We can postulate some universe in which the fundamental forces of nature operate differently but we live in this one, so should not be at all surprised that they operate the way that they do. The universe is reckoned to be somewhere between 12 to 14 billion years old. Given sufficient time, even the most unlikely event becomes inevitable.
I think because we don't understand the universe it's premature to say a divine being created it. That is to say, until we have all the facts how can we possibly make that determination.
@Grohlx We do understand universe pretty well thats why it is reasonable to belive that was made because it just fit all togather to nice and to well.
Wouldn't you have to have the knowledge of all the possible forms that life can take for this logic to work? We haven't even found all the forms of life on our planet yet so to make the assumptions that are in this video is quite arrogant and ultimately flawed. If there are an infinite number of possibilities then wouldn't t our universe be just as likely to occur as anything else?
Ok, so the big bang is not believable. Does that mean that it is believable that some sort of "god" sent a man called Jesus to the desert 2000 years ago? No. It doesn't.
Yes the big bang theory is only a theory and we all know there is way more still to be unraveled about the universe and we will likely find this universe to be part of an even greater pattern. It doesn't even come close to proving any sort of religious bullshit.
@TheJohnPetras He's not making an argument for the Christian God. He's making an argument for a God in general. Also, the big bang doesn't provoke any sort of religious answer. He's simply taking the information that is provided (and true) and applying the best solution (Occam's razor).
@gmanbyah328 Applying Occam's Razor would lead to a much simpler solution. Something like: the universe must have come from a more complex set of circumstances. Even bringing the word "god" into it is a massive stretch.
@gmanbyah328 Simpler as in *has less connotations that then need to be explained.* Simpler in a logical sense, not simpler as in *easier for a weak brain to process.* For example it might seem simpler for to believe that as a result of my desk wobbling there is an evil mastermind making it happen, but in a scientific way this open up far more questions; who is the mastermind? Why is he doing it? etc
The whole point of Occam's razor is not to give the evidence any more merit than it contains.
@TheJohnPetras The scientific way is going to open up more questions regardless. You could say it's arose from a more complex set of circumstances, but that will have just as many questions with it as saying that God created it. The whole scientific process is based on making discoveries which uncover new questions.
Occam's Razor states that the theory with less assumptions is preferable, unless it has far less explanatory power.
If you assume God exists, all is explained and therefore it has a maximum of explanatory power and a minimal amount of assumptions (one).
If you assume we're here due to the Big Bang, without a creator, you must assume multiple unlikely coincidences happen, and that doesn't explain EVERYTHING, merely the universe's origin, and it doesn't even explain that fully.
by the sheer probability of life and all that stuff it should be convincing enough but the problem is that I think people like to think they know stuff so they just wont except that intelligent design has to be the answer
For life to be permitted in a rational universe the scientific laws have to be as we have observed them (no surprise there then). However for life to exist in a universe created and sustained by an omnipotent being that can manipulate any laws at will there need be no 'fine tuning'. The 'fine tuning' argument is actually an argument against such a being.
Why it is that this idiot keeps quote mining people Steven Hockings, and other legitimate physicist as if he knew anything about Cosmology and quantum mechanics?
These theoretical Physicists should call him on his dishonesty and in a debate post some actual real problems in Cosmology and quantum mechanics on a white board, see how he does solving even the simplest problem.
It was nt Hubble who devised this theory but its roots are in 1 rst century Jewish Kabbalah :Nechunya ben HaKana, a 1st century Kabbalist, asserted that if you know how to use the 42 letter name for God you could decipher a lengthy time between the creation of the universe and of man. He estimated the age of the Universe at 15.3 billion years,some 2000 years ago, the very age modern astrophysics havejust arrived at.So you see this theory is just a rabbinic fairy tale disguised as science
One more thing: If a being was powerful enough to create the universe and put into play all the stuff required for us to exist..why would they make it so damned complicated? Why did it take 13.7 billion years for us to appear? If we're so important, why are there billions of other stars in our galaxy alone? I could buy that we are the experiment of a vastly more intelligent race, but not a god in the way we picture him/it. I don't pretend to know for a fact, and that's the real answer.
@Gafaton Ur question is flawed. To an eternal being who is literally, outside of time, 13.7 billion years as a number is completely meaningless. Especially since time itself came into existence from nonexistence. Also, just because it seems complicated to you, doesnt mean that its complicated to a higher being. Think about this, if there weren't billions of stars and planets in the sky, would you be asking why God left the universe so empty??
@AegeanKing You're making assumptions about unknowable variables. How do you have knowledge of this being who is "outside of time"? What does that even mean? We don't know why we're here, we don't know how we came to be, and I'm fine with that. Science does the best job it can with the data available. The math points to a "big bang". It's all theory still, which will continue being updated as new data becomes available. Just bc we don't know how something works doesn't mean god made it. EOD.
All this talk of odds and minuscule chances of life occurring etc. "This song ain't about you". We are a byproduct of these chances X billions of years. If you play poker for billions of years, you will eventually get every single hand possible. We humans just think in our own time scale, which is not relevant to the universe whatsoever. I would venture a guess that life is a lot more common than we think. Oh and for all his power and majesty, god did a great job making earth mostly salt water.
@Xaivier2000 That is so true. I took physics and astronomy and I'll tell you that it is impossible for the universe to happen by luck. My teacher is an astrophysicist and he's a strong believer in christ.
@Sirafrican How does a person arrive at Christianity from assuming there is an intelligent designer? Furthermore, why not assume the universe had designers, thus favoring polytheism? After all, if we're gonna stick w/ the idea that everything requires a creator as Xaivier2000 maintains, then it only follows that since not everything created was created by one person, similarly not everything in nature was created by one "intelligent designer."
@nlytend1 Well honestly that's my belief. When I think of intelligent design I tend to think of Christ because I am a Christian, but I understand that they're interpretation of intelligent design could be totally different. As for everything else that's you're opinion and logic. There's more to life and the universe than we don't know.
Or 3) it doesn't matter a fart's worth whether "intelligent life" ever happened.
Drop a dart at random from a fighter plane at Mach 4. Find where it lands, say, transfixing a blade of grass. Tell everyone that the falling dart HAD TO BE controlled by some intelligence ..... OR IT WOULD NOT HAVE HIT THAT PARTICULAR BLADE OF GRASS!
If you draw the target AROUND the arrow, EVERY shot is a MIRACLE! They ALL HIT THE BULL! What are the chances of THAT???
William Lane Craig is demonstrably a hypocrite. He has claimed that people who are not educated as philosphers (e.g. Christopher Hitchens) should not be making comments about philosphy because they are untrained. However, he constantly makes comments about cosmology, the big bang and evolution for which **he** has no training and which requires far more extensive education than philosophy.
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE THING in the universe, and especially our galaxy (planets, sun, moon, stars, etc.) Are so extremely fine tuned, that there HAD TO BE an intelligent designer- hundreds of cosmologists, and phisiologists agree. Many were were strict atheists, but they are now 100% convinced that a Creator exists. Many of them are some of the top scientists in their field. From the beginning of the universe, clear down to the smallest cells formed, up to our present day- EVERYTHING shows eviden
@TheWayandWordofLife "Are so extremely fine tuned, that there HAD TO BE an intelligent designer"
human life can only exist on < 25% of the earth surface. 99.99%+ of the universe is empty space, where humans could not survive. Humans could not survive unprotected on the surface of any planet in our solar system nor on any of the hundreds of extra-solar planets. The universe is obviously NOT "extremely fine tuned". Your argument from incredulity is fallacious.
As a mathematician, I can tell you that he is committing a fallacy of calculating the stats after it happened. The odds of me dealing out a deck of cards in any order is 1 out of 52!, (which is a remarkably small chance that this order would have happened.) If I were Craig, I would then say that I could not have really dealt that order out due to chance, since it was so small, but someone must have purposely put it in that order.
as a mathematician myself, i can tell you that if i find a sand castle, i will assume it was designed. if anyone claims it was formed by chances, he is a crazy man.
@seiferganon Your not a very good mathematician if you think a deck of 52 cards can only be put in 52 orders. And we aren't talking of simply dealing out a deck of cards, or that this deck of cards needs to be in a certain order, we are talking about specific measurments that not only change how life was (i.e we would be different types of lifeform if things were different) but that life is permitted at all.
@lopikgdjh You either aren't very good at reading if you think I said a deck of card can only be put in 52 separate orders, or you actually don't understand math since I said a deck of cards can be put in 52! separate orders. You notice that exclamation mark there? It doesn't mean I'm screaming 52. It means 52 factorial.
Your second sentence doesn't matter. If the odds of event X are 1/2, and the odds of Y are 1/2, it doesn't matter what X and Y actually are.
@seiferganon Sorry, I did misread, apologies for that.
My second sentence does matter. What I am saying is that we aren't of just dealing out a hand in poker. I am trying to say that the odds are far more incredible than this, and the result of that is that surely an athiest must have a huge amount of faith to believe that despite these odds, it was all coincidence, and the universe and its natural laws are all a by-product of a random event from nothingness.
@lopikgdjh You are still missing the point. You are too stuck on semantics, and not on what I am talking about, the structure of probability statement he made. The number of cards being 52 is arbitrary, so your point is moot. How big do you want the odds to be? I can say the same scenario, except 1 million cards were dealt out, the same logic still applies, and that's the point! Lane's argument is unsound, and misunderstands the basic axioms of probability.
@seiferganon Surely the odds do matter. The larger the odds of it happening are, the more astounding it is. Therefore, logically, as things become more improbable, the more credibility we can give to something, such as in this case a supernatural being, needing involvement? What makes this point arbitrary? Surely its logic that as something becomes more unlikely in a naturalistic sense, the supernatural gains more credence?
No, it's not logical at all. Everything that happens is unimaginably unlikely to happen. That all the cards dealt in some casino for DECADES would have ALL been in EXACTLY that order is mind bendingly improbable.
So what? If you rewound the universe and started again, you almost certainly wouldn't get our solar system, much less our planet or us.
That's a good attitude to have. It means that if there is an intelligible answer to that question, you're gonna find it out long before any religious person as they're too weighed down with their fairy tales.
Obviously, if the elements/building blocks of life are available then life itself is inevitable - we wouldn't exist otherwise. So yes, it's very understandable that if the Laws of Science exist, they would inevitably make way for life and when one considers how short we are alive (relatively a blink in the time-span of the universe) then this isn't really THAT amazing.
But where did the building blocks come from? If they always existed why isn't there more evidence of life elsewhere?
Because complex life is probably a very very rare thing. If you think that the first simple life originated on this planet about 3.5 billion years ago. It wasn't until the cambrian explosion, about 500 million years ago, that complex life emerged. So whatever the odds of life developing into complexity, given the basic ingredients, they went for 3 billion years on this planet doing absolutely nothing (of interest).
This paraphrasing from his sources seems remarkably like using another individual's authority in those fields to gain some more authority for his own "argument". Besides, these quotes sound remarkably specific for people who have argued that we don't even know how big the universe is or has been in total, why would they argue if it were any smaller or bigger then it suddenly wouldn't work?
Having just finished "The Grand Design", thought I'd comment. I think it's important to point out that what Hawking is actually saying isn't that "God was not required", he's saying "If this theory turns out being correct, there's no need to postulate a God". I was a bit disappointed with the book tbh as it seems a bit premature. In reality, they still seem to be miles off with M-theory. And from a purely philsophical point, it's already clear that 'God' is just added complication
Is anyone else fed up of arguments for God that are either arguments from ignorance or just wordplay. Please find some real evidence or just shut up arguing it til you do!
How does the Cambrian explosion make the bible make sense? There was basic life for about 3 billions years before the cambrian explosion. Why would God create life and then come back 3 billion years later and speed it up?
Are you arguing that any person who hasn't contributed as much to science as Eddington and Newton did is duty-bound to accept uncritically those men's speculations on the existence of otherworldly things? (If so, it appears I'll have to take another look at astrology.)
In any event, I'm not sure why I would look to experts on the NATURAL world to enlighten me about so-called SUPERNATURAL realms. Hardly seems like their field of expertise.
Craig often displays an abject ignorance of the very scientific principles and concepts he uses to support his theological claims. This is very troubling.
@ChristianScholarship So, Craig studied some aspect of the Bible during his undergraduate and graduate studies. He is more than likely qualified to comment on the social issues associated with Christ's teachings.
As soon as he opens his mouth regarding other subjects he doesn't understand or comprehend, he makes an idiot out of himself. His background has nothing to do with science or any field therein. He is out of his league as are you.
@loudchristian2112 You are correct..Dawkins can be rude and insulting to Christians. His main issue is with the ignorant fundamentalist Creationist types.
Nonetheless, History and philosophy are non-technical fields. Anyone with basic reading skills can read and interpret history and the Bible. It takes a lot more to figure out math and the sciences in order to solve a differential equation, calculate the red-shift or work on the human genome. Craig lacks those skills.
@acceptjesusorburn This William Craig in NOT a cosmologist, or a physicist, or anything else science related. No publications, no research. He has a THEOLOGY background and try as he might, gives lectures misrepresenting science at fundamentalist churches.
Have you by chance watched Craig's debate with Shelly Kagan? Interesting stuff. Kagan manages to undermine several of Craig's more common (and flawed) arguments.
@jknengr796 You will get no argument from me that biology is an insanely complex field that Craig is not an expert in. However, I would disagree that anyone with reading skills can interperet the Bible. Most atheists and many christians have never read or studied the bible in their original hebrew and greek contexts. Doing so is an absolute necessity for understanding scripture and what it really means.
Odd for God to write a book that can only be truly understood in its original language(s); seems He could have come up with something more "accessible"...
@chebob2009 Hebrew simply does not line up with english. Translators have historically done the job of adding words and often this fudges up the real text. For instance, in Genesis: Our Bibles say God "breathed the breath of life into Adam." This seems literal, and creates a lot of issues for Theists arguing for the Bible, and provides a target for athiests. However, the Hebrew text has no such problem, because the word for "breath" is not physical breath, but is better translated as "spirit."
@chebob2009 More examples: "There was morning and there was evening. The first day." The Hebrew, directly translated, says "morning'n'evening, day. This appears to show a figurative time period, with morning and evening simply serving as literary bookends, or simply using common hebrew words that are easily related with a starting and stopping point. In addition to this, people should understand ideas such as: nonexhaustive geneologies, figurative language, metaphor, and number bloating in Bible
@chebob2009 My bottom line is that most people don't look into these things, and doing so clarifies many many things in these discussions, and eleviates many of the "problems" and "contradictions" people so often talk about.
I really don't see anything other than technicalities there though! The bottom line for most non-believers, (I'll stupidly assume I speak for them all) is that if you take any of these texts literally- they basically get things wrong. If you claim they're important metaphors, I think you really need to ask in what sense are they "true". I mean, you can find a good metaphor in any book.
@chebob2009 I think you should reread what I said. The nature of Adam's creation is by no means a technicality, nor is the length and nature of the creation days. I can cite other examples if you so wish.
@jknengr796 As far as history is concerned, Dawkins has shown with his commentaries on Communism and atheist dictatorships that he is absolutely dreadful at "interpereting" history. I will go into detail if you wish, just let me know.
Overall, I think your idea that "anyone" can interperet scripture either shows that you don't know much about biblical languages, or that you are being dishonest.
@loudchristian2112 As far an "interpretation of the Bible" goes, how many Christian denominations are there? For that matter, also Jewish? So many "interpretations", but only your interpretation is the correct one, right?
I'm not the one who is being dishonest. It is people like Craig who use dishonesty and misleading logic to persuade the ignorant.
@jknengr796 the "correct" interpretation of the Bible is the one that correctly draws on the syntax, historical context, and linguistic and literary nature of the scripture. The person who does this is correct. It matters not whether it's "my" interpretation. My view is irrelevant, the truth matters. Granted, some passages remain mysterious, as is true of anything. But your argument about denomination is utterly irrelevant to what is true.
@loudchristian2112 That is incorrect. Whose truth? To many denominations, particularly the fundamentalists sects, if you don't believe their interpretation if scripture, you are not a (insert religious faith here). They are fanatical about it to the point of lunacy. See the video above as perfect example or look up Ken Ham. *That* is why many people are leaving the church and losing their faith. God gave some of us a brain to use and figure out the wonders of this universe.
@jknengr796 Man, you are just all over the place. I just told you that asking "whose" truth was meaningless, because the true context of the passage is correct and truthful. Dont bring up radicals, that is a seperate point from the fact that interpretation is the key. Who cares if nutjobs "think" they are right? Thats irrelevant. Im saying read and study the languages, that is how you get to the bottom of this. Forget denominations, they play no role in this discussion.
@loudchristian2112 Sure, one can study the read the original languages and you will still get different interpretations. Biblical scholars debate this all the time often along denominational or philosophical lines.
Getting back on track. Craig is completely unqualified in the areas of Physics and Astronomy to which he is talking here. He may as well be giving advise on which vitamins you should take or how to design a bridge.
@hayakain You are incorrect. I have a background is Physics/Astronomy and Mathematics. Craig is not qualified and basically clueless. He should stick with what he is good at. Talking about faith issues, not science.
@jknengr796 I have no proof you have a degree of any kind. It is especially a low possibility you have a degree at all considering you feel the need to correct Dr Craig on a little known Youtube Video.
Secondly you also cannot simply say that he is unqualified to speak on Science without providing evidence that his Scientific statement is somehow incorrect.
@hayakain Anyone with a little background in Physics or or related subject can figure this out and laugh at his lack of knowledge exposed at a fundamentalist church. Why did he bother taping this?
These little known youtube videos can be entertaining to say the least.
BTW: B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Iowa State University and University of N D. Real Universities and real earned degrees. Unlike many of your creationist "Dr"'s who got theirs from diploma mills or from Theological colleges.
@jknengr796 Lack of Knowledge? These are Scientific facts he is quoting, and whether or not he has a degree in such a field does nothing to discredit their validity.
Perhaps you'd like to offer evidence to refute his "mistakes" rather than attacking straw men?
@hayakain Look up "straw man". That is what he does. Citing words like "chance", etc. His degrees are in THEOLOGY and NOT in any science related field. As far as evidence goes, there isn't enough room to type what can be found in hundreds of Physics and Astronomy related peer related journals. Look it up for yourself. Then again, you wouldn't understand it anyway. It takes a few degrees and years of work in the field, which Craig also lacks. That is why he is speaking at a CHURCH.
You don't even know what you are talking about. Craig is the one making ad-hominem argument;
1. Science (Physics related area) makes claim X (with supporting evidence).
2 Craig makes an attack on Science/Physics.
3 Therefore Science/Physics claim is false.
You need to learn some basic Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology.
Calculus is a pre-requisite though. Things are just too complicated to Craig (and you), therefore God did it. At least I use by God given brain to figure out how.
@jknengr796 He makes no attack on Science or Physics. I suggest you watch the video again and actually listen to it this time.
Secondly, your point, besides being incorrect, does nothing to refute Craig's point at all. Are you going to stop attacking the man and actually attempt to refute the belief in question? Which I do not believe you are capable of doing.
@hayakain The Physics of the Universe is just too "incomprehensible" and the "probabilities" are just too small. Quote mine a few scientists. Therefore, the Universe was "designed". This is Craig's video in a nutshell. He doesn't understand. Neither do you.
If Creationists could only offer up scientific peer reviewed evidence to support their position then they could be taken seriously. But, all they can do is be critical of (insert complicated science subject here).
@jknengr796 Those aren't attacks on Science or Physics. He's stating facts about probabilities and it's a straight fact that the chances of something occurring otherwise IS "incomprehensible". That's no attack. It's basic knowledge.
Secondly, Craig is not a Creationist.
Thirdly, "he doesn't understand" is not refuting what he said in any way.
You are being ENORMOUSLY critical of Craig with no evidence to support your position while accusing HIM of doing it to Science.
@hayakain The probability is so "incomprehensible" that it HAD to have been "designed". Maybe so, but that is not a question for science to answer. Science answers "the how's". Religion can ask the "why's".
I'm being critical of Craig because he is delving into scientific areas for which he has NO background. He is a THEOLOGIAN.
I am a Professional Engineer and a researcher in cosmic background radiation. I don't practice giving medical advise. Get it?
"..facts about probabilities and it's a straight fact that the chances of something occurring otherwise IS "incomprehensible"."
The reality of small numbers and extremely low probability exists everywhere. What is the probability of you being struck by lightning 3 times over the next year? The sun going nova tomorrow? An earthquake hitting San Francisco tonight at 6pm? You winning the "megajackpot"? All are not zero but extremely small, therefor, there must be a designer.
There is so much information available to support my position in the physics of cosmology that one can't begin to describe it to you. Dozens of peer reviewed journals and texts comprising a library of information. More is learned everyday. And, some old ideas fall by the wayside. That is how science works.
A fast food employee like you doesn't have a lot of science or mathematics credibility. Go to school, get a degree. Maybe then you'll understand.
hey, in one of your comments you say, "Craig is not a creationist".. isn't a creationist someone that believes humanity, life, the earth, and the universe came into being by the supernatural.
how is Dr. craig not a creationist, he is a Christian, and this is what Christians believe from following the Bible.
@JusJuiceIt The term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.
Craig does not necessarily reject these processes, because he believes that, God, as a being outside of time, would not be limited in the processes He could use to create.
The multi-verse theory dispenses with ALL of his points in a mere second. There's another reason why it's a dreadful argument - it assumes that the only possible life is like our own life. But surely an all powerful God could create life in any form he wanted? Life just floating through space? So to suggest that this universe is fine-tuned for life is to suggest that God only had one 'version' of life he could create. That sounds very un-Godlike. The argument ultimately does nothing!
@jknengr796 Depends on the subject or passage being discussed, and what the viewpoints are. I have said clearly how someone can correctly interperet a given biblical passage.
@loudchristian2112 Tell me then, who has correctly interpreted the Bible. Who is right? Who is wrong? Give me some names of people. You? Me? Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? William Craig? Pope XXX? My pastor? Your pastor? Martin Luther? A Biblical theologian somewhere? A Biblical historian? The group of bishops in the 4th century who assembled the Bible? The Dalai Lama? Good luck. "That" has been debated for over 2000 years and will be debated as long as religion exists.
@jknengr796 Ok you are obviously going to be a broken record. You could not possibly have read and understood what I just said if youre going ballistic like you just did. The Bible is 66 books, written over 1500 years by 44 people. Dont say idiotic things like "well who interprets the Bible correctly?" What passage? Whats the discussion? Throwing 1500 years of writing under one blanket and saying "who interprets it right??" is moronic, sir.
@loudchristian2112 Here is some of what you have written: "The person who does this is correct. It matters not whether it's "my" interpretation" and "I have said clearly how someone can correctly interperet a given biblical passage."
It just begs for an answer. You were the one that brought that issue forth. I just wanted to know which "person" or "persons" you were talking about.
You just skirted the issue and can't answer my "idiotic" or "moronic" question.
@jknengr796 There are plenty of pastors and thinkers where I live that have showed me this. As well as my friends who share their experiences as they pursue degrees in ministry and theology. My pastor has a Masters of Theology in Biblical Languages, and I have learned a lot from him. But once again, before I can answer your question, you simply have to tell me what it is you would like to see interpreted. Think of an example from scripture, and I will do my best to answer.
@jknengr796 it is a grave oversimplification to ask me for names of people who have correctly interpreted 1500 years of writing. Nobody does it in one swoop, and you should know better than to ask for that.
His interpretation of those dictatorships looks spot-on to me. The problem isn't that they were non-believers, the problem is that they replaced religious ideology with another one. What all modern atheists are arguing for is NO IDEOLOGY. (if you think atheism is an ideology, you don't understand the way it's currently being used)
Dawkins doesn't speak about philosophy, he starts the God delusion by stating that the existence of God is a scientific question so he treats it as one. As for history, only a historian is technically qualified to speak on the subject. The leuba poll showed that roughly 51% of historians are atheists, so it looks like Dawkins is following the majority opinion on that. When any christian says "historians agree...." they're usually about to tell you a great big lie.
@ChristianScholarship I did not say "his" degree was fraudulent. His "Ph.D" is in THEOLOGY. If it is truly earned, I question that.
Too many of the other creationists who tack on "Dr" in front of their names or "Ph.D" after DO have fraudulent degrees or degrees from diploma mills. They use that title to give the flock reason to argue from some sort of "authority". That is academically dishonest.
I have two degrees in Physics and a Ph.D in Engineering. I would say I am qualified.
@ChristianScholarship I'm sorry, but that does not qualify him. He is no more qualified than any of the other creationists with fraudulent degrees.
If his "Ph.D" were in the areas of Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Particle Physics or the like and if he was an active researcher, then THAT would qualify him. He then would be taken seriously by the science community and not laughed at because of his complete misrepresentation of, ignorance and lack of knowledge of science. My statement stands.
Craig is a "Research Professor" of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. His degrees are in Philosophy and Religion, NOT PHYSICS, ASTRONOMY or a related field.
He is as qualified to talk about this topic as he is on how to perform a heart valve replacement or to design and construct a roof truss. He is being academically dishonest by using is "Dr" title in a totally and completely unrelated area.
@DJC9189 Oh, I think I get ya now. Well, I suppose he's comparing it to a hypothetical universe? I'm not really sure. I'm not too adept in this field of study. But it's good to know that you have questions like that. I think it would be best if you asked him yourself. Like, message him at Reasonable Faith. He could give you a better answer than I could, that's for sure. I'll remember you in prayer, dear friend. God bless. :)
@DJC9189 No problemo, com padre. :) I believe he illustrates the chances in order to show you how unlikely it is that the universe just popped into being. He compares intelligent design to naturalism and shows you which is more likely; the chances in a naturalistic world compared to the chances of their being an intelligent designer. It's more plausible to believe that an intelligent designer caused the universe rather than by chance alone, something came into being out of nothing. If that
@DJC9189 Well, seeing as how the multiverse theory is nothing but a what if basis, then the multi-verse theory is out of the question. There is no evidence to support that we are living in multiple universes; there is good evidence to believe, however, that there is only one universe, and that universe has an external cause, God. Even if we had multiverses, they couldn't have just popped into being, or have eternal roots. They were placed here by an external cause; God. :) God bless you sir.
@DJC9189 Says a youtube atheist. I believe he knows what hes talking about. You're just mad because he is right. But Jesus loves you anyways. :) God bless you.
You also fail to realize that our universe isn't designed for life, considering we can't survive in 99.9 percent of it, and the small part tries to kill us all the time.
Forth alternative, there is no fine tuning and if the universe had come out different some other form of intelligent life would have evolved and thought they were fine tuned as well.
Is stupidity, and intellectual prejudice a prerequisite of Christianity??
Craig himself can't seem to understand that his premise is CONTINGENT on a PRESUPPOSITION that the universe is the purposeful product of an intelligent designer.
He actually premises his argument with an arbitrary declaration, that it is "designed" by a "creator", in order to prove what he has declared , "by fiat"!!
I'm fascinated by this ridicuous argument for gods:
"Dr Blah of ***!?! University says that if ( insert your own physical law) Which is a billion to one, hadn't been this way, life could not exist....
Well, it is that way, and life does exist!! - Deal with it!!
Absolutely EVERY occurrance that ever happened, is one of billions of possibilities. If it hadn't happened that way it would exist in a different way . What exists, exists!
Craig is either dishonest or extraordinarily illogical.
@Tobytrim By this statement you are demonstrating your unfamiliarity of the fine tuning argument. The argument doesn't say that without the fine tuning, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but rather atoms, molecules, planets and stars wouldn't exist. Chemistry wouldn't exist which would make ANY form of life impossible.
Such hatred guys. Why does every Christian video on the internet have so many negative, mean comments from nonbelievers? If you don't believe, that is your choice - but just know that for those of us who do believe, your "logical" arguments change nothing. You can say what you want, but it is clear that you have no understanding of what it is like to know God, and that relationship goes beyond any Earthly knowledge, logic and reason. Why would God be *easy* to believe in? It's called faith.
@laceyg "Why does every Christian video on the internet have so many negative, mean comments from nonbelievers?"
Are you joking? I get tons of negative and rude comments on my videos from Christians. I recently had a Christian suggest I commit suicide. Don't tell me all Christians are kind and all atheists are mean. You ignore rude and arrogant Christians because you want to.
@laceyg "but just know that for those of us who do believe, your "logical" arguments change nothing"
Which immediately voids your right to try to use reason to defend your "faith".
I would point out that the guy in the video is preaching a sermon under the guise of pure logic. He even seems to be going so far as to say that atheism ( Non belief in HIS particular deity) is "illogical" !
I think it's only fair that atheists should show his "flock", exactly how bad his reasoning is.
Ha ha! ..Yeah Weed..I'm particularly glad when somebody posts this W.L. Craig cosmological crap or any epistomology/ontology. But Craig makes the incredibly irrational sound perfectly feasible BEFORE it is
actually challenged. To me, that epitomizes an evangelistic sermon.
Would you believe, I think I was actually blocked on Craigs own channel before I was ever allowed to comment?!! So tell me more or post a link
Craigs channel doesn't allow any comments anymore.
Here, this guy's on this vid "The "Logic" of Creationists"
wallyjude3.
He's a pretty simple guy, I just didn't feel like getting into it with him more than I did. My tastes have run more political lately, than Creationists.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Pity weed....You had perked my curiosity, I can't get a decent comment box debate these days - they've all knocked the pieces all over the place and taken their gameboard home - Nay....They've hidden it, along with themselves!!
Nephilimfree and gunther both blocked me too , as soon as the going got tough and Dr WL Craig won't even let me post an introductory question!
Nephy's on the street these days, I hear, did you know of him!
What was #1 ??
HemmHon 1 week ago
We can postulate some universe in which the fundamental forces of nature operate differently but we live in this one, so should not be at all surprised that they operate the way that they do. The universe is reckoned to be somewhere between 12 to 14 billion years old. Given sufficient time, even the most unlikely event becomes inevitable.
Mantra1231 1 week ago
I think because we don't understand the universe it's premature to say a divine being created it. That is to say, until we have all the facts how can we possibly make that determination.
Grohlx 2 weeks ago
@Grohlx We do understand universe pretty well thats why it is reasonable to belive that was made because it just fit all togather to nice and to well.
reversao1 3 days ago
Comment removed
nlytend1 2 months ago
Wouldn't you have to have the knowledge of all the possible forms that life can take for this logic to work? We haven't even found all the forms of life on our planet yet so to make the assumptions that are in this video is quite arrogant and ultimately flawed. If there are an infinite number of possibilities then wouldn't t our universe be just as likely to occur as anything else?
EvenTheOdd 4 months ago
Ok, so the big bang is not believable. Does that mean that it is believable that some sort of "god" sent a man called Jesus to the desert 2000 years ago? No. It doesn't.
Yes the big bang theory is only a theory and we all know there is way more still to be unraveled about the universe and we will likely find this universe to be part of an even greater pattern. It doesn't even come close to proving any sort of religious bullshit.
TheJohnPetras 4 months ago
@TheJohnPetras He's not making an argument for the Christian God. He's making an argument for a God in general. Also, the big bang doesn't provoke any sort of religious answer. He's simply taking the information that is provided (and true) and applying the best solution (Occam's razor).
gmanbyah328 4 months ago
@gmanbyah328 Applying Occam's Razor would lead to a much simpler solution. Something like: the universe must have come from a more complex set of circumstances. Even bringing the word "god" into it is a massive stretch.
TheJohnPetras 4 months ago
@TheJohnPetras How would "a more complex set of circumstances" be simpler than a God creating it?
gmanbyah328 4 months ago
@gmanbyah328 Simpler as in *has less connotations that then need to be explained.* Simpler in a logical sense, not simpler as in *easier for a weak brain to process.* For example it might seem simpler for to believe that as a result of my desk wobbling there is an evil mastermind making it happen, but in a scientific way this open up far more questions; who is the mastermind? Why is he doing it? etc
The whole point of Occam's razor is not to give the evidence any more merit than it contains.
TheJohnPetras 4 months ago
@TheJohnPetras The scientific way is going to open up more questions regardless. You could say it's arose from a more complex set of circumstances, but that will have just as many questions with it as saying that God created it. The whole scientific process is based on making discoveries which uncover new questions.
gmanbyah328 4 months ago
@TheJohnPetras
Occam's Razor states that the theory with less assumptions is preferable, unless it has far less explanatory power.
If you assume God exists, all is explained and therefore it has a maximum of explanatory power and a minimal amount of assumptions (one).
If you assume we're here due to the Big Bang, without a creator, you must assume multiple unlikely coincidences happen, and that doesn't explain EVERYTHING, merely the universe's origin, and it doesn't even explain that fully.
bbryant0620 4 months ago
by the sheer probability of life and all that stuff it should be convincing enough but the problem is that I think people like to think they know stuff so they just wont except that intelligent design has to be the answer
gabbe7 5 months ago
The Earth was far different before the Flood Judgement Of God during the time of our Father Noah...
doobersmanster 7 months ago
The big bang is a fairy tale.
"long ago and far away"...... there was an explosion that came from nothing, nothing existed nothing exploded and WOW here we are now.
silly big bang theory lol.
Xaivier2000 7 months ago
For life to be permitted in a rational universe the scientific laws have to be as we have observed them (no surprise there then). However for life to exist in a universe created and sustained by an omnipotent being that can manipulate any laws at will there need be no 'fine tuning'. The 'fine tuning' argument is actually an argument against such a being.
herbiepop 7 months ago
Why it is that this idiot keeps quote mining people Steven Hockings, and other legitimate physicist as if he knew anything about Cosmology and quantum mechanics?
These theoretical Physicists should call him on his dishonesty and in a debate post some actual real problems in Cosmology and quantum mechanics on a white board, see how he does solving even the simplest problem.
JerezJulio 8 months ago
@JerezJulio
holy cow you are delusional!
gabbe7 5 months ago
Just Excellent!
oopscanada 8 months ago
It was nt Hubble who devised this theory but its roots are in 1 rst century Jewish Kabbalah :Nechunya ben HaKana, a 1st century Kabbalist, asserted that if you know how to use the 42 letter name for God you could decipher a lengthy time between the creation of the universe and of man. He estimated the age of the Universe at 15.3 billion years,some 2000 years ago, the very age modern astrophysics havejust arrived at.So you see this theory is just a rabbinic fairy tale disguised as science
SonofJaphet 9 months ago
Got to love all the people commenting that act high and mighty as though they have the answer that Dr. Craig somehow does not.
Submit your queries against his argument to his website, reasonablefaith if you really wish to see your theories picked apart.
hayakain 9 months ago
One more thing: If a being was powerful enough to create the universe and put into play all the stuff required for us to exist..why would they make it so damned complicated? Why did it take 13.7 billion years for us to appear? If we're so important, why are there billions of other stars in our galaxy alone? I could buy that we are the experiment of a vastly more intelligent race, but not a god in the way we picture him/it. I don't pretend to know for a fact, and that's the real answer.
Gafaton 10 months ago
@Gafaton Ur question is flawed. To an eternal being who is literally, outside of time, 13.7 billion years as a number is completely meaningless. Especially since time itself came into existence from nonexistence. Also, just because it seems complicated to you, doesnt mean that its complicated to a higher being. Think about this, if there weren't billions of stars and planets in the sky, would you be asking why God left the universe so empty??
AegeanKing 9 months ago
@AegeanKing You're making assumptions about unknowable variables. How do you have knowledge of this being who is "outside of time"? What does that even mean? We don't know why we're here, we don't know how we came to be, and I'm fine with that. Science does the best job it can with the data available. The math points to a "big bang". It's all theory still, which will continue being updated as new data becomes available. Just bc we don't know how something works doesn't mean god made it. EOD.
Gafaton 9 months ago
All this talk of odds and minuscule chances of life occurring etc. "This song ain't about you". We are a byproduct of these chances X billions of years. If you play poker for billions of years, you will eventually get every single hand possible. We humans just think in our own time scale, which is not relevant to the universe whatsoever. I would venture a guess that life is a lot more common than we think. Oh and for all his power and majesty, god did a great job making earth mostly salt water.
Gafaton 10 months ago 3
No such thing as luck when it comes the universe.
Our universe is "Made" just like everything we humans do is made by us.
It's not logical to say that everything has to be made "everything" except for human beings, this planet and the universe. Illogical
Everything has been "Made" and made from something intelligent and that includes this planet and the universe.
The universe is not just a stroke of luck like in a game of cards played at the casino, that’s madness!.
Xaivier2000 11 months ago 12
@Xaivier2000 That is so true. I took physics and astronomy and I'll tell you that it is impossible for the universe to happen by luck. My teacher is an astrophysicist and he's a strong believer in christ.
Sirafrican 10 months ago 8
@Sirafrican :) Praise be our Lord Jesus for that ^^
cadumuitacoisa 5 months ago
@Sirafrican How does a person arrive at Christianity from assuming there is an intelligent designer? Furthermore, why not assume the universe had designers, thus favoring polytheism? After all, if we're gonna stick w/ the idea that everything requires a creator as Xaivier2000 maintains, then it only follows that since not everything created was created by one person, similarly not everything in nature was created by one "intelligent designer."
nlytend1 2 months ago
@nlytend1 Well honestly that's my belief. When I think of intelligent design I tend to think of Christ because I am a Christian, but I understand that they're interpretation of intelligent design could be totally different. As for everything else that's you're opinion and logic. There's more to life and the universe than we don't know.
Sirafrican 2 months ago
@nlytend1 Well we are here from a reason...
"Nothing" created "Nothing"
"God" created the universe and this planet and us and everything around us.....
God can't create God as God has always been...
Xaivier2000 1 month ago
@Xaivier2000 I guess that would include a deity as well? It too would have to be created.
nlytend1 2 months ago
@nlytend1 Well not really... God has always been .."I am the Alpha and the Omega"
The beginning and the end....yes it’s hard to understand how God has always been....
Though i guess all will be revealed after we are dead.....either we cease to exist or we meet God....
Xaivier2000 1 month ago
@Xaivier2000 Well, whatever works for ya.
nlytend1 1 month ago
No such thing as luck when it comes the the uninverse.
It's "Made" just like everything we humans do is make stuff.
It's not logical to say that everything has to be made, "Everything" Execpt for human beings, this planet and the universe.
Thats just dumb
Everything has been "Made" and made from something intelligent.
Not just a stroke of luck like in a game of cards played at the casino, thats madness!.
Xaivier2000 11 months ago
Or 3) it doesn't matter a fart's worth whether "intelligent life" ever happened.
Drop a dart at random from a fighter plane at Mach 4. Find where it lands, say, transfixing a blade of grass. Tell everyone that the falling dart HAD TO BE controlled by some intelligence ..... OR IT WOULD NOT HAVE HIT THAT PARTICULAR BLADE OF GRASS!
If you draw the target AROUND the arrow, EVERY shot is a MIRACLE! They ALL HIT THE BULL! What are the chances of THAT???
Morons
xyxxyplughxyzzy 11 months ago
William Lane Craig is demonstrably a hypocrite. He has claimed that people who are not educated as philosphers (e.g. Christopher Hitchens) should not be making comments about philosphy because they are untrained. However, he constantly makes comments about cosmology, the big bang and evolution for which **he** has no training and which requires far more extensive education than philosophy.
jimmo42 11 months ago 2
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE THING in the universe, and especially our galaxy (planets, sun, moon, stars, etc.) Are so extremely fine tuned, that there HAD TO BE an intelligent designer- hundreds of cosmologists, and phisiologists agree. Many were were strict atheists, but they are now 100% convinced that a Creator exists. Many of them are some of the top scientists in their field. From the beginning of the universe, clear down to the smallest cells formed, up to our present day- EVERYTHING shows eviden
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
Comment removed
kmjansen83 11 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife "Are so extremely fine tuned, that there HAD TO BE an intelligent designer"
human life can only exist on < 25% of the earth surface. 99.99%+ of the universe is empty space, where humans could not survive. Humans could not survive unprotected on the surface of any planet in our solar system nor on any of the hundreds of extra-solar planets. The universe is obviously NOT "extremely fine tuned". Your argument from incredulity is fallacious.
jimmo42 11 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife
No, almost no one agrees. Why does it make a difference, at all, whether our planet, or ANY planets, exist at all?
xyxxyplughxyzzy 11 months ago
atheists are the ones with the greatest imaginations - their own spaghetti monster - chance - is alive and well - in their minds.
whiteliketar 1 year ago
It requires much FAITH and BELIEF to hang onto this theory when the odds presented against it are in such strong numbers.
Lisztman88 1 year ago
He is very well educated and brings about great arguments.. I'd say Dr Craig won this debate.
Quartzzzz 1 year ago
As a mathematician, I can tell you that he is committing a fallacy of calculating the stats after it happened. The odds of me dealing out a deck of cards in any order is 1 out of 52!, (which is a remarkably small chance that this order would have happened.) If I were Craig, I would then say that I could not have really dealt that order out due to chance, since it was so small, but someone must have purposely put it in that order.
seiferganon 1 year ago
@seiferganon
as a mathematician myself, i can tell you that if i find a sand castle, i will assume it was designed. if anyone claims it was formed by chances, he is a crazy man.
eddiedko 1 year ago
@eddiedko You don't find sand castles in nature, only sand. "Complex patterns" in nature are not the same as deliberately constructed artifacts.
pwnUgood 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pwnUgood
"You don't find sand castles in nature, only sand"
its chance is very very low but it is possible. heck some crazy people argue that live beings were formed by chances.
eddiedko 1 year ago
@seiferganon Your not a very good mathematician if you think a deck of 52 cards can only be put in 52 orders. And we aren't talking of simply dealing out a deck of cards, or that this deck of cards needs to be in a certain order, we are talking about specific measurments that not only change how life was (i.e we would be different types of lifeform if things were different) but that life is permitted at all.
lopikgdjh 1 year ago
@lopikgdjh You either aren't very good at reading if you think I said a deck of card can only be put in 52 separate orders, or you actually don't understand math since I said a deck of cards can be put in 52! separate orders. You notice that exclamation mark there? It doesn't mean I'm screaming 52. It means 52 factorial.
Your second sentence doesn't matter. If the odds of event X are 1/2, and the odds of Y are 1/2, it doesn't matter what X and Y actually are.
seiferganon 1 year ago
@seiferganon Sorry, I did misread, apologies for that.
My second sentence does matter. What I am saying is that we aren't of just dealing out a hand in poker. I am trying to say that the odds are far more incredible than this, and the result of that is that surely an athiest must have a huge amount of faith to believe that despite these odds, it was all coincidence, and the universe and its natural laws are all a by-product of a random event from nothingness.
lopikgdjh 1 year ago
@lopikgdjh You are still missing the point. You are too stuck on semantics, and not on what I am talking about, the structure of probability statement he made. The number of cards being 52 is arbitrary, so your point is moot. How big do you want the odds to be? I can say the same scenario, except 1 million cards were dealt out, the same logic still applies, and that's the point! Lane's argument is unsound, and misunderstands the basic axioms of probability.
seiferganon 1 year ago
@seiferganon Surely the odds do matter. The larger the odds of it happening are, the more astounding it is. Therefore, logically, as things become more improbable, the more credibility we can give to something, such as in this case a supernatural being, needing involvement? What makes this point arbitrary? Surely its logic that as something becomes more unlikely in a naturalistic sense, the supernatural gains more credence?
lopikgdjh 1 year ago
@lopikgdjh
No, it's not logical at all. Everything that happens is unimaginably unlikely to happen. That all the cards dealt in some casino for DECADES would have ALL been in EXACTLY that order is mind bendingly improbable.
So what? If you rewound the universe and started again, you almost certainly wouldn't get our solar system, much less our planet or us.
So what?
xyxxyplughxyzzy 11 months ago
@seiferganon "It means 52 factorial."
..facepsalm...
I can't believe you actually had to explain that to someone.
jimmo42 11 months ago
this guy is good. seems to have had a good education
british123able 1 year ago
@british123able "Seems" is the keyword there, hahahaha.
seiferganon 1 year ago
@seiferganon so ur saying that he doesnt have a good education? hahahahaha
camthejock 1 year ago
Truthfully - I just want to know whether or not there is something comprehensible after physical death,
Darkness527 1 year ago
@Darkness527
That's a good attitude to have. It means that if there is an intelligible answer to that question, you're gonna find it out long before any religious person as they're too weighed down with their fairy tales.
chebob2009 1 year ago
Obviously, if the elements/building blocks of life are available then life itself is inevitable - we wouldn't exist otherwise. So yes, it's very understandable that if the Laws of Science exist, they would inevitably make way for life and when one considers how short we are alive (relatively a blink in the time-span of the universe) then this isn't really THAT amazing.
But where did the building blocks come from? If they always existed why isn't there more evidence of life elsewhere?
Darkness527 1 year ago
@Darkness527
Because complex life is probably a very very rare thing. If you think that the first simple life originated on this planet about 3.5 billion years ago. It wasn't until the cambrian explosion, about 500 million years ago, that complex life emerged. So whatever the odds of life developing into complexity, given the basic ingredients, they went for 3 billion years on this planet doing absolutely nothing (of interest).
chebob2009 1 year ago
The "fine tuning" argument... please.
This paraphrasing from his sources seems remarkably like using another individual's authority in those fields to gain some more authority for his own "argument". Besides, these quotes sound remarkably specific for people who have argued that we don't even know how big the universe is or has been in total, why would they argue if it were any smaller or bigger then it suddenly wouldn't work?
sonic8005 1 year ago
Hawkins now says that god was not required to start the universe, he now says that physics makes it inevitable
NIXIMvideo 1 year ago
@NIXIMvideo
Having just finished "The Grand Design", thought I'd comment. I think it's important to point out that what Hawking is actually saying isn't that "God was not required", he's saying "If this theory turns out being correct, there's no need to postulate a God". I was a bit disappointed with the book tbh as it seems a bit premature. In reality, they still seem to be miles off with M-theory. And from a purely philsophical point, it's already clear that 'God' is just added complication
chebob2009 1 year ago
Is anyone else fed up of arguments for God that are either arguments from ignorance or just wordplay. Please find some real evidence or just shut up arguing it til you do!
chebob2009 1 year ago
@RN1204
How does the Cambrian explosion make the bible make sense? There was basic life for about 3 billions years before the cambrian explosion. Why would God create life and then come back 3 billion years later and speed it up?
chebob2009 1 year ago
Are you arguing that any person who hasn't contributed as much to science as Eddington and Newton did is duty-bound to accept uncritically those men's speculations on the existence of otherworldly things? (If so, it appears I'll have to take another look at astrology.)
In any event, I'm not sure why I would look to experts on the NATURAL world to enlighten me about so-called SUPERNATURAL realms. Hardly seems like their field of expertise.
The whose thing simply SCREAMS "God of the gaps."
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@RN1204
Sorry, I don't remember saying or implying that you were. :)
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ChristianScholarship
Craig often displays an abject ignorance of the very scientific principles and concepts he uses to support his theological claims. This is very troubling.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ChristianScholarship So, Craig studied some aspect of the Bible during his undergraduate and graduate studies. He is more than likely qualified to comment on the social issues associated with Christ's teachings.
As soon as he opens his mouth regarding other subjects he doesn't understand or comprehend, he makes an idiot out of himself. His background has nothing to do with science or any field therein. He is out of his league as are you.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796
If you make that argument, be consistent and criticize Richard Dawkins for talking about philosophy and history when his field is Biology.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112 You are correct..Dawkins can be rude and insulting to Christians. His main issue is with the ignorant fundamentalist Creationist types.
Nonetheless, History and philosophy are non-technical fields. Anyone with basic reading skills can read and interpret history and the Bible. It takes a lot more to figure out math and the sciences in order to solve a differential equation, calculate the red-shift or work on the human genome. Craig lacks those skills.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 William Craig is a cosmologist...
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn This William Craig in NOT a cosmologist, or a physicist, or anything else science related. No publications, no research. He has a THEOLOGY background and try as he might, gives lectures misrepresenting science at fundamentalist churches.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
Craig's background is in philosophy and theology; he has no scientific training whatsoever.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot ty
acceptjesusorburn 1 year ago
@acceptjesusorburn
You're quite welcome.
Have you by chance watched Craig's debate with Shelly Kagan? Interesting stuff. Kagan manages to undermine several of Craig's more common (and flawed) arguments.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@jknengr796 You will get no argument from me that biology is an insanely complex field that Craig is not an expert in. However, I would disagree that anyone with reading skills can interperet the Bible. Most atheists and many christians have never read or studied the bible in their original hebrew and greek contexts. Doing so is an absolute necessity for understanding scripture and what it really means.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112
Odd for God to write a book that can only be truly understood in its original language(s); seems He could have come up with something more "accessible"...
Oh, well, I suppose even He has limitations...
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112
Not many people can read hebrew! How is it different from the english translation then?
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chebob2009 Hebrew simply does not line up with english. Translators have historically done the job of adding words and often this fudges up the real text. For instance, in Genesis: Our Bibles say God "breathed the breath of life into Adam." This seems literal, and creates a lot of issues for Theists arguing for the Bible, and provides a target for athiests. However, the Hebrew text has no such problem, because the word for "breath" is not physical breath, but is better translated as "spirit."
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@chebob2009 More examples: "There was morning and there was evening. The first day." The Hebrew, directly translated, says "morning'n'evening, day. This appears to show a figurative time period, with morning and evening simply serving as literary bookends, or simply using common hebrew words that are easily related with a starting and stopping point. In addition to this, people should understand ideas such as: nonexhaustive geneologies, figurative language, metaphor, and number bloating in Bible
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@chebob2009 My bottom line is that most people don't look into these things, and doing so clarifies many many things in these discussions, and eleviates many of the "problems" and "contradictions" people so often talk about.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112
I really don't see anything other than technicalities there though! The bottom line for most non-believers, (I'll stupidly assume I speak for them all) is that if you take any of these texts literally- they basically get things wrong. If you claim they're important metaphors, I think you really need to ask in what sense are they "true". I mean, you can find a good metaphor in any book.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@chebob2009 I think you should reread what I said. The nature of Adam's creation is by no means a technicality, nor is the length and nature of the creation days. I can cite other examples if you so wish.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@jknengr796 As far as history is concerned, Dawkins has shown with his commentaries on Communism and atheist dictatorships that he is absolutely dreadful at "interpereting" history. I will go into detail if you wish, just let me know.
Overall, I think your idea that "anyone" can interperet scripture either shows that you don't know much about biblical languages, or that you are being dishonest.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112 As far an "interpretation of the Bible" goes, how many Christian denominations are there? For that matter, also Jewish? So many "interpretations", but only your interpretation is the correct one, right?
I'm not the one who is being dishonest. It is people like Craig who use dishonesty and misleading logic to persuade the ignorant.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 the "correct" interpretation of the Bible is the one that correctly draws on the syntax, historical context, and linguistic and literary nature of the scripture. The person who does this is correct. It matters not whether it's "my" interpretation. My view is irrelevant, the truth matters. Granted, some passages remain mysterious, as is true of anything. But your argument about denomination is utterly irrelevant to what is true.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112 That is incorrect. Whose truth? To many denominations, particularly the fundamentalists sects, if you don't believe their interpretation if scripture, you are not a (insert religious faith here). They are fanatical about it to the point of lunacy. See the video above as perfect example or look up Ken Ham. *That* is why many people are leaving the church and losing their faith. God gave some of us a brain to use and figure out the wonders of this universe.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Man, you are just all over the place. I just told you that asking "whose" truth was meaningless, because the true context of the passage is correct and truthful. Dont bring up radicals, that is a seperate point from the fact that interpretation is the key. Who cares if nutjobs "think" they are right? Thats irrelevant. Im saying read and study the languages, that is how you get to the bottom of this. Forget denominations, they play no role in this discussion.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112 Sure, one can study the read the original languages and you will still get different interpretations. Biblical scholars debate this all the time often along denominational or philosophical lines.
Getting back on track. Craig is completely unqualified in the areas of Physics and Astronomy to which he is talking here. He may as well be giving advise on which vitamins you should take or how to design a bridge.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Unqualified in Physics and astronomy?
My friend, by your own logic, you are unqualified to make such an assumption.
You are not qualified to say so.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain You are incorrect. I have a background is Physics/Astronomy and Mathematics. Craig is not qualified and basically clueless. He should stick with what he is good at. Talking about faith issues, not science.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 I have no proof you have a degree of any kind. It is especially a low possibility you have a degree at all considering you feel the need to correct Dr Craig on a little known Youtube Video.
Secondly you also cannot simply say that he is unqualified to speak on Science without providing evidence that his Scientific statement is somehow incorrect.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain Anyone with a little background in Physics or or related subject can figure this out and laugh at his lack of knowledge exposed at a fundamentalist church. Why did he bother taping this?
These little known youtube videos can be entertaining to say the least.
BTW: B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Iowa State University and University of N D. Real Universities and real earned degrees. Unlike many of your creationist "Dr"'s who got theirs from diploma mills or from Theological colleges.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Lack of Knowledge? These are Scientific facts he is quoting, and whether or not he has a degree in such a field does nothing to discredit their validity.
Perhaps you'd like to offer evidence to refute his "mistakes" rather than attacking straw men?
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain Look up "straw man". That is what he does. Citing words like "chance", etc. His degrees are in THEOLOGY and NOT in any science related field. As far as evidence goes, there isn't enough room to type what can be found in hundreds of Physics and Astronomy related peer related journals. Look it up for yourself. Then again, you wouldn't understand it anyway. It takes a few degrees and years of work in the field, which Craig also lacks. That is why he is speaking at a CHURCH.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 None of what you say discredits his facts at all.
Please re-read the above statement.
You insist on this ad homenim style argumentation and it's not helping your case.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain
You don't even know what you are talking about. Craig is the one making ad-hominem argument;
1. Science (Physics related area) makes claim X (with supporting evidence).
2 Craig makes an attack on Science/Physics.
3 Therefore Science/Physics claim is false.
You need to learn some basic Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology.
Calculus is a pre-requisite though. Things are just too complicated to Craig (and you), therefore God did it. At least I use by God given brain to figure out how.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 He makes no attack on Science or Physics. I suggest you watch the video again and actually listen to it this time.
Secondly, your point, besides being incorrect, does nothing to refute Craig's point at all. Are you going to stop attacking the man and actually attempt to refute the belief in question? Which I do not believe you are capable of doing.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain The Physics of the Universe is just too "incomprehensible" and the "probabilities" are just too small. Quote mine a few scientists. Therefore, the Universe was "designed". This is Craig's video in a nutshell. He doesn't understand. Neither do you.
If Creationists could only offer up scientific peer reviewed evidence to support their position then they could be taken seriously. But, all they can do is be critical of (insert complicated science subject here).
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Those aren't attacks on Science or Physics. He's stating facts about probabilities and it's a straight fact that the chances of something occurring otherwise IS "incomprehensible". That's no attack. It's basic knowledge.
Secondly, Craig is not a Creationist.
Thirdly, "he doesn't understand" is not refuting what he said in any way.
You are being ENORMOUSLY critical of Craig with no evidence to support your position while accusing HIM of doing it to Science.
Hypocrisy much?
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain The probability is so "incomprehensible" that it HAD to have been "designed". Maybe so, but that is not a question for science to answer. Science answers "the how's". Religion can ask the "why's".
I'm being critical of Craig because he is delving into scientific areas for which he has NO background. He is a THEOLOGIAN.
I am a Professional Engineer and a researcher in cosmic background radiation. I don't practice giving medical advise. Get it?
jknengr796 1 year ago
"..facts about probabilities and it's a straight fact that the chances of something occurring otherwise IS "incomprehensible"."
The reality of small numbers and extremely low probability exists everywhere. What is the probability of you being struck by lightning 3 times over the next year? The sun going nova tomorrow? An earthquake hitting San Francisco tonight at 6pm? You winning the "megajackpot"? All are not zero but extremely small, therefor, there must be a designer.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@hayakain
There is so much information available to support my position in the physics of cosmology that one can't begin to describe it to you. Dozens of peer reviewed journals and texts comprising a library of information. More is learned everyday. And, some old ideas fall by the wayside. That is how science works.
A fast food employee like you doesn't have a lot of science or mathematics credibility. Go to school, get a degree. Maybe then you'll understand.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@hayakain
hey, in one of your comments you say, "Craig is not a creationist".. isn't a creationist someone that believes humanity, life, the earth, and the universe came into being by the supernatural.
how is Dr. craig not a creationist, he is a Christian, and this is what Christians believe from following the Bible.
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt The term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.
Craig does not necessarily reject these processes, because he believes that, God, as a being outside of time, would not be limited in the processes He could use to create.
Therefore, Craig is not a Creationist.
hayakain 1 year ago
@hayakain
oh ok, so even tho Dr. Craig doesn't necessarily believe evolution happened, hes still open to it but believes God used it
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@hayakain
im actually just asking you if its true or not, like why are you saying he is not a creationist, did you hear him say it on a debate or interview?
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@hayakain
The multi-verse theory dispenses with ALL of his points in a mere second. There's another reason why it's a dreadful argument - it assumes that the only possible life is like our own life. But surely an all powerful God could create life in any form he wanted? Life just floating through space? So to suggest that this universe is fine-tuned for life is to suggest that God only had one 'version' of life he could create. That sounds very un-Godlike. The argument ultimately does nothing!
chebob2009 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112 So, who is correct then?
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Depends on the subject or passage being discussed, and what the viewpoints are. I have said clearly how someone can correctly interperet a given biblical passage.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112 Tell me then, who has correctly interpreted the Bible. Who is right? Who is wrong? Give me some names of people. You? Me? Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? William Craig? Pope XXX? My pastor? Your pastor? Martin Luther? A Biblical theologian somewhere? A Biblical historian? The group of bishops in the 4th century who assembled the Bible? The Dalai Lama? Good luck. "That" has been debated for over 2000 years and will be debated as long as religion exists.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Ok you are obviously going to be a broken record. You could not possibly have read and understood what I just said if youre going ballistic like you just did. The Bible is 66 books, written over 1500 years by 44 people. Dont say idiotic things like "well who interprets the Bible correctly?" What passage? Whats the discussion? Throwing 1500 years of writing under one blanket and saying "who interprets it right??" is moronic, sir.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112 Here is some of what you have written: "The person who does this is correct. It matters not whether it's "my" interpretation" and "I have said clearly how someone can correctly interperet a given biblical passage."
It just begs for an answer. You were the one that brought that issue forth. I just wanted to know which "person" or "persons" you were talking about.
You just skirted the issue and can't answer my "idiotic" or "moronic" question.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@jknengr796 There are plenty of pastors and thinkers where I live that have showed me this. As well as my friends who share their experiences as they pursue degrees in ministry and theology. My pastor has a Masters of Theology in Biblical Languages, and I have learned a lot from him. But once again, before I can answer your question, you simply have to tell me what it is you would like to see interpreted. Think of an example from scripture, and I will do my best to answer.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@jknengr796 Or I could list commonly bad interpretations and translations, if you would rather me do that.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@jknengr796 it is a grave oversimplification to ask me for names of people who have correctly interpreted 1500 years of writing. Nobody does it in one swoop, and you should know better than to ask for that.
loudchristian2112 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112
His interpretation of those dictatorships looks spot-on to me. The problem isn't that they were non-believers, the problem is that they replaced religious ideology with another one. What all modern atheists are arguing for is NO IDEOLOGY. (if you think atheism is an ideology, you don't understand the way it's currently being used)
chebob2009 1 year ago
@loudchristian2112
Dawkins doesn't speak about philosophy, he starts the God delusion by stating that the existence of God is a scientific question so he treats it as one. As for history, only a historian is technically qualified to speak on the subject. The leuba poll showed that roughly 51% of historians are atheists, so it looks like Dawkins is following the majority opinion on that. When any christian says "historians agree...." they're usually about to tell you a great big lie.
chebob2009 1 year ago
@ChristianScholarship I did not say "his" degree was fraudulent. His "Ph.D" is in THEOLOGY. If it is truly earned, I question that.
Too many of the other creationists who tack on "Dr" in front of their names or "Ph.D" after DO have fraudulent degrees or degrees from diploma mills. They use that title to give the flock reason to argue from some sort of "authority". That is academically dishonest.
I have two degrees in Physics and a Ph.D in Engineering. I would say I am qualified.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@ChristianScholarship I'm sorry, but that does not qualify him. He is no more qualified than any of the other creationists with fraudulent degrees.
If his "Ph.D" were in the areas of Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Particle Physics or the like and if he was an active researcher, then THAT would qualify him. He then would be taken seriously by the science community and not laughed at because of his complete misrepresentation of, ignorance and lack of knowledge of science. My statement stands.
jknengr796 1 year ago
Craig is a "Research Professor" of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. His degrees are in Philosophy and Religion, NOT PHYSICS, ASTRONOMY or a related field.
He is as qualified to talk about this topic as he is on how to perform a heart valve replacement or to design and construct a roof truss. He is being academically dishonest by using is "Dr" title in a totally and completely unrelated area.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@DJC9189 Oh, I think I get ya now. Well, I suppose he's comparing it to a hypothetical universe? I'm not really sure. I'm not too adept in this field of study. But it's good to know that you have questions like that. I think it would be best if you asked him yourself. Like, message him at Reasonable Faith. He could give you a better answer than I could, that's for sure. I'll remember you in prayer, dear friend. God bless. :)
Addy4473 1 year ago
@DJC9189 answered your question? I hope lol. If not, just tell me.
Addy4473 1 year ago
@DJC9189 No problemo, com padre. :) I believe he illustrates the chances in order to show you how unlikely it is that the universe just popped into being. He compares intelligent design to naturalism and shows you which is more likely; the chances in a naturalistic world compared to the chances of their being an intelligent designer. It's more plausible to believe that an intelligent designer caused the universe rather than by chance alone, something came into being out of nothing. If that
Addy4473 1 year ago
@Addy4473
And yet there is no explanation for how or why this "designer" exists.
Replacing one mystery with another, larger mystery is not a satisfactory approach to truth-seeking.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@DJC9189 Well, seeing as how the multiverse theory is nothing but a what if basis, then the multi-verse theory is out of the question. There is no evidence to support that we are living in multiple universes; there is good evidence to believe, however, that there is only one universe, and that universe has an external cause, God. Even if we had multiverses, they couldn't have just popped into being, or have eternal roots. They were placed here by an external cause; God. :) God bless you sir.
Addy4473 1 year ago
@DJC9189 You still haven't debunked him, friend. :) Jesus loves you indeed. :)
Addy4473 1 year ago
God bless Dr. Craig. He is blessed with intellect. :)
Addy4473 1 year ago
@DJC9189 Says a youtube atheist. I believe he knows what hes talking about. You're just mad because he is right. But Jesus loves you anyways. :) God bless you.
Addy4473 1 year ago
You also fail to realize that our universe isn't designed for life, considering we can't survive in 99.9 percent of it, and the small part tries to kill us all the time.
hlyleh 1 year ago
Forth alternative, there is no fine tuning and if the universe had come out different some other form of intelligent life would have evolved and thought they were fine tuned as well.
hlyleh 1 year ago
excellent video on a propbable scenario, with good support.
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
Can somebody please argue from a differing stand point than Craig. I wanna hear some arguments from people who believe differently from Craig.
jomokariuki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jomokariuki "I wanna hear some arguments from people who believe differently from Craig."
Fine Tuned Universe Fallacy
watch?v=vwu1wEiTAyc&feature=related
OptimisticCynic715 1 year ago
His argument falls on it's face when he said..... "We now know....." So... how do we now know.... Oh! science....I see
RealityofThings 1 year ago
@RealityofThings What? His argument is pretty air tight. Go ahead, try to debunk it. God bless you. :)
Addy4473 1 year ago
Presupposition proves nothing... It's pretty embarrassing watching Craig go through the motions of proving what he's implicitly assumed.
Epistemofo 1 year ago
Is stupidity, and intellectual prejudice a prerequisite of Christianity??
Craig himself can't seem to understand that his premise is CONTINGENT on a PRESUPPOSITION that the universe is the purposeful product of an intelligent designer.
He actually premises his argument with an arbitrary declaration, that it is "designed" by a "creator", in order to prove what he has declared , "by fiat"!!
And people actually accept this fallacy!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Ha!! I just listened to Craig again!! Yeech!!
I don't know who I'm more disgusted at - Craig himself, or the people who are taken in by this truly lousy argument.!
Ever notice how evangelists attempt to form your conclusions for you and try to limit what possibilities you can draw from?
Look at his origins trichotomy, for example:
"The physical process of the universe is either - necessary as it exists, random, or designed" -
HA!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
because its just a joke.
starlogic99 1 year ago
I'm fascinated by this ridicuous argument for gods:
"Dr Blah of ***!?! University says that if ( insert your own physical law) Which is a billion to one, hadn't been this way, life could not exist....
Well, it is that way, and life does exist!! - Deal with it!!
Absolutely EVERY occurrance that ever happened, is one of billions of possibilities. If it hadn't happened that way it would exist in a different way . What exists, exists!
Craig is either dishonest or extraordinarily illogical.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim By this statement you are demonstrating your unfamiliarity of the fine tuning argument. The argument doesn't say that without the fine tuning, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but rather atoms, molecules, planets and stars wouldn't exist. Chemistry wouldn't exist which would make ANY form of life impossible.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 " Chemistry wouldn't exist which would make ANY form of life impossible"
I didn't misunderstand anything - That is precisely the point!!
Chemistry DOES exist!
There's still no evidence for a purposeful, fine tuned design, by an intelligence.
Indeed it is incredible human arrogance to anthropomorpisize "design" or fine "tuning" to our own definitions of what we have designed.
Or to define OUR creativity, as a system that a "greater intelligence" would emmulate
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@gmh1206 "By this statement you are demonstrating your unfamiliarity of the fine tuning argument."
Isn't it astounding narrow-mindedness, to assume, that what exists, is the perfect purposeful objective of ANY designer?
What are you saying is the end objective , the purpose, of this designer?
What are the odds against a different, but specific scenario?
I think you will find that the chances of ANYTHING happening are exactly the same:
A prediction: Almost zero
An observation:1 to 1
Tobytrim 1 year ago
God doesn't have a beginning, the Universe does.. if you guys think is totally acceptable the universe be eternal, why not God?
CharlesFernando7 1 year ago
@CharlesFernando7 how can you be so stupid in one sentence
123columbo123 1 year ago
Such hatred guys. Why does every Christian video on the internet have so many negative, mean comments from nonbelievers? If you don't believe, that is your choice - but just know that for those of us who do believe, your "logical" arguments change nothing. You can say what you want, but it is clear that you have no understanding of what it is like to know God, and that relationship goes beyond any Earthly knowledge, logic and reason. Why would God be *easy* to believe in? It's called faith.
laceyg 1 year ago
@laceyg "Why does every Christian video on the internet have so many negative, mean comments from nonbelievers?"
Are you joking? I get tons of negative and rude comments on my videos from Christians. I recently had a Christian suggest I commit suicide. Don't tell me all Christians are kind and all atheists are mean. You ignore rude and arrogant Christians because you want to.
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
@laceyg "but just know that for those of us who do believe, your "logical" arguments change nothing"
Which immediately voids your right to try to use reason to defend your "faith".
I would point out that the guy in the video is preaching a sermon under the guise of pure logic. He even seems to be going so far as to say that atheism ( Non belief in HIS particular deity) is "illogical" !
I think it's only fair that atheists should show his "flock", exactly how bad his reasoning is.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
Hahaha, still kicking ass I see, toby...
Hey I got another guy I've been ignoring. Want to give him a shot?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger "Hahaha, still kicking ass I see, toby.."".
Ha ha! ..Yeah Weed..I'm particularly glad when somebody posts this W.L. Craig cosmological crap or any epistomology/ontology. But Craig makes the incredibly irrational sound perfectly feasible BEFORE it is
actually challenged. To me, that epitomizes an evangelistic sermon.
Would you believe, I think I was actually blocked on Craigs own channel before I was ever allowed to comment?!! So tell me more or post a link
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
Craigs channel doesn't allow any comments anymore.
Here, this guy's on this vid "The "Logic" of Creationists"
wallyjude3.
He's a pretty simple guy, I just didn't feel like getting into it with him more than I did. My tastes have run more political lately, than Creationists.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger "Craigs channel doesn't allow any comments anymore"
No weed, I was purposefully blocked, from the word go, whilst there were still recent comments on the board.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
Oh... I see I've been ignoring him too long. He's missing from that page now.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Pity weed....You had perked my curiosity, I can't get a decent comment box debate these days - they've all knocked the pieces all over the place and taken their gameboard home - Nay....They've hidden it, along with themselves!!
Nephilimfree and gunther both blocked me too , as soon as the going got tough and Dr WL Craig won't even let me post an introductory question!
Nephy's on the street these days, I hear, did you know of him!
What's wrong with theists these days??
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim
Nah, neph's not on the street. Still milking his living from his "roommate's" SSI benefits.
There aren't any good ones these days. The one I was going to send your way was doing some basic creationist bullshit...
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago