He said he's not comfortable debating. Are you surprised he's nervous while Craig is as close as he can be to a professional debater? Wow. You're not as smart as you think.
well i think that lawrence lost that debate because is scientific knowleg is to high compare to the audiance, some one whose not as educateted as him could be easly be lost wich trigger a mind shut off,than come lane that speak the langage of emotion and you do not need to be an intellect to feel emotion,emotion is not logic nor it can be rationnolize
in other term it sould be call,logic and reason against emotion intellect
I can`t believe that 130 people voted for Krauss and 100 thought it was a draw. I`m a unemployed security guard with no academic qualifications yet I think I could have won this debate against Krauss he was that bad.
I think a dishonest element of the audience voted for him because Dr.Craig wiped the floor with him without even trying.
@FeignofCordor Well his point is that it doesnt matter how we feel about the circumstance we find ourselves. Our beliefs dont matter. if we wipe ourselves off this planet the universe will carry on.
Even though I don't think that WLC's arguments or conclusions are very meaningful, and LK wasn't at his best, it was a nice debate. Thanks for posting it.
It started out with 'God' being a term meaning the cause of the universe. I'm ok with that definition, if that's what the speakers use the term for. But then it kind of "spaced out" into including specifically bronze-aged Middle-Eastern stories. :-( Too sad. I'd love to see more debates without that last "spacing out" part.
Craig simply labels the cause of the universe as god. Does this make me a theist? It's a terrible argument :P
It's like when a tribesman says that his totem pole is his god. Okay, I believe in his totem pole! That doesn't mean his claims for the supernatural powers and stories about his totem pole are in any way true. William Lane Craig provides deistic arguments, there's no way he can link that to the bible or Jesus or any of his unjustified supernatural beliefs
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Maybe if you actually watched to the video you'd see why Dr. Craig thinks God is the creator of the universe. It wouldn't do you any good to plug your ears when you watch this video. That helps.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Ha. All past "gods" and present day interdimensional "aliens" all have IDENTICLE properties and qualities to fallen angels aka demons.Furthermore all these beings (among others they also pose as) flee at the name of Jesus Christ and this is something I have not only studied but have experienced and the only thing you can do to "prove" me wrong is SIMPLE DENIAL against IMPROBABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. How that for "beliefs". Please. You are religiously indoctrinated to think I am.
This is amazing...a philosophers vs a physicist arguing about physics, and yet its the philosopher who clearly comes out the winner!!
Perhaps its because Krauss didnt realise he was making philosophical arguments, as demonstrated by his stumble into verificationalism ("I only believe when can be scientifically proven") which is a self-refuting philosophical position!
Why is it that scientists like Dawkins/Krauss et.al dismiss philosophy, yet use the worlds worst philosophical arguments?
The argument is that everything that exists has a cause. The problem is, everything that we know to exist, exists within space and time. The universe doesn't exist within space and time. It IS space and time. One can not use the same criteria for causation for objects within the universe that they would use for the universe itself.
@jordaniac89 The argument is whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. There are many things we know that do NOT depend on space and time to exist: for instance, mathematics, abstract ideas, logic, etc.
@drcraigvideos How do concepts not also exist within space and time? Space and time are absolutely needed to have abstract concepts. Without two temporal states, there would be no way to even HAVE abstract ideas. But this all may be irrelevant anyway, since things can pop into existence from nothing. It's called quantum mechanics. Watch Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing".
@jordaniac89 Numbers, etc. are NOT dependent on space and time, genius. The number two would exist with or without space and time. Numbers don't exist in temporal states because they're universal, invariant, and eternal. And I watched that lecture by Krauss. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT QUANTUM MECHANICS CAN BRING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. The vacuum is energy. That isn't nothing. Did YOU watch the lecture? Even in this debate Krauss agreed with Craig.
@drcraigvideos What makes you think that numbers would exist outside of the universe? Numbers are a concept that we humans have invented to make logical deductions based on things that we observe, almost like a scale if you will, and surely it stands to reason that outside the universe, the rules of mathematics would be at the least very different? For instance, pi would have a different value in a universe where the shape of a circle is different.
@cdplayerx50 Numbers are universal and invariant, genius. We didn't invent or make them. They are discovered. Numbers are not material in any way shape or form. You can't put it into a science tube. Better thinking scientists know that numbers are not dependent on physical reality. They're presupposed.
@drcraigvideos Almost all numbers are made up - numbers 2, 3, 4, etc are just symbols we use to represent sets of 1s, and which make mathematics a lot easier. There are only 5 numbers (from my understanding) which are fundamental constants in mathematics: e, i, pi, 1 and 0, and which can together define any number in the universe. However, they are all related via something called the Euler relation, so if 1 of these numbers was slightly different in another universe, all of maths would change.
@cdplayerx50 LOL! You don't know what you're talking about, do you? It's bad enough you skipped and dodged everything I said, you actually think that numbers can be slightly different in another universe. No matter what universe you have mathematics and numbers are necessary. If you think that numbers are made-up and invented, then have it your way. I'll take reality seriously though.
Exactly...And the principles of thermodynamics, say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Also, the equation E=cm2 means that matter and energy are actually the same thing.
This means that the universe did not came from nothing, but its eternal, infinite and has no beginning, has not been created and it cant be destroyed. The universe just changes its form naturally, eternally and by the laws of physics.
@jordaniac89 Universe did begin to exist.IT is expanding it can be trased back to practically beginning.Its also ageing.How can something eternal age?
@MrUrosSrb I'm just jumping in here, so I haven't seen the rest of your conversation - I might very well agree with you, except the answer to your question is:
easily. no one said that the universe would exist eternally as it is now.
@MrUrosSrb It may have come from an eternal state, before the big bang. perhaps the singularity was eternal, perhaps there was no singularity and our universe sprung from an eternal hyperspace multiverse.
No, we aren't sure that the universe began to exist at the big bang. Most physicists are leaning away from that now, towards some sort of multiverse.
Thanks for posting this, man! I have listened to Hitchen's debates (which I love) and I love listening to Sam Harris debates, but Lawrence Krauss makes some of the best points I have heard for skepticism and open discussion concerning the universe and our place in it. And although its very clear that Craig is the better debater, I don't think I agree with any of his main points. Thanks again, drcraigvideos.
Can anyone find the proof that Dr. Krauss aludes to around 32:30? I took numerous courses that involved infinite series, and everything I know tells me that his claim is either misstated or false. As an engineering student, I always understood that the infinites we worked with were purely theoretical and that an actual infinite is impossible. It's strange to me that so many atheist mathematicians have the opposite view.
@JWHurwitz Try godfrey harold hardy's "divergent series". You can see a preview on google books. He was a famous professor of mathematics at Cambridge in England. He shows that 1+2+3+4 .... is summable to -1/12. You cant use philosophical arguments to see this since it is non-trivial. It can only really be seen with the precise logical framework of mathematics. As you probably know, there are many different types of infinity; countable, continuum, power of continuum and so on.
So nothing exists without a cause. Which means the universe must have a cause. But since we don't know what that cause is, we're gonna say a causeless creator created it?..... and theists don't see what's wrong with that?
@23NaLi "So nothing exists without a cause." Yes. If u think something can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing then suit urself. "Which means the universe must have a cause." He gave arguments as to why and how the universe had a cause. Why dodge it? "But since we don't know what that cause is, we're gonna say a causeless creator created it?..... and theists don't see what's wrong with that?" No. He says space and time started at the singularity, thus God must be uncaused. Duh!
@drcraigvideos You can't say everything has a cause and God is uncaused at the same time... You can't use "everything has a cause" as an argument for something that doesn't have a cause (god).
@23NaLi Sure, you can. There are many things that don't have causes. For instance, the laws of logic, mathematics, abstract ideas, etc. I can go on and on.
@23NaLi What you don't see is that it's futile to try to speculate about the begging of God. Can you see God? We know so little about him. All we know is what we see in the nature and, for us Christians, what Jesus and the other prophets told us.
For now, I'm satisfied with the thought that He is out of the continuum space-time.
There is no evidence for or against God. To believe or not to believe in God is a personal choice and should be respected. Don't try to prove or disprove God because simply nobody can. My personal choice is not to believe in it. My purpose of life is to make more friends than enemies. I don't care about heaven or hell.
@FeLiNe418 The problem with this attitude is religion involves itself politically. It insists on forcing itself onto other people's lives. It is constantly trying to make its way into science classes when it is not science. It causes people to oppose science, like the cancellation of the LHC Dallas project because it would not "help us find God". It causes war, violence, and intolerance. Irrational beliefs don't automatically deserve respect just because someone believes in something earnestly.
William Lane Craig is insane and should keep his opinions to his self. Hitchens said it best these people should be standing on the corner selling pencils from a cup. He is a pathological lair. HE IS A MAD MAN!
@BIGSTRO64 As a non-Christian, you should be ashamed for thinking that it is acceptable to call sane people mad. I do not know a single non-Christian who thinks that way.
You can debate whether or not big foot is real. You can lose that debate and still be correct. Craig is a professional debater. Krauss is an educator. The big bang happened. That is demonstrable. I will gladly side with science on the little bit of room left (gap) for god. Eventually there will be no room left.
@Johnf85 Dr. Craig has 2 PhDs and 2 Masters and graduated Summa Cum Laude and has countless peer reviewed articles. You can skip and dodge and plug your ears every time his CV comes up but reality is a good thing. Embrace it. Please don't make excuses for the fact that Krauss is a complete wack-job and that he got his butt handed to him in this debate.
@Johnf85 considering Craig is ALSO an educator, you haven't really made any point. As it stands, we have two educators, one of whom sucks at debating.
I hate to say it, but Craig is a better debater than Krauss. I think that Krauss really shines when he lectures, but Craig has obviously done this sort of thing before.
@B2tmfG Craig gave attributes to God in the argumentative sense, genius. Not literally. If I said, "You have your father's smile" that doesn't mean you literally have your father's mouth.
@Falcondick69 If you were a student and had Krauss as you teacher, you would be a physics student and every physics student with a brain would love to study under Krauss. He is one of the worlds leading physicists involved in some of the most advanced science being done today.
But I´m sure that you would know and understand physics better than him, right?
My favorite part of this page is the description section. The poster lists the "cards", or votes, for which debater made the "clearer/better presentation". He concludes "Yup, Dr. Craig pretty much roasted Dr. Krauss" as if the audience at NC State was unbiased. A comparison between pre- and post- debate votes on the topic of the debate would be a better test. I don't know why I was surprised that someone who would post a WLC video would fail to understand basic data analysis techniques.
@sgavin111 I'm sorry, you're right. I'll take back everything I said and say this: "Any fair-minded audience member who votes for William Lane Craig as the winner automatically disqualifies as a fair-minded voter. And even though William Lane Craig got most of the votes as the winner, the voters were really thinking of Krauss as the winner." Happy, now? You are clearly a fair and unbiased person.
The votes in a debate like this are largely irrelevant. That WLC got 286 votes only proves that the majority of the audience was religious. And the exact same would likely apply if a majority of the audience were atheists. People are far too biased over this topic to be properly objective in assessing such a thing.
@sgavin111 I would also add that asking who made the clearer/better presentation is of secondary importance to who made the best argument. One does not necessary determine the other. It is the job of the viewer to sift through whatever factors are distracting in order to reach the truth. If the seemingly bumbling fool (not speaking of Krauss here, he in general did all right) is in fact the holder of the truth then he should be acknowledged and damn be the oratorical prowess of his opponent.
If God wrote, "I am here" in the stars than that would be evidence. So any kind of order in the universe instead of what seems random, would be evidence for God. Well, we see order everywhere in the Universe, so thank you Krauss for proving that God exists.
@BankHeistVideos It's also those same 90% who would concede that science doesn't take God belief away. If you think that Craig is a joke among the "scientific community" then tell that to George Ellis who complimented Craig's work on the beginning of the universe and knows more about physics than Krauss. When Krauss tells me that 2+2=5, I'm afraid he's not being scientific. When Krauss says that Aritotelean Logic is wrong, that tells me he's out of his mind.
@drcraigvideos Long agoo, a lot of mystical schools thought of science as the proof of devine existence. I personally am a science fanatic :-) I believe there is a 'greater mind' at work here, and i believe we are a representation of that 'infinite mind's' "infinite thoughts". But to attribute human characteristics to that infinite devine, and assume it gives a crap about our lousy little meaningless existence... that's something only humans can invent ;) Hence i dislike any form of religion.
@Gazdo01 Uh, yeah, a room full of Christians at a secular university. I'll concede you don't need a majority vote to see who won, but it's obvious that Craig whipped Krauss.
@drcraigvideos LOL youre delusional... one man is talking about science while the other is speaking out of his ass about some imaginary entity... stupidity bleeds on the internet...
@ripdoggie If you actually stopped plugging your ears when Craig spoke you'd know he brought up scientific evidence. Gee, Craig is only a philosopher of science. In atheism, man's thoughts are just brain gas. Talk about talking out of your ass! Please try to be fair next time. Okay?
@ripdoggie OH NO in your comment you have founded the origins of the universe and there for because you say it is so god does not exist well Mr all knowledgeable how can be 100% certain :L you are right though stupidity does bleed on the internet
@LowdenFretter i find his speech full of incoherent babbling, like he couldn't even organize his thoughts and simply says the next thing he could think of
@LowdenFretter soooo using notes is a sign that you are trying to tangle the audience up with nonsense? Then Sam Harris is guilty of that. Great logic there!
i find it amusing that people use science and evidence to prove the existance of an entity that if existed, could not be proven, controlled or even comprehended by science.
@peterzoidberg There's a lot of things you can't prove with science, genius. You can't even determine aesthetics with science. You can't even prove the laws of logic with science. Science presupposes logic.
@LowdenFretter "Genius can be measured." Then get a higher IQ. Science has no way of knowing what art is. It has no opinion on the subject whatsoever. Are you really this naive? And I didn't say that science needs to prove logic. I said it presupposes it. And I never said that science can't prove certain things therefore God exists. Try your best not to stereotype Christians. And get a brain. Something to think about: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY
@peterzoidberg Saying that the entity, if existed, could not be proven, controlled or comprehended is merely an assertion on your part. First you need to demonstrate those three things to be true before you can state them as fact. If something can't be proven and verified by the use of the scientific method then the default position should always be non-belief. Should we believe in fairies because science can't disprove them? Or unicorns? I think not.
@LowdenFretter what i said doesnt mean one should believe in god because there is no evidence to disprove him, thats not what i meant. what i mean is, that god ( as believed by believers) cannot be comprehended by the human mind, hence he cannot be scientifically proven, i cant prove something by proving that it cant be proven ^^
@peterzoidberg "i find it amusing that people use science and evidence to prove the existance of an entity that if existed, could not be proven, controlled or even comprehended by science."
If you find that amusing, you must find it positively hilarious that theists think they can comprehend what lies beyond science, when humans accept but barely comprehend the nature that science reveals.
I don't understand why creationists even post videos like this, unless they purposely want to embarrass themselves. Not once has a creationist given a remotely structured, not to mention compelling, argument for their belief.
@grobarson3 "I don't understand why creationists even post videos like this.." Me too. I'm not a creationist. William Lane Criag is not a creationist. Wait a minute, you silly goose, you don't think Krauss is a creationist, do you?
Craigs argument has and always will be... "god did it so that means god did it". He's a fucking piece of shit that tries to make religion sounds technical LOL.
@lq4fcrx7 LOL! You're non-technical comment is incredibly sophisticated. I guess we're back to the ol' "blind and mindless and unintelligent and dead nature did it" argument that atheists would have us believe.
@Yonada Uh, yeah, the quantum vaccuum (which is a sea of energy) is nothing. Nothing gets passed you, Yanada-poo. Please, live and learn: watch?v=g6kMWSo-Jz0 and watch?v=_xAP06ykvZM
@lq4fcrx7 This in no way disproves Dr. Craig's arguments. He makes religion sound "technical" because he cannot afford to prove the validity of God in a language that is unintelligible and immature.Truly, you must have some deep reasoning behind why he is a "p.o.s", and why he is any different from you.You stupidly asperse a brilliant man, who even world acclaimed atheist respect and pay homage to. Even the likes of Sam Harris can speak kindly of Craig. Who are you? Troll along infidel
@gaboski008 What do atheists believe? They are identified by a lack of believe in any god. Frequently this is the result of an empirical world view that doesn't accept anything on 'belief' but upon evidence derived by the senses. There are very few atheists that claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist.
@meslud So, to be enlightened you have to ridicule people? Well, okay, you're an ingnoramous with a pea brain - so, how'd I do? Does that ridicule prove I'm more enlightened than you?
@drcraigvideos 'So, to be enlightened you have to ridicule people? Well, okay, you're an ingnoramous with a pea brain - so, how'd I do? Does that ridicule prove I'm more enlightened than you?'
Krauss gives QM as an example of something violating the rules of Classical Logic, of which the Law of Non-contradiction is one.--Wrong. Something existing in two places at one time is no more contradictory than something existing in one place at two different times. Though a single object existing in two places at once may violate our Newtonian conception of space, QM nowhere shows something can both be and not be at same place and time, which WOULD be a formal contradiction. Nice try Krauss.
@grunderlyme Yes, something existing in two places at one time is completely different that one thing being at two places at one time. We describe the trajectory of an object as a function of time. A function is single valued at any point in its domain. In QM, we still have probability functions that are functions of time. This is completely different that denying that we do not have a function of time.
@jaycpanchal I don't know what your goal was in making this comment. Do we really need to call people stupid? It is hard for me to take someone seriously who reverts to name calling.
@jaycpanchal ROMANS 1:22-23. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles***
@jaycpanchal The atheists are by far the more mean-spirited side in these debates and your comment is a nice illustration of this fact. I don't think you would find a person on the other side making such a manifestly absurd statement because they are so disdainful of someone who disagrees with them. They would be able to acknowledge that Dr. Krauss is a very smart man even though they believe him to be wrong. This is the case because, contra the sanctimonious bluster of atheists, they are the mo
2+2=4 can be demonstrated via logic alone; "rape is objectively wrong" cannot. Rapists don't consider rape immoral, and in the absence of a logical argument, and a UNIVERSAL consesus, objective morals don't exist.
2. Maybe those people never existed and their accounts were fabricated (and the unbelievers/skeptics/enemies were added to try to make the story more credible... which didn't work, btw);
If one of your 3 theories could be true, then they would have been exposed right from the beginning.
And if you come up with ridiculous statements that the disciples never existed, well excuse me genius, but you need to study history.
If you deny the existence of the disciples or Jesus, you might as well doubt the existence of Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra, Nero, Constantine, or any other ancient figure.....
@jefersontorres if you are agnostic then you are also an atheist (however the opposite is not true). Suppose you are 'agnostic' then you are not a theist: so you are an a-theist
this "probability inequality" is pseudo-mathematics. If he wants to actually apply probability theory correctly he needs to specify a probability space, a probability measure P and then define what event G=god exists in this space represents.
David Hume didn't need probability theory to know what "evidence" means.
Anyone ever change their mind after listening to a debate? Has a christian become an atheist or atheist suddenly except jesus following a debate about god? Theist think WLC won and atheist think Krauss won, right? total waste of time
Atheism-the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magicallyexploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
I can't believe people are still using the "who created god" argument. First of all, you don't need to know where God comes from to acknowledge the obvious fact that God exists. Also, the reason everything needs a beginning is because of time. If there was no time, we would all be infinite, and there would be no need for a creator. That's what God is. He created everything we know. He created time, space, matter, etc. So he needs no creator, because that is merely a law of the world he created.
Everyone is religious, regardless of whether they are scientific or not. Naturalism and atheism possess all the epistemological characteristics of religious belief systems. We are compelled by neurobiology to make certain foundational assumptions regarding ontological ideas, and for some areas of beliefs, no empirically neutral position is possible.
The philosophically illiterate atheists are the worst are understanding this.
If you're ashamed of being religious then that is your problem. Please do not project your shame on others. You're playing a meaningless semantics game when you expand the definition of religious to include those arguing against it. Naturalism is a scientific construct that simply appeals to no miraculous phenomenon. It is a process of observation, experiment, and theory. Unlike religion it makes no claim of an absolute truth.
@ 1:57:50 Krauss says the the reason he has a bias against miracles is because he's never seen one in the thirty years he's studied the universe...lol...what does he think he's been looking at this whole time? Hysterical...
@AWEF321 Actually it's atheists and atheist scientists that claim "Just because we don't understand something"....well, believers in a divine creator DO understand...it's atheists that don't......1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies (evolution and the zillion year old man, we have a genealogy that goes back to Adam and Eve, not zillions of years old, we do not have an endless genealogy), which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
@shadapple You can assert anything you like but that does not make it true. What DO you understand exactly ? Proove that you understand what a god is rather than just assert it.
@lexidart You cannot call the Universe a miracle. A miracle is an event that takes place outside of the laws of nature. If Jesus actually resurrected (which I still say he didn't), you would call that a miracle because according to the laws of nature, dead people do not come back to life. The fact that we don't understand the beginning of the universe yet (or possibly never will) doesn't make that event a miracle outside of natural laws.
@torontoBluejays87 You're the atheist who thinks that life came from non-life, so who are you to talk about miracles and the irrationality of a resurrection?
@torontoBluejays87 why does a miracle have to be something that happens outside the laws of nature? why can't it be just something extremely improbable (but logical) but happens nonetheless at the right place at the right time :P lol but that's just my own definition of it :))
At about 1:18: Krauss truly begins to sink his own ship. it appears to me that WLC has had to do little but give his adversary more rope. Sorry for the mixed metaphor. Rationality in and of itself defines nothing, not even morality. I've often used the Undefinable Morality Premise in a Godless System to de
i watched all these debates... and i see no reason whatsoever to question my faith.
MrKerpelWatson 2 weeks ago
0:28:20 One does not simply "teach quantum mechanics."
Mikesapien 3 weeks ago
Krauss looked like a clown up there...smh...
ATLMastering 3 weeks ago
@ATLMastering
He said he's not comfortable debating. Are you surprised he's nervous while Craig is as close as he can be to a professional debater? Wow. You're not as smart as you think.
TheMessiersAndromeda 2 weeks ago
well i think that lawrence lost that debate because is scientific knowleg is to high compare to the audiance, some one whose not as educateted as him could be easly be lost wich trigger a mind shut off,than come lane that speak the langage of emotion and you do not need to be an intellect to feel emotion,emotion is not logic nor it can be rationnolize
in other term it sould be call,logic and reason against emotion intellect
mystisme 1 month ago 3
@mystisme
Of course emotion can be rationalized. It's all do do with the brain. Emotion isn't some mysterious thing that we can't explain.
ChainsawVsGod 1 month ago
lol
Oaktrye 1 month ago
I can`t believe that 130 people voted for Krauss and 100 thought it was a draw. I`m a unemployed security guard with no academic qualifications yet I think I could have won this debate against Krauss he was that bad.
I think a dishonest element of the audience voted for him because Dr.Craig wiped the floor with him without even trying.
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor are u trolling???
BlackMoridin 1 month ago
Krauss " One of the great things about science is that its taught us that the Universe is like it is whether we like it or not" Such wisdom......not.
Perhaps the worst attempt I have listen to against God`s existence.
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor Well his point is that it doesnt matter how we feel about the circumstance we find ourselves. Our beliefs dont matter. if we wipe ourselves off this planet the universe will carry on.
dawtchins 1 month ago 8
Craig says the same things every time he gets time to speak. Things change, but his opinions stay the same. Winning.
onund2 1 month ago
lawrence krauss is the man!
paladin267 1 month ago 27
Even though I don't think that WLC's arguments or conclusions are very meaningful, and LK wasn't at his best, it was a nice debate. Thanks for posting it.
It started out with 'God' being a term meaning the cause of the universe. I'm ok with that definition, if that's what the speakers use the term for. But then it kind of "spaced out" into including specifically bronze-aged Middle-Eastern stories. :-( Too sad. I'd love to see more debates without that last "spacing out" part.
0debug 1 month ago
Craig simply labels the cause of the universe as god. Does this make me a theist? It's a terrible argument :P
It's like when a tribesman says that his totem pole is his god. Okay, I believe in his totem pole! That doesn't mean his claims for the supernatural powers and stories about his totem pole are in any way true. William Lane Craig provides deistic arguments, there's no way he can link that to the bible or Jesus or any of his unjustified supernatural beliefs
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago 25
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Maybe if you actually watched to the video you'd see why Dr. Craig thinks God is the creator of the universe. It wouldn't do you any good to plug your ears when you watch this video. That helps.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Ha. All past "gods" and present day interdimensional "aliens" all have IDENTICLE properties and qualities to fallen angels aka demons.Furthermore all these beings (among others they also pose as) flee at the name of Jesus Christ and this is something I have not only studied but have experienced and the only thing you can do to "prove" me wrong is SIMPLE DENIAL against IMPROBABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. How that for "beliefs". Please. You are religiously indoctrinated to think I am.
SuperSam424 1 week ago
This is amazing...a philosophers vs a physicist arguing about physics, and yet its the philosopher who clearly comes out the winner!!
Perhaps its because Krauss didnt realise he was making philosophical arguments, as demonstrated by his stumble into verificationalism ("I only believe when can be scientifically proven") which is a self-refuting philosophical position!
Why is it that scientists like Dawkins/Krauss et.al dismiss philosophy, yet use the worlds worst philosophical arguments?
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
wow Krauss thoroughly embarrassed himself.. its sad to see a great physicist say extremely stupid things. Craig eviscerated him
FruitGod 1 month ago
It is always fun to watch debates between theism and atheism.
openmind01011101 1 month ago
The reason this is only 75% thumbs up is all the atheists pissed off their guy got spanked
mbelma6329 2 months ago
Krauss was pretty awesome in this debate, although it was disappointing that he didn't play the Feynman clip.
hendrix5045 2 months ago 2
The argument is that everything that exists has a cause. The problem is, everything that we know to exist, exists within space and time. The universe doesn't exist within space and time. It IS space and time. One can not use the same criteria for causation for objects within the universe that they would use for the universe itself.
jordaniac89 2 months ago 3
@jordaniac89 The argument is whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. There are many things we know that do NOT depend on space and time to exist: for instance, mathematics, abstract ideas, logic, etc.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos How do concepts not also exist within space and time? Space and time are absolutely needed to have abstract concepts. Without two temporal states, there would be no way to even HAVE abstract ideas. But this all may be irrelevant anyway, since things can pop into existence from nothing. It's called quantum mechanics. Watch Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing".
jordaniac89 2 months ago
@jordaniac89 Numbers, etc. are NOT dependent on space and time, genius. The number two would exist with or without space and time. Numbers don't exist in temporal states because they're universal, invariant, and eternal. And I watched that lecture by Krauss. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT QUANTUM MECHANICS CAN BRING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. The vacuum is energy. That isn't nothing. Did YOU watch the lecture? Even in this debate Krauss agreed with Craig.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos What makes you think that numbers would exist outside of the universe? Numbers are a concept that we humans have invented to make logical deductions based on things that we observe, almost like a scale if you will, and surely it stands to reason that outside the universe, the rules of mathematics would be at the least very different? For instance, pi would have a different value in a universe where the shape of a circle is different.
cdplayerx50 2 months ago
@cdplayerx50 Numbers are universal and invariant, genius. We didn't invent or make them. They are discovered. Numbers are not material in any way shape or form. You can't put it into a science tube. Better thinking scientists know that numbers are not dependent on physical reality. They're presupposed.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos Almost all numbers are made up - numbers 2, 3, 4, etc are just symbols we use to represent sets of 1s, and which make mathematics a lot easier. There are only 5 numbers (from my understanding) which are fundamental constants in mathematics: e, i, pi, 1 and 0, and which can together define any number in the universe. However, they are all related via something called the Euler relation, so if 1 of these numbers was slightly different in another universe, all of maths would change.
cdplayerx50 2 months ago
@cdplayerx50 LOL! You don't know what you're talking about, do you? It's bad enough you skipped and dodged everything I said, you actually think that numbers can be slightly different in another universe. No matter what universe you have mathematics and numbers are necessary. If you think that numbers are made-up and invented, then have it your way. I'll take reality seriously though.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos
Exactly...And the principles of thermodynamics, say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Also, the equation E=cm2 means that matter and energy are actually the same thing.
This means that the universe did not came from nothing, but its eternal, infinite and has no beginning, has not been created and it cant be destroyed. The universe just changes its form naturally, eternally and by the laws of physics.
God did not created anything and its useless.
JawaRedSteel 2 months ago
@JawaRedSteel *SIGH* Please drop the junk science: watch?v=hf90iRas-Xk
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@JawaRedSteel I think Edwin Hubble would laugh in your face at this statement.
DiatonicSoul 2 months ago
@JawaRedSteel
that is a law of thermodynamics it only applys when you already have a universe
lxAgnosticxl 2 months ago
@jordaniac89 Universe did begin to exist.IT is expanding it can be trased back to practically beginning.Its also ageing.How can something eternal age?
MrUrosSrb 2 months ago
@MrUrosSrb I'm just jumping in here, so I haven't seen the rest of your conversation - I might very well agree with you, except the answer to your question is:
easily. no one said that the universe would exist eternally as it is now.
bossmonkeykj 2 months ago
@MrUrosSrb It may have come from an eternal state, before the big bang. perhaps the singularity was eternal, perhaps there was no singularity and our universe sprung from an eternal hyperspace multiverse.
No, we aren't sure that the universe began to exist at the big bang. Most physicists are leaning away from that now, towards some sort of multiverse.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 1 month ago
Thanks for posting this, man! I have listened to Hitchen's debates (which I love) and I love listening to Sam Harris debates, but Lawrence Krauss makes some of the best points I have heard for skepticism and open discussion concerning the universe and our place in it. And although its very clear that Craig is the better debater, I don't think I agree with any of his main points. Thanks again, drcraigvideos.
schmuck924 2 months ago
Can anyone find the proof that Dr. Krauss aludes to around 32:30? I took numerous courses that involved infinite series, and everything I know tells me that his claim is either misstated or false. As an engineering student, I always understood that the infinites we worked with were purely theoretical and that an actual infinite is impossible. It's strange to me that so many atheist mathematicians have the opposite view.
JWHurwitz 3 months ago
@JWHurwitz Try godfrey harold hardy's "divergent series". You can see a preview on google books. He was a famous professor of mathematics at Cambridge in England. He shows that 1+2+3+4 .... is summable to -1/12. You cant use philosophical arguments to see this since it is non-trivial. It can only really be seen with the precise logical framework of mathematics. As you probably know, there are many different types of infinity; countable, continuum, power of continuum and so on.
openmind01011101 1 month ago
So nothing exists without a cause. Which means the universe must have a cause. But since we don't know what that cause is, we're gonna say a causeless creator created it?..... and theists don't see what's wrong with that?
23NaLi 3 months ago 5
@23NaLi "So nothing exists without a cause." Yes. If u think something can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing then suit urself. "Which means the universe must have a cause." He gave arguments as to why and how the universe had a cause. Why dodge it? "But since we don't know what that cause is, we're gonna say a causeless creator created it?..... and theists don't see what's wrong with that?" No. He says space and time started at the singularity, thus God must be uncaused. Duh!
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos "No. He says space and time started at the singularity, thus God must be uncaused. Duh!" How did you come to that conclusion?
BuildSC 3 months ago
@BuildSC By listening to the video. Try unplugging your ears the next time you listen to it. That actually helps.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos You can't say everything has a cause and God is uncaused at the same time... You can't use "everything has a cause" as an argument for something that doesn't have a cause (god).
23NaLi 2 months ago
@23NaLi Sure, you can. There are many things that don't have causes. For instance, the laws of logic, mathematics, abstract ideas, etc. I can go on and on.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@23NaLi What you don't see is that it's futile to try to speculate about the begging of God. Can you see God? We know so little about him. All we know is what we see in the nature and, for us Christians, what Jesus and the other prophets told us.
For now, I'm satisfied with the thought that He is out of the continuum space-time.
biblia2016 3 months ago
There is no evidence for or against God. To believe or not to believe in God is a personal choice and should be respected. Don't try to prove or disprove God because simply nobody can. My personal choice is not to believe in it. My purpose of life is to make more friends than enemies. I don't care about heaven or hell.
FeLiNe418 3 months ago
@FeLiNe418 The problem with this attitude is religion involves itself politically. It insists on forcing itself onto other people's lives. It is constantly trying to make its way into science classes when it is not science. It causes people to oppose science, like the cancellation of the LHC Dallas project because it would not "help us find God". It causes war, violence, and intolerance. Irrational beliefs don't automatically deserve respect just because someone believes in something earnestly.
bossmonkeykj 3 months ago 2
William Lane Craig is insane and should keep his opinions to his self. Hitchens said it best these people should be standing on the corner selling pencils from a cup. He is a pathological lair. HE IS A MAD MAN!
BIGSTRO64 3 months ago 3
@BIGSTRO64 As a non-Christian, you should be ashamed for thinking that it is acceptable to call sane people mad. I do not know a single non-Christian who thinks that way.
lukose2007 3 months ago
@BIGSTRO64
The only mad one is you.
ninetailschris 3 months ago
This was one of Craig's best debates! He really came prepared.
StoneCampbellforLife 3 months ago
You can debate whether or not big foot is real. You can lose that debate and still be correct. Craig is a professional debater. Krauss is an educator. The big bang happened. That is demonstrable. I will gladly side with science on the little bit of room left (gap) for god. Eventually there will be no room left.
Johnf85 3 months ago 2
@Johnf85 Dr. Craig has 2 PhDs and 2 Masters and graduated Summa Cum Laude and has countless peer reviewed articles. You can skip and dodge and plug your ears every time his CV comes up but reality is a good thing. Embrace it. Please don't make excuses for the fact that Krauss is a complete wack-job and that he got his butt handed to him in this debate.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@Johnf85 considering Craig is ALSO an educator, you haven't really made any point. As it stands, we have two educators, one of whom sucks at debating.
DanYoungMusic 3 months ago
I hate to say it, but Craig is a better debater than Krauss. I think that Krauss really shines when he lectures, but Craig has obviously done this sort of thing before.
bsemmelbeck 3 months ago
@BlackholeExtinction Maybe you'll see how God is defined if you actually watched this debate. Craig gave attributes to God.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos Craig gave attributes to God? Hmmm. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.
B2tmfG 3 months ago
@B2tmfG Craig gave attributes to God in the argumentative sense, genius. Not literally. If I said, "You have your father's smile" that doesn't mean you literally have your father's mouth.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
if i went to that college and had krauss as a teacher, id see get switched out of that class right away,
Falcondick69 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 If you were a student and had Krauss as you teacher, you would be a physics student and every physics student with a brain would love to study under Krauss. He is one of the worlds leading physicists involved in some of the most advanced science being done today.
But I´m sure that you would know and understand physics better than him, right?
ettsistaforsok 3 months ago 3
My favorite part of this page is the description section. The poster lists the "cards", or votes, for which debater made the "clearer/better presentation". He concludes "Yup, Dr. Craig pretty much roasted Dr. Krauss" as if the audience at NC State was unbiased. A comparison between pre- and post- debate votes on the topic of the debate would be a better test. I don't know why I was surprised that someone who would post a WLC video would fail to understand basic data analysis techniques.
sgavin111 3 months ago 83
@sgavin111 I'm sorry, you're right. I'll take back everything I said and say this: "Any fair-minded audience member who votes for William Lane Craig as the winner automatically disqualifies as a fair-minded voter. And even though William Lane Craig got most of the votes as the winner, the voters were really thinking of Krauss as the winner." Happy, now? You are clearly a fair and unbiased person.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos
The votes in a debate like this are largely irrelevant. That WLC got 286 votes only proves that the majority of the audience was religious. And the exact same would likely apply if a majority of the audience were atheists. People are far too biased over this topic to be properly objective in assessing such a thing.
Vire70 3 months ago 2
@Vire70 Oh, of course, ANYBODY who mostly votes for the theists ARE ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS religious, huh?
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@sgavin111 I would also add that asking who made the clearer/better presentation is of secondary importance to who made the best argument. One does not necessary determine the other. It is the job of the viewer to sift through whatever factors are distracting in order to reach the truth. If the seemingly bumbling fool (not speaking of Krauss here, he in general did all right) is in fact the holder of the truth then he should be acknowledged and damn be the oratorical prowess of his opponent.
geoellio100 1 month ago
I Love Life <3
tomdenman 4 months ago
Krauss was not organized and was so hard to watch...all he did was repeat himself and talk about nothingness.
jselvrom 4 months ago
Krauss is theoretical physicist. Craig is a theologist. One studies cosmology and the other a cosmic space daddy.
Jestlow 4 months ago
@Jestlow Craig's doctorate was in cosmology, genius. If you want to play these "space daddy" games then what's that compared to your mother nature?
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos >"Craig's doctorate was in cosmology"
Hm? His Ph.D. is in Philosophy. I am not aware of him having a degree in anything but philosophy and theology. Please elaborate.
smarthandsomeguy 4 months ago 21
@smarthandsomeguy *SIGH* What was the topic of his doctorate of philosophy in?
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos lol also dwakins fears graig -^_^-Y
MegaGangstaparadise 4 months ago
@Jestlow Theoretical physicists don't study cosmology, cosmologists study cosmology. Duuh.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
the atheist says debates are combative, on the contrary, it's more civilized than mere rhetoric
lovellespice 4 months ago
If God wrote, "I am here" in the stars than that would be evidence. So any kind of order in the universe instead of what seems random, would be evidence for God. Well, we see order everywhere in the Universe, so thank you Krauss for proving that God exists.
sethdbeebe 4 months ago
i think the reason that Krauss basically lost the debate is because almost all of his sentences ended with "i dont know"
Falcondick69 4 months ago
It doesn't really matter to me if someone makes a "more clear or better presentation." What matters to me is "who is right?" :D
CrimsonFlameRTR 4 months ago 3
@BankHeistVideos Scientists agree with Craig that science has no bearing on aesthetic arts, genius. Again, you're just plain naive and gullible.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
@BankHeistVideos It's also those same 90% who would concede that science doesn't take God belief away. If you think that Craig is a joke among the "scientific community" then tell that to George Ellis who complimented Craig's work on the beginning of the universe and knows more about physics than Krauss. When Krauss tells me that 2+2=5, I'm afraid he's not being scientific. When Krauss says that Aritotelean Logic is wrong, that tells me he's out of his mind.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago 4
@drcraigvideos Long agoo, a lot of mystical schools thought of science as the proof of devine existence. I personally am a science fanatic :-) I believe there is a 'greater mind' at work here, and i believe we are a representation of that 'infinite mind's' "infinite thoughts". But to attribute human characteristics to that infinite devine, and assume it gives a crap about our lousy little meaningless existence... that's something only humans can invent ;) Hence i dislike any form of religion.
devilzown11 4 months ago
"Yup, Dr. Craig pretty muched roasted Dr. Krauss"
In order to affirm this, it would have been great to know the audience's opinion BEFORE, then AFTER the debate.
Craig "won" by majority, but what does it mean if the room was filled with believers to begin with?
This kind of results would have been impressive if the conference had been held at the Atheist Assembly... But I doubt it was the case :)
Gazdo01 4 months ago
@Gazdo01 Uh, yeah, a room full of Christians at a secular university. I'll concede you don't need a majority vote to see who won, but it's obvious that Craig whipped Krauss.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago 4
@drcraigvideos LOL youre delusional... one man is talking about science while the other is speaking out of his ass about some imaginary entity... stupidity bleeds on the internet...
ripdoggie 4 months ago
@ripdoggie If you actually stopped plugging your ears when Craig spoke you'd know he brought up scientific evidence. Gee, Craig is only a philosopher of science. In atheism, man's thoughts are just brain gas. Talk about talking out of your ass! Please try to be fair next time. Okay?
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
@ripdoggie OH NO in your comment you have founded the origins of the universe and there for because you say it is so god does not exist well Mr all knowledgeable how can be 100% certain :L you are right though stupidity does bleed on the internet
pompey657ishard 3 months ago
One of my favourite debates. The atheist legitimately attempts to interact with Craig (unlike Harris) and still comes up short.
LoooveLikeFire 4 months ago
I love how Lawrence Krauss rarely uses notes. He knows what he's talking about. He isn't trying to tangle the audience up in nonsense.
LowdenFretter 5 months ago 25
@LowdenFretter i find his speech full of incoherent babbling, like he couldn't even organize his thoughts and simply says the next thing he could think of
lovellespice 4 months ago
@LowdenFretter soooo using notes is a sign that you are trying to tangle the audience up with nonsense? Then Sam Harris is guilty of that. Great logic there!
beto88keys 2 months ago 2
i find it amusing that people use science and evidence to prove the existance of an entity that if existed, could not be proven, controlled or even comprehended by science.
peterzoidberg 5 months ago 3
@peterzoidberg There's a lot of things you can't prove with science, genius. You can't even determine aesthetics with science. You can't even prove the laws of logic with science. Science presupposes logic.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos Genius can be measured. Aesthetics can also be measured to a degree. Why would science need to prove the laws of logic?lol
Your arguments are just silly and childish.
Science can't prove this this and this therefor there must be a god.lol
Behave yourself
LowdenFretter 5 months ago 3
@LowdenFretter "Genius can be measured." Then get a higher IQ. Science has no way of knowing what art is. It has no opinion on the subject whatsoever. Are you really this naive? And I didn't say that science needs to prove logic. I said it presupposes it. And I never said that science can't prove certain things therefore God exists. Try your best not to stereotype Christians. And get a brain. Something to think about: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@peterzoidberg Saying that the entity, if existed, could not be proven, controlled or comprehended is merely an assertion on your part. First you need to demonstrate those three things to be true before you can state them as fact. If something can't be proven and verified by the use of the scientific method then the default position should always be non-belief. Should we believe in fairies because science can't disprove them? Or unicorns? I think not.
LowdenFretter 5 months ago
@LowdenFretter what i said doesnt mean one should believe in god because there is no evidence to disprove him, thats not what i meant. what i mean is, that god ( as believed by believers) cannot be comprehended by the human mind, hence he cannot be scientifically proven, i cant prove something by proving that it cant be proven ^^
peterzoidberg 4 months ago
@peterzoidberg "i find it amusing that people use science and evidence to prove the existance of an entity that if existed, could not be proven, controlled or even comprehended by science."
If you find that amusing, you must find it positively hilarious that theists think they can comprehend what lies beyond science, when humans accept but barely comprehend the nature that science reveals.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
I don't understand why creationists even post videos like this, unless they purposely want to embarrass themselves. Not once has a creationist given a remotely structured, not to mention compelling, argument for their belief.
grobarson3 5 months ago 8
@grobarson3 "I don't understand why creationists even post videos like this.." Me too. I'm not a creationist. William Lane Criag is not a creationist. Wait a minute, you silly goose, you don't think Krauss is a creationist, do you?
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@grobarson3 are you familiar with analytical philosophy by any chance?
ansaz14 5 months ago
Craigs argument has and always will be... "god did it so that means god did it". He's a fucking piece of shit that tries to make religion sounds technical LOL.
lq4fcrx7 5 months ago 25
@lq4fcrx7 LOL! You're non-technical comment is incredibly sophisticated. I guess we're back to the ol' "blind and mindless and unintelligent and dead nature did it" argument that atheists would have us believe.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos Technically speaking, what does it take for a snake to talk?
AscendingParadigm 5 months ago
@AscendingParadigm Technically speaking, what does it take for something to come from nothing?
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos Quantum fluctuations.
Yonada 5 months ago
@Yonada Uh, yeah, the quantum vaccuum (which is a sea of energy) is nothing. Nothing gets passed you, Yanada-poo. Please, live and learn: watch?v=g6kMWSo-Jz0 and watch?v=_xAP06ykvZM
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@lq4fcrx7 It's gratifying to watch this debate and read what atheists need to tell themselves to feel better about Krauss' failure.
acceptjesusorburn 2 months ago
@lq4fcrx7 This in no way disproves Dr. Craig's arguments. He makes religion sound "technical" because he cannot afford to prove the validity of God in a language that is unintelligible and immature.Truly, you must have some deep reasoning behind why he is a "p.o.s", and why he is any different from you.You stupidly asperse a brilliant man, who even world acclaimed atheist respect and pay homage to. Even the likes of Sam Harris can speak kindly of Craig. Who are you? Troll along infidel
trealboihottie 2 months ago
Atheists are no less stubborn in their belief that there is no God as Christians are in their belief that there is...
gaboski008 6 months ago
@gaboski008 What do atheists believe? They are identified by a lack of believe in any god. Frequently this is the result of an empirical world view that doesn't accept anything on 'belief' but upon evidence derived by the senses. There are very few atheists that claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist.
shishkabobby 5 months ago
@shishkabobby then why do they argue so? O.o or maybe i've just been reading too many youtube comments by people who claim to be atheist :))
gaboski008 5 months ago
I am so happy to live in an enlightened country in europe, where those religious blah-guys just get ridiculed.
meslud 6 months ago 9
@meslud So, to be enlightened you have to ridicule people? Well, okay, you're an ingnoramous with a pea brain - so, how'd I do? Does that ridicule prove I'm more enlightened than you?
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos 'So, to be enlightened you have to ridicule people? Well, okay, you're an ingnoramous with a pea brain - so, how'd I do? Does that ridicule prove I'm more enlightened than you?'
LOL!!!
ValRoyD 5 months ago
Krauss gives QM as an example of something violating the rules of Classical Logic, of which the Law of Non-contradiction is one.--Wrong. Something existing in two places at one time is no more contradictory than something existing in one place at two different times. Though a single object existing in two places at once may violate our Newtonian conception of space, QM nowhere shows something can both be and not be at same place and time, which WOULD be a formal contradiction. Nice try Krauss.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme Yes, something existing in two places at one time is completely different that one thing being at two places at one time. We describe the trajectory of an object as a function of time. A function is single valued at any point in its domain. In QM, we still have probability functions that are functions of time. This is completely different that denying that we do not have a function of time.
shishkabobby 5 months ago
how do you prove the color violet exist to a blind person ?
ikawpipa 6 months ago
@ikawpipa you ask 100 random people to point out the colours on a chart including violet and then present the data to the blind person.
TheMrpoxman1 6 months ago
a miracle is science that we dont understand yet, btw who won the debate?
trickjacko 7 months ago
@trickjacko Craig got most of the debate as the winner.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos it seemed to me that dr krauss was a hard opponent
trickjacko 7 months ago
@trickjacko Oops, I meant Craig got most of the VOTES as the winner.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
2+2=5? And Krauss is ACTUALLY using this as an example after Craig quotes another atheist exposing the error in logic? This guy is luny.
JRocka114 7 months ago 2
I agree the Universe had a cause and a beginning, but I disagree in Dr. Craig's arguments that such cause is God.
maujo2009 7 months ago
Wow craig has no idea what he is talking about
lochraine 7 months ago
@lochraine Yeah, like, wow! He should have done better than that. He ought to know that 2+2=5. Craig is such a dummy.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
It would be interesting to see a debate between a THEIST philosopher (as Dr. Craig is) and an ATHEIST philosopher.
maujo2009 7 months ago
@maujo2009 Craig had plenty of debates with philosophers. Do a google search for "WILLIAM LANE CRAIG COMPREHENSIVE DEBATE LIST."
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@maujo2009 /watch?v=Vs7ArUMuQyg here you go :)
gaboski008 6 months ago
It's a shame the quality is not better
maujo2009 7 months ago
I don't agree with Craig's argument at 0:04:06
maujo2009 7 months ago
finally
danielfact 7 months ago
"dr" Craig has an IQ of a fly.
jaycpanchal 7 months ago 27
@jaycpanchal I don't know what your goal was in making this comment. Do we really need to call people stupid? It is hard for me to take someone seriously who reverts to name calling.
jensenc86 6 months ago
@jaycpanchal ROMANS 1:22-23. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles***
TheReturnoftheSaints 4 months ago
@jaycpanchal The atheists are by far the more mean-spirited side in these debates and your comment is a nice illustration of this fact. I don't think you would find a person on the other side making such a manifestly absurd statement because they are so disdainful of someone who disagrees with them. They would be able to acknowledge that Dr. Krauss is a very smart man even though they believe him to be wrong. This is the case because, contra the sanctimonious bluster of atheists, they are the mo
ws81086n 3 months ago
2+2=4 can be demonstrated via logic alone; "rape is objectively wrong" cannot. Rapists don't consider rape immoral, and in the absence of a logical argument, and a UNIVERSAL consesus, objective morals don't exist.
17:01...
1. Maybe Jesus' body was taken out of the tomb;
2. Maybe those people never existed and their accounts were fabricated (and the unbelievers/skeptics/enemies were added to try to make the story more credible... which didn't work, btw);
3. Maybe the disciples never existed.
JMUDoc 8 months ago
@JMUDoc
Think about what you just said smartass...
If one of your 3 theories could be true, then they would have been exposed right from the beginning.
And if you come up with ridiculous statements that the disciples never existed, well excuse me genius, but you need to study history.
If you deny the existence of the disciples or Jesus, you might as well doubt the existence of Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra, Nero, Constantine, or any other ancient figure.....
tjobv 7 months ago
As Krauss says, it´s impossible to disprove the inexistence of God. That´s why I think agnostic position is more humble than the atheist one.
jefersontorres 8 months ago 2
@jefersontorres if you are agnostic then you are also an atheist (however the opposite is not true). Suppose you are 'agnostic' then you are not a theist: so you are an a-theist
waxybadger 8 months ago
42:40
this "probability inequality" is pseudo-mathematics. If he wants to actually apply probability theory correctly he needs to specify a probability space, a probability measure P and then define what event G=god exists in this space represents.
David Hume didn't need probability theory to know what "evidence" means.
xknowledgeisfreex 8 months ago 3
i do not understand why the most plausible expalnation for the universe is the number 7
ilgaizka 8 months ago
Anyone ever change their mind after listening to a debate? Has a christian become an atheist or atheist suddenly except jesus following a debate about god? Theist think WLC won and atheist think Krauss won, right? total waste of time
iFlySoLo28 8 months ago 2
@iFlySoLo28 I have, yes.
odwalla12 8 months ago
@iFlySoLo28 Debates aren't for people with a set ideal. They're for people who don't know what they believe yet and want to hear both sides.
narutorox85 8 months ago
Craig's first rebutal is amazing!
IloveYOUviruses 8 months ago
Atheism-the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magicallyexploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
makes perfect sense
SoullessSkater 8 months ago
@SoullessSkater Exactly
mynamehappy 8 months ago
2+2=5 & he's non the wiser. Chalk 1 up for GOD! LOL
Dustar007 8 months ago
I can't believe people are still using the "who created god" argument. First of all, you don't need to know where God comes from to acknowledge the obvious fact that God exists. Also, the reason everything needs a beginning is because of time. If there was no time, we would all be infinite, and there would be no need for a creator. That's what God is. He created everything we know. He created time, space, matter, etc. So he needs no creator, because that is merely a law of the world he created.
dragonking700 8 months ago
Scientists don't know alot
heisthealmighty 8 months ago
@heisthealmighty And religion does?
odwalla12 8 months ago
@odwalla12
Everyone is religious, regardless of whether they are scientific or not. Naturalism and atheism possess all the epistemological characteristics of religious belief systems. We are compelled by neurobiology to make certain foundational assumptions regarding ontological ideas, and for some areas of beliefs, no empirically neutral position is possible.
The philosophically illiterate atheists are the worst are understanding this.
Crownw3 8 months ago
@Crownw3
If you're ashamed of being religious then that is your problem. Please do not project your shame on others. You're playing a meaningless semantics game when you expand the definition of religious to include those arguing against it. Naturalism is a scientific construct that simply appeals to no miraculous phenomenon. It is a process of observation, experiment, and theory. Unlike religion it makes no claim of an absolute truth.
firstatheist 5 months ago
@ 1:57:50 Krauss says the the reason he has a bias against miracles is because he's never seen one in the thirty years he's studied the universe...lol...what does he think he's been looking at this whole time? Hysterical...
lexidart 9 months ago
@lexidart Hysterical indeed.
BrokenTHGurl08 8 months ago
@lexidart wheres your proof the universe is a miracle. Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it a miracle.
AWEF321 8 months ago
@AWEF321 Actually it's atheists and atheist scientists that claim "Just because we don't understand something"....well, believers in a divine creator DO understand...it's atheists that don't......1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies (evolution and the zillion year old man, we have a genealogy that goes back to Adam and Eve, not zillions of years old, we do not have an endless genealogy), which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
shadapple 8 months ago
@shadapple You can assert anything you like but that does not make it true. What DO you understand exactly ? Proove that you understand what a god is rather than just assert it.
holdontoyourwig 8 months ago
@AWEF321 Define Miracle?
johnknoefler 8 months ago
@lexidart You cannot call the Universe a miracle. A miracle is an event that takes place outside of the laws of nature. If Jesus actually resurrected (which I still say he didn't), you would call that a miracle because according to the laws of nature, dead people do not come back to life. The fact that we don't understand the beginning of the universe yet (or possibly never will) doesn't make that event a miracle outside of natural laws.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago 9
@torontoBluejays87 You're the atheist who thinks that life came from non-life, so who are you to talk about miracles and the irrationality of a resurrection?
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 why does a miracle have to be something that happens outside the laws of nature? why can't it be just something extremely improbable (but logical) but happens nonetheless at the right place at the right time :P lol but that's just my own definition of it :))
gaboski008 6 months ago
At about 1:18: Krauss truly begins to sink his own ship. it appears to me that WLC has had to do little but give his adversary more rope. Sorry for the mixed metaphor. Rationality in and of itself defines nothing, not even morality. I've often used the Undefinable Morality Premise in a Godless System to de