As far as we know (and we can only go by the knowledge we have, not that we don't have), the natural world is all there is. There is no evidence that the supernatural is real, there is only evidence that the natural world exists. So, it is not 'faith', and there is no burden to disprove the supernatural. Craig's logic is based on ignorance.
there is no proof that god exists, and no proof that god doesn't exist. why does it even matter. we all live. we all die. and id rather die not knowing what would happen than die knowing what would happen. heck, when we die we could be reincarnated into another civilization 1,000,000 light years away on a whole different case. think outside the box. not just in your tiny little circle of things
That is such bad logic. It is a strawman arguement. Naturalism does not have to prove god(s) dont exist. It does not exist period with out positive proof that it exists. If that proof were to suddenly appear then Naturalism would have to test that proof. If it then could not be refueded fine, but that has never happended, so no god(s) no supernatual.
@peterb1968 You need positive proof that something doesn't exist, genius. Otherwise, It CAN exist. Why do you think better thinking atheists have tried to provide positive evidence that God doesn't exist.
@drcraigvideos If it is impossible to prove negative existential claims (like "God does not exist") then it makes absolutely no sense for Dr. Craig to make this a requirement for the atheist. Do you know of any negative existential claims that admit of proof?? (an absence of such proof will NOT force the atheist to operate on faith, but it will extinguish the motivation for Dr. Craig's argument).
@jeffreysbrother *SIGH* Square-circles don't exist, and as far as I can tell it would be foolish to affirm that "death doesn't exist" is not a negative claim. Please, throw the trash philosophy away where it belongs.
@drcraigvideos Pretty snotty for a Christian, if you ask me. Anyway, **SIGH** **DEEP BREATH**, I'm looking for something that concerns an entity (like the claim "God does not exist") AND something which would not fit into the category of "relations of ideas" or things that are by definition true. And hey, I'll be friendly if you are friendly. Your hostility isn't Christ-like, it's not helpful in this type of setting, and it doesn't set a good example.
@jeffreysbrother I'm not so sure why you're crossing out the fact that "squre-circles don't exist" is a universal claim that is negative and yet true. And I'm so sorry if my example of non-Christ like manner is not helpful... even though Christ Himself had the courage to call Pharisees a brood of vipers and what not. Oh, shame on me! I'm so un-Christ like! Your irrationality is not helpful, and it certainly doesn't set a good example of good thinking.
There's no need to invoke that you can't equally prove Santa Clause existence since Santa Clause is NOT necessary being and a fiction.
However Supernatural is just word for Eternity, IMMATERIALITY and such concepts that EXCEEDS the natural or temporal. Yet it ALL existential and NECESSARY concept as to why there is something rather nothing.
I am an ontological naturalist, but I hold it as a tentative rather then a firm faith based worldview. The best inductive argument for naturalism in my opinion is the historical trend for supernatural explanations to be superseded by naturalistic ones.
The methodological naturalism of the sciences has strong implications for the world we live in.
I like how these extremists conjure up terms like naturalism and Darwinism to place their own short comings on their perceived "enemies". If a higher being, a god, was real, it would be part of nature aswell..people don't believe this because your best proof is a 2000 year old story book. There is NO solid evidence to say otherwise, this is called being rational.
If you find evidence, real evidence, present it and you will convert every atheist; But no one has, because it isn't there.
@rufusangus22 *ROLLS EYES* Uh, yeah, and if atheism was so obvious, every single person in the world would be an atheist. Honestly, would it kill you to actually deal with what the video is saying?
@drcraigvideos Why isn't everyone an Atheist? The same reason drug addicts keep going back to their habits; It's easier and they have grown to be dependent on it to make life bearable.
Sure, from a biased view, its great; I was saying, why not make a real argument that would actually mean something and challenge atheists. His is not argument to convert, hes pandering to people that already believe to make money. Preaching is not the same as making good arguments, even with tricky linguistics.
@rufusangus22 Why would God automatically be part of nature if He exists? That's just speculation on your part. God is Spirit, the Bible says, and so He is outside of nature. He is not a physical Being.
And as far as calling the Bible a 'storybook,' perhaps you're not aware of the many historical events within it being proven true. Or the thousands of prophecies that took place many years after they were written.
For the sake of argument, let's say that the so-called supernatural exists. The "supernatural" would then fall under the category of natural. Q. E. D.
@LittleSn00py It's not just atheists that make the naturalism assumption. All branches of scientific theory assume that everything has a natural cause that can be observed. Whatever your religion, if you're practicing science, you're practicing naturalism.
First, there is no empirical evidence of anything "supernatural." It just doesn't exist. The question is not whether naturalism can be proven, it is the default position. The question is, rather, if something other than the natural world exists, can IT be proven. The answer so far is, no, there is no evidence. He is merely presenting the burden of proof fallacy, something Dr. Craig presents again and again. Anyone with critical thinking skills can see right through this sad attempt.
@Capuano231, what? First, it is impossible to disprove such a negative, and second, there is literally not one single, solid shred of empirical evidence for god. You are not being intellectually honest.
@naejimba The obvious design in the universe, intial conditions of the big bang, the dozens of physical constants just ALL falling within an extremely narrow life permitting range, the acknowledgment of God's existence in all history & cultures, man's personal search for meaning and purpose. the existence of numerous immaterial realities like logic, ethics, morality, universal truth statements, dont qualify? Maybe you regard yourself as just a cosmic accident?
God created a physical universe of incredible proportions &set in place initial conditions & natural laws to ensure that life would evolve. Identifying a mechanism for planetary motion didnt inspire Newton to say "ah, now I have gravity I dont need God." He saw the glory of God in the genius of that mechanism & in the rational intelligibility of the universe. "The only thing incomprehensible about the universe (for some) is that it’s comprehensible”
@dashan091, our minds work in such a way that we attempt to see patterns, often times when there is none. You only assume the universe was designed. According to the multiverse theory, yes, it could just be "dumb luck" that we are a life permitting universe. Logic, ethics, and morality I contend are human creations.
@naejimba Dawkin's says, "One of the greatest challenge facing us is to account for the obvious design in the universe". I agree Richard, so why do u think u know more than him? Then Dawkins throws in his red Herring, "Ah yes but who designed the designer?". As if we need to know the nature of an intelligence to recognise something as designed. The multiverse fantasy would be laughed out of town if it was postulated in a religious text. Pity the atheist has to invoke a science of the gaps?
@dashan091 Are you suggesting that since Dawkins knows more than me about biology that I am not allowed to disagree with him? Why do we need to "account for" the apparent design? And even we say the universe is a design and therefore there must be a designer, we have nothing of value. All we know is that the designer responsible for the design has created a flawed design. The challenge for us is to fix the flaw.
@dashan091, this is an appeal to authority, and is a logical fallacy. His so called "red herring" is not a red herring, but rather a fitting point to a theist who claims that everything must have a designer.
Very good. I am often baffled that Atheists will pound me for the evidence for my beliefs, which I will then precede to do to the best of my ability, but when I ask them for what points towards the evidential truth of THEIR beliefs, they will often respond: "No no, you must provide ME with better evidence, for the evidence for my atheism is the lack of evidence on your part." How absurd! The rejection of evidence for Christian theis can only lead to a neutral position, not atheism!
@Brightstar27, agnostic atheism is a neutral position (which most atheists are). If said empirical evidence can be produced, there would be no atheists.
@naejimba that's not neutral as you still lean towards a side. furthermore the burden of proof rests with ANYONE who makes a claim. If you want to claim naturalism is true or that the super natural "just doesn't exist" you bear the same burden of proof as the person who says God exists. don't expect people to take what you say on faith .
@seyormi Name calling? I wasn't aware you were still in 5th grade. I asked first so you should present your case first. It's called courtesy. However:
@seyormi Naturalism (philosophy)- the belief that all phenomena are covered by the laws of science and are teleological explanations are therefor useless.
dictionary (dot) com
scientific naturalism isn't really relevant to this conversation
@lockdown2601. Fifth grade is for nerds. I can't be bothered with that stuff. Doubly so for courtesy.
2.If (scientific) naturalism isn't relevant to the discussion, then the this conversation is bogus. Ontology is derived from naturalistic views, but not vice versa; thus i maintain that naturalism is part of a methodolgy
p.s. i'm aware i didn't initially say "part of", but it seems more appropriate in my opinion.
@naejimba A fact that needs to be explained by both materialism &theism is that the world is orderly but materialism fails to give ultimate explanations, It cannot explain the exquisitely fine tuned laws of nature & its life-permitting values. Only theism can hope to provide the ultimate explanation of all phenomena since an omnipotent God has all the properties to explain the universe. 'The overwhelming evidence gives a significant degree of probability to the claim that God exists'
@dashan091, so, you are willing to accept something without any evidence to back it up simply because it "explains everything?" This will not do. I would rather be rooted in reality, and follow the evidence where it leads... and when there is an answer we do not know, have the courage to simply admit it. There is nothing wrong with doing so, it is only intellectually honest. Beyond this, theism doesn't explain much of anything compared to science.. think about it, what you said is a joke.
@naejimba Without evidence, u jest? Why should u expect to see more evidence of God’s existence than what we do see? A consistent biblical theme is that God's ultimate purpose is not simply that we know He exists, but that we enter a relationship, then it may be that the current degree of evidence is precisely sufficient to accomplish that purpose. It is the atheist who must come up with a logical case why this isn't a plausible explanation. So what evidence do we have?:
The typical atheist response to Big bang theory is to say, “Woo, wait a minute, don’t accept mainstream cosmology so quickly “its alright to say we just don’t know. Someday physics may have its Darwin & then we can explain design & fine-tuning” Which is like saying, “Slow down there, boy, don’t you go comparing data to things we actually understand. Let’s keep the origin of the universe a mystery. Otherwise we might reach conclusions that are not compatible with atheism.”
@dashan091, I am first, only expecting one single shred of solid empirical evidence. This is not too much to ask. Either god interacts with the world as your religion and holy text claims, and this interaction is scientifically measurable, or he does not and he is of no consequence. The current amount of evidence is NOTHING. This is far from sufficient. Lastly, you commit the burden of proof fallacy.
@naejimba A neutral position is what I have when an astrologist challenges me to account for his star gazing. A NON-belief is when u have no interest and remain TOTALLY happy in one's ignorance. My theistic worldview is perfectly in harmony with what I believe gives me meaning, purpose & destiny. Can u live without thinking about God?
@dashan091, a lack of belief says nothing about whether a person "cares" or not. This is a pitiful line of argument. ... and no, I cannot live without thinking about god, because every five fucking seconds or so I come across a religious nutcase who is talking about him. BTW, my own life has purpose and meaning, just not from some magic man in the sky. I give my own life purpose, and am quite content, thank you very much...
Yes, naturalism requires faith--a kind of faith that ALL people have ALL the time: 24/7. That "faith" has paid off very well--that's obvious. That faith is WILDLY different from faith in supernatural existence and causes--so different that it really doesn't serve language well to use the same word "faith" in both instances.
"That "faith" has paid off very well--that's obvious"
Indeed. It's the kind of faith that has sent men to the moon, re-attached severed limbs, predicts weather patterns with a high accuracy and even "assumes" what I now type will somehow appear on this very page.....
Our "faith" has results. Feel free to measure and analyze them. Compare and contrast them with your prayers. :)
Science only applies to natural events. No supernatural needed. And while there have been MANY superb scientists of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) faith, Christianity is not a necessary component, as I'm sure you will agree. Peace!
@Edellam you need Theism for objective morality. Science cannot demonstrate that one person has an objective moral duty and obligation not to rape, kill, steal the property of, or enslave another person. Thus naturalism/science fails at providing the necessary components of the nice liberal democracies we all live in. :)
Science is not in the business of legislating morality, I don't know of any scientist who would say it is. Surely the Wright Bros. share no fault in the 9/11 attacks (a certain religion might, though) . If religion is where you get you morality who am I to say you can't?
@Edella Science may not be in the business of legislating morality, but it very well could be in the business of defining objective morality. Re: Sam Harris.
@AnnRKey Sam Harris isn't much of a thinker when it comes to philosophy or science. He thinks you can determine moral and ethical values through science. You can't: watch?v=45mU5UgN4Hk
@drcraigvideos Tell me why you think science cannot define morality. Science is this context should be defined as: knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. What makes something moral? What makes something right or wrong? Morality can be summed up in the Golden Rule, which is not dependent on any god. The golden rule simply states that we should treat each other as we would like to be treated. This can be studied scientifically.
@AnnRKey Science has no way of accounting for universal truth statements, ethics or logic. Science presupposes logic and maths to try to prove logic with science is to argue in a circle.. Science might tell me what will happen if I add arsenic to someone's lunch but it cant tell me if its a moral act or not.
@dashan091 Theism has no way of accounting for universal truth statements, ethics or logic. Theism presupposing God to try and prove logic with God is to argue in circles. Theism can't tell me what will happen if I add arsenic to someone's lunch and it can't tell me if its a moral act or not without my concurrence. Remember, theism tells us that we have the knowledge of good and evil. How can we know what is good or evil without the ability to discern for ourselves?
@AnnRKey Science has no way of accounting for universal truth statements or logic. Science presupposes logic and maths. Science might tell me what will happen if I add arsenic to someone's lunch but it cant tell me if its a moral act or not.
@wood9670 you need Science for objective morality. Theism cannot demonstrate that one person has an objective moral duty and obligation not to rape, kill, steal the property of, or enslave another person. Thus Theism fails at providing the necessary components of the nice liberal democracies most of us live in. :-p
@Edella the Christian theistic worldview teaches that a perfectly rational being, God, is the ground and source of reason. Therefore such conceptual realities as logic, mathematics, knowledge, and truth flow from a supremely intelligent divine mind and characterize this universe. And because God made human beings in his image with rational faculties and sensory organs that generally function properly, humans are able to discover the world’s basic intelligible and empirical order.
@Edella dearie: probably you should re-read my comment; I don't pray to anyone or anything. As far as I'm concerned, philosophy is mostly bullshit--and is easily used by phonies like WLC in order to appear to support anything one wishes. IMO, science (defined in the broadest manner) is the ONLY methodology that has produced ANY substantive knowledge whatsoever. Without a scientific/naturalist approach to reality we wouldn't even have fire, clothing, or agriculture.
@Edella "The highest praise for God is the arrogance, ignorance & profanities of the skeptic who is sure that his reasoning ability has resulted from an evolutionary process & concludes that his undying faith in naturalism makes the existence of God unnecessary." Soviet astrophysicist Yakov Zeldovich
@GetMeThere1 The atheist never lacks ingenuity, Just think about the irony of it, here u are, a little child in a worldly kindergarten trying to spell GOD with the wrong blocks. A product of ancient chemicals & a cosmic accident (but really a miracle of creation), u pompously claim He doesn’t exist. You attempt to bring the almighty Creator before the bar of your very limited, very finite judgment! If it were not such a tragedy it might be something to laugh at.
Interesting that this clip has nothing to do with whether or not naturalism requires faith when it has more to do with whether Shook said a bunch of incomprehensible things regarding naturalism.
@urbanelf Because you refuse to show how it's true. If you made a video showing that quantum fluctuation makes sense and someone commented "you obviously have no idea of physics" and that's all he says without showing how you don't know physics, in my book that's cowardice. If you think that's a rational thing to do then suit yourself.
@urbanelf If you want to show us that naturalism doesn't require faith, please do so WITHOUT using naturalistic means lest you engage in circular reasoning and begging the question.
@urbanelf Well, like a dope, you didn't watch the video close enough. According to Shook "naturalistic means" would constitute science and reasoning, if you disagree with that then why? How do you know that naturalism doesn't require faith? Are you going to show us?
@bibleapologetics My problem with people like this is if they're going to say that someone said something "incomprehensible" then show how! About 95% of atheists who comment on my uploaded videos are incredibly shallow in the philosophy area.
@urbanelf LOL! And I said those top 95% are "incredibly shallow" in philosophy. If you're flattered with that label, then you're an idiot. Nothing gets passed you, huh, urbanelf? Anyway, please troll some place else.
@transtlantic argument from reason ‘Sufficient Reason’
“If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states & will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’ God is the first, uncaused cause on which everything else depends.” Gottfried Leibniz. Understanding outcomes and effects don’t exempt us or explain the need for a causal agent.
from philosophy:1.Nothing comes into existence uncaused 2.The universe came into existence a finite time ago, including all matter, space &time. An absolute beginning is postulated in the Big Bang model by Penrose/Hawking
3: When there are two possible states of affairs - existence of the universe or non-existence, life-permitting or non-life-permitting – the ones that come about must be willed by a personal agent, i.e. God.
from science:According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a universe that exists infinitely into the future will eventually come to equilibrium & heat death. But a universe that has existed infinity in past should have already reached such a state of quiescence. Without a beginning it should reach the point of no light, no heat, no motion. Since the universe is still “winding down” it must have had a beginning.
The initial cause must be without beginning since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes in the past.
Being timeless, the cause must be changeless, spaceless & immaterial, (since material objects are constantly changing). But how can the cause be eternal & not its affect? A transcendent, immaterial first cause must be powerful & plausibly personal, since only an unembodied consciousness/agent can stand in causal relationships.
@bibleapologetics According to Craig, Shook said that naturalism can't be demonstrated with reason, etc... so it doesn't make any sense that Shook is defending it if he thinks that.
@urbanelf Exactly. And you STILL haven't shown us that naturalism doesn't require faith! Nor did you even try to prove that Shook was wrong. drcraigvideos is right, you're a troll.
As far as we know (and we can only go by the knowledge we have, not that we don't have), the natural world is all there is. There is no evidence that the supernatural is real, there is only evidence that the natural world exists. So, it is not 'faith', and there is no burden to disprove the supernatural. Craig's logic is based on ignorance.
KevinLockard23 3 months ago
there is no proof that god exists, and no proof that god doesn't exist. why does it even matter. we all live. we all die. and id rather die not knowing what would happen than die knowing what would happen. heck, when we die we could be reincarnated into another civilization 1,000,000 light years away on a whole different case. think outside the box. not just in your tiny little circle of things
TheJackKnite 3 months ago
That is such bad logic. It is a strawman arguement. Naturalism does not have to prove god(s) dont exist. It does not exist period with out positive proof that it exists. If that proof were to suddenly appear then Naturalism would have to test that proof. If it then could not be refueded fine, but that has never happended, so no god(s) no supernatual.
peterb1968 5 months ago
@peterb1968 You need positive proof that something doesn't exist, genius. Otherwise, It CAN exist. Why do you think better thinking atheists have tried to provide positive evidence that God doesn't exist.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
@drcraigvideos If it is impossible to prove negative existential claims (like "God does not exist") then it makes absolutely no sense for Dr. Craig to make this a requirement for the atheist. Do you know of any negative existential claims that admit of proof?? (an absence of such proof will NOT force the atheist to operate on faith, but it will extinguish the motivation for Dr. Craig's argument).
jeffreysbrother 1 month ago
@jeffreysbrother *SIGH* Square-circles don't exist, and as far as I can tell it would be foolish to affirm that "death doesn't exist" is not a negative claim. Please, throw the trash philosophy away where it belongs.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos Pretty snotty for a Christian, if you ask me. Anyway, **SIGH** **DEEP BREATH**, I'm looking for something that concerns an entity (like the claim "God does not exist") AND something which would not fit into the category of "relations of ideas" or things that are by definition true. And hey, I'll be friendly if you are friendly. Your hostility isn't Christ-like, it's not helpful in this type of setting, and it doesn't set a good example.
jeffreysbrother 1 month ago
@jeffreysbrother I'm not so sure why you're crossing out the fact that "squre-circles don't exist" is a universal claim that is negative and yet true. And I'm so sorry if my example of non-Christ like manner is not helpful... even though Christ Himself had the courage to call Pharisees a brood of vipers and what not. Oh, shame on me! I'm so un-Christ like! Your irrationality is not helpful, and it certainly doesn't set a good example of good thinking.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago 3
There's no need to invoke that you can't equally prove Santa Clause existence since Santa Clause is NOT necessary being and a fiction.
However Supernatural is just word for Eternity, IMMATERIALITY and such concepts that EXCEEDS the natural or temporal. Yet it ALL existential and NECESSARY concept as to why there is something rather nothing.
CHECKrayrobionson 9 months ago
I am an ontological naturalist, but I hold it as a tentative rather then a firm faith based worldview. The best inductive argument for naturalism in my opinion is the historical trend for supernatural explanations to be superseded by naturalistic ones.
The methodological naturalism of the sciences has strong implications for the world we live in.
mojorhythm 1 year ago 5
I like how these extremists conjure up terms like naturalism and Darwinism to place their own short comings on their perceived "enemies". If a higher being, a god, was real, it would be part of nature aswell..people don't believe this because your best proof is a 2000 year old story book. There is NO solid evidence to say otherwise, this is called being rational.
If you find evidence, real evidence, present it and you will convert every atheist; But no one has, because it isn't there.
rufusangus22 1 year ago
@rufusangus22 *ROLLS EYES* Uh, yeah, and if atheism was so obvious, every single person in the world would be an atheist. Honestly, would it kill you to actually deal with what the video is saying?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago 6
@drcraigvideos Why isn't everyone an Atheist? The same reason drug addicts keep going back to their habits; It's easier and they have grown to be dependent on it to make life bearable.
Sure, from a biased view, its great; I was saying, why not make a real argument that would actually mean something and challenge atheists. His is not argument to convert, hes pandering to people that already believe to make money. Preaching is not the same as making good arguments, even with tricky linguistics.
rufusangus22 1 year ago
@rufusangus22 Why would God automatically be part of nature if He exists? That's just speculation on your part. God is Spirit, the Bible says, and so He is outside of nature. He is not a physical Being.
And as far as calling the Bible a 'storybook,' perhaps you're not aware of the many historical events within it being proven true. Or the thousands of prophecies that took place many years after they were written.
terminat1 1 year ago
@EternalSkeptic8 I second that. transpukeface is a whiny baby troll.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
And a perfect example of a troll, in ES8
transtlantic 1 year ago
@EternalSkeptic8
I was replying to @bigusdikus0 post, not yours. Hence i was not even talking to you.
You even wrote three posts when you could have just written one.
If you have nothing to ad except ad hominem don't even bother to reply.
I won't be feeding you anymore, troll.
adress my posts arguments or keep proving to everyone that you the one who doesn't understand anything, troll.
Keep doing the non sequitur comedy act.
transtlantic 1 year ago
For the sake of argument, let's say that the so-called supernatural exists. The "supernatural" would then fall under the category of natural. Q. E. D.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
Considering the fact that you use another account to present a random illogical post. you are the perfect example of a non sequitur, as a comedy pun.
I said nothing wrong and my views were logical.
This video is neither goor or bad. It's a good speech and i presented a critical analysis.
I don't know why you deleted your comments and then decided to use a sockpuppet account @bigusdikus0
transtlantic 1 year ago
"There is no reason to think naturalism is true"
Ignoring ofcourse that everything that verifiably exists is natural and exists through natural occurences.
It makes me wonder, if this was Greece 350BC, would Craig be making this argument for Stars?...
toptencats 1 year ago
Good video! Thnx
MSALLADLACIENCIA 1 year ago
good vid
bigusdikus0 1 year ago
No it's not.
The "Natural philosophy", which produce the "Natural Sciences", ergo Science.
Never claimed to produce absolute answers, never claimed to deny any claim presented by any man.
The entire argumention of the speaker is ignoring the scientific method and how the fundamental axioms of reality are applied in Science.
Hypothesis are presented, observations are made. You experiment and debate. You validate or not, you test and re-test.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigusdikus0 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigusdikus0 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigusdikus0 1 year ago
Atheist must get in their skull that they don't have a get-out-of-the-jail-free-card when pushed with proving their metaphysical faith system.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
@LittleSn00py atheism isn't a metaphysical system, dumb-ass...it's an ontology.
seyormi 1 year ago
@LittleSn00py It's not just atheists that make the naturalism assumption. All branches of scientific theory assume that everything has a natural cause that can be observed. Whatever your religion, if you're practicing science, you're practicing naturalism.
grits011 1 year ago
First, there is no empirical evidence of anything "supernatural." It just doesn't exist. The question is not whether naturalism can be proven, it is the default position. The question is, rather, if something other than the natural world exists, can IT be proven. The answer so far is, no, there is no evidence. He is merely presenting the burden of proof fallacy, something Dr. Craig presents again and again. Anyone with critical thinking skills can see right through this sad attempt.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba "empirical evidence"?
Nah.
That don't count for much, here.
seyormi 1 year ago
great video
iToyRobot 1 year ago
Christianity is more true than Atheism.
There is more evidence of a God than there not being one. Love your videos.
God bless
Capuano231 1 year ago
@Capuano231, what? First, it is impossible to disprove such a negative, and second, there is literally not one single, solid shred of empirical evidence for god. You are not being intellectually honest.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba How nature/space works. I like to believe there is a God. It just doesn't seem right for there not to be one
Capuano231 1 year ago
@naejimba The obvious design in the universe, intial conditions of the big bang, the dozens of physical constants just ALL falling within an extremely narrow life permitting range, the acknowledgment of God's existence in all history & cultures, man's personal search for meaning and purpose. the existence of numerous immaterial realities like logic, ethics, morality, universal truth statements, dont qualify? Maybe you regard yourself as just a cosmic accident?
dashan091 1 year ago
God created a physical universe of incredible proportions &set in place initial conditions & natural laws to ensure that life would evolve. Identifying a mechanism for planetary motion didnt inspire Newton to say "ah, now I have gravity I dont need God." He saw the glory of God in the genius of that mechanism & in the rational intelligibility of the universe. "The only thing incomprehensible about the universe (for some) is that it’s comprehensible”
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091, our minds work in such a way that we attempt to see patterns, often times when there is none. You only assume the universe was designed. According to the multiverse theory, yes, it could just be "dumb luck" that we are a life permitting universe. Logic, ethics, and morality I contend are human creations.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Dawkin's says, "One of the greatest challenge facing us is to account for the obvious design in the universe". I agree Richard, so why do u think u know more than him? Then Dawkins throws in his red Herring, "Ah yes but who designed the designer?". As if we need to know the nature of an intelligence to recognise something as designed. The multiverse fantasy would be laughed out of town if it was postulated in a religious text. Pity the atheist has to invoke a science of the gaps?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 Are you suggesting that since Dawkins knows more than me about biology that I am not allowed to disagree with him? Why do we need to "account for" the apparent design? And even we say the universe is a design and therefore there must be a designer, we have nothing of value. All we know is that the designer responsible for the design has created a flawed design. The challenge for us is to fix the flaw.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@dashan091, this is an appeal to authority, and is a logical fallacy. His so called "red herring" is not a red herring, but rather a fitting point to a theist who claims that everything must have a designer.
naejimba 1 year ago
Very good. I am often baffled that Atheists will pound me for the evidence for my beliefs, which I will then precede to do to the best of my ability, but when I ask them for what points towards the evidential truth of THEIR beliefs, they will often respond: "No no, you must provide ME with better evidence, for the evidence for my atheism is the lack of evidence on your part." How absurd! The rejection of evidence for Christian theis can only lead to a neutral position, not atheism!
Brightstar27 1 year ago
@Brightstar27, agnostic atheism is a neutral position (which most atheists are). If said empirical evidence can be produced, there would be no atheists.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba that's not neutral as you still lean towards a side. furthermore the burden of proof rests with ANYONE who makes a claim. If you want to claim naturalism is true or that the super natural "just doesn't exist" you bear the same burden of proof as the person who says God exists. don't expect people to take what you say on faith .
lockdown260 1 year ago
@lockdown260 Naturalism isn't a claim; it's a methodology. Unlike other tenants, it proves itself by being so mind-boglingly uselful.
seyormi 1 year ago
@seyormi Please substantiate your comment.
lockdown260 1 year ago
@lockdown260 You first, shithead.
seyormi 1 year ago
@seyormi Name calling? I wasn't aware you were still in 5th grade. I asked first so you should present your case first. It's called courtesy. However:
lockdown260 1 year ago
@seyormi Naturalism (philosophy)- the belief that all phenomena are covered by the laws of science and are teleological explanations are therefor useless.
dictionary (dot) com
scientific naturalism isn't really relevant to this conversation
lockdown260 1 year ago
@lockdown2601. Fifth grade is for nerds. I can't be bothered with that stuff. Doubly so for courtesy.
2.If (scientific) naturalism isn't relevant to the discussion, then the this conversation is bogus. Ontology is derived from naturalistic views, but not vice versa; thus i maintain that naturalism is part of a methodolgy
p.s. i'm aware i didn't initially say "part of", but it seems more appropriate in my opinion.
seyormi 1 year ago
@naejimba Agnostic atheism is a nonexistent, self-contradictory position, twit.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
@naejimba A fact that needs to be explained by both materialism &theism is that the world is orderly but materialism fails to give ultimate explanations, It cannot explain the exquisitely fine tuned laws of nature & its life-permitting values. Only theism can hope to provide the ultimate explanation of all phenomena since an omnipotent God has all the properties to explain the universe. 'The overwhelming evidence gives a significant degree of probability to the claim that God exists'
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091, so, you are willing to accept something without any evidence to back it up simply because it "explains everything?" This will not do. I would rather be rooted in reality, and follow the evidence where it leads... and when there is an answer we do not know, have the courage to simply admit it. There is nothing wrong with doing so, it is only intellectually honest. Beyond this, theism doesn't explain much of anything compared to science.. think about it, what you said is a joke.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba Without evidence, u jest? Why should u expect to see more evidence of God’s existence than what we do see? A consistent biblical theme is that God's ultimate purpose is not simply that we know He exists, but that we enter a relationship, then it may be that the current degree of evidence is precisely sufficient to accomplish that purpose. It is the atheist who must come up with a logical case why this isn't a plausible explanation. So what evidence do we have?:
dashan091 1 year ago
The typical atheist response to Big bang theory is to say, “Woo, wait a minute, don’t accept mainstream cosmology so quickly “its alright to say we just don’t know. Someday physics may have its Darwin & then we can explain design & fine-tuning” Which is like saying, “Slow down there, boy, don’t you go comparing data to things we actually understand. Let’s keep the origin of the universe a mystery. Otherwise we might reach conclusions that are not compatible with atheism.”
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091, I am first, only expecting one single shred of solid empirical evidence. This is not too much to ask. Either god interacts with the world as your religion and holy text claims, and this interaction is scientifically measurable, or he does not and he is of no consequence. The current amount of evidence is NOTHING. This is far from sufficient. Lastly, you commit the burden of proof fallacy.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba A neutral position is what I have when an astrologist challenges me to account for his star gazing. A NON-belief is when u have no interest and remain TOTALLY happy in one's ignorance. My theistic worldview is perfectly in harmony with what I believe gives me meaning, purpose & destiny. Can u live without thinking about God?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091, a lack of belief says nothing about whether a person "cares" or not. This is a pitiful line of argument. ... and no, I cannot live without thinking about god, because every five fucking seconds or so I come across a religious nutcase who is talking about him. BTW, my own life has purpose and meaning, just not from some magic man in the sky. I give my own life purpose, and am quite content, thank you very much...
naejimba 1 year ago
Yes, naturalism requires faith--a kind of faith that ALL people have ALL the time: 24/7. That "faith" has paid off very well--that's obvious. That faith is WILDLY different from faith in supernatural existence and causes--so different that it really doesn't serve language well to use the same word "faith" in both instances.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
"That "faith" has paid off very well--that's obvious"
Indeed. It's the kind of faith that has sent men to the moon, re-attached severed limbs, predicts weather patterns with a high accuracy and even "assumes" what I now type will somehow appear on this very page.....
Our "faith" has results. Feel free to measure and analyze them. Compare and contrast them with your prayers. :)
Edella 1 year ago
@Edella naturalism didnt do that. Science did that. And plenty of these advancements were because of genius Christian people.
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@InDefenseofChrist
Science only applies to natural events. No supernatural needed. And while there have been MANY superb scientists of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) faith, Christianity is not a necessary component, as I'm sure you will agree. Peace!
Edella 1 year ago
@Edellam you need Theism for objective morality. Science cannot demonstrate that one person has an objective moral duty and obligation not to rape, kill, steal the property of, or enslave another person. Thus naturalism/science fails at providing the necessary components of the nice liberal democracies we all live in. :)
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
Science is not in the business of legislating morality, I don't know of any scientist who would say it is. Surely the Wright Bros. share no fault in the 9/11 attacks (a certain religion might, though) . If religion is where you get you morality who am I to say you can't?
Edella 1 year ago
@Edella Science may not be in the business of legislating morality, but it very well could be in the business of defining objective morality. Re: Sam Harris.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey Sam Harris isn't much of a thinker when it comes to philosophy or science. He thinks you can determine moral and ethical values through science. You can't: watch?v=45mU5UgN4Hk
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Tell me why you think science cannot define morality. Science is this context should be defined as: knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. What makes something moral? What makes something right or wrong? Morality can be summed up in the Golden Rule, which is not dependent on any god. The golden rule simply states that we should treat each other as we would like to be treated. This can be studied scientifically.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey Science has no way of accounting for universal truth statements, ethics or logic. Science presupposes logic and maths to try to prove logic with science is to argue in a circle.. Science might tell me what will happen if I add arsenic to someone's lunch but it cant tell me if its a moral act or not.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 Theism has no way of accounting for universal truth statements, ethics or logic. Theism presupposing God to try and prove logic with God is to argue in circles. Theism can't tell me what will happen if I add arsenic to someone's lunch and it can't tell me if its a moral act or not without my concurrence. Remember, theism tells us that we have the knowledge of good and evil. How can we know what is good or evil without the ability to discern for ourselves?
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@AnnRKey Science has no way of accounting for universal truth statements or logic. Science presupposes logic and maths. Science might tell me what will happen if I add arsenic to someone's lunch but it cant tell me if its a moral act or not.
dashan091 1 year ago
@Edella your logic or lack of it, is profoundly unsound. According to Dawkins, atheism cannot support or account for objective moral values.
"There is no good, no evil, just pitiless indifference. We're just slaves to our DNA".
But in our heart of hearts we all know differently, dont we?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
I made no mention of atheism whatsoever, what the hell are you talking about? Do you conflate science and atheism?
Edella 1 year ago
@wood9670 you need Science for objective morality. Theism cannot demonstrate that one person has an objective moral duty and obligation not to rape, kill, steal the property of, or enslave another person. Thus Theism fails at providing the necessary components of the nice liberal democracies most of us live in. :-p
AnnRKey 1 year ago
@Edella of course its not a necessary component, you just proved my point haha
InDefenseofChrist 1 year ago
@Edella the Christian theistic worldview teaches that a perfectly rational being, God, is the ground and source of reason. Therefore such conceptual realities as logic, mathematics, knowledge, and truth flow from a supremely intelligent divine mind and characterize this universe. And because God made human beings in his image with rational faculties and sensory organs that generally function properly, humans are able to discover the world’s basic intelligible and empirical order.
dashan091 1 year ago
@Edella dearie: probably you should re-read my comment; I don't pray to anyone or anything. As far as I'm concerned, philosophy is mostly bullshit--and is easily used by phonies like WLC in order to appear to support anything one wishes. IMO, science (defined in the broadest manner) is the ONLY methodology that has produced ANY substantive knowledge whatsoever. Without a scientific/naturalist approach to reality we wouldn't even have fire, clothing, or agriculture.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1
Yep. I was agreeing with you sweetcheeks. :) Sorry for the confusion. My comment was meant as an addendum. My bad.
Edella 1 year ago
@Edella "The highest praise for God is the arrogance, ignorance & profanities of the skeptic who is sure that his reasoning ability has resulted from an evolutionary process & concludes that his undying faith in naturalism makes the existence of God unnecessary." Soviet astrophysicist Yakov Zeldovich
dashan091 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 The atheist never lacks ingenuity, Just think about the irony of it, here u are, a little child in a worldly kindergarten trying to spell GOD with the wrong blocks. A product of ancient chemicals & a cosmic accident (but really a miracle of creation), u pompously claim He doesn’t exist. You attempt to bring the almighty Creator before the bar of your very limited, very finite judgment! If it were not such a tragedy it might be something to laugh at.
dashan091 1 year ago
Thanks for the post. Cheers.
NLPNVC 1 year ago
@NLPNVC You're welcome! More to come!
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
lol @ naturalism
sarevor 1 year ago
Interesting that this clip has nothing to do with whether or not naturalism requires faith when it has more to do with whether Shook said a bunch of incomprehensible things regarding naturalism.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf Then why don't you show us that naturalism doesn't require faith. Or are you here to merely make cowardly drive-by comments?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos I'm here to comment on the video. I don't know why it would be cowardly to state true facts about the video.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf Because you refuse to show how it's true. If you made a video showing that quantum fluctuation makes sense and someone commented "you obviously have no idea of physics" and that's all he says without showing how you don't know physics, in my book that's cowardice. If you think that's a rational thing to do then suit yourself.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@urbanelf If you want to show us that naturalism doesn't require faith, please do so WITHOUT using naturalistic means lest you engage in circular reasoning and begging the question.
bibleapologetics 1 year ago
@bibleapologetics I don't know what you mean by "naturalistic means." What would be an example of showing something by "naturalistic means"?
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf Well, like a dope, you didn't watch the video close enough. According to Shook "naturalistic means" would constitute science and reasoning, if you disagree with that then why? How do you know that naturalism doesn't require faith? Are you going to show us?
bibleapologetics 1 year ago
@urbanelf "Incomprehensible things"? So, you were not smart enough to understand what Shook meant?
bibleapologetics 1 year ago
@bibleapologetics My problem with people like this is if they're going to say that someone said something "incomprehensible" then show how! About 95% of atheists who comment on my uploaded videos are incredibly shallow in the philosophy area.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos I'm flattered that you think I'm in the top 95 percentile.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf LOL! And I said those top 95% are "incredibly shallow" in philosophy. If you're flattered with that label, then you're an idiot. Nothing gets passed you, huh, urbanelf? Anyway, please troll some place else.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
Do you think you can prove "supernaturalism" by Reason, Science and Experience?
Or "Faith" is a fourth perspective on what to define as "real"?
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transABORTIONIST said, blah blah blah whine whine whine wah wah wah.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
You stupid little baby. How does the sun as an energy source demerit the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@transtlantic argument from reason ‘Sufficient Reason’
“If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states & will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’ God is the first, uncaused cause on which everything else depends.” Gottfried Leibniz. Understanding outcomes and effects don’t exempt us or explain the need for a causal agent.
dashan091 1 year ago
from philosophy:1.Nothing comes into existence uncaused 2.The universe came into existence a finite time ago, including all matter, space &time. An absolute beginning is postulated in the Big Bang model by Penrose/Hawking
3: When there are two possible states of affairs - existence of the universe or non-existence, life-permitting or non-life-permitting – the ones that come about must be willed by a personal agent, i.e. God.
dashan091 1 year ago
from science:According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a universe that exists infinitely into the future will eventually come to equilibrium & heat death. But a universe that has existed infinity in past should have already reached such a state of quiescence. Without a beginning it should reach the point of no light, no heat, no motion. Since the universe is still “winding down” it must have had a beginning.
dashan091 1 year ago
Singularity theorem.
The initial cause must be without beginning since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes in the past.
Being timeless, the cause must be changeless, spaceless & immaterial, (since material objects are constantly changing). But how can the cause be eternal & not its affect? A transcendent, immaterial first cause must be powerful & plausibly personal, since only an unembodied consciousness/agent can stand in causal relationships.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
You are assuming things.
Casual relationships require no conscious agent.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@bibleapologetics No. I mean that Shook said things that don't make sense, at least if what Dr. Craig presented is right.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf Why don't you show us what Shook said didn't make any sense. You just made cowardly drive-by comments here is all.
bibleapologetics 1 year ago
@bibleapologetics According to Craig, Shook said that naturalism can't be demonstrated with reason, etc... so it doesn't make any sense that Shook is defending it if he thinks that.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf Exactly. And you STILL haven't shown us that naturalism doesn't require faith! Nor did you even try to prove that Shook was wrong. drcraigvideos is right, you're a troll.
bibleapologetics 1 year ago
Vintage Craig. Awesome.
Nyarl3 1 year ago
@Nyarl3
This was in 2002 if im not mistaken.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord Actually, 2008.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
first!
lol just kidding!
love dr. craig
TehPwnzorthe1337 1 year ago