there are proofs. at least from the human perception

[BeBoBli]

@Kep0v

Proofs of what precisely? What claims can you prove to me are true? What other perception would you use other than a human's?

[27182818R]

I wonder if there may be more then one god. Might their reason for building the universe may well have nothing to do with us. It might be for life on some other world. Or maybe it was built so that our cats might have eternal life. Possibility the universe was just an experiment. We could just have popped out of nothing. This happens all the time in physics. Maybe there really are trillions of other universes isolated from our own. So many exciting possibilities, but i guess we'll never know.

[universephotons]

Is the premise: 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' refuted? If you reach for quarks or any subatomic particles or appeal to any aspect of quantum physics, please know that those are 'things' too.

To concede the premise (confirmed insipte of Hawking's new metaphysis, instead of physics) implies the universe did begin. To ask who made God is to suggest infinite regression - which defeats the premise conceded. God represents a sufficient terminus - making Him unique.

[asdashopperrr]

I believe that flying pigs are true... anti-piggists have tried for centuries to prove that flying pigs do not exist but so far I cannot see any merit in their arguments...

[richaldeano]

My imaginary friend is God!

[lukeism2]

hm infinite eh.... what is the difference between infinite and eternal... like his invisible unprovable magical space sorcerer

[omnissient]

I ve seen a few Craig videos now and it seems that his argument is word for word the same every single time.

[GetMeThere1]

They could have just as well had a MARTIAN, transmitting through a string and two cans from MARS, doing the initial announcement--I wouldn't have understood less of what was being said...

[bahramf]

@GetMeThere1 That's b/c you're a stupid Christian.

[GetMeThere1]

@bahramf : How perceptive! Only stupid christians would complain about audio quality in a video--everybody knows that.

[ouTandAbOut231]

I believe God exists though I doubt very much that the bible is the authority on a God that loves you. Rather as a Christan I would say have an idea of what you think not a fact on what you know.. A huge example would be gay rights. the bible seems to hate me but I know God loves me.

[bellaprincipessa655]

God is real!!! He is wonderful and he loves you all! Read the bible!

[bahramf]

@bellaprincipessa655 Well, when you say it like that, you must be right. 

[hkleomon]

hey strongagnostic

thats a good point but we live in a universe where everything has a cause or a reaction. Nothing just is. Everything "physical" is formed, created, reacted created ect etc. Is it a law of thermodynamics.

we know the universe is expanding meaning at one point it was smaller and smaller. This is where the big bang comes in called the singularity. The problem with the Big Bang is that it was created from nothing which is impossible in observable science and physics

[bahramf]

@hkleomon Everything does not have a cause or a reaction (whatever the latter means). Do you know anything of quarks?

Creation from nothing is impossible, but fortunately that's not what atheists claim. That's just a straw-man Christian like you pull out of your ass.

[bahramf]

@hkleomon Also, your argument says nothing of the nature of God. Also, if everything needs a cause, what about God?

[djordan0138]

As far as I'm concerned, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong takes care of William Lane Craig in the Oxford published point/counterpoint series book God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist. The old Problem of Evil was, once again, sidestepped by another Christian.

[Christianjr4]

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a good philosopher. I haven't read their book, but I listened to a debate he had with Craig on the Problem of Evil and he did very well. I thought Craig did well as well. When I get the DVD of this debate I'll try to upload it to YouTube.

[noodles321321]

'cIRCULAR? ARE YOU ARE FOOL'

Thumb me down all you want. Until you can provide a rational basis for rejecting my argument, It's just facile to claim that I'm ignoring the argument because I don't like it. I posted this comment a while ago, and though I stick by it I would change 'come into existence' to 'come into existence from nothing' which is not sufficiently supported by the big bang theory.

[logicalrational]

he didnt....

[noodles321321]

Wow, it's actually you. Heh. What an idiot.

[noodles321321]

As I see it, the cosmological argument is circular, and I don't understand why no philosophers have pointed this out. It's first premise is everything that begins to exist has a cause. Where did they get this from? Nothing that has ever been observed has ever begun to exist. If you build a house, all you are doing is rearranging atoms that have already been there. In fact, the only event requiring something to come into existence is the universe itself, which he is arguing for!

[SmalltimR]

I think the concept is that everything in existence would have a known cause rather than everything which begins to exist....

Having said this, I don't think anyone claims to know anything beyond the boundaries of the known universe(including the big bang). However, based on the visible evidence it would seem as though the universe did have a beginning and the rest is history.

[StrongAgnostic1]

Everything has begun to exist because the universe is the cause of everything. The universe is the cause of anything and everything that exists. Those atoms you are rearranging were caused by the Big Bang. I don't understand why you think "nothing that has ever been observed has ever begun to exist."

The universe itself must also have a cause because it cannot be eternal or exist outside of space and time.

[Dark1777]

It simply not true to say because we can tell where the Universe as we know it began that there was nothing before that or nothing caused it. He is just ignoring other possible hypotheses that cosmologists have suggested and filling the hole of "we don't know yet" with "God did it."

[Toocold]

It is simpler to say that the universe is eternal and uncaused than saying that God is eternal and uncaused, who then created it.

You might say, "But it needs a cause!" I would reply, "Really? Then why does God not need a cause? Oh yes, that's because you've specifically exempted him from this rule in order to make your system work. Well, if I allow the universe the same amount of leeway that you do your God, then my system works just as well as yours. Better, in fact, since mine is simpler."

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[BionicDance]

Infinity minus infinity is zero; anything minus itself is zero.

And it was NOT literally NOTHING; the universe is eternal, yes, but time is not. Time and matter are relative; prior to the Big Bang, time was stopped, much like at the center of a black hole, where matter is similarly compressed as before the Big Bang.

This guy has no idea what he's talking about.

[Gentle135]

An actual infinity is impossible and majority of cosmologists agree that the universe is not eternal but finite.

[BionicDance]

*psigh* And yet, anything subtracted by itself is zero. QED.

And you've misunderstood my point completely. TIME may have been finite due to relativity, but the existence of matter CAN be eternal if time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.

[geoffreyefloyd]

Is this the full debate, looks like it has 14 parts must be...instead of that lame 6 pt one haha :D

[Christianjr4]

Yes, it's the full debate. I'll have the rest up today.

[unapologetic315]

Please hurry, I'd like to forward this debate to my Apologetic Society.

[Christianjr4]

I'm working on it. Just wait a half hour or so and then you'll start seeing the other parts going up.

[TimeEffect]

Hey I go to York! I was SO upset because I read about the debate in the school newspaper but wasn't able to go! I would have loved Craig's autograph, and I was looking everywhere for this video so I could upload it. How do you find them so easily?

Also, interesting fact:

After the debate, the audience voted on who thought made the most compelling argument

50% voted for Craig, 30% for De Sousa, and 20% thought it was a tie... Something tells me 50% were Theist, 30% Atheist and 20% Agnostic lol

[marephrem]

did those statistics apply before or after the debate?

[TimeEffect]

After

[Christianjr4]

Oh, you're at York eh? So is that why you're doing exams now--because of the strike? I'm guessing that messed up the normal schedule of things there.

Anyhow, yeah I'll have the full debate uploaded soon so you can see it. It was a good debate.

[TimeEffect]

Yup, strike screwed up everything :)

[joness105639]

if the infinite only exists in the mind, then God cannot be infinite

[tetralophodon]

what the hell are you talking about? this is completely irrelevant

[Spattay]

He's talking about in a created universe with time. God is outside of this created Universe and thus time so He's naturally infinite.

[ivanisavich]

Craig's argument for the impossibility of actual infinites has nothing to do with time. The point joness' is making is that if actual infinites cannot exist, then god cannot be actually infinite (if it exists), or have any actually infinite attributes------however, many theists will state that god has actually infinite attributes (omniscience, etc)

[marephrem]

When he says there is no infinite in the real world. He is not referring to ENTIRE Reality. This means, that there cannot be an actually infinite number of finite things, because it is a self-contradiction. However, if we are looking at everything, that is including (and only using this as a possibility) the Supernatural. God (and we are only looking to see if He really exists or not), is by definition Supernatural.

[marephrem]

Part II

That is, by definition, God, is what exceeds Time, Matter, and Space, and thus cannot be an infinite number of things, but be Infinite in so much as it is the Ultimate Source of the Entire Universe.

[ivanisavich]

"but be Infinite in so much as it is the Ultimate Source of the Entire Universe."

Being the source of the universe has nothing to do with being infinite. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I specifically mentioned omniscience because if god is omniscient, that means he knows the truth value of an infinite number of finite propositions. If Craig is correct, that poses a contradiction.

Also, you said that an infinite number of finite things is self-contradictory. No it's not.

[marephrem]

"Also, you said that an infinite number of finite things is self-contradictory. No it's not." Prove it. Why is it?

It is impossible for example to have an infinite regress of causes of the universe (which would implicitly deny the existence of God, since God by definition is Self-Existent).

[marephrem]

Part II

It is impossible, because before reaching Event G where the universe is caused, there would still need to be an infinite number of events before reaching it, and therefore would never reach it, since there would still be one more event waiting to be caused before Event G. It is nonsensical to have an infinite number of finite things.

[ivanisavich]

Woah...slow down and read what I wrote. I said there is no self-contradiction. I didn't say it doesn't lead to any contradictions.

If something is self-contradictory, it means that it has two or more properties that are contradictory. There is no apparent SELF-contradiction with "an infinite set of finite things" because a finite object does not have any contradictory properties with an infinite set.

An example of a self-contradictory set would be "an existent set of non-existence objects"

[marephrem]

I apologize. I misspoke.

[ivanisavich]

No worries :)

[joness105639]

"When he says there is no infinite in the real world. He is not referring to ENTIRE Reality."

Then it is impossible for an infinit god to enter "the real world" and become a man and die on a cross.

[marephrem]

hold on one second, let's not confuse arguments here and just infuse Christ into the debate. We are having a general discussion as to whether God exists or not. Second of all, you've misunderstood me. It is impossible to have an infinite amount of finite things. That is a self-contradiction in terms. Infinity is not a quantity, because there is no such quantity, it is only theoretical. Infinity, rather, is a quality.

[marephrem]

Part II

That which is Perfect and Complete in itself (not requiring anything else to exist), and which has no conceivable terminus, is Infinite. That is what I mean by God being Infinite.

[joness105639]

"It is impossible to have an infinite amount of finite things."

No it's not. A point in space is finite. It has only one attribute and that its it's location. It exists no where else except for that precise point in space. It is about as finite as you can get. A line is the set of an infinite number of points such that any two points in the set determine the exact same line as any other two points in the set.

[marephrem]

I think you are confused as to what I am saying. I am not saying that you cannot continually and in more detail measure things, but you will never measure them infinitesimally. You are confusing what I am saying. That does not prove that you can have an INFINITE AMOUNT of things. Quantity and AMOUNT are synonymous. In this line, no one said you cannot keep measuring in more detail. But there isn't an infinite amount of distance from point A (beginning of the line) to point B.

[marephrem]

Part II Sure we can keep measuring until we reach smaller and smaller increments, but no matter how small we measure it, if we add all the points in the line with the same size, we will not get an infinite amount of something. Regardless, you have to show that an actually infinite amount of things exist, not that you can infinitesimally measure something.

[joness105639]

" Regardless, you have to show that an actually infinite amount of things exist, not that you can infinitesimally measure something."

Go study some geometry. Lines exist as the set of an infinite number of points. between points a and b an infinite number of points exist. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Do I really have to quote my graduate level geometry textbook?

[marephrem]

You are confused. There is POTENTIALLY an infinite number of points. But for whatever measurement you use in that line, when you add each point up, you will not get an infinitely long line. This is basic logic. If you can't grasp it, then your brain isn't properly functioning.

[johnvndnbrk]

I agree with marephrem. I've majored in mathematics and we can only say that some figure tends towards infinity. You cannot traverse the infinite by adding one member after the other. Also, infinity - infinity = 0 while at the same time it equals infinity. Ask yourself, "How many 1/2's of something does it take to equal nothing?" Mathematically it is an infinite amount. But since u r only taking 1/2, where did the remaining 1/2 of that something go so that you can get to nothing?

[marephrem]

Just like johnvndnbrk said: "How many 1/2's of something does it take to equal nothing?" Mathematically it is an infinite amount. You will never reach that point, because it would take an infinite amount of time, meaning it would never happen, because you can never say I have reached the infinitenth point. That "infinitenth" point does not exist except theoretically. It will never happen, because when can you say a infinite amount of time has passed and now we have cut the object to nothing?

[joness105639]

""How many 1/2's of something does it take to equal nothing?" Mathematically it is an infinite amount." LOL EPIC FAIL!!

1/(2^(infinity))>0

"You will never reach that point, because it would take an infinite amount of time"

EPIC FAIL! Time has nothing to do with it. BTW, time, like any measurement, is infinitly subdivisable. You can have 1/(infinity) seconds!

Look its obvious that you dont know what yer talkin about, so why dont cha jus mosy on down to the university and get a Math BA

[marephrem]

Your a genius arn't you? Just brilliant. Claiming victory to yourself like that always shows just the opposite.

I never said that there can be no such a thing as an infinite number of things theoretically. But an object is not infinite in size simply because we can POTENTIALLY cut it up an infinite number of times. Sure all that is theoretical. But in actuality, and in reality it is nonsense.

[marephrem]

Part II

Sure, I can picture the cup I am drinking from right now completely dissapear to become nothing, but in the real world (by this I mean the universe: all of nature), there are physical laws.

[marephrem]

Part III

These physical laws say that Change is a product of Time itself. If I am going to cut up an object into halves for it to become nothing, I will need to do it infinite number of times, which while theoretically possible, is ACTUALLY possible, because it would take an infinite amount of times, which means it would never happen.

[marephrem]

PartIV

If it did happen that we reached the infinitenth point in time, then we really couldn't call it so, because there could still be more time left to reach the point, in order for it to be called an infinite amount of time. This is an epic fail for you, because you have failed to distinguish with what the human brain can imagine (which is sometimes nonsensical), and with what happens.

[joness105639]

"because there could still be more time left to reach the point, in order for it to be called an infinite amount of time."

WRONG! It aproaches the instantanious but a 1/(infinity) second is still a valid unit of measurement. It is incredibly small but never instantanious. I nver said it was instantanious. You were the one getting that confused.

[joness105639]

To claim that time cannot be infinitely subdevided is to claim tha time itself is quantized and that at some point a non divisible measure in time is reached such that a moving object traveling between two points sufficiantly close together may arrive instantly at point B from point A. This defies all known laws of physics.

[marephrem]

Again I never said time cannot be infinitely subdivided. I am saying the sum of time is NOT infinite. Plain and simple. You can POTENTIALLY infinitely measure time, space, matter, what have you. But you will never reach the infinitenth point. Just because you can potentially infinitely measure something does not mean you can have an infinite amount of that thing. It would be ludicrous to jump to such a conclusion, unless you were predisposed to a certain view.

[joness105639]

" If I am going to cut up an object into halves for it to become nothing, I will need to do it infinite number of times" WRONG! even if you cut it up an infinite number of times you would still have a infinite number of infinitessimally small pieces. It would STILL NOT equal nothing. I thought I explained this already! Like I said before. Get a BA in math like I did and then we'll talk.

[marephrem]

I am not arguing with you that this is theoretically possible, I don't know why you are acting as if I did say that (maybe so that I can seem wrong). I am saying in all actuality it is impossible, because it would take an infinite amount of time, which means it would never happen, because you can never reach the infinitenth point in time, there were always be more time to add up to the past. You will never in actuality be able to cut an object up an infinite number of times into nothing.

[joness105639]

It doesnt matter how long you have. CUTTING SOMETHING UP INTO AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PEICES DOESNT MAKE IT INTO NOTHINGNESS.

[marephrem]

joness, my point still remains. Whether you cut it up into nothing or into infinitessimally small points, it applies theoretically, but not actually. In all actuality it would take an infinite amount of time, and therefore never happen. Therefore an actual infinite does not exist. Regardless, this is different from an infinite past. In the infinite past, we are not speaking of being able to measure the same distance infinitely in accuracy.

[joness105639]

"Whether you cut it up into nothing or into infinitessimally small points, it applies theoretically"

What does it take to get it through your skull that there is no way that you can divide anything so much that you have nothing? Let me put it this way. What you are insisting is equivillant to saying that 1/2=0. That is just idiotic. Any kid in 6th grade could tell you that is simply not true.

[marephrem]

Again, this is a side topic. I am not arguing that you can even theoretically cut up something into nothing, I am arguing that in actuality you cannot reach infinity (or an infinite number of things). My point remains.

[joness105639]

Second if the infinite does not exist than God if he does exist must be finite, nothing may be considered continuous and instead is quantized. The laws of physics as we know them cease to function, because time as we understand it becomes an illusion and is instead replaced with a quantum time in which objects instantly move from point a to point b. I am not saying the universe is infinitely old the laws of thermodynamics forbid that, but your understanding of infinity and math is disturbing.

[marephrem]

This is wrong. I am saying that you cannot have an infinite number of finite things. But the Cause of the Universe, must be Transcendent to Its Effects (otherwise it would not have really caused it). In this sense it is above the limits of Time, the limits of Space, and the limits of Matter (because it Caused them). Therefore It must also be transcendent as regards those limits (in this sense it is Infinite).

[marephrem]

Part II

But a finite thing can never become infinite, no matter how many times you add itself. You will never reach an infinite amount of time, by adding more and more seconds to the first ten seconds following the Big Bang.

[marephrem]

Part II

Rather we are saying that the sum of the past in the universe is infinite, not 15 billion years old or what have you. Do you see what I am saying now? I've heard this argument before, but it does not even apply to what we are talking about.

[joness105639]

"but in the real world (by this I mean the universe: all of nature), there are physical laws."

What makes you certain that the physical laws do not permit the disappearence of a cup? This is in no way connected with becomming nothing. In anycase this is a red herring or bad analogy. Nothingness is not equivillant to the infinite.

[joness105639]

"But an object is not infinite in size simply because we can POTENTIALLY cut it up an infinite number of times."

This is what is called a strawman argument. I never claimed such a thing.

[marephrem]

I never said you claimed that. But you are refuting what I said, and I said that there cannot be an actual infinite amount of things, not that you can potentially infinitely measure a certain distance.

[joness105639]

"I never said you claimed that." saying "But an object is not infinite in size simply because we can POTENTIALLY cut it up an infinite number of times."" infers that i claimed that size is dependant upon the number of pieces an object may be broken up into.

[marephrem]

I'm showing you where your logic leads so that you can agree with me, not that you actually claimed that to me.

[joness105639]

That isn't where my logic leads at all. An infinite number of infinitely small things is required for anything to be continuous. If it is not continuous, then it is not infinitely subdivisible and is instead quantized. You totally misunderstand me. Perhaps more school would help you.

[joness105639]

It is not a contradiction to say that i have an infinte amount of finite objects because "infinite" is acting on amount and amounts are not inherently finite. Like I said you CAN have an infinite amount of points. If you said I have an infinite finite quantity THAT would be a contradiction.

Infinity is something that is thought of as both a quantity and a quality. It has properties of one, both, and neither.